The Instigator
hilton16
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Shuhei0116
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Cloning animals is beneficial

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/26/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,034 times Debate No: 31750
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

hilton16

Pro

Animals cloning is beneficial I would like to wish good luck to my opponent.

Full Resolution

Animals cloning is benefical.

BoP is shared.

Definitions

Animals: "...

      1. A living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly...



      1. Any such living organism other than a human being.




Clone: the aggregate of genetically identical cells or organisms asexually produced by a single progenitor cell or organism

Beneficial: Favorable or advantageous; resulting in good

What i am biscally saying is that animal cloning is beneficial for the human race.

Rules

1. The first round is for acceptance and appreciation. (only)
2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.
3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.
4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate.
5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. All resoultion, definitions, rules, and structures are as stated.

Voters, we hope you enjoy the debate. And that your vote is as stand.

Debate Structure

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by pro)
Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)
Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.google.com...
http://www.google.com...



Shuhei0116

Con

I accept. I am very new to this and I hope we will have an interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 1
hilton16

Pro

First, let me start out by saying "Cloning is a big first step. Genetic manipulation of cloned animals is the future direction of the cloning frontier. It is here that concerns are loudly voiced and take up headlines in the media. The public and the media’s views on the future of cloning often ignore some of its potential benefits: Changing genetic traits is the next step in cloning - it can lead to medical benefits for animals as well as humans."

1. • Agriculture and Drug Production:
-Not only can the best traits be perpetuated but farm animals could also be used as “machines” for large-scale production of medically important proteins. Polly, a transgenic cloned lamb, is an example. She is able to produce milk containing factor IX — the protein that is deficient in hemophiliacs.

2. Maintaining Biodiversity:
- Cloning may be an important tool for preserving endangered species if currently practiced methods fail.

3. • Biomedical Research:
- Cloning can produce genetically identical laboratory animals which can be used as models for human disease. The most commonly used laboratory animal, the mouse, reproduces rapidly and its genetics have been well studied. Mice have been successfully cloned and will likely facilitate the discovery of new treatments for disease. Jean-Paul Renard, of the National Institute of Agricultural Research in France, is attempting to produce cloned transgenic rabbits to study cardiovascular disease in the hope of finding new treatments. In addition, it provides a model for studying the interaction of nuclear verses mitochondrial genes and for nuclear verses cytoplasmic factors.

4. • Commercial Endeavours:
- Noting that no live dog clones have yet been reported, the company PerPETuate, Inc. (Connecticut) is freezing tissue from family pets for the future. Researchers have had little success in the steps required to make a dog clone, such as development after nuclear transfer and embryo implantation into the womb.

5. • Treatment for Human Disease:
-Cells could be harvested from early embryos to provide cell and tissue replacement without the hazards of transplantation rejection. The U.K. government has recently accepted recommendations from its chief medical to permit research using embryos subject to controls, which include a 14-day limit (see the Department of Health website listed below in “learn more”).

*Clones will not be carbon copies of the donor since environmental factors will influence their personalities.*

To clone or not to clone humans

The cloning of human embryos for reproductive purposes is illegal at this time. Yet it is still important to examine the consequences and the likelihood of this scenario. The media may dream up and forecast robotic cloned armies of Hitler; however, identical twins illustrate that being genetically identical does not remove their humanness. Identical twins exhibit different personalities and behavior because environment also plays a major role on who we become.

At any rate, there have been significant difficulties with cloning primates, including an extremely low success rate and a high number of abnormalities. These results make it unacceptable to attempt human cloning at this moment in time. The ethical and social issues that will arise in the future when more efficient methods are developed leave some time for a resolution. Some of the same issues that arose from in vitro fertilization will be revisited (e.g., infertile couples, “replacing” the death of an infant).

