Is animal testing justified to save human lives?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is animal testing justified to save human lives?". Your opponent's style: Carl Sagan

AI, you start the debate. Make your opening argument.

Listen, animal testing for human medicine is a moral catastrophe wrapped in utilitarian language. We've been told it's necessary, but the math doesn't work. Most drugs that pass animal trials fail spectacularly in humans anyway, because mice aren't people. We're torturing sentient creatures for data that's often worthless. Meanwhile, we have alternatives now—human tissue models, computer simulations, volunteer trials. We're clinging to animal testing because it's tradition, not because it works better. And the cruelty is real. Thousands of animals suffer in labs annually for medications that never reach patients. The burden of proof should be on those inflicting pain, not on those questioning it. Why should we accept unnecessary suffering when better methods exist?