The Instigator
morgan2252
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
LatentDebater
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Embryonic Stem Cell Research Should be Expanded

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 5 votes the winner is...
LatentDebater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/26/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,943 times Debate No: 29574
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (5)

 

morgan2252

Pro

First round is for accceptance, second is for opening arguments only, third round is for rebuttal, and the fourth round is for rebuttal and conclusion only. There will be no new arguments in the last round.
LatentDebater

Con

The burden of proof is on you.

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
morgan2252

Pro

As you may or may not know, stem cells can copy themselves and develop into the body's different types of cells. However, there's a reason many think embryonic stem cells could be more useful than adult ones. Adult stem cells are multipotent; in other words, they can only turn into cells of that specific cell type. Meanwhile, embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, meaning they can turn into ANY of the body's cell types. As you can see this would definitely be more flexible than adult stem cells.

But what about abortion itself? Embryonic stem cell research could not expand without abortion. Many talk about how abortion takes away life, but ignore some key facts:
  • The risk of a woman's death is lower in a modern abortion procedure than if she gives birth. Her chance of dying in an abortion is less than one in 100,000. The risk of a woman's death if she gives birth is 13.3 in 100,000.
  • Abortion can lower crime. Criminals are often raised poor. Women who have unintended pregnancies also end up with their children being raised poor. According to Procon.org, "Some estimates claim that legalized abortion accounted for as much as 50% of the drop in murder, property crime, and violent crime between 1973 and 2001." Less criminals and murderers in the world would mean more lives saved.
  • Stem cell research already saves lives and is being used to treat diseases like leukemia. It could also help us find cures for over 70 major diseases and save millions of lives.


So why abort an "innocent human being?" (And the embryo isn't really that innocent, considering that it is most likely going to become a criminal.) Think of the facts. If we could continue stem cell research, for every abortion, we would save another life. If this occurs, it will create something of an equlibrium; no lives added, no lives taken away. But in addition, we would save more women's lives because they are less likely to die in an abortion. And finally, the lives of innocent civilians would be saved because the crime rate would go down. So, if we continue abortion and stem cell research, we would in fact be saving MORE lives than if we abolished abortion. If you look at it this way, there would be less life with "pro-life." Expanding embryonic stem-cell research could save more lives than ever before.

Please vote pro!

Sources:
http://www.americansforcures.org...
http://abortion.procon.org...

LatentDebater

Con

My primary issue is the that as it stands there is sufficient embryonic stem cell research and it needn't be expanded. It already is covering transplants, therapy and many other factors of genetics and to expand it is unnecessary (which pro never explained) all you explained was that it's a good line of research, not that it in any way needs expansion.

There is a comedic point raised that the crime rate would go down. However I can easily say that most mind-blowing artists, scientists, writers and essentially anyone of a rather spectacular level of ingenuity cannot be determined whatsoever by their upbringing and almost always their upbringing was somewhat unusual but doesn't have a set pattern to what it should be. thus, we could most definitely be getting rid of people genetically predisposed to be the next Einstein or something of the likes.
Debate Round No. 2
morgan2252

Pro

My opponent says, “There is a comedic point raised that the crime rate would go down.” But the fact is, it isn’t comedic. Women who have unplanned pregnancies are more likely to become poor and have poorer children. Studies show that crime rates are higher among the poorer community. According to Jacksonfreepress.com,

  • Lower-class youth commit four times more violent crimes than middle-class youth.
  • The total cost of crime in the U.S. is $2 trillion per year—$1.3 trillion comes from street crime and the remainder from economic crimes such as fraud.
  • The victimization costs of street crime are approximately $700 billion per year.
  • Poverty raises the cost of crime by at least $170 billion annually.
  • Fifty-three percent of people in prison earned less than $10,000 per year before incarceration.”

Studies also show that embryonic cells can indeed cure cancer. If we do more research, we can find cures for other diseases. According to Americansforcures.org, “Stem cells hold the promise of treatments and cures for more than 70 major diseases and conditions that affect millions of people, including diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, cancer, multiple sclerosis, Lou Gehrig's Disease (ALS), spinal cord injuries, blindness, and HIV/AIDS.”

My opponent said that in the last round I merely explained it was a good line of research and didn’t need expansion. He
also says, “It already is covering transplants, therapy and many other factors of genetics and to expand it is unnecessary.” But my opponent ignores the fact that, as I mentioned above, there are at least 70 diseases that need to be cured. Stem cell
research needs to expand because there is definitely a potential to cure those diseases. How can you say it won’t work or we don’t need to when we haven’t even tried?

As I explained in my last postd in my argument above, embryonic stem cell research needs to expand because it can save lives!

Conduct:

My opponent uses the second round to rebut against my initial argument instead of presenting his opening argument despite the fact that I clearly stated “second is for opening arguments only” in the first round.

Vote pro.

Sources:

http://www.jacksonfreepress.com...

http://phys.org...

LatentDebater

Con

My opponent has argued that abortion is a good idea not that stem cell embryonic stem cell research should be expanded. This is extremely irrelevant to debate and as much as the child could be a criminal, they could equally be the next Shakespeare or Mozart.

Stem Cell Research is fine as it is and is at an adequate level. It needn't be expanded.

Abortion is a separate debate topic altogether.
Debate Round No. 3
morgan2252

Pro

My opponent completely ignores my last two posts. He says, “My opponent has argued that abortion is a good idea not that stem cell embryonic stem cell research should be expanded.” However, in my last post, I clearly said,

“Embryonic stem cell research needs to expand because it can save more lives!”

