Medical Research does more harm than good

Hello once again, The pro has made some interesting counter arguments and I'd like to address them first before proceeding with any more constructive ideas. The first refutations that the pro made was to the idea of the food chain, and essentially his stance was that we don't use animals for food, thus the point is irrelevant. Of course this is true, but the pro is taking the argument a bit to literally. The "food chain" was used as a way of showing the power and supremacy of humans beings, who are indeed, at the top of the food chain. This allows them to use their power for their personal gain, most obviously being food. But they can also use the weaknesses of other animals for other advantages as well. For example, certain types of monkeys have been known to rub the poison of poison dart frogs on their skin, because it keeps away small insects. We can think of humans in the same way. We use other animals to help easier our lives, and medical testing is one of them. On the topic of food, even though the pro called it a "completely irrelevant" argument, it's interesting to note that we consume much more animals than we medically test them. If medical testing is so wrong, why isn't eating them wrong as well? Lobsters and crayfish are ripped, boiled alive, and ripped completely open in order to consume them, yet it's wrong when they receive an injection for the greater health of humans? I think clarification will be necessary. His second refutation dealt with the moral worth of humans vs. animals. I don't know about you, but if you given the choice to save 100 humans or to save 100 laboratory mice, I doubt you would choose the latter. We may not have complete understanding over the potential of animals and their complexities, so I agree we should give them some moral considerations. But what we have the understand is that animals cannot do a fractions of the complex work we do. Animals do not have a great of a sense of moral awareness, thought about their existences, and so on so forth. We see that animals lead fairly simple lives where their actions are most often determined by their hunger, the presence of their prey, and the protection of their offspring. Given that humans are able to accomplish so much more, it's a given that animals, although possessing some moral value, should be given truncated access to rights. The Pro hasn't responded to my argument about how you cannot give animals rights, and as long as it stands, whatever we do to them we are not breaking any moral code whatsoever. His third refutation was based on a remark I made about the benefits. Although extremely passionate, the pro has stumbled on a couple of things. First of all, in today's modern era, animals testing is avoided as much as possible in favour of computer simulation that can actually sometimes portray the situations in a much clear context. Second of all, all the animals that are used in animals testing are laboratory breed animals, and thus do not have any impact whatsoever on the environment. They were never part of the environment, will never be part of an environment anyways because their domestication prevents them from survival in the wild. Think of them as artificially created biological material that is simply created to test the affects of certain drugs on cells. And although the pro portrays it as some man animals slaughter, the simple truth is that nowadays companies don't want to have to invest in animals testing. It's not cheap, and it takes multiple trials to get an answer. They would much rather use simulations to get the same results, and at the benefit of a much faster speed. His fourth and final refutation was essentially a list of examples where human experimentations was used. Notice he used the Nazi party and WW2 for his example. First of all, the Nazi's did far more horrendous things than the human experimentation listed, so in context these are some of the milder crimes they committed. Using the Nazis as your source of horrid acts isn't really very credible, as I'm sure you know their long history of other horrendous acts as well. Even if this wasn't the Nazis, this was in a time of war, where governments were pound millions and millions of dollars and using desperate attempts in efforts to win the war. In times like this, the rights and freedoms of the human being can be compromised. However, this would never happen in our modern age, where strict regulation for both humans and animals are in place to prevent the ruthless murder of innocent sentient beings. The experimentations of the Nazis were considered afterwards to be a war crime - because that's exactly what they are, crimes. Not medical research, but crimes against humanity that violate the very basic principles of our existence. Alright, so I've gotten through the refutations, let me do some constructive. The pro still has not decided to present a proper model or be concise in the bill he has proposed, so it's still very difficult for me to present a clear argument. Nevertheless, the point I want to focus on this round is actually a question. If this resolution were to pass in the form a bill, what consequences would it have? If medical testing were to be banned because of the (rather unconvincing) reasons that the pro has mentioned, countless people would die and suffer needlessly. Vaccines, household non-prescription medication and nutritional supplements would all be sold without the confirmation of safety. We live in a dangerous world with dangerous forms of disease lurking around places. By not allowing medical research to continue any further, we are giving up the ability to innovate. The next plague that breaks out would be the end of humanity, as we would not be able to create a cure for it. Surely, this is far more harmful than anything that could ever happen to these laboratory grown, small animals that provide so much for us. All in all, the pro has made a very passionate case, but that is where it ends. He has failed to specifically factor in the benefits, and more importantly, he has failed to tell us outright why the benefits of medical research really do not outweigh the costs.