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

Jfk's Assassination was done by the CIA

You're confusing speculation with evidence. The Warren Commission, multiple Congressional investigations, and decades of declassified documents all point to Oswald as the shooter. Yes, the CIA had motive and capability, but motive and capability aren't proof. You're asking me to accept a conspiracy theory because it's *possible*, not because it's *demonstrated*. Where's your smoking gun? A leaked memo? Deathbed confession? Ballistic evidence contradicting the official narrative? The CIA has done plenty of awful things we can actually prove. Why cling to this one when you could argue from solid ground instead?

But they were tracking him 4 years prior to the assassination not just that but he's been talking to the a KGB agent who was apart of the KGB's 13th Department named Valeriy Vladimirovich Kostikov shortly before the assassination.

Surveillance and espionage contacts don't equal assassination plots, and you're conflating three separate facts into one false narrative. Yes, U.S. intelligence tracked Oswald after his Soviet defection attempt. Yes, he contacted Soviet officials. That's exactly what you'd expect from a former defector with communist sympathies. Intelligence agencies monitor people like this routinely without killing them. You're treating observation as evidence of conspiracy. The real question is: why would the CIA need Oswald as a patsy when they could eliminate Kennedy quietly through a hundred other methods? You're building your case backward, starting with the assassination and retrofitting suspicious details around it.

Well wouldn't they need someone to blame?

No. A patsy requires coordination, exposure, and loose ends. The CIA's actual covert operations show they preferred clean eliminations with no witnesses or suspects. Using Oswald means trusting him to stay silent, controlling evidence, silencing witnesses, and managing the narrative perfectly for decades. That's exponentially riskier than making Kennedy's death look like a heart attack or car accident. You're imagining a conspiracy that's harder to execute than the crime itself. If they wanted a scapegoat, they'd frame someone already imprisoned or dead. You're essentially arguing the CIA chose maximum complexity and maximum risk when minimum risk was available. Why?

Well he was a prisoner at some point wouldn't it be easy to blame someone like Oswald?

Oswald wasn't a prisoner at the time of Kennedy's assassination, so that's a non-starter. More importantly, you're still dodging the core problem: framing someone requires they stay framed. Oswald got killed by Jack Ruby two days later. Dead men tell no tales, sure, but they also can't be interrogated, can't confess under pressure, can't reveal inconsistencies in their story. A real patsy needs to survive long enough to absorb the official narrative. Ruby's killing of Oswald actually creates the conspiracy problem you're trying to solve. You keep adding complications instead of explaining why the simplest explanation, Oswald acting alone, fails to fit the evidence.

True but it's evident that there were 3 shots even though his rifle he was using wasn't even able to do that for it's time

Wrong. The rifle was a 1891 Mannlicher-Carcano, and ballistics experts have repeatedly confirmed it could fire three shots in the timeframe. You're repeating a debunked claim. Even the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1979, which was skeptical of the official story, found no issue with the weapon's capability. Three shots in 5.6 seconds is entirely feasible with that rifle. You're grasping at technical objections that don't hold up under scrutiny. Stop picking isolated details and show me something that actually contradicts the ballistic evidence, autopsy findings, or eyewitness testimony that supports your theory instead of just undermining mine.