Conclusion

Cloning has opened many doors that could lead to remarkable medical advancements but, as with all new technologies, it will be accompanied by ethical and social dilemmas. Today’s successes will pave the road to improving efficiencies and help add to the basic understanding of our cells. Even Dolly’s creator, Ian Wilmut, is focusing less on sheep and more on understanding the mechanism of reprogramming our genetic material!


http://www.manataka.org...

http://www.actionbioscience.org...
http://www.questia.com...
http://library.thinkquest.org...
http://www.sfgate.com...;

Shuhei0116

Con


Contention 1: Animal Rights


According to National Geographic Magazine April 2013 cloning requires the need to inject DNA into egg cells of the surrogate mother, causing the surrogate to develop the baby. This is violating animal welfare, as this puts the sick and deformed clone and the surrogate in unneeded suffering. Cloned animals tend to have more problems during gestation and birth, resulting in higher rates of miscarriage and


deaths among host mothers. According to http://www.gracelinks.org... a 2007 study showed cloning success rates to be low as 10%. Cloned animals tend to have severe


physical deformities in cloned animals, including oversized navels, oddly-shaped heads (cows that have heads shaped like those of bulldogs), immune deficiencies, diabetes, heart and lung damage, kidney failure, brain irregularities, and malformed arteries. Not really a humane thing to do, is it?



Contention 2: Not commercially beneficial


According to http://www.gracelinks.org... it takes $20,000 to clone a cow, compared to $2000 of a naturally bred. A 2006 survey by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology that found American consumers are uneasy about cloning, with 64 percent of respondents saying they would rather not eat cloned meat. This means it takes 10 times more to “create” a slab of meat (remember, costs are also 10 times higher) but only 36% of the public will want it.



Contention 3: No guarantee of safety


There is no such thing as a complete risk assessment. Since cloning is still in experimental phase, people cannot absolutely conclude that something is safe. Just three years before the Chernobyl nuclear accident, B. A. Semenov, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s safety division, had written about the RBMK reactor design used at Chernobyl: “The design feature of having more than 1,000 individual primary circuits increases the safety of the reactor system—a serious loss-of-coolant accident is practically impossible” This example can also be used on the issue of cloned foods.



Conclusion: Cloning subject animals to unneeded suffering to both clones and surrogates, due to high risk clones having bad health. This is combined with the high cost and low demand of clones to consumers, also with unguaranteed health of the food products. So basically cloning is bad for consumers, cloning industries, and also the animals. To wrap it up, it’s not beneficial.


Debate Round No. 2
hilton16

Pro

Thank for your great arguments. now on...

*I wouldn't think anyone was going to accept this debate since we don't know much about where the animal that we eat come from or how we benefit from it everyday*

Rebuttal 1: Animal Rights

-It is true that animal cloning is violating animal welfare, as this puts the sick and deformed clone and the surrogate in unneeded suffering. But this same animal right that were violating is beneficial for humans because according to "123helpme the benefits of cloning animal states... "Now imagine it is the year 2007, and you are in dire need of a heart. The doctors do several tests to determine your genetic make-up, so they can find the right animal to match your needs. After replacing your heart with a pig heart, you recover and go on with everyday life. No one had to die, and you received your heart. With today's technology, this, and more human benefits, will be made possible with animal cloning. " Humans may suffer "immune deficiencies, diabetes, heart and lung damage, kidney failure, brain irregularities, and and other related diseases. Now for a human to suffer or die, Not really a humane thing to do, is it?"

"Since the first cloned mammal, scientists have worked to find a practical application for cloning that will produce advances for human diseases. In some inherited disorders, such as hemophilia, cystic fibrosis and emphysema, the only way to treat such patients is through therapeutic proteins, which are obtained through the milk of an animal (Straight). These animals carry a certain protein that is secreted in their milk or blood, which is then harvested and purified for use (Nagal). Drugs made from these proteins are extremely scarce and expensive. Recently, researchers have been able to transfer human genes that produce useful proteins into sheep and cows, which will then be produced in the milk of the animals ("Medical Uses.."). With the ability to clone, scientists will be able to genetically engineer animals for a particular protein and then mass-produce the proteins. In addition, cloned animals can be used to obtain a greater understanding for diseases and other mysteries of life. Researchers will be able to create better models of diseases with animal cloning, which will further progress in understanding and possibly treating such diseases (Nagal). "

