Resolved: An alternative for animal testing should be found.

Thank you, Beginner.Apologies to my opponent. It seems the first four sources in my first constructive case do not link to relevant source info. I will reiterate them here:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.neavs.org... [3] http://www.buav.org...[4] http://brandongaille.com... If the sources say that the page can't be found, just refresh them. Now, onto the debate.==Clarifications==Again, I apologize to my opponent. That very sentence (as well as the other) was a result of copying my arguments from a similar debate I had participated in. Voters, deduct conduct points from me if you wish.However, I blatantly disagree with his second premise. The fact that we are determining just one alternative does not mean we are making that one a replacement, we are making that a prioritized alternative. We can still use animal testing when needed. Plus, my contentions state that those were proposed alternatives. The single alternative that is determined to be best or working will then be "found".Heck, I'd even go far as to say that it doesn't matter if we find one or many, because at least we are finding at least one alternative. If we find one alternative, why stop there? Biomedical research is broad and needs many forms of testing. Moreover, you cannot find multiple alternatives without finding at least one in the first place, so literally it goes both ways. Obviously we both agree that animal testing is irreplaceable. But that isn't the point. What we should be arguing about is whether or not we should find an alternative(s) and whether we can alternate from each of the testing methods. That's exactly what the resolution calls for. This should easily address my opponent's arguments that say and are affected by the statement that animal testing is irreplaceable.Although my constructive round was thus somewhat off-topic, the rest of my arguments aren't at all taken down just yet. The only part that was of-topic was two little sentences - that don't contribute to my case in any way, but instead just to place the conclusion for an argument.Also, my opponent is incorrect in stating that I am playing semantics. If the word that the semantics is based on has already been clarified and agreed on, it isn't playing semantics regardless of whether my opponent is misunderstanding the definitions I set, which he is.==Counter-rebuttal 1: Mistreatment of tested animals==Literally what my opponent is trying to do is tell us that animal tests are conducted with the highest possible amount of care and minimize discomfort or mistreatment. That doesn't mean the animals aren't still being mistreated. Minimizing discomfort or mistreatment could still be mistreating the animals, because we don't know *what* absolute that testers are trying to "minimize" it to.In fact, my opponent fails to state examples for how they aren't mistreated. I will state examples here as to how they are mistreated [5]: "This is life for an animal in a laboratory. It is deprivation, isolation, and misery. On top of the deprivation, there are the experiments. U.S. law allows animals to be burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, drowned, addicted to drugs, and brain-damaged. No experiment, no matter how painful or trivial, is prohibited – and pain-killers are not required. Even when alternatives to the use of animals are available, the law does not require that they be used—and often they aren’t." - Peta [5] Such immoral actions only affirm that there should be an alternative. The last sentence in this quote will address part of my opponent's contention - often alternatives aren't used regardless of availability.==Counter-rebuttal 2: Animal testing is unreliable==Again, in my last round, the alternatives I had proposed were shown to be much more reliable than animal testing. Obviously every type of test is going to be trial and error, but if we want to succeed in biomedical research, we need to both fail in some cases AND get to the answer more quickly.This argument, however, was not addressed in any sense, but rather dropped. Extend this line of argument.==Counter-rebuttal 3: The cost of animal testing==My adversary starts off this rebuttal by stating that my contention is reliant on the last contention. This is true, but isn't entirely true. This rebuttal could go on just with the 16 billion dollars used on animal testing.Even if it were entirely reliable, my opponent's rebuttal to this isn't valid. If only a small percentage of animal testing succeeds, then obviously it should only be worth the same percentage of that 16 billion dollars that have been used.==Counter-counter-rebuttal=="No. Humans are animals, and all arguments that can be made against animal testing, such as pain, suffering, etc. can be made with human testing. In suggesting this, my opponent presents us with a massive double standard which favors animals over humans." - OpponentThis is completely false. As shown by Wikipedia, animal testing is the testing of drugs and products on non-human animals. Thus this is irrelevant."I've presented clear examples, i.e. surgical tests, that show that animal data can and has been extrapolated directly to humans." - OpponentThat makes it applicable in some cases, but not extrapolatable. Again, we can only try it out, but we cannot predict the outcome very successfully with test information."And what alternatives are these?" - OpponentI refer to my extended argument above."I refer to my refutation to my opponent's C2." - OpponentThis refutation has been addressed, both before and during this round."Humans may differ from non-human animals, but if they were so different as to be unreliable, how come we've been able to derive realresults from them?" - OpponentBecause the real results have been derived only at very rare times."In fact, petri dish cells have no internal immune system and system structure." - OpponentThat doesn't mean we can't derive better results. We only need to study possible answers if we already have a base on the chemistry of human immune systems and structure, which we do."My opponent later goes on to declare that other methods, such as petri-culture testing, is more accurate and better than animal testing. I declare this a false assertion. Even if non-animal testing methods may be more effective in some cases, not all cases can dispense with animal testing. There is no replacement that can duplicate the results of an entire living system besides another whole living system..." - OpponentI can only declare this as a false assertion if there are no sources to prove this, which I have used to prove that they are more reliable. Also, again we are not debating replacements but rather alternatives.My opponent then says non-animal tests can only show so much. That's the case for everything. Nothing can show more than just so much, especially animal testing, where the immune systems are almost completely different, as shown.""all living things are animals" - MeIn context to my rhetoric, this refers to all living things with animal functionalities and systems which are obviously animals. My opponent attempts a negation with a grammatical technicality. I refer to rule number 3." - OpponentAgain, my opponent accuses me of playing semantics. It can't be playing semantics, however, if a statement is so off as to literally be twisted in a way to unfairly help his case and imply that stem cell resarch isn't applicable, then obviously the debate needs to be placed back on track. The point of really playing semantics is trying to twist the debate so it goes off the resolution. I wasn't doing that. Thus it isn't playing semantics.==Conclusion==I have countered and refuted every single one of my opponent's arguments both for his case and against my case. The resolution is affirmed.[5] http://www.peta.org...;(I hate it when I add only one source in a round...)