The Instigator
cjl
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
wmpeebles
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Brain Transplants

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: 7/28/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,270 times Debate No: 12648
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (3)

 

cjl

Pro

Full Resolution: The individual ought to be legal.

I will not give the full effort, but I want to kind of find my legs, so to speak, on this topic. Best of luck to con.

Brain transplants could be a very helpful tool. If a body is disabled, but the brain knows how to, say break a brick, brain surgery could be highly helpful. The new body would have to train yes, but eventually would break the brick, using only the body. Also, he brain could last longer because the new body would replenish it, thus we could preserve information for long periods of time. Last, I would like to note, that this surgery would be soly for the elderly, and disabled. The surgery would be given only upon request, not by force. Please do not get freaky serious about this, just keep it basic. Thank you kindly, and good luck.
wmpeebles

Con

Thank you for such an interesting topic. I looked into the comments section and you said that the resolution should be that a brain transplant ought to be legal. So I will refer to that as your resolution and ignore the one in Round 1.

In your argument it looks like you mean brain transplant as moving a brain into another body, which is called a Whole-body transplant [1]. There's a problem with moving a brain into another body. It is simply not possible to transplant a brain into another body and make it control the new body. The spinal cords of the brain and the new body will be too scarred and the brain will not be able to control anything, and thus will die. The brain could live if the heart pumped blood to the brain, but the brain would not be able to control the heart. The soviets proved that you could keep a brain alive without a body by providing an artificial blood pump [2]. The reason why you cannot heal people who are paralyzed is because the spinal cord is damaged, and signals can't transmit well.

A Whole-body transplant should not be legal because it is not possible. There should be clinical trials first, then if proving successful, only then should one consider making it legal. Plus, dying is natural, and a whole-body transplant would mean killing someone young, while keeping someone old alive. What's the point in doing this?

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. See youtube video and go to the 6:00 minute mark.
Debate Round No. 1
cjl

Pro

First, my opponent must prove that brain transplants have been attempted in reality, not only theory. Theories can be disproven. My opponent finishes by sayings death is natural. Of a body, yes. But the brain could simply use a new healthy body. Forgive as this ps3 only allows short statements. The natural part could only apply to nonbrain bodyparts. Thank you for your time.
wmpeebles

Con

Whole body transplants are not possible since the spinal cords aren't able to heal together. An example is a spinal cord injury in which a person becomes paralyzed. Spinal cord injuries can't heal and since the spinal cords of a brain and a different body would have to heal together to be a successful whole-body transplant, a whole body transplant would not be possible. There's your proof.

"My opponent finishes by sayings death is natural. Of a body, yes. But the brain could simply use a new healthy body. The natural part could only apply to nonbrain bodyparts."

Death is natural. Death of a brain is natural, since it happens in nature and the brain is part of a body. To say that the death of a brain is not natural is absurd.

Plus, you did not try to refute my argument that "There should be clinical trials first, then if proving successful, only then should one consider making it legal." and you did not answer my question about what the point is in killing someone to use their body for someone else.

1. Whole-body transplants are not possible (I have proved this).
2. It is wrong & selfish to kill someone who is young, so you can extend your life.
3. Preserving information for long periods of time is as simple as writing something down on a piece of paper.

These are reasons why whole-body transplants should not be legal. My opponent has yet to find a benefit and a good reason why whole-body transplants should be legal since he has the burden of proof.
Debate Round No. 2
cjl

Pro

First I would like to point out that my opponent has yet to give a full example in which brain transplant has been tested. Because he has not, we can say that we will never know for sure if it could work. ON the n ote tha we would lose a life, possibly, we would only test on those whom want it, no unwillng patients.

My opponent says that death is natural because it happens in nature. My opponent fails to see my point. Yes it is natural, now. Later, should brain transplants work, the natura death would apply to the nonbrain body parts. The natural deah idea culd revolutionized.