*Researchers' primary intention is to help cure diseases when natural methods do not work, not to act in harsh manners toward the animals, or to make a profit. *

According to http://www.fda.gov...
• cloning poses no unique risks to 
animal health, compared to the
risks found with other reproduction
methods, including natural mating

• the composition of food products
from cattle, swine, and goat clones,
or the offspring of any animal
clones, is no different from that of
conventionally bred animals

• because of the preceding two conclusions, there are no additional
risks to people eating food from
cattle, swine, and goat clones or the
offspring of any animal clones traditionally consumed as food


Rebuttal 2: commericial beneficial

-Now i know that it takes $20,000 to clone a cow, compared to $2000 of a naturally bred, that fact of the matter of cloning speeds it up for more of it while naturally we have to wait for it. "A 2006 survey by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology that found American consumers are uneasy about cloning, with 64 percent of respondents saying they would rather not eat cloned meat. This means it takes 10 times more to “create” a slab of meat (remember, costs are also 10 times higher) but only 36% of the public will want it." most of these people may simplily be vegetarians. But the matter of fact is that...

"After years of detailed study and analysis, the Food and Drug Administration has concluded that meat and milk from clones of cattle, swine (pigs), and goats, and the offspring of clones from any species traditionally consumed as food, are as safe to eat as food from conventionally bred animals. This conclusion stems from an extensive study of animal cloning and related food safety, culminating in the release of three FDA documents in January 2008: a risk assessment, a risk management plan, and guidance for industry.

Researchers have been cloning livestock species since 1996, starting with the famous sheep named Dolly. When it became apparent in 2001 that cloning could become a commercial venture to help improve the quality of herds, FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) asked livestock producers to voluntarily keep food from clones and their offspring out of the food chain until CVM could further evaluate the issue."

*Proponents of livestock cloning see it benefiting consumers, producers, animals and the environment.*

*Meat and milk from cow, pig, and goat clones, and the offspring of any clones, are as safe as food we eat every day."

Rebuttal 3: Guarantee of safety
-While it may not be exactly guarantee there is still safety. According to...http://www.fda.gov...

• cloning poses no unique risks to 
animal health, compared to the
risks found with other reproduction
methods, including natural mating

• the composition of food products
from cattle, swine, and goat clones,
or the offspring of any animal
clones, is no different from that of
conventionally bred animals

• because of the preceding two conclusions, there are no additional
risks to people eating food from
cattle, swine, and goat clones or the
offspring of any animal clones traditionally consumed as food

FDA issued the risk assessment, the risk management plan, and guidance for industry in draft form for public comment in December 2006. Since that time, FDA has updated the risk assessment to reflect new scientific information that reinforces the food safety conclusions of the draft.
“Our additional review only serves to strengthen our conclusions on food safety,” says Stephen F. Sundlof, D.V.M., Ph.D., Director of FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. “Meat and milk from cow, pig, and goat clones, and the offspring of any animal clones, are as safe as food we eat every day.” FDA’s concern about animal health
prompted the agency to develop a risk management plan to decrease any risks to animals involved in cloning. FDA also issued guidance to clone
producers and the livestock industry on using clones and their offspring for human food and animal feed.

What Cloning Means to Consumers
• FDA has concluded that cattle,
swine, and goat clones, and the
offspring of any animal clones traditionally consumed as food, are
safe for human and animal consumption.

• Food labels do not have to state
that food is from animal clones
or their offspring. FDA has found
no science-based reason to require
labels to distinguish between products from clones and products from
conventionally produced animals.

• The main use of clones is to produce
breeding stock, not food. These
animal clones—copies of the best
animals in the herd—are then used
for conventional breeding, and the
sexually reproduced offspring of
the animal clones become the foodproducing animals.

