The Instigator
DebateSpirit
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Cloning human is unethical and unjust.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Kleptin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/8/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,947 times Debate No: 9451
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (32)
Votes (4)

 

DebateSpirit

Pro

I fail to see what cloning can do for humanity, therefore cloning human can be dangerous and create an unjust society.
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for starting this debate.

"I fail to see what cloning can do for humanity
therefore cloning human can be dangerous and create an unjust society."

This is a non sequitur fallacy
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org...

The fact that he fails to see what cloning can do for humanity has nothing to do with whether or not it is dangerous or creates an unjust society. It only shows that he fails in seeing what cloning can do for humanity.

Definition of human cloning:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Human cloning is the creation of a genetically identical copy of a human being (not usually referring monozygotic multiple births), human cell, or human tissue.

Since my opponent has not made any argument whatsoever in his first round, I shall make my arguments.

There are many ways in which cloning technology can help humanity.

1. Human body parts can be cloned in order to replace parts that have been damaged or mutilated.
2. Organ systems cloned in large numbers can be used for drug testing.
3. Replicating human body parts allows for great leaps in the sciences of biotechnology; augmenting the human body with technology.

Thank you, I await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 1
DebateSpirit

Pro

Thank you for my opponent argument, I shall reveal my point right now:

Cloning, based on the definition from the merriam-webster dictionary is:
1 : to propagate a clone from
2 : to make a copy of
( http://www.merriam-webster.com... )

Here are my opponent's first arguments:
1. Human body parts can be cloned in order to replace parts that have been damaged or mutilated.
2. Organ systems cloned in large numbers can be used for drug testing.
3. Replicating human body parts allows for great leaps in the sciences of biotechnology; augmenting the human body with technology.

I'm going to go one by one with these arguments.

"1. Human body parts can be cloned in order to replace parts that have been damaged or mutilated."
This we can consider as therapeutic cloning, which is the cloning of human organs to cure diseases, or as my opponent said to replace parts have been damaged or mutiplated, but let's us take a look at how it works:

1. Take a woman's ovum, and remove its DNA. This converts it to a form of human life into what is basically a factory for creating a pre-embryo.
2. Remove the DNA from a cell taken from a human, and inserting it into the ovum.
3. Giving the resulting ovum an electrical shock to start up its embryo making operation. In a small percentage of cases, a pre-embryo will be formed.
4. The pre-embryo is allowed to develop and produce many stem cells. So far, the procedure is identical to that used in adult DNA cloning. However, the pre-embryo is not implanted in a woman's womb in order to try to produce a pregnancy.
5. Stem cells are removed from the pre-embryo; this results in its death.
6. The stem cells would be encouraged to grow into whatever tissue or organ is needed to treat the patient. Stem cells are a unique form of human cell that can theoretically develop into many organs or body parts the body.
7. The tissue or organ would be transplanted into the patient

now let's look at the problems we would have:

Methods have to be developed that will cure or treat diseases with embryonic stem cells. This looks promising. Research with adult stem cells, which has been underway for many years, have shown great promise. Unfortunately, adult cells are limited in their application. Research using therapeutic cloning is a new field, but it has already shown that stem cells from embryos have much greater flexibility than adult stem cells.

Some believe that somatic cell nuclear transfer is sufficiently similar to normal conception with an egg and spermatozoa that a human person also comes into existence during therapeutic cloning. The process of extracting stem cells involves killing the embryo. To many pro-lifers, this is murder. They feel that murdering one person, the embryo, to cure another person of paralysis

As of 2003-MAR, therapeutic cloning is still in its early stages of development. Stem cells have sometimes mutated, and thus been rejected by the recipient's body. In other cases, at least with experiments on animals, they have produced tumors. It is obvious that therapeutic cloning will not be feasible until these deficiencies have been overcome.

Thomas Okarma, chief executive of Geron Corporation -- a leading stem-cell research establishment -- estimated that takes "100 eggs if you're lucky" to produce a useable stem cell line. 6 This means that if a cure for diabetes involving therapeutic cloning is found, it would take 1.5 billion eggs to cure the 15 million Americans who have diabetes. s. Even if and when techniques are found to reliably produce one custom stem cell line for each egg harvested from a woman, 15 million eggs would be required to completely wipe out diabetes. Extracting eggs from women is "painful, costly and unreliable."
( http://www.religioustolerance.org... )

"2. Organ systems cloned in large numbers can be used for drug testing."
t would rather be almost impossible, as included on my previous argument.

