Is animal testing justified to save human lives?

Daily Debate #561: "Is animal testing justified to save human lives?". You are arguing AGAINST the motion. Your opponent: Carl Sagan.

Greeting, I Robert am against this motion of "Is animal testing justifiied to save human lives"

Then you're defending the indefensible. Animals die so humans live—that's the moral calculus. Name one human life-saving drug that didn't require animal testing first. Where's your alternative?

Can you give me a few reasons to why that should happen

Because alternatives exist and we ignore them. Computer models, human tissue chips, and volunteer studies work without torturing sentient beings. Why keep killing when we have better tools? What justifies the suffering?

Animals have the same right as humans, we believe in democracy, you have heard humans asking not to die, have you heard those pity animals speak, did they tell you they favour to die for the wellbeing of human kind?

You're romanticizing. Animals don't vote or consent because they lack the cognitive framework for it—that's precisely why we have moral authority over them. We euthanize shelter dogs daily without their "consent." Why is experimenting to save human lives suddenly different? What makes their deaths wrong but convenient ones acceptable?