The Instigator
chi
Pro (for)
Losing
16 Points
The Contender
oboeman
Con (against)
Winning
44 Points

Cloning should stay banned

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: 8/8/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,533 times Debate No: 4949
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (4)
Votes (15)

 

chi

Pro

Cloning shoould be banned because the idea goes against the bible. In Genesis chapter 1 God created Earth and the stars, animals, and man. God created life not us, so God is the only one that should create humans not us make copies of ourselves.

Although there are numerous medical advances that would happen if we could clone. They would be human so any testing we would do on them would be the same as testing on you or me.

The art of cloning hasn't been fixed yet. 1 or 2 out of 100 of the clones actually life. See http://www.ornl.gov... for the facts on that.
oboeman

Con

Greetings to my opponent, chi.

To begin, I assume that the resolution refers to United States policy, as it was left unclear.

"Cloning [should] be banned because the idea goes against the bible."

Well, there are two ways in which I can counter this point made by my opponent.

First, the idea does not necessarily go against the bible itself. In my opponent's argument, it is seemingly an implicit meaning of why the bible might be against cloning. However, I ask for my opponent to supply, if there are any, explicit reasons as to why the bible is against cloning. Does it say anything about the process of cloning itself?

Second, even if the bible was against cloning is not a valid reason to ban it. Regardless of whether the bible is or is not against the concept, it is no reason to make United States policy based on it. This is and should be a secular nation. It would be illogical to include biblical reasoning for United States policy. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, such historic documents can be interpreted on a variety of accounts, which makes things somewhat hazy and unclear. Secondly, simply because something might have been stated hundreds of years ago (and would be difficult to prove it was meant at all) does not mean it is right or true. And our government ought to do what is right for its society/country. To infer that which is right to include biblical interpretations in American law would thus be a logical fallacy (argumentum ad verecudiam). This logical fallacy refers to the appeal or argument to authority. Simply because an important figure states something to be true does not make it so. Thus, cloning could still be just. It is also a logical fallacy to assume that the bible is effective in politics at the current time. For example, merely because some have followed it for many centuries does not make its ideas at the current infallible. This fallacy (argumentum ad antiquitatem) is the appeal to tradition or antiquity. That which is right ought to be deduced and derived at the current time.

"Although there are numerous medical advances that would happen if we could clone. They would be human so any testing we would do on them would be the same as testing on you or me."

Cloning does not exclusively refer to humans. However, even so, advances in human cloning can be tested on less cephalized animals. The thing is, many animals are similar in anatomy and physiology to humans.

I would also like to clarify that human cloning does not necessarily mean making more humans, but instead helping humans and ameliorating the society as a whole. That is, the field of cloning may be of use to organ transplants and such as well.

"The art of cloning hasn't been fixed yet."

There have been, importantly, many advances in the fields of cloning research. However, because some aspects might not be at an optimal level yet does not mean it should be banned. Instead, perhaps it should be more encouraged, to better the processes of cloning. Thus, cloning should generally be legal in the United States, on the premise of logic itself.

I await the remaining round,
Oboeman.
Debate Round No. 1
chi

Pro

"The idea is not necessarily against the bible"

Of course the bible has nothing to say about cloning beause it was writen thousands of years ago. but as all great documents in history it was writen to be intpreted. The bible states that humans do not have the powere to create life only God.

"Regardless of whether the bible is or is not against the concept, it is no reason to make United States policy based on it. This is and should be a secular nation."

The second part of of this statement is false. this country was founded on christian principles and the bible. Most of the major colleges in the US (Oxford, Yale, and Harvard) were based on these principles to. It was like that untill the seperation of church and state. The only reason this country has fallen into this moral slop is because we have become lazy in our values. This lack of ideals has made us un-american.

"I would also like to clarify that human cloning does not necessarily mean making more humans, but instead helping humans and ameliorating the society as a whole."

How can we get those organs to be transplants unless we clone humans/ the definition of cloning is to create an identical reproduction of a single cell. If we are to do these transplants then we would be growing them not cloning.
oboeman

Con

"Of course the bible has nothing to say about cloning beause it was writen thousands of years ago."

That is my point right there. The fact that is does not explicitly mention cloning technologies makes biblical interpretations irrelevant. It would be an unreliable source to derive a valid decision from.

"but as all great documents in history it was writen to be intpreted."

Alright, perhaps at the time it was originally written, it may have been meant to be interpreted. However, simply because it may have been meant to be interpreted for future usage does not necessarily mean it should currently be.

