This house believes: We need animals in bio-medical research

Well, I did not have to use loopholes, as I want us to debate fully. And even if I want to use loophole, the title will counter my loophole, because it clearly states "animals", unless you're assuming plants are animals? For the most part of my opponent argument, he specially used the wording of the sources, instead of his own arguments. I want to know if it's him that I'm debating, or its the medical people whom site he got these paragraphs from. Now, animal testing is needed in bio-medical research. Just because it's not accurate, does not mean its not a means to research on, or that is always going to be correctly. As far as I know, we'll always make mistakes in life, so you certainly cannot expect medical research to go all too well. Most animals advocates and my opponent always use the paragraph "its cruel to animals." Look, we do not live in a perfect world. People are dying from diseases, wars, and poverty. And if you think just because we're researching on animals is cruel, than you ought to look at the world from your rear view. To come back to the point that animal testing is not accurate: yes it is not accurate, as most things are not in life. But if you want to let one mistake prevents you from pushing forward, than we as humans will never progress. If we have given up because of those failed test, we simply let our mistakes dictate us. Part of the reason why some of the test fails is because we're not yet advance in animal medical research, and its animal advocates that block the process. They advocate on animal testing behalf, and persuade governments to stop investing in that, because it is "cruel or not accurate." If we consistently invest in animal medical research, and if we learn from our failed mistakes, we'll than do better. Apparently, we cannot, because animal advocate block the way. Despite all that, animal testing is not always inaccurate, and I'll go into that as you read on. Well, you're making specific reference to one failed case. And I'll certainly tell you animal testing is not useless. You have to understand the world around you, you have to understand that this world is not perfect. If we should all die, than all animals remains on earth, and if they should all remain on earth, would you than have feelings towards them. The matter of the fact is, you have feelings towards animals, because you're still living. If it wasn't for the people that have been researching and investing in medical research, God forbids, my mother or your mother could have gotten the polio. If it weren't for animal testing on monkeys, we probably wouldn't be here today due to polio paralyzing everyone. And because you want to show the bad side of animal testing, I will like to show you the good side you failed to show. After watching it, tell me what you think. Was it cruel and inhumane to research on these monkeys that saved millions of life, and saved the next generation of Americans who will come after their parents? Also tell me was the research "not accurate and cruel" to monkeys? Would you rather have had our little innocent girls and boys remain paralyze forever? Would you have wanted life as we know it come to an end for us? Researching on animals does not end life, but diseases that invades us do, and if we do not respond to them, we're doom. Many diseases have been gone from the United States due to Animals testing, including but not limited to: polio, smallpox, tetanus, rabies, including many others. We could have die from all that. Now tell me, is the sometimes cruel research done on animal, worthy of human beings lives? ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_g_tuOudeI After looking at what you presented, and knowing that some were effective, while others were not, would you as an animal advocate let medical research continue to get full understanding? See the thing with animals advocate is that once something don't work on an animal, they like to say "see" we told you, it does not work. "You're doing these inhumane acts on animals." You do not expect someone to be perfect at something in one or two tries. It takes time. And that's what animal advocates needs to do, give medical research time to advance research and get an full understanding. But they always want to give "the benefit of the doubt." Despite the fact that specific testing provide no help, does not mean all animals testing results provided no help, as my video above proves otherwise. Again, my opponent pretty much used all the wording of the sources in defending his points. I'm not debating the medical people, so I do not know if I should respond to those statements he's making. If this is the case of present the con side of animal testing, I can pretty much find all the animal testing pro site and post them here as my debate. It wouldn't be us debating than, rather our sites statements arguing each other. Nevertheless, I will continue to debate in my own words. While there was a mistake in the drug thalidomide, and the 10,000 birth defects or fetal deaths that led to this, we cannot let one mistake stop us from everything. It's life. If we let our mistakes stop us, we'll not learn them or try to improve on them. Now if researches have try to go back and try to fix the problem, animal advocates would have blocked them, because this one failed mistake led to this. This one mistake cannot underestimate the many achievements we have made in animal testing, according to Jack A bottling and Adrian R. Morrison "Animal Research is vital to medicine", we have find vaccines to: diphtheria, tetanus, rabies, whooping cough, tuberculosis, poliomyelitis, measles, mumps, and rubeca. They all relied on animal testing. Now imagine if we hadn't tested or done research on animals, than none of these vaccines would have existed. I cannot see how someone could be against something that has the potential to saving human life, all in the name of "animal right, abuse, and inhumane." Are we not being inhumane to ourselves and others when we block medical research that could safe ourselves and others, instead we let humans drop dead. Despite the fact those Ivy league schools do not "train medical students with experimentation on live animals or dissection" does not mean we ought to stop animal testing. What is it trying to tell us, because they are Ivy league, mean we all shouldn't do it? I done animal dissection in school before. So this statement is pretty much out of the picture. Some questions can be answer only by animal research. As a human being, "to restrict research with animals would prevent discoveries that would benefit mankind." Or do you not want medical advancement that could benefit mankind...including yourself? Okay, so we come to this "Animal testing is cruel and inhumane." "Animal testing, by the very nature of it, is cruel to animals." "Animals are subjected to injuries and made ill to test drugs and to be observed, and they are often killed." So what about the diseases? Aren't humans often killed by them? We as humans are like experimentation, on which disease test on, not by human, but by nature. So what you're proposing is for us not research on animals? Say we stop researching on animals that have actually brought benefits to humans, say we forget about all that, we want to save the animals. You simply give the diseases the opportunity to eradicate all of us! With animal testing, we'll stand in the way of these deadly diseases, we'll try to put stop to them, and sources and medical breakthrough have pointed that out. You cannot underestimate the power of research. True animal have pain and emotions. So do humans. If a girl is dying and a animal is in pain, which one would you rather be attentive to? Which one would you rather try to save? Her? http://www.nabr.org...