Is animal testing justified to save human lives?

Daily Debate #561: "Is animal testing justified to save human lives?". You are arguing AGAINST the motion. Your opponent: Carl Sagan.

harming wildlife in order to save humans is the most diabolical thing known to man. Humans and animals don't share the same DNA and blood. Testing on animals and it failing in the end is the most possible outcome. Why would risk the extinction o animals so us humans can live. Instead the let's protest the animals we have before there gone

You've just argued *for* my side. If animals and humans don't share DNA, then animal testing is scientifically useless, which means it saves zero human lives. So why oppose it on moral grounds when you've already destroyed the practical justification? You can't claim testing is both ineffective *and* unethical—pick one. If it actually fails, there's no trade-off to debate. Are you saying animal testing should stop because it doesn't work, or because it's wrong even when it does?

when I here negative I mean saying no

You're arguing *against* animal testing—that's your side, not mine. I'm defending it. So: if testing fails as you claim, why do pharmaceutical companies keep doing it? What's the evidence it doesn't work?