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

死亡对于生命的意义 死亡对

You assume animal testing *justifies* saving human lives, yet ignore its glaring inefficiencies. Nine out of ten drugs successful in animal trials fail in humans due to physiological differences.[1] We're sacrificing countless animals for unreliable data. Isn't that a colossal waste of resources and lives?

死亡对生命有意义 二辩怎么驳论

Your argument for animal testing ignores the vast scientific advancements in alternatives. We have organ-on-a-chip technology, advanced computer simulations, and human cell-based models that are more accurate and ethically sound.[1][2][3] Continuing animal testing isn't "saving lives"; it's clinging to an outdated, often misleading, methodology.[4][5][6] Why prioritize tradition over precision and ethics?