"3. Replicating human body parts allows for great leaps in the sciences of biotechnology; augmenting the human body with technology."
also included.

I hope I can see my opponent talks some more about the ethicity about this topic more, but thank you anyway and I'll await for my opponent new argument.
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for his response.

In his rebuttal, my opponent includes a lengthy analysis of the procedures entailed in the cloning of human body parts, ultimately leading into the following points:

A. "stem cells from embryos have much greater flexibility than adult stem cells"
B. "The process of extracting stem cells involves killing the embryo. To many pro-lifers, this is murder"
C. "It is obvious that therapeutic cloning will not be feasible until these deficiencies have been overcome."
D. "Extracting eggs from women is "painful, costly and unreliable."

This makes up the totality of his response.

Before I respond, I would like to call attention to the resolution of the debate:

"Cloning human is unethical and unjust"

I now ask the audience, do you see anything in this resolution pertaining to stem cell research? Scan through my opponent's first round. Do you see anything pertaining to stem cell research? Now, please take a look at my first round. Do you see any mention of stem cell research? What about in the definition of human cloning? Was stem cell research mentioned?

Nowhere in the resolution OR in the first round, was it mentioned that we were talking specifically about the process of using stem cells to clone humans. This debate is about the ethics of cloning. Period.

There is more than one way to skin a cat. My opponent should be talking about the ethics of skinning the cat in general, not the ethics of using a 6-inch knife with a serrated blade.

Human cloning, as of right now, is not possible. This means that we are discussing the ethics of human cloning should it be perfected in the future. In order to avoid further problems, I will propose the following:

Human cloning, for the purposes of the debate, can be performed through a magical Xerox machine. Now, we are not caught up with unnecessary red herrings, and we can focus on the ethics of what we were originally supposed to be focusing on.

My points, which my opponent has invalidated on a flawed basis, still stand.
Debate Round No. 2
DebateSpirit

Pro

Thank you for my opponent newly developed debate.

To begin with, I would like to explain why did I posted a long analysis about stem cell and therapeutic cloning. I was to rebut my opponent arguments about the three biggest point:
"1. Human body parts can be cloned in order to replace parts that have been damaged or mutilated.
2. Organ systems cloned in large numbers can be used for drug testing.
3. Replicating human body parts allows for great leaps in the sciences of biotechnology; augmenting the human body with technology."

Now I would like to jog into the main idea of this debate, the real topic and controversy: Is cloning human ethical?

I would like to ask my audience to picture this. Three-hundred years years later in the future, where human can be legally cloned by others. Now these are the analogies of what would happen if cloning is allowed.

1) A new time of enslavement will appear where this person will enslaves other person or maybe just a "clone", this is the problem that Abraham Lincoln had tried to do, created a whole Civil War, I honestly don't believe we should go through a Civil war again.
2) If all parents can clone there own children, maybe those who can't conceive children. Sound tempting, that new "cloned" child is really gonna be like you, same hair, same personality... But think of this ladies and gentlemen, what would happen to the orphans, the kids in the orphanages? If every female and male can just simply go out there, clone a child, then the need for adoptions will soon gone, do you want to see those kids live everyday and wish and wait for new parents and then to now know that their hopes are long gone?
3)Another posibility of cloning human can turn bad is that scientists can actually use these clones to test on them and find a new cure, flow with this logic it seem reasonable, but what if it's you? Do you really want that to happen to you? To be tested just because you're a clone, be mistreated and abused just because you're a clone? This is against the main sentence that American like President Lincoln, Dr.King had used, that famous sentence of George Washington: "All men were created equal.", by creating these clones can actually create another time of discrimination, as it was in the south back in the twenties, thirties...

My dear audience, what nature had designed, what God had designed, let it be there, keep it there, do not sabotage nature, or the consequence can be deadly.
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for his response.

My opponent has conceded that he wanted to use the "stem cell" tirade in order to rebut my points. I have shown why the mention of stem cells is unnecessary for a debate of this nature, and my opponent has stated his agreement by changing gears and offering arguments about the ethics of cloning.

Here are the points he stated:

1. Clones would be unjustly "enslaved", and it may lead to a Civil War.
2. The ability to clone would strand orphaned children.
3. Clones are essentially human, so anything I propose would be a violation of rights.

