The Instigator
KIP
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
TwinDragon
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Bio Genetically Engineered Humans Used For War

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/10/2008 Category: Technology
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,509 times Debate No: 4959
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

KIP

Pro

I think that if countries have the technology to create Bio Genetically Engineered Humans should be legal and that those countries should do so for nation security and for the War On Terror! Disagree...?

(P.S) yeah pretty much exactly what they do on Halo lol
TwinDragon

Con

Salutations,

What your saying is that you support Genetically Engineered Humans to be used for war? And that if a country has the capabilities to do so, then they should make genetic modifications to humans legal for the sake of national security.
I disagree and I find that such acts would only hinder national security.

First off, I believe that it is unlikely that any country possess the ability to create genetically modified super soldiers in a safe and realistic manner. Modifying human genetics is unethical, especial if the only reason in doing so is to send them off to war. Also, what are they to do with the rest of their lives? Does the nation plan to solely use them for combat until they are KIA? The end is only justified if the means used are justified, and while assuring national security is a just goal, the means used (modified humans) is not justified.

Second, this can only hinder national security. In any secure nation, the liberties, rights, and safety of that nation's citizens is of utmost importance. Respect for those individuals must be paramount if the nation is to continue and the nation will not be secure if it undermines individual liberties. Pursuing these unethical acts in the name of national security is hindering the respect for the citizen's rights in the first place. The nation has taken the quality of life of some citizen's and places it above the quality of life of others (the humans chosen to be modified).

Finally, In halo, the Spartans were created to be super soldiers. But they were first mere children. The Spartan project abducted several children from their parents and replaces them with clones who had cancer, thus ensuring that no one would come looking for their children if they were believed to have died. This is highly unethical and undermines rights and liberties of the nation's citizens. In the course of the Spartan project, several "test subjects" died due to the extreme amount of genetic modification they had to endure. This undermines quality of life, national security, and is incapable of being justified.

In the end, pursing genetic modification to humans to become nothing more than weapons themselves for the sake of national security is in fact deteriorating national security from the inside out. Respects for the citizen's rights are paramount and no nation can be secure if it undermines individual liberties, rights, and safety.
Debate Round No. 1
KIP

Pro

I think that i didn't specify my opening argument with enough specifics to properly base my argument on.

of course if you bio genetically engineer humans, specific condition and requirements must be present. These conditions and requirements that would have to be present could be...

- The child that is to be voluntarily given by the child's legal guardian(s) own will and desire and is to be informed on the bio engineering that could or will occur to the child. they would then have to sign a contract which forfeits the legal guardian(s) guardianship to that nations government. This should be done so it is not violating civil rights and respect for the citizens of that nation are upheld.

- Another condition is that giving children to that nations government would have to be legalized.

I would like to finish my second argument with saying that i don't state my whole argument on the events that occurred in the Halo series, only one specific event that a Bio Genetically Engineered Human had been made, and was used for war.
TwinDragon

Con

Salutations KIP,

If you simply legalize the process and make the program voluntary, you're still violating civil rights of the child. It seems to me that you're willing to place the child's life, rights, and safety into the hands of the government whose sole purpose is to turn that child into a weapon.

You're following the footsteps of an abortion, where the parents have all rights over their child. However, unlike an abortion, the child has already been born. No one has any control over who their parents are or where they are born, thus your unlucky child is born into a life solely meant for war. That is highly unethical. A child does not possess the right frame of mind to decide if they want to be turned into a weapon for life. So instead of giving the child rights, you listen to the parents? What is their incentive? Is this whole operation tax deductable? "Now eat your peas Johnny or we will give you to the government!" I'm greatly disturbed by the implications of such actions for the sake of national security.

You're destroying the quality of life of this child by turning them into nothing more than a weapon that walks upright. Where is this to lead? If the government finds out that this project is a high success but there are few people giving their children away, where are you going to turn next? A draft? Any child born this month is to be taken by the government for Genetic Alteration and Military Implementation. Or would the government just find it easier to farm for children? Have lots of pregnant mothers who had the misfortune to be walking home one day and was abducted for national security.
Just because you legalize genetic alteration and make the project voluntary, does not justify taking away human rights, even if the human is merely a child. Legalizing child molestation and making it purely voluntary wouldn't justify that either.

This endeavor undermines quality of life, national security, and is incapable of being justified. Making it legal is not justifying it.

Pursuing genetic modifications for children for the sake of turning them into weapons is unethical. Your throwing out an individual's right to life if you turn them into a walking weapon.
Debate Round No. 2
KIP

Pro

KIP forfeited this round.
TwinDragon

Con

Salutations,

I have enjoyed this debate. I am sorry that it was unable to be seen to the end, but I'm sure there is a reason for my opponent's absence.

Since PRO's round 3 was forfeited, I have nothing to attack and my defense stands firm.

Since this is the last round, I leave it up to the judges to decide who the victor is.

Share and Enjoy.
TwinDragon now stands down.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
I hate forfeits... I would agree with pro if he made stronger arguements, but as it stands I must vote con. I can't wait to see another debate like this one.
Posted by TwinDragon 8 years ago
TwinDragon
In no way was that comment meant to be debated or have any affect on the debate at hand. It was just for Zerosmelt in answering his question. All my arguments are posted in the correct places, thus, disregard the comment meant nly for Zerosmelt. if anyone else wants to read it, I guess thats fine too. Share and Enjoy.
Posted by TwinDragon 8 years ago
TwinDragon
I am sorry for the delay in my argument. I have been unable to adequately devote time to this due to medical reasons. This is highly entertaining though.
Zerosmelt: Modifying human genetics is unethical if it is simply going to place them in danger. Especially by the way CON is prepared to go about it. I myself have good faith in human genetic alteration. I find that some genetics would be greatly benefited if they were altered. Some diseases are commonly hereditary, and that problem could be correct with genetic alteration, thus ensuring that future generations are clean of the disease. For example, toxemia affected this man's wife during their first baby's birth. Her family (women only I suspect) had a history of toxemia, which killed her great grandmother during childbirth, and proceeded to infect all women from then on. Her grandmother had it, her mother had it, and now she had it, causing her body to become toxic to her own baby which lead to emergency C-Section for survival for both mother and child 3 months premature. Last I heard, both were alive. However, this problem could be corrected if human genetic alteration would be implemented. But I find that implementing that kind of alteration would save more lives, which is good and ethical in my opinion. However, modifying human genetics so that they can become mere weapons and no people for the government is highly unethical. That's where I was coming from. I would read your arguments, however, I find that it is difficult to sit up at the moment haha…yay for laptops but mine is about to die! Farewell. Share and Enjoy.
Posted by Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
If PRO is saying that GE should be implemented soley for this purpose then he is crazy.

CON:
"Modifying human genetics is unethical"

Really? On what basis, please consider my arguments agsint this statement: http://www.debate.org...
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by qkrwlstn403 8 years ago
qkrwlstn403
KIPTwinDragonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by Jonngotti 8 years ago
Jonngotti
KIPTwinDragonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
KIPTwinDragonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
KIPTwinDragonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
KIPTwinDragonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03