My opponent also states, “This is extremely irrelevant to debate and as much as the child could be a criminal, they could equally be the next Shakespeare or Mozart.” Two things are wrong with this claim. (1)This is very relevant to the debate, considering that it is a minor way that, once again, lives can be saved because of the drop in crime. (2) My opponent says they could equally be the next Shakespeare or Mozart without any solid proof or statistic. I do agree there is a small chance they could be great like this, however, statistics show that there is more of a chance that they will be criminals if they are poor rather than the middle and upper class. I have yet to see something that actually proves this wrong.

My opponent says, “Stem Cell Research is fine as it is and is at an adequate level. It needn't be expanded.” False. If stem cell research expands, we can keep finding cures to even more diseases. And besides, is being "adequate" really enough? If we can take that extra step, we can go beyond being simply "adequate." It would be well worth the time.

“Abortion is a separate debate topic altogether.” Also false. Abortion and embryonic stem cell research go hand in hand, considering that you need an abortion for that type of research. In fact, the controversial part of embryonic research is the fact that a baby needs to be aborted in order for it to happen.

My opponent refutes my arguments even after I have proven them wrong, and lacks a clear, strong base argument. I have yet to see why it should not be expanded, other than the claim, “it isn’t necessary because it is just fine the way it is.” Please provide proof or some sort of statistic before you make your claim.

I rest my case. Vote pro!!
LatentDebater

Con

You take a sperm and an egg and make a test tube baby... Voila. Majority of embryonic stem cell research is in vitro fertilisation and isn't abortion they are two entirely different ethical matters.

My opponent said expanding it could save more live but the rate that it is currently going at is sufficient to save enough lives in the future because it covers curing all diseases already there is nothing inherently limiting nor damaging to the field if we don't expand it past what it is today. It is already growing at a steady pace so to accelerate or expand it's field of study it pointless and a waste of time and energy.

I don't quite understand how because it can be a criminal we shouldn't let a baby be born and I don't quite see how that's relevant to this debate because it's about poor women aborting...
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by morgan2252 4 years ago
morgan2252
No answer?
Posted by morgan2252 4 years ago
morgan2252
No. In this case, the burden of proof is on you. Tell me what is wrong with government funding.
Posted by LatentDebater 4 years ago
LatentDebater
It needs to be justified. You didn't meet your burden of proof.
Posted by morgan2252 4 years ago
morgan2252
How was I supposed to if you didn't even bring it up yourself?

And besides, what is so wrong with government funding?
Posted by LatentDebater 4 years ago
LatentDebater
This would require additional government funding which you never once justified the requirement of.
Posted by morgan2252 4 years ago
morgan2252
But we could spread the idea of stem cell research far and wide, curing more people. It isn't exacly practiced that much right now. We could expand it, increase practice, and save millions of lives.
Posted by LatentDebater 4 years ago
LatentDebater
because it is already working towards curing the diseases as well as it can.
Posted by morgan2252 4 years ago
morgan2252
Tell me why it needs to be maintained. You say it needs to stay the same, but never give an explanation why.
Posted by LatentDebater 4 years ago
LatentDebater
You were trying to (unsuccessfully) prove that abortion is ethical. In the mean time you never once addressed my point that while stem cell research is ethical, it merely needs to be maintained as opposed to expanded.
Posted by morgan2252 4 years ago
morgan2252
Also, stem cells are not 'wasted' in a test tube. Studies have found that they can provide cures for cancer, and as I said in the debate a billion times, they can save lives.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by youmils03 4 years ago
youmils03
morgan2252LatentDebaterTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Wasn't a particular exciting debate for me. I wanted to see more of a debate on whether or not embryonic stem cell research should be EXPANDED. It was more about the morality of abortion, which I found irrelevant and uninteresting. Conduct is tied because neither side repsonds to the issue at hand sufficiently. Pro wins spelling and grammar because they're both more accurate. Pro wins convincing arguments because he/she uses statistics AT LEAST show that legal abortion is advantageous while Con has no contention-level arguments. Finally, Pro wins reliable sources because he/she provides sources in the first place. To both debaters: you will not win debates in the future if you do not argue something that is topical and direct. Con could have argued that stem cell research should be MAINTAINED but not expanded. Think about economic arguments, social arguments, and plans for implementing/negating the resolution. I agree more with the Con side but think that Pro wins the debat
Vote Placed by lit.wakefield 4 years ago
lit.wakefield
morgan2252LatentDebaterTied
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:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to Con because Pro did not fulfill her burden of proof, but instead argued about a completely unrelated topic. She provided no evidence to support her claim that "Expanding embryonic stem-cell research could save more lives than ever before." Also, I thought it was a bit hypocritical for Pro to demand "support for your statistic" when she failed to provide any for her assertion. Sources to Pro for being the only one to use sources. Conduct to Con because even though he didn't follow the opening argument requirement, Pro's argument was completely related, as Con pointed out and because of Pro's "please vote for me"s
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
morgan2252LatentDebaterTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with pro on principle, but the abortion angle is absurd. Modern stem cell research doesn't even rely on embryonic cells, so the point is moot. Since her entire case rested on the abortion point, Con wins arguments; and conduct to Con for Pro trying to make the debate about abortion.
Vote Placed by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
morgan2252LatentDebaterTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con simply never showed that embryonic stem cell research was sufficient where it is at, while pro was able to make the argument that accelerated research would save more lives. Con also used less sources, but I will only grant 1 point for that (conduct), because there is not much they could have sourced.
Vote Placed by YYW 4 years ago
YYW
morgan2252LatentDebaterTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter youmils03's vote. The only reason he voted PRO was because CON didn't argue it the way he would have. That said, CON wins otherwise because PRO's arguments did not address the resoloution that PRO was obliged to uphold. This was about stem cell research, not abortion. CON wins because PRO failed to satisfy BOP. And I maintain my counter to youmills03 for reasons noted in comments and above.