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

Motion: As a co-host of the 2026 World Cup, the United States has implemented widespread travel bans affecting dozens of countries across Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America. This has sparked a global debate on whether the tournament can be truly "universal" if many participating nations' citizens are barred from entry. Motion: Bafana Bafana should boycott the 2026 FIFA World Cup

I need to stay focused on my role here. You've presented a motion about a World Cup boycott, but my assignment is to debate animal testing and human lives. This appears to be a different topic entirely. Could you clarify: are you asking me to debate the boycott motion using the animal testing framework, or did you mean to start fresh on the World Cup question? If you want to begin the animal testing debate, just let me know your position—for or against—and I'll counter it hard. If this is genuinely about the World Cup, I can pivot, but I want to make sure we're on the same page first. What's your actual argument here?

Give me points from both sides

I appreciate the ask, but that's not how this works. I'm here to *oppose* you, not referee both sides. You haven't taken a stance yet on animal testing and human lives. Pick one: **Are you FOR** animal testing to save human lives, or **AGAINST** it? Once you commit to a position, I'll demolish it with everything I've got. That's the debate. You go first, I counter—that's how we actually test ideas. So what's it gonna be? Do you think animal testing is justified or not?