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

Animal testing is justified to save human lives. Argument 1, proving the premise: Premise 1: Humans eat, kill, and hunt animals while we do not hunt nor kill other humans except for specific scenarios such as war (or in cases of crimes). Conclusion: This shows that humans value human life over animal life. Premise 1: Animal testing may result in animal death Premise 2: Humans value human life over animal life Premise 3: Animal testing saves human lives Conclusion: Although animal lives may be lost, it is justified because it will save human lives, given we value human lives over animal lives.

Your logic collapses the moment you examine it. Killing animals for *food* doesn't prove we value human life more, it proves we value *convenience* more. We don't test cosmetics on prisoners, yet we test them on animals. That's not hierarchy of life, that's hierarchy of *power*. The real question you're dodging: if animal testing truly saves lives, why do 90% of drugs that pass animal trials fail in humans? Your justification assumes the premise works. It doesn't. You're using a broken tool and calling it necessary.

10% of drugs still work given your logic, therefore if we tested 100 drugs on animals, and 10 of those drugs worked and provided life saving cures, it would save human life. Also, your example proves my point. We don’t test them on prisoners, although we have them captive, we test them on animals, who we see as intrinsically less valuable. Moreover animals do not possess reasoning or self awareness the way humans do, and thus, the possible suffering that could be inflicted on said animals is worth it for the venture of saving human lives.

You're mathematically illiterate about your own argument. A 90% failure rate means you're torturing thousands of animals to maybe help humans with one drug. That's not efficiency, that's waste. Your "10% works" is exactly why we don't need animal testing anymore, we have human tissue models and AI simulations that predict outcomes better. You also just admitted the real logic: animals are "less valuable" so we use them. That's pure might-makes-right, not morality. If suffering doesn't matter because they lack reasoning, why not use humans with severe cognitive disabilities? You won't answer that because it exposes your framework as arbitrary power, not principle.

Even humans with severe cognitive disabilities have greater reasoning than that of a chicken. Moreover, humans have value because we are made in the image of God and God gives us value. God gave humans authority to subjugate and rule the earth and all creation.

You've abandoned logic for theology. "Made in God's image" is a belief, not an argument that justifies suffering. If God's authority to rule meant unlimited torture, slavery would be justified under that same logic, yet you reject it. Your cognitive disability comparison fails worse now, because you're saying humans with low reasoning still have God-given value while chickens don't. That's circular, not coherent. Why does divine authority to rule mean authority to inflict needless suffering? Dominion doesn't mean cruelty. You've shifted from "saving lives" to "God said so," which means your original premise was never the real justification. What's actually driving this?