All three of these points can be negated simultaneously by answering this one question:

Why would we clone an entire human being?

I redirect both my opponent and the audience to the definition of human cloning I provided in the first round:

"Human cloning is the creation of a genetically identical copy of a human being (not usually referring monozygotic multiple births), human cell, or human tissue."

If I decide to clone a hand, it matches the definition of human cloning. If I decide to clone a foot, it matches the definition of human cloning. If I decide to clone a torso, a heart, two lungs, and a liver, it matches the definition of human cloning. Human cloning does not have to be the whole human, and I propose that the only type of cloning to be banned, is the cloning of the human brain.

If we decide only to clone the body and not the mind, there should be absolutely no problem. In essence, the clones we make would be no more than piles of meat.

1. Clones would be unjustly "enslaved", and it may lead to a Civil War.
2. The ability to clone would strand orphaned children.
3. Clones are essentially human, so anything I propose would be a violation of rights.

Now, ask yourselves this: How would unthinking piles of meat be unjustly enslaved, or fight a Civil War? Who would want to liberate unthinking piles of meat? What type of person would adopt an unthinking pile of meat to raise? And is a clone of a hand a human that derserves rights? Is a single cloned liver a human that deserves rights?

Even if we grow all the body parts of a human in a laboratory, with the sole exception of the central nervous system, it would cease to fulfill any ethical definition of "human". Thus, there is no immorality, no ethical problem.

I now call back my points, which I have been arguing since the very first round:

There are many ways in which cloning technology can help humanity.

1. Human body parts can be cloned in order to replace parts that have been damaged or mutilated.
2. Organ systems cloned in large numbers can be used for drug testing.
3. Replicating human body parts allows for great leaps in the sciences of biotechnology; augmenting the human body with technology.

Please notice that I was very careful in my language.

#1- I stated specifically that human BODY PARTS can be cloned, I never said that an entire human ever be cloned.
#2- I stated that organ SYSTEMS can be cloned, never all the organ systems at once.
#3- I stated that we can replicate human body parts, never that we need to replicate entire humans.

All of these points are valid and they still stand. My opponent has argued that these three points be negligible because the cloning of COMPLETE human beings would yield a number of ethical dilemmas. All ethical dilemmas he proposed have now vanished, since we are not talking about cloning entire human beings, but about cloning individual parts that have no consciousness or personality. My opponent should provide arguments why human cloning is unethical even if we do not clone the human brain or central nervous system.

I await my opponent's response. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
DebateSpirit

Pro

Thank you for my opponent new argument:

Now if we flow through his argument, it seems to make a lot of sense, but the reality is it's still grounded my point:

My opponent stated:

"Why would we clone an entire human being?

I redirect both my opponent and the audience to the definition of human cloning I provided in the first round:

"Human cloning is the creation of a genetically identical copy of a human being (not usually referring monozygotic multiple births), human cell, or human tissue."

If I decide to clone a hand, it matches the definition of human cloning. If I decide to clone a foot, it matches the definition of human cloning. If I decide to clone a torso, a heart, two lungs, and a liver, it matches the definition of human cloning. Human cloning does not have to be the whole human, and I propose that the only type of cloning to be banned, is the cloning of the human brain."

Yes, that's true, but now don't we still have the copy an entire identical human part? Are they? I believe so. You can find tons of reasons why should people clone another human being, maybe for military practice, medication testing..., we take for granted and can be very excessive. It's human nature, once you get the law to help you with something, you'll want more and more.

"Now, ask yourselves this: How would unthinking piles of meat be unjustly enslaved, or fight a Civil War? Who would want to liberate unthinking piles of meat? What type of person would adopt an unthinking pile of meat to raise? And is a clone of a hand a human that derserves rights? Is a single cloned liver a human that deserves rights?"
_ Very good and fierce argument, but a thinkable human being can indeed make a Civil War, and since human can have the right to clone another fellow human being, it actually can happens in reality.

"Even if we grow all the body parts of a human in a laboratory, with the sole exception of the central nervous system, it would cease to fulfill any ethical definition of "human". Thus, there is no immorality, no ethical problem."
_Well, since we're talking about create an identical human being which mean it will provides a fully grown hearts, lungs, kidney, brain..., I believe that creature is indeed can be called "human".