• Due to the lack of information on
clone species other than cow, goat,
and pig (for example, sheep), FDA
recommends that other clone species do not enter the human food
supply.
Animal cloning is beneficial for the human race, in agriculture and drug production, maintaing biodiversity, and biomedical research. Facts shows it that its beneficial for human, animal, and the enviroment. I look forward from hearing from my opponent.  

http://www.123helpme.com...
http://www.fda.gov...
http://www.fda.gov...;

Shuhei0116

Con


Refutation 1: Comment by Sleezehead


It states “Cloning of animals is fine. Animal rights? We eat them. Maybe when we don't we can talk about animal rights.” The common thing about both of them is that they both includes killing animals. But the difference is that cloned meat creates suffering for the animal that produced the meat while it’s still alive. So in comparison naturally bred animals are better for food.



Refutation 2: Cloning animals with specific traits, like creating factory machines


My opponent has said about cloning animals that have certain traits in massive quantity and using them like machines. The problem with this is that the animals will not be likely to be treated like living things anymore. According to http://www.farmsanctuary.org... factory farming is “Far from the idyllic, spacious pastures that are shown in advertisements for meat, milk, and eggs, factory farms typically consist of large numbers of animals being raised in extreme confinement. Animals on factory farms are regarded as commodities to be exploited for profit. They undergo painful mutilations and are bred to grow unnaturally fast and large for the purpose of maximizing meat, egg, and milk production for the food industry. Their bodies cannot support this growth, which results in debilitating and painful conditions and deformities.” It also states factory farming gives the environment a lot of pressure from pollution. I’m afraid that cloning animals will become the new kind of factory farming.



Refutation 3: Maintaining biodiversity


According to the National Geographic Magazine March 2013, in around 1999 Spanish scientists tried to revive the Pyrenean ibex. They implanted 57 implantations in surrogate mothers. Only 7 were pregnant. And of those pregnancies’ , six ended in miscarriages. The one ibex clone that came out died after 10 minutes it was born, due to a deformation in a lung. Past experiences show cloning is an unreliable technology.


Even if cloning does become a reliable technology, the history of bringing back species to the wild has been fraught with difficulty. In 1982, a huge effort went into restoring the Arabian Oryx to a refuge in central Oman. Almost all were wiped out by poachers. This shows even if you did somehow get the animals, that’s only a tiny part of the problem. Animal that are extinct have no place left to call home, as the environment is what causes animals to go extinct.



Refutation 4: Biomedical Research


As I have already showed in my first round, cloned animals tend to have a lot of health problems. So the idea of creating a lot of genetically identical lab animals just doesn’t sound real. Also, there isn’t much reason for someone to want to have identical research models, as having a lot of diversity makes it more effective to know if your biomedical research actually works.



Refutation 5: Cloning Dead Pets


Since cloning is still in a experimenting stage (and the company haven’t made any clones yet), I don’t think cloning dead pets counts as an argument. Maybe if they (by this I mean the private cloning companies) actually succeeded in creating one, I’ll see it as an argument. Also, I don’t think it’s right to want to have another identical pet. I mean, there are stray dogs and cats in shelters all around the world. It’s better to just adopt one than spend a ton of cash on recreating a pet. Maybe more than a ton of cash, because you will have to spend money on the bad health of the clone you bought…



Refutation 6: Treatment for human diseases


Not really done yet, so “don’t count your eggs before they hatch”.


Debate Round No. 3
hilton16

Pro

Refutation 1: Comment by Sleezehead

It states “Cloning of animals is fine. Animal rights? We eat them. Maybe when we don't we can talk about animal rights.” The common thing about both of them is that they both includes killing animals. But the difference is that cloned meat creates suffering for the animal that produced the meat while it’s still alive. So in comparison naturally bred animals are better for food.

- Comment by Sleezehead is right, "cloning of animals is fine." But if you want to talk about animal rights in here than maybe we can if "when we don't eat them" but the fact that we eat it everything there are rights being violating. Take for instant, do you eat chicken? If so, chicken have to go through suffering but at the end of the day we eat it. (beneficial for humans) Chicken neck have to get cut off with all the gush of blood spilling. So animal right is this debate wouldn't be legitament for you to use as your stand against this debate.


Refutation 2: Cloning animals with specific traits, like creating factory machines

"My opponent has said about cloning animals that have certain traits in massive quantity and using them like machines."

