Animal Testing

****REBUTTALS**** "Animal Testing is just unscientific. You cannot replicate the exact results to humans. Apes and rats do share 99% of their DNA, but that means little to nothing it is still not 100%. Science needs to be 100% concrete to defined as science, therefore animal testing is unscientific."This is completely false. You have no proof to sustain the belief that animal testing is innefective. In my last argument I proved how animal testing has helped overcome and cure many dis-eases, and unlike you, backed the claim up with evidence. "DNA compatability does nothing to prove it's effectiveness."It has everything to do with effectiveness. I have proven this. Your point false because it lacks the evidence to support this emotion riddled statement. "In 2004, a paper published in the British Medical Journal concluded that there was little actual scientific evidence that animal experimentation was essential to medical research." First off the article which you are referring to is based on human modification to animals. The entire article is emotion based. This attack fails to work, becuase you forget that animal testing results in saving hundreds of HUMAN lives. Let's take a look at the article. It says that 80 animals died in the process of animal testing, for the aids cure. What the article leaves out, is that the cures have worked on humans. This is where the validity of the speceism argument works out. If the lives of 80 animals are spent, such that the lives of 1,000,000 humans are saved, is it not beneficial then to use animal testing? This is the article we are referring to btw: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... "My opponent says, the benefits of animal testing outweight the risks. I have posted a link that says 50 ways how animal testing has hurt humans. I would like my opponent to link a list that says 50 or more ways that animal testing benefited humans."This is just ridiculous. First you cannot make an argument without copying and pasting everything from a link that weas so obviously googled, and found on the first page. Second, you fail to read my arguments. I have provided a list of all the ways that animal testing has benefitted human kind, in that it cures diseases, and save millions of human lives.http://www.amprogress.org...Want more sources?Here you go.http://www.amprogress.org...http://www.ca-biomed.org...;http://www.nih.gov...http://www.pharma.org...;http://www.heart.org...http://www.cancer.org...;http://www.liverfoundation.org...http://www.findacure.org...;http://www.jdrf.org...http://www.marchofdimes.com...;http://my.clevelandclinic.org...http://www.pedaids.org...http://www.epilepsyfoundation.org...https://www.michaeljfox.org...http://www.stjude.org...Every single site I just listed, are proven medical centers that have been benefitted from the research animal testing has done. Their are hundreds and hundreds more of them. So some animals die, but for what cause? You almost make it sound as if we are strapping then down on tables and brutally torturing them for sheer pleasure. Naive animal rights activists blindly following PETA's lies, compleetely astound me."My opponent mentions, the analogy of lions and gazelles. Yet animal testing has nothing to do with the "predator/prey" complex. A lion needs to kill a gazelle to survive. A human doesn't need to hurt a rodent, ape or dog/cat to survive."Wrong. We do. Hundreds of thousands of people die from cancer, HIV, Aids, strokes, etc everyday. Animal testing has put a significant decrease to these trends. Not all animals die from animal testing, in fact in my previous arguments, I show exactly how good their living conditions actually are. You completely missed this, and instead just continued to copy and paste from your tree hugging PETA sources. "My opponent never gave a counter agument. All wasteful spending must be reduced. Animal testing is wasteful since it does little to nothing to help society."WTF?!?!?!?!?! You cannot be serious. You haven't provided counter arguments to more than half of everything I have said! In fact you completely ignore 50% of my arguments and sources, yet you have the gall to call me out on not making an argument that I did in fact make? Un-Be-Lie-Vable. PROVE TO ME HOW IT IS WASTEFUL IF IT SAVES HUMAN LIVES. Ninety-four percent of animal testing is done to determine the safety of cosmetics and household products leaving only 6% for medical research!Proof, or GTFO.Animal experiments can be replaced by at least 450 methods known at this time, according to the scientific community.I have dis-proved all your methods. False dichotomy.Cloning of human skin has already been done. Why are still burning animals?Cloning of human skin cells does nothing for scientific and medical examiners concerning the preservation of medical research for curing disease.****CONCLUSION**** My opponent lacks sufficient evidence for more than half of his claims, and fails to refute the majority of the statistics, and evidence I have offered. My opponent has not upheld his burden of proof. All of his arguments are an emotionally unstable attack from a manipulated structure of what he thinks is argumentation. I ask that he reads over all the evidence I have provided in the first two rounds, and come at me with a better argument for the following round. Thankyou.