Debate Rounds (5)
This is my first debate, so the ideia isn"t quite original or anithing like that, but I would like to see if someone can try to argue with me on that.
First, I would like to mention a movie, "The Island", a very good movie, I don"t know if you ever saw it, but it is about the creation of clones is a research base, without them knowing that they are clones, or that are live besides the base, because they"re to believe in the extintion of human specie. They are used to extract organs for the "real" one. This makes a lot of ethical questions. This isn"t moral.. We can"t be here playing god, that"s not why we are here. We are here to live and manage our lives, not to create and destroy the life of others.
In a way it"s good, but imagine the side effects.. Imagine you are the clone. Its better to stay the way we are, instead of jump into an abism where we don"t see the bottom.
What is immoral about cloning? You haven't made any arguments, you have merely told me to think about how my life would be if so was a clone... Please give me more to work with next round. And please have some way to prove your claims mate. Why can't I "Play god" I know you're new, but you have to at least explain your reasoning. Thanks, Pro.
Then, I shall give you multiple *advantages* of cloning.
1. To help infertile couples have children (This would include couples of the same gender, and couples who are just unable to have a child)
Why not help these couples?
2. To replace a deceased child
Let's look at different uses of cloning. This will include a variety of categories.
Why should we not help replace the child con?
3. Reproducing a Deceased PetAlthough cloning is extremely expensive, if one had lost a pet then they would be able to revive them. you could clone your cat. At least one biotechnology company in the United States offers cat cloning services, and they are now working to clone dogs. Why not clone the family pet?
4. Cloning for the stem cell researches:
"(CNN) -- A human embryo, containing about a couple hundred cells, is smaller than the period at the end of a sentence. Scientists need strong microscopes to see these precursors to life, and to take from them stem cells, which have the potential to become any cell in the body" This is showing that if we clone cells, we can help people regenerate things such as a lost arm perhaps. Why not clone for medical researches? Is this immoral?
5. Cloning for food: Why not clone for more food? Animals such as cows, sheep, goat, etc... Are being "genetically engineered" to create healthier food. Pretty much like creating animal models of disease, cloning might be a faster way to produce large herds of genetically engineered animals. Why not clone for food?
6. There are multiple ways cloning could be handy. Cloning, although expensive, is very useful to us.
Have fun mate.^
Ok, firts of all, scientist now, face many problems already with cloning with success, I"m not an expert in this field, but working and manipulating genetics is very hard, and even if they could increase the odds of success, problems can arise during the clone's development, both before and after pregnancy. With the creation of a clone, scientist face a problem bigger than we could ever imagine. This is the first problem. If they try to overcome this obstacle, they are spending too much money in something that isn"t 100% certain to make it work, and while this, other problems in Earth are left aside, when in the opinion of most of the people I talk with, should be a priority. Its like Space Exploration..
From that, comes more questions.. Ethical, social and legal questions.
-Who has the right to have children, no matter how they are created?
-Is human cloning "playing with nature?"
-Does cloning to create stem cells, also called therapeutic cloning, justify destroying a human embryo?
-If a clone originates from an existing person, who is the parent?
-What are some of the social challenges a cloned child might face?
-Do the benefits of human cloning outweigh the costs of human dignity?
-Should cloning research be regulated?
With all this questions, wouldn"t be easier to stay out of this unknow subject? Does this create the changes in society that we really want? I guess not...
With all this questions, it comes many advantages, just so you can see that its better stay this way, and try to find other ways so solve some problems you mentioned. Like you say it can regenerate an arm for example. Nowadays, we have a solution for this. Bionic elements, like arms, legs.. And this didn"t made such a problem to society..
-The possibility of compromising individualities.
-Loss of genetic variation.
-A "black market" of fetuses may arise from desirable donors that will want to be able to clone themselves, i.e., movie stars, athletes, and others.
-Clones may be treated as second-class citizens.
-Unknown psychosocial harms with impacts on the family and society.
Don"t we have more disavantages than advantages?
You can try to fool me and others who will read this, but deep down, you will know that clones are not the solution, and that human society is not ready to embrace such a bit change.
Your questions, my answer.
-Who has the right to have children, no matter how they are created? Anyone does. Why not?
-Is human cloning "playing with nature?" Do you mean playing god? No, I don't believe in a god and you cannot enforce your believes onto others by saying that your religion will not allow this, it is not fair. Why not clone someone? So what if it's against nature?
-Does cloning to create stem cells, also called therapeutic cloning, justify destroying a human embryo? If someone donates the fetus, then it is justified. It is justified to donate blond as well.
-If a clone originates from an existing person, who is the parent? The... Existing person.
-What are some of the social challenges a cloned child might face? I don't know, why would the other kids care? Why would the clone tell anybody? What does this have to do with your arguments? Every body will get bullied at some point.
-Do the benefits of human cloning outweigh the costs of human dignity? Yep.
-Should cloning research be regulated?
This yet again has nothing to do with your arguments.
Con has a very weak case, no evidence, and therefor has made his argument purely opinionated.
Just because you think it's bad, doesn't mean everyone else must now agree with you.
MiguelV forfeited this round.
MiguelV forfeited this round.
Conduct: FF, mostly results in a lost of conduct. It should go to Con.
S/G: Should be pretty obvious. This goes to me as well. "firts"
Arguments: He made a FF, and was able to be on, so I would call that a concession. He never addressed all of my arguments in the second round, so this needs to be awarded to me as well.
I used the only source...
I thank pro for the short debate, and encourage all readers; vote con!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by kbub 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit. Also, Con, questions aren't arguments. Your position would be stronger by turning them into statements, such as "cloning is unethical." Not all of them would win, but some would. Asking your opponent the answer to the topic question is a very bad idea.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.