The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Ban Animal Cloning

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 592 times Debate No: 71788
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Animal Cloning is not needed. One in 277 live from cloning.


Pro's only real offense is that animal cloning is not "necessary". However that is not enough to warrant banning it; many things aren't necessary, including video games, professional sports, non-procreative sex, expensive clothing, and teddy bears. To ban something simply because it isn't "necessary" for survival is absurd. Without showing that animal cloning is significantly harmful to society, Pro has no rational basis to advocate a ban and thus automatically loses the debate. Aside from that, Pro also makes some claim about low survival rates for cloned animals but he provides no evidence for it, and he makes no attempt at showing how that affirms the resolution; thus, the claim should be dismissed. Furthermore, animal cloning has numerous positive uses such as STEM cell research, improving livestock quality, and reviving extinct/endangered species [1]. Animal cloning should not be banned. The resolution is negated.

Debate Round No. 1


As a matter of fact, animal cloning has many risks, it has a High Failure Rate. Yet I need to say it also is unnecessary in many ways, first of all extinct animals are meant to stay extinct. Animals that live today, such as livestock, can clone by their selves, simply breeding clones them.
Although another reason, when animals are cloned through somatic cell nuclear transfer only 1 out of 999 survive, roughly. Also the egg may not become compatible with its new life form. Sadly, the animals that do survive WILL have a genetic disorder, and will commonly have there lifespan reduced to 50%.



Pro has yet to provide any offense, and thus automatically loses the debate. All he has done is cited a stat about the low survival rate of animal clones, but he fails to show why this is in any way detrimental enough to society to warrant banning the entire practice of animal cloning. Again, simply showing that something is unnecessary is not enough to warrant banning it. Anyways, Pro has failed to even show that animal cloning is unnecessary, as he has not adequately rebutted any of the three benefits of cloning that I presented last round: (1) Pro has completely ignored that STEM cell research, which has the potential to save innumerable lives, can benefit from animal cloning. (2) Reviving endangered/extinct species is beneficial because it provides the government with substantial revenue by featuring them in public zoos and national parks. (3) Even if livestock can reproduce on their own, cloning can still reproduce them much more efficiently, so it should he preferred.

Pro has not made any attempt at fulfilling his burden of proof, while I have provided three reasons not to ban animal cloning. The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 2


River101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Varrack 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments - Pro made a weak offense and Con refuted it thoroughly. Conduct - Pro FF'd