-I did mention quantity. "With the ability to clone, scientists will be able to genetically engineer animals for a particular protein and then mass-produce the proteins." but "using them like machines" i don't know where you got that from.

"factory farming is “Far from the idyllic, spacious pastures that are shown in advertisements for meat, milk, and eggs, factory farms typically consist of large numbers of animals being raised in extreme confinement. Animals on factory farms are regarded as commodities to be exploited for profit. They undergo painful mutilations and are bred to grow unnaturally fast and large for the purpose of maximizing meat, egg, and milk production for the food industry. Their bodies cannot support this growth, which results in debilitating and painful conditions and deformities.” It also states factory farming gives the environment a lot of pressure from pollution. I’m afraid that cloning animals will become the new kind of factory farming."

-You going off topic. This debate is not about factory farming. But about animal cloning. "*Researchers' primary intention is to help cure diseases when natural methods do not work, not to act in harsh manners toward the animals, or to make a profit. *" farming is different from this debate. but i'll go further in this argument you pose, "They undergo painful mutilations and are bred to grow unnaturally fast and large for the purpose of maximizing meat, egg, and milk production for the food industry." we have a large population to support. we need this to be able to support the population, and it growing fast and large is good for consumers, producers, animals and the environment. "It also states factory farming gives the environment a lot of pressure from pollution. I’m afraid that cloning animals will become the new kind of factory farming." got the environmental protection agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) if such thing happen and they know its not good they'll tackle it.

Refutation 3: Maintaining biodiversity

-My opponent is obviously going back to the first round debate. Instead of refutating against my second round debate. This shows he's ignoring my argument.

"Even if cloning does become a reliable technology, the history of bringing back species to the wild has been fraught with difficulty." well you cannot prove so. Because you state "the history of bringing back species to the wild has been fraught with difficulty. In 1982, a huge effort went into restoring the Arabian Oryx to a refuge in central Oman. Almost all were wiped out by poachers. This shows even if you did somehow get the animals, that’s only a tiny part of the problem. Animal that are extinct have no place left to call home, as the environment is what causes animals to go extinct." because they weren't using realble technology at this time. Plus you state poachers, it nature. but this is another country we talking about. Maybe there not taking steps to stop poachers. But if we do clone animal we making more of it to "maintain biodiversity" because if we have one of that "animal" and it dies than it is extinct. because if there was one of it and you clone it to make more of it means even if it dies some of it is still left.

Refutation 4: Biomedical Research

As I have already showed in my first round, cloned animals tend to have a lot of health problems. So the idea of creating a lot of genetically identical lab animals just doesn’t sound real. Also, there isn’t much reason for someone to want to have identical research models, as having a lot of diversity makes it more effective to know if your biomedical research actually works.

As my rebuttal,
as my research show cloning poses no unique risks to animal health, compared to the risks found with other reproduction methods, including natural mating

Myth: Cloning results in severely damaged animals that suffer, and continue to have health problems all their lives.

The vast majority of swine and goat clones are born healthy, grow normally, and are no more susceptible to health problems than their non-clone counterparts. During the early days of what is known as assisted reproductive technologies in livestock, veterinarians noticed that some calf and lamb fetuses grew too large during pregnancy, and had serious birth defects. This set of abnormalities is referred to as “large offspring syndrome,” or LOS. These same abnormalities have also been seen in calf and lamb clones, and have received a lot of attention because they occur at what appear to be higher rates than observed with other assisted reproductive technologies. The syndrome seems to be related to processes that take place outside the body (during the in vitro phase. As producers understand more about the cloning process, the rate at which LOS is observed in calf and lamb clones has been decreasing. The same kind of decrease in LOS rates was observed as people who used technologies such as in vitro fertilization in cattle learned more about the process. LOS hasn’t been seen in swine or goat clones.

Most clones that are normal at birth become as strong and healthy as any other young animals. Calf and lamb clones with abnormalities at birth may continue to have health problems for the first few months of life. But after the age of six months, they’re completely indistinguishable in appearance and blood measurements from conventionally bred animals of the same age."