"1. Human body parts can be cloned in order to replace parts that have been damaged or mutilated.
2. Organ systems cloned in large numbers can be used for drug testing.
3. Replicating human body parts allows for great leaps in the sciences of biotechnology; augmenting the human body with technology."
_Don't we forget the risk of cloning actual living human being, that will increase the risk of:

1.Plague another Civil War or Discrimination war right in this world.
2.Unjust and unethical usage of the living human clones for lab mouse, military use...
3.Take away the chances of the little kids in the orphanage when couples who can't conceive children can easily apply for a clone kids that they like.

"#1- I stated specifically that human BODY PARTS can be cloned, I never said that an entire human ever be cloned."
-Yes, absolutely correct, but it does not prevent a higher risk that humanity will snatch this opportunity to clone actuaal human being, the fact that human can be able to clone a sheep foretell that we can also clone another human(fully living) as well.

"#2- I stated that organ SYSTEMS can be cloned, never all the organ systems at once."
_Yes, but it does not oppose the fact that organ systems at once can be cloned for several reasons.

"#2- I stated that organ SYSTEMS can be cloned, never all the organ systems at once."
_But we still can clone human, right?

"All of these points are valid and they still stand. My opponent has argued that these three points be negligible because the cloning of COMPLETE human beings would yield a number of ethical dilemmas. All ethical dilemmas he proposed have now vanished, since we are not talking about cloning entire human beings, but about cloning individual parts that have no consciousness or personality. My opponent should provide arguments why human cloning is unethical even if we do not clone the human brain or central nervous system."

Well my friend, human cloning as you stated has this little definition: ""Human cloning is the creation of a genetically identical copy of a human being...", as a human being can be defined as a "person", when we say a "person", it's a statement that point at a living species. If we are talking about human cloning, then it also included cloning a copy of human being, which you cannot deny, and indeed you'll need to also argue about that point of the stand, the fully definition, not just part of the definition.

Thank you and I'm waiting for my opponent new argument.
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for his response.

My opponent's entire post hinges on but a single point: My definition.

First, let us examine the definition one more time:

The creation of a genetically identical copy of a human being (not usually referring monozygotic multiple births), human cell, or human tissue.

This means that creation of the following three:

1. Genetically identical copy of a Human being
2. Genetically identical copy of a Human cell
3. Genetically identical copy of a Human Tissue

All three of them count as human cloning.

My opponent said that I am focusing only a part of the definition and that regretfully, I must focus on the whole.

Guess what? My opponent must do so too. And since he is the proponent and the instigator, the burden is his to carry, and I must only uphold my rebuttals to negate the resolution.

My opponent's argument is that he thinks there are ethical problems with #1, and therefore, there are ethical problems with human cloning in general, and completely IGNORES #2 and #3.

Remember, #2 and #3 also count as human cloning. How can my opponent fulfill the resolution in this manner?

There is nothing inherently immoral about giving someone a present. However, when that present is a grenade with the pin pulled out, THEN it becomes immoral. The fact that it is immoral to give someone a live grenade does not invalidate the morality of performing acts of giving. There are two parts of the act: Giving, and the danger of the grenade.

Similarly, there is nothing inherently immoral about human cloning. Not even the cloning of a complete person. The immorality comes from what happens AFTER the person is cloned. If we treat the cloned person just like a regular person, then there is no immorality.

My opponent argued that there would be enslavement. This has NOTHING to do with human cloning. My opponent is not giving evidence for why human cloning is immoral, he is giving evidence for why SLAVERY is immoral. We have the choice not to enslave clones.

My opponent argued that if we could clone children, it would be immoral to all the orphans. You know what? Maybe my opponent would like it if people who wanted to give birth to their OWN children should be jailed too. For every parent who decides to give birth to their own child, there goes another potential home for an orphan. My opponent is arguing everything *except* what he is supposed to be arguing.

My opponent argued that we would use complete human clones and mistreat and abuse them. Again, my opponent is NOT talking about the ethics of human cloning. He is talking about the ethics of mistreating and abusing people. After cloning people, we have the choice NOT to mistreat and abuse them. One thing does not immediately lead to another.

I believe that now, it is very clear why it is that my opponent's argument fails. I have shown that each and every single part of the three part definition is devoid of immorality in and of themselves. Nothing about cloning a human, a cell, or tissue, is immoral, nor does it immediately lead to anything immoral.