"The bible states that humans do not have the powere to create life only God."

If that were the case, then humans defy the bible each and every day. In order to produce new life, humans reproduce. This power resides in the power of the reproductive systems in humans. Thus, humans do indeed have the power to create new life. In fact, even every second a new cell is formed in humans, new life is created. Indeed, humans do have the power to create life. For all these reasons mentioned, they already invalidate my opponent's claim, nullifying the instigator's argument.

"The second part of of this statement is false. this country was founded on christian principles and the bible. Most of the major colleges in the US (Oxford, Yale, and Harvard) were based on these principles to. It was like that untill the seperation of church and state. The only reason this country has fallen into this moral slop is because we have become lazy in our values. This lack of ideals has made us un-american."

The point is, regardless of whether or not this country was founded upon religious principles or not, a secular nation SHOULD still be/continue to be implemented. As well, the major universities mentioned by my opponent, though they may have been founded upon religious affiliations, eventually became secular in nature. However, even if the contrary were true, it would not support my opponent's argumentation, as it would be fallacious. The logical fallacy being used could be considered argumentum ad verecundiam, the appeal or argument to authority. That is, merely because a major university had such affiliation does not justify a country doing the same.
Regarding the separation of church and state, it allows the country to have logical values, rather than religious ones. Logical values are values inherent and ameliorative to all of the society, while religious ones may only serve a selective, small population. It is better, and more logical, to serve the society as a whole, instead of only the religious. Again, values can still be adhered to in a secular nation, having just as much merit, if not more, than that of a non-secular nation. The concept of ideals works just the same.
Again, I am not so sure what the explicit truth is on the nation being founded upon religious values, but it would be irrelevant anyhow. Even if it were founded upon any religious principles, all that would do is give an illogical rational to lawmakers as they create bills; essentially, this country has multiple religions, and no single one of them is dominant over any others, therefore, it can be derived that incorporating religion, while the nation has freedom of religion, into federal laws is completely unreasonable and ridiculous. The purpose of government is to do what is best for its entire society as a whole collective, not just of a particular religion. That would be discriminatory, which is unethical. Thus, the separation between religion and government is of essence.

"How can we get those organs to be transplants unless we clone humans/ the definition of cloning is to create an identical reproduction of a single cell. If we are to do these transplants then we would be growing them not cloning."

The organs could come from stem cells (whether adult, embryonic, or similar reproducing cells), upon working to create optimal efficiency in cloning technological methodology. The definition of cloning, though, can be considered to create an identical reproduction of a single cell. However, I think conventional methods still technically have the egg cell's mitochondrial DNA. However, even so, in order to minimize the potential of tissue/organ rejection as an immune response, it could prove useful to clone (same genes) in order to produce valuable tissues/organs necessary. These results could yield countless successes, and save many lives. The point is, though, here, that cloning technologies would still be necessary to generate new tissues or organs awaiting transplants.

Cloning is thus a valuable tool for the society, and should be encouraged by the government.
Logic dictates a CON vote.
I would also ask that potential voters, if they would like to, leave comments regarding their vote preference and reasons for it for this debate.

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate, as well,
Oboeman
Debate Round No. 2
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by lawyer_in_training 8 years ago
lawyer_in_training
So because of that artificial cloning should be banned?
Posted by jlholtzapple 8 years ago
jlholtzapple
reproduction was a punishment because of Adam and Eve eating off the apple tree so God placed reproduction a a punishment. ( God is creating humans)
Posted by jlholtzapple 8 years ago
jlholtzapple
natural reproduction NATURAL what does natural mean well it means produced by nature not artificial. So lawyer in training cloning is sientifical not natural
Posted by lawyer_in_training 8 years ago
lawyer_in_training
Cloning can also be considered the reproduction of humans and the bible is ok with that. "Thou shall be fruitful and reproduce"

and I am Christian and i did not read everything above but these "clones" can be used for something good, something just, and something godly.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
chioboemanTied
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 thejudgeisgod 8 years ago
thejudgeisgod
chioboemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 tywatson09 8 years ago
tywatson09
chioboemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:33 
Vote Placed by adamh 8 years ago
adamh
chioboemanTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Arnaud 8 years ago
Arnaud
chioboemanTied
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 chi 8 years ago
chi
chioboemanTied
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 jlholtzapple 8 years ago
jlholtzapple
chioboemanTied
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 Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
chioboemanTied
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 Puck 8 years ago
Puck
chioboemanTied
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 Katie01 8 years ago
Katie01
chioboemanTied
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