Refutation 5: Cloning Dead Pets


"Since cloning is still in a experimenting stage"

-Cloning has envolve over the centuries. Some part of it may still be at the experimenting stage, while others are not.
As you state yourself "A 2006 survey by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology that found American consumers are uneasy about cloning, with 64 percent of respondents saying they would rather not eat cloned meat. This means it takes 10 times more to “create” a slab of meat (remember, costs are also 10 times higher) but only 36% of the public will want it." you state they'll rather not eat cloned meat. it takes 10 times more to “create” a slab of meat (remember, costs are also 10 times higher) but only 36% of the public will want it. we'll if you state that its still at experimenting stage than why will they "rather not eat cloned meat" when it haven't been cloned. or 36% of the public will want it.

Refutation 6: Treatment for human diseases

Not really done yet, so “don’t count your eggs before they hatch”.

-Yeah, now if you oppose animal cloning will we ever know if it could lead to treatment for human diseases? Some studies have shown that animal have cure to diseases. And facts have shown it. The potential animal cloning holds to treatment for human diseases will not be known until we further.

http://www.fda.gov...



Shuhei0116

Con


All following arguments are rebuttals against Pro rebuttals



Rebuttal 1: Animal Rights


First of all your quote from "123helpme the benefits of cloning animal states... "Now imagine it is the year 2007, andyou are in dire need of a heart. The doctors do several tests to determine your genetic make-up, so they can find the right animal to match your needs. After replacing your heart with a pig heart, you recover and go on with everyday life. No one had to die, and you received your heart. With today's technology, this, and more human benefits, will be made possible with animal cloning.” I don’t understand this argument really, especially the part about using pig heart on humans. It doesn’t make sense. And also about (I quote from you) Recently, researchers have been able to transfer human genes that produce useful proteins into sheep and cows, which will then be produced in the milk of the animals” That’s genetic engineering, which a very different concept from cloning. So that’s sort of off topic.



Rebuttal 2: Commercially Beneficial


My opponent has found an official statement that cloned foods are safe. I disagree with their conclusion, as it has not been mass produced, consumed for long periods of time and or even available to the public yet. But still as I have proved cloned foods costs about 10 times more than regular foods, and you have shown cloned foods are no different than regular foods, I see no reason for people to want to produce or buy cloned foods. He has even collapsed my evidence on “36% of the public will want it” argument, because now we all know zero percent of the public will have interest in it. So basically, it has no economic value as a food product.



Rebuttal 3: Guarantee of Safety


As I have stated on the refutation to my opponent’s rebuttal, cloned foods are not mass produced, consumed for long periods of time and or even available to the public yet. So no one can guarantee it’s safety yet.



Debate Round No. 4
hilton16

Pro

This brings us to our final conclusion. I defend my orginal arguments by saying...

Thank's to everyone who view the debate. We hope that we'll get your votes.

Cloning Animals is beneficial because...

1) Agriculture and Drug Production: (make food and drugs to cure people)
2) Maintaining Biodiversity: (make more of the animal so others will be left behind if some die.)
3) Biomedical Research: (uses for research to find cure to some diseases)
4) Commercial Endeavours: (food security is a serious issue and this can help with food security)
5) Treatment for Human Disease: (if possible, treatment could be find for human diseases.)

Now i apolozie, i might have went off a little bit off topic by saying "To clone or not to clone humans" and "Recently, researchers have been able to transfer human genes that produce useful proteins into sheep and cows, which will then be produced in the milk of the animals” That’s genetic engineering, which a very different concept from cloning. So that’s sort of off topic. " they are off topic. i'm sorry.


"My opponent has found an official statement that cloned foods are safe. I disagree with their conclusion, as it has not been mass produced, consumed for long periods of time and or even available to the public yet." you cannot prove any evidence as you have not or been able to eat it yet. You disagree because its your opinion but clearly research shows it safe.
Shuhei0116

Con


These following arguments are my final summary and conclusion.



Why I win this debate:



Contention 1: Not Commercially Beneficial


My opponent has proved cloned meat is no different from regular meat. I have proved cloned meat costs about 10 times more than regular meat. This may also violate animal welfare (see contention 3).