It is only the immoral acts that follow which my opponent has mentioned, and all of the immoral acts following from human cloning can follow from anything else.

I hope that for my opponent's last round, he FINALLY addresses my arguments about using human cloning for the good of mankind, and stop worrying about things that are not directly related to human cloning.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
DebateSpirit

Pro

I gracefully thank my opponent's new argument.

But there are lots of points that I slightly disagree with my opponent:

"There is nothing inherently immoral about giving someone a present. However, when that present is a grenade with the pin pulled out, THEN it becomes immoral. The fact that it is immoral to give someone a live grenade does not invalidate the morality of performing acts of giving. There are two parts of the act: Giving, and the danger of the grenade"
_ So my opponent here believe it is ok to give thee grenade for the present, just don't pull the pin, ok here are the problems with that analogy:
1) How can you give a grenade, a dangerous present to a person whom you loved?
2)What is the purpose of that grenade anyway if you can't pull the pin?
So let me make another analogy like that one, imagine I have a son, he's addicted to drug, badly, and in his 16th birthday(or any birth day, I don't care), I give him my present, when he opens that present, it's a bag full with heroin. Now can I say:"It's ok to give my BADLY ADDICTED kid that bag of heroin, just as long as he doesn't open it."? Giving is good, but you also must know the danger of that material that you give that person, either it had been already activated or not.(Hope you see that deeper meaning of this)

"Similarly, there is nothing inherently immoral about human cloning. Not even the cloning of a complete person. The immorality comes from what happens AFTER the person is cloned. If we treat the cloned person just like a regular person, then there is no immorality."
_Similarly, there's immoral about human cloning a complete person, as you have given the grenade to the hand of a little kid. He will pull the pin and the percentage is high. You can't give somebody something that you already know that it is dangerous, such as the grenade.

"My opponent argued that there would be enslavement. This has NOTHING to do with human cloning. My opponent is not giving evidence for why human cloning is immoral, he is giving evidence for why SLAVERY is immoral. We have the choice not to enslave clones."
_That's when it gone bad, back when the slavery laws of the African Americans had not be abolished my President Lincoln, do you think people still have choices to choose whether they can enslave the African American or not? That's what bad, the choice, they have the choice and I believe they will use that choice, as you state.

"My opponent argued that if we could clone children, it would be immoral to all the orphans. You know what? Maybe my opponent would like it if people who wanted to give birth to their OWN children should be jailed too. For every parent who decides to give birth to their own child, there goes another potential home for an orphan. My opponent is arguing everything *except* what he is supposed to be arguing."
_ I agree, sorry for this part of the argument.

"My opponent argued that we would use complete human clones and mistreat and abuse them. Again, my opponent is NOT talking about the ethics of human cloning. He is talking about the ethics of mistreating and abusing people. After cloning people, we have the choice NOT to mistreat and abuse them. One thing does not immediately lead to another."
_ Well, because we have a choice, that's what bad, because we tend to choose the wrong way, we tend to choose the unethical way and I believe once the clones are out, they will not be treated fully as a human.

Now I should ask my opponent and my fellow audience, what would happen us human are immortal, and can live as long as we want? Well, seems tempting but here's what will happen:
1) The increasing of population will push the earth toward an end, also all other organisms that co-exist with human will soon disappear too, the food webs get disrupted, human begin too become starved, thirst...
2)All the ways that nature preserves that God preserves to help decreasing human population(old age, sickness...) will soon negated by us human because we are immortal.

That's what will soon happen if we can clone, if we can just donor this for that, saving people's lives, people got cured, got strong again, maybe they won't be immortal, but the point is that the increasing of human will soon beyond the balance, causes the disrupt of nature and it's balance, human cloning as you say that is "ethical" can also create tons more of human, also add fuel to that big problem.

Thank you and I hope and pray my opponent will satisfies with this argument.
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for what has been a very good debate and will now conclude.

My opponent's last series of arguments are severely flawed.

First, my opponent decides to use my analogy. Yes, it is not very nice to give someone something that is dangerous, but the point is to show that the immoral outcome of a generally moral act does not need to come from the act. My opponent's arguments have all shown that immorality can come from human cloning, but not that human cloning in and of itself is immoral. By my opponent's logic, nothing would be moral, because there is always the case that something good can turn into something bad.

Simply put, all of my opponent's arguments are full of "Can, could, would, might", and devoid of "will, is, always". It's all guesswork and possibility.