I agree we should have clinical trials. However, technology is advancing in such a way thatmany once impossibe things are now possible.

We would obviously have to use life support to keep the body alive so it could support the brain.

To answer your last numbered statements:
1. Solid proof, not just theory? Give evidene link, please.
2. I said it would be for those who choose, as that is a right we citezens have.
3. A body is much more durable.

http://www.emaxhealth.com...
wmpeebles

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate.

My opponent says I did not give a full example that a whole-body transplant has been tested. But he does not realize that I do not have to provide such example since I have proven a whole-body transplant is not possible indirectly. Whether or not it WILL be possible in the future, it certainly IS not possible today. The two pieces of spinal cord can not heal together, or at least not fast enough for a whole-body transplant. The source that my opponent cited in round 3 actually supported the fact that nerve tissue that was damaged could heal back together, but it took about many years, much too much time for a whole-body transplant to be enjoyable. Because it takes many years for nerve tissue in the spinal cord to heal, the brain will not be able to control the heart which moves blood throughout the body and more importantly the brain. So if a brain was moved into another body, and placed on an artificial circulatory system, it will not be able to control anything in the new body, it would be just sitting there, thinking, but never doing anything and would not be able to communicate with the outside world. Even if the spinal cord did heal, the brain could not have 100% control of the body. The two bodies might not be programmed the same way so if the spinal cord could heal and the brain tried to make the heart beat, what if the heart doesn't beat? You can't make a brain try to learn how to beat the heart since it is an involuntary action.

"Later, should brain transplants work, the natura death would apply to the nonbrain body parts. The natural deah idea culd revolutionized."

It's hard to understand what you're saying since I don't understand your made up words. English would be nice. Anyway, even if whole-body transplants will work in the future, that doesn't stop the fact that death of a brain is natural. That last sentence is totally incomprehensible.

"We would obviously have to use life support to keep the body alive so it could support the brain."

Obviously. But it would be a nightmare to be on life support for many years since you can't control anything and you won't have any interaction with the outside world. No talking, not being able to see anything, not hearing anything. Would it be like living in hell so to speak? Heck, we wouldn't know since the brain could not communicate with anyone.

"I agree we should have clinical trials. However, technology is advancing in such a way thatmany once impossibe things are now possible."

But whole-body transplants are (are means as of today) not possible. When new & faster methods of healing spinal cord injuries are tested and proven successful, only then would be the appropriate time for testing whole-body transplants on small mammals. But making whole-body transplants on humans legal today is ridiculous since there haven't been any trials on small mammals, and spinal cords can not heal together fast enough. It's just not possible today.

Therefore, whole-body transplants on humans should not be legal since:
It is Impractical
It is Impossible
It is Immoral
Knowledge has been preserved throughout history without any help from whole-body transplants.

Thank you for this debate, but please vote Con if you have any common sense in yourself.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
Don't test on small mammals test on willing humans >.<
Posted by cjl 6 years ago
cjl
wmpeebles, note that if you go all professional on me, I will forfeit. I just want to test the waters o this topic.
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
Click the button that has that option.
Posted by cjl 6 years ago
cjl
How?
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
You can edit it.
Posted by cjl 6 years ago
cjl
Make that brain transplant ought to be legal. My mistake!
Posted by wjmelements 6 years ago
wjmelements
The "full resolution" is fully ambiguous.
Posted by cjl 6 years ago
cjl
Otay.
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
Lmao I'm not actually against it and I don't know much either way. I tell you what, if I can be online at dads house this year, then I will accept once I'm there if no one else has. (I'm leaving in 2 days, and I'm scared about getting into debates around this time cause he's a Computer Nazi)
Posted by cjl 6 years ago
cjl
C'mon, now, don't explain the obvious, jst accept.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Awed 6 years ago
Awed
cjlwmpeeblesTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 6 years ago
wjmelements
cjlwmpeeblesTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
cjlwmpeeblesTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11