Impact:


There is no reason for people to buy cloned meat anymore, as people will choose the cheapest choice over the expensive one.



Contention 2: Not good for maintaining biodiversity


I have proved that the history of restoring species back into the wild has been fraught with difficulty. My opponent insists that the researchers did not use reliable technology at that time, making it more difficult to restore the animals. But what I meant was animals went extinct in the wild because they lose their environment. Impact:


Now if certain measures to the environment were done, any method to maintain biodiversity would have worked. But without doing anything to the environment, any single method, such as cloning, would never work. So cloning will not able to maintain biodiversity. My opponent also states if some animals die there will be more of them. Biodiversity means to have many species in the wild. I’m afraid my opponent has misunderstood its meaning and thought just having the animals alive would make it “maintaining biodiversity”.



Contention 3: Violating Animal Welfare


Cloning animals puts the sick and deformed clone and the surrogate in unneeded suffering. Cloned animals tend to have more problems during gestation and birth, resulting in higher rates of miscarriage and deaths among host mothers. My opponent states that clones can be able to be used as “machines” and produce in massive quantity agricultural and medical products. I stated how that will probably make them not treated like living things anymore, and might even turn into the next factory farming. Opponent supports the idea of factory farming, because that may support the growing human population. I will remind the opponent that the topic of this debate is “Cloning Animals is Beneficial” which does not point to a single group that receives benefit. So even if humans receive benefit, but it endangers animals, you cannot count it as beneficial.


Impact:


Since violating animal welfare will not be beneficial to animals, Cloning is not exactly beneficial.



Contention 4: Commercial Endeavors


Cloning dead pets can be expensive. But adopting animals from shelters is a better choice.


Impact:


Cloning dead pets not beneficial because homeless pets in shelters can use a home, but fewer pets will be adopted.



Contention 5: Treatment for human diseases/ Biomedical Research


Opponent states we will never know if cloning can cure human diseases unless we try. But he does not show exactly the theory or the how cloning can be cures. So it’s like grasping in the dark.


Impact:


It’s better to at least have a theory before we act. Opponent does not have a theory, thus unable to show cloning has certain health benefits.




Cloning is not Beneficial


(At least from what Pro says, it’s hard to conclude it’s safe.)


Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by hilton16 4 years ago
hilton16
the last round is round 5. It's for "Defending your original arguments and conclusion." So for round 4 just go ahead and argue.
Posted by Shuhei0116 4 years ago
Shuhei0116
So what to do on last round?
Posted by hilton16 4 years ago
hilton16
I made a mistake in the setting before the debate by saying "round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)" i met round 5. Because i set the debate for 5 rounds.
Posted by hilton16 4 years ago
hilton16
Didn't have enough space to provide my sources. so i'll put it here...

http://www.nbcnews.com...
http://www.genome.gov...
http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk...
Posted by hilton16 4 years ago
hilton16
Lol, i said my opponent states...but it is you that i am debating. i didn't realize that.
Posted by hilton16 4 years ago
hilton16
Shuhei0116, my opponenet states and i quote..."-It is true that animal cloning is violating animal welfare, as this puts the sick and deformed clone and the surrogate in unneeded suffering." And i rebuttal telling him, "But this same animal right that were violating is beneficial for humans." As it is in the case of chicken, chicken have to go through suffering but at the end of the day we eat it. (beneficial for humans) same as it is, while we are violating animal rights, in the end we find cure for diseases that are beneficial for humans.
Posted by Shuhei0116 4 years ago
Shuhei0116
Pro, I don't really understand your first rebuttal. Can you please explain in the comments?
Posted by Sleezehead 4 years ago
Sleezehead
Cloning of animals is fine. Animal rights? we eat them. Maybe when we don't we can talk about animal rights.
Posted by hilton16 4 years ago
hilton16
yes
Posted by debate-a-doom 4 years ago
debate-a-doom
so con would have to prove that cloning animals is not beneficial?
No votes have been placed for this debate.