Now, onto my opponent's individual arguments:

1. The choice of being able to enslave clones makes it inherently immoral.

Obviously false. I have the choice to enslave my opponent right now. A clone, as an identical human person, would be treated as an identical human person. How would we justify their enslavement? My opponent would have us believe that human cloning MUST lead to a sci-fi post apocalyptic bit of nonsense when he has absolutely no reason to believe this could happen. This point must be thrown out.

2. My opponent has conceded the point about orphans.

3. A repeat of #1. My opponent argues that because the choice will be there, then it is immoral. I hate to break it to you, but the choice is NOT there. Clones are still people and they will be protected by law. And that's only IF we decide to clone people. My opponent's arguments are too full of uncertainty and guesswork to be taken as actual arguments.

My opponent concludes with a grandiose address, asking what would happen if we were to abuse cloning. I now ask the audience, what would happen if we were to abuse anything? If my opponent wants to ban human cloning on the basis that it CAN be abused, we might as well ban everything, because EVERYTHING can be abused.

Then, he goes on to saying that if we use human cloning for all the good purposes I mentioned, it would lead to overpopulation and *that* would be immoral. Isn't it painfully obvious that my opponent is grasping at straws? If he's going to argue that, then I could just respond by saying that we should make clones and oppress them, just so they would have a nice civil war with us and curb our population, correct?

All joking aside, I have shown how the rational use of cloning can yield nothing but good results. The ability to clone human body parts and to cure diseases, to test drugs, to experiment with biotechnology, the ability to do all of the things that I stated which my opponent has (even at the end of this debate) NOT responded to, STILL STAND.

We don't have to make full human clones. We don't need to go crazy with cloning. We don't need to open up a can of worms. Despite what my opponent says, we can simply avoid doing that. We would still be using human cloning for all of the good, and not even the slightest chance of the bad. The possibility that things can go wrong is much smaller than the probability that things can go well.

If we abandon my opponent's chicken-little fears of the sky falling and examine this issue with rationality instead of inflated paranoia, we can see that human cloning is both ethical and just.

As I said before, my opponent's argument is full of CAN, but devoid of WILL. Anything *can* happen, but my opponent has no argument stating that whatever WILL happen, is immoral, unjust, or unethical. I have debunked each and every part of my opponent's arguments. He has nothing supporting his claim, whereas I have more than made my case both against my opponent's concerns and for all the good that human cloning can do for mankind, if it is used reasonably.

As such, I negate the resolution.

Thank you to my opponent and to the audience. I hope we can do this again.

VOTE CON.
Debate Round No. 5
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
Well that's irrelevant. That's like saying

"Spelling isn't important. I specialize in Religion, not science"

You should frame your debate no matter what you're arguing. It's not only good to do so to avoid semantic arguments, but you also tell your opponent exactly what to expect, so that the two of you can have a good debate.

It's up to you though.
Posted by DebateSpirit 7 years ago
DebateSpirit
I'm specialize as religion, so pardon me, this is my first science debate.
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
Haha, I already abused that pretty badly. The fact that he didn't frame anything in the first round meant that I had free range to do whatever I pleased XD

@DS

For further reference, it is a very bad decision for the instigator not to post anything of substance in the first round, because you should restrict how your opponent argues his position.
Posted by Freeman 7 years ago
Freeman
He makes himself appear vulnerable? Hmmm...... I think I have an idea.
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
I noticed that DS uses the tactic of making himself seem foolish in the first round in order to appear like an easy target. I decided to take advantage of this :)
Posted by Freeman 7 years ago
Freeman
"I fail to see what cloning can do for humanity, therefore cloning human can be dangerous and create an unjust society." -DebateSpirit

The very first sentence is fallacious in the extreme. It's just an argument from personal incredulity and it begs the question.
Posted by DebateSpirit 7 years ago
DebateSpirit
Scare you? They scare me, I have seen your arguments, it was prodigious, perfect, indeed they are works of art.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Talk about a backfire........... :P
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
You scared *me* instead XD
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
We were just trying to scare him a little, that's all. :)
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
DebateSpiritKleptinTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
DebateSpiritKleptinTied
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 DebateSpirit 7 years ago
DebateSpirit
DebateSpiritKleptinTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by comoncents 7 years ago
comoncents
DebateSpiritKleptinTied
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:33