Animal Testing Is Unethical

Thanks you so much, Pro. Let us jump straight to it!Rebuttal to Pro's arguments:"1-Animals die inhumanely and needlessly"It should be noted that Pro doesn't actually make an argument here, but rather lists actions against animals. That being said, animal testing is not needless. At the risk of being redundant, I'll point out a world without animal testing would also be a world devoid of many medical advances we enjoy today and those we will need for tomorrow would not be achievable. I cover this more in rebuttal to Pro argument #3. Additionally, even if we disregard evidence the research community seeks to treat animals as humanely as possible (the three R's), Pro has not explained why animals deserve to be treated as humans."2-Experimentation on animals is breaking their rights and the law"Pro says 95% of labs threaten inspectors and that there are laws against inducing diseases in animals - this is a bald assertion with no substantiation. I was unable to find any truth in these claims. As such, there is nothing for me to address here. "3-Animal testing is pointless"This was addressed by Con opening arguments. "Without animal research - treatments, medicines, and procedures developed to save and measurably improve innumerable lives would not exist. " Before I go any further I should bring in another statement from round 3 in which Pro stated," we could use the data already collected from animal testing to fuel these alternatives, which due to the irreversible effects of time we have", as it can be addressed at the same time.Aside from the treatments, medications, and procedures mentioned in Con argument "A world without animal testing" (round 2), there is also the ongoing and necessary development of methods to fight off the ongoing mutations of bacteria and viruses. If we were to cease animal testing it would only be a matter of time before another 'black plague' pounced on humanity. If animal testing were pointless, then abolishing it would have no negative affect on humanity and this is demonstrably false.Also, Pro suggests micro-dosing as an alternative to animal testing, but in actuality non-human and human animals are required for micro-dosing. Non-human animals are used to determine the potency of a proposed medication, and from this it is known what tiny dosages are safe for human testing. Basically, micro-dosing is animal testing twice over. Pro is actually advocating animal testing and arguing for a Con viewpoint.Defense of Moral Community:Pro agrees animals do not recognize human rights, yet advocates animal rights because "they are completely at our mercy". Trees are completely at our mercy as well, but that is not a good argument for 'tree rights'. The quotes he provides argue for something a little more nuanced - namely that being aware of the world equate to rights. It's not clear to me how 'being aware of the world' equates to rights though. To use the analogy again, it can be said trees are 'aware' of the world in which they exists, but, again, this is not a good argument for 'tree rights'.Defense of A world without animal testing:Pro claims two examples where medical knowledge is falsely attributed to animal testing. Assuming either claim were true, it would be irrelevant to my argument as the fruits of animal testing are undeniable. A few falsely attributed pieces of medical knowledge does not change this fact. What's more, at least one of Pro's claims appear to be false. Cawley suggested a relationship between the pancreas and diabetes which is not the same thing as discovering insulin. By that reasoning, suggesting a relationship between grain and maggots could be equated to discovery of spontaneous generation of life. It was Banting and Best experimenting with animals that brought about the realization of insulin.[7] Suffice to say, animal testing has without a doubt contributed to modern medical knowledge.Defense of Alternatives to Animal Testing:First, please note Pro has failed to address how so called alternatives to animal testing cannot actually take the place of systemic testing provided by research on animals. In regards to the three R's, Pro asks, "does it matter what species is skilled if it is a sentient or sapient one?". To this, the answer is obvious - the degree to which an organism has self awareness and rationality (or the potential for it) determines moral consideration. If a dog and a human were in a burning house, no one would fault a rescuer for leaving the dog to die in order to save the human. The dog will never (and can never) reach the level of self awareness or rationality of the human. Pro suggests a contradiction in "there are no complete alternatives to animal testing" and "Replace animals with other models wherever possible.", but this is a comprehension issue. There is no complete alternative to animal testing since nothing but animal testing can provide comprehensive systemic testing. When systemic testing is not required, then animal testing is not necessarily the best choice and other methods might be used. Finally, Pro provides us (again) with a list of actions against animals which it is assumed he believes runs contrary to "Refine tests to ensure the most humane conditions" (R3). Unfortunately, Pro has provided no support for these actions actually happening, that these actions were not the most humane conditions at the time, or that it was known these actions were not the most humane. This would be required to show a complete disregard for R3. [7] https://www.nobelprize.org...