The Instigator
Pro (for)
14 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

Entrepreneurs should be allowed breed hybrid hominids for profit

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: 3/26/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,568 times Debate No: 7561
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)




Since ancient times man has crossbred equine, bovine, porcine and canine animals to produce artificial species such as mules, dairy cattle, domestic pigs and working dogs. So why haven't we ever crossbred hominids?

Well, although chimpanzees and humans share 96% of their DNA (1) they are physically incapable of breeding with each other in the conventional manner. However, using modern fertility techniques it is possible to remove a fertilized egg from a pregnant chimpanzee, insert human DNA into it and implant it back into the mother's womb in order to produce a human / chimpanzee hybrid – a Humanzee™.

This new hominini subtribe (2) would combine the physical and mental characteristics of both species. Humanzees™ would have the physical appearance the intellectual capacity akin to that of one of humans' primitive ancestors such as Sahelanthropus tchadensis (3).

This process of artificial insemination would be repeated many times using different chimps as surrogate mothers and different humans' DNA. In this way, a sustainable breeding population of Humanzees™ would be established and the offspring of these animals would then be sterilised and sold on for cash.

These creatures would be in great demand: Humanzees™ would make ideal pets because they would be playful, loyal and loving. And what's more, they could earn their keep by performing simple household tasks such as washing the dishes or putting the vacuum on.

Furthermore, many commercial organisations that currently employ large numbers of low-skilled workers such as factories, mines and investment banks could also benefit from purchasing Humanzees™. By divesting themselves of much of their human workforce and replacing them with specially trained Humanzees™, employers would not only avoid having to pay their workers' wages but they would also only have to conform with animal welfare legislation rather than the far more complicated and expensive health and safety regulations that apply to humans.

The fact is, Western companies are currently unable to compete with firms from China and India who are able to take advantage of relatively low labour costs. However, if I get my way, all this will change. Yes, with my endless supply of affordable semi-skilled Humanzees™ I will pioneer the greatest reform of the labour market the West has seen since the industrial revolution - and make my shareholders rich beyond the dreams of Avarice in the process.

However, just as the Luddites protested against mechanisation during the industrial revolution (4), I also expect objections to my business model from unenlightened sections of today's society. That as why I am appealing to you, the voters, to pledge your backing for my scheme.

So, if you are pet owner and want to replace your boring old cat or dog with a funny little monkey-man, or if you are a factory owner and want to replace your expensive, troublesome workforce with cheap and reliable hybrid hominids, or if you merely want the opportunity to make a fortune by investing in the Humanzee™ project, please show your support by voting Pro.

Thank you.


1 -
2 -
3 -
4 -

Humanzee™ is a trademark of Eggleston's Ethical Industries Inc.


Though i do admit that the idea might be appealing to think about (i mean i even have to admit that it is cool). I would be against simply because of the fact that selling a species of humans would be unjust and immoral. Since my opponent is not using any LD form of debate then i guess we will stick to the basic refutation debate.
The gravest flaw with such an idea would be that it would be difficult to determine whether or not this specie should be recognized as a human or an animal. Which then begs the question, should this thing have rights? If the answer is yes, then you can disregard all that my opponent is advocating, because by selling these hybrids to companies and families, and by using them as slaves. But if you choose to say that it is not human at all therefore requires no rights, my opponent would then be degrading humanity and the sanctity of human rights. Even if it is a cross-breed it is still part human, which means it should have rights. If not then that means that in only "special circumstances" do our rights become important. Even then it would be unjust to allow animals to do our work for us, because it would promote a lazy welfare system, where instead of the government providing for our needs, we rely on animals to do our bidding. Even then we dont know for sure if these cross-breeds could act and think like humans even of they were cross-bred. Which would mean that we would have wasted money for nothing if these humanzees could not even work. Also if they could work, since they are not fully human, they do not have the total mind that makes human's human. Animals are ruled by instinct, humans have cognitive thought. What would the end result be if we mix these two? We dont know. That is why you must negate. Because we dont know what the results are, whether it should be treated as a human, and we dont know if we could even get the crossbreed to work like humans do.
Debate Round No. 1


May I thank my opponent for taking this debate, for his kind comments and also for adopting the more informal debating format that I feel most comfortable with.

First of all, I would like to address my opponent's contention that Humanzees™ may be entitled to human rights by proposing the following everyday scenario:

Imagine you are a gentleman taking a South Pacific cruise and the ship hits a reef and begins to take on water. As the vessel begins to list dangerously the captain gives the order to abandon ship.

"Women and children first" he cries.

Now the ship has 1,000 passengers and crew on board and there are exactly 1,000 places in the lifeboats, so nothing to worry about there and being something of a heroic fellow, you gallantly assist all the ladies and children into the lifeboats before turning your attention to the elderly gentlemen and disabled men. At last, all the passengers and crew are safely in the lifeboats except you and the captain, who climbs into the last lifeboat and sits down, thus leaving one seat free.

By this time the ship is almost completely submerged, the water on the deck is lapping around your ankles and you notice the sharks have begun to circle. As you attempt to clamber into the lifeboat the captain suddenly gets excited, points behind you and shouts: "bubbles, bubbles!"

At that moment an ape-like creature bounds along the flooded deck, leaps over your shoulders into the lifeboat and sits down in the last remaining seat.

"Hello Bubbles!" the captain croons, "We thought we'd lost you! Ooh! Who's a good boy, then, who's a good boy! Look, everybody" he continues, "It's Bubbles: Lady Wright-Farquin-Kant's pet Humanzee™. Her Ladyship will be so pleased he's safe, so pleased indeed that she'll probably give me a handsome reward!"

"Eh? But what about me?" you ask.

"Sorry sir, you'll have to take your chances with the sharks, it's women and children first, you see" the captain explains.

"But, that's not a woman, it's only a Humanzee™ and it's not even a female one" you protest.

"Ah, yes" says the captain as he pushes the lifeboat off with an oar "but it's under the age of 16, which makes it a child. 'Bye!"

And with that he leaves you to your watery fate.

Now, that would be no good would it? No good at all. Clearly Humanzees™ must be legally defined as animals otherwise they would be entitled to everything a human is including state welfare payments, free medical care, free schooling, etc. and that would be ridiculous.

Next, I must, with all due respect, contradict my opponent's suggestion that "it would be unjust to allow animals to do our work for us". Humans have always employed animals to do our work and provide for us, and indeed, bred them specifically for that purpose as I mentioned in Round 1. Where would America be without cowboys on horseback, for example? Cows were bred for meat and milk and were rounded up by men riding specially reared horses. I have a distinct presentiment that men riding penny-farthing bicycles trying to corral wild buffalo would have reaped few rewards for their efforts. Even today, animals such as police sniffer dogs and desert camels place a vital role in society.

Regarding the cognitive ability of Humanzees™, I estimate that while an adult would have an equal or greater degree of manual dexterity to that of an adult human but they would only have the mental age of an 8 year-old human child. This would mean that they would be capable of understanding and performing simple tasks but would need caring for, just as a domestic dog or a human child does. Of course they would have instincts, but these would be mitigated by the learning processes they will undergo, just as we educate a child that it is wrong to steal and kill and train a dog to sit and fetch.

Finally, I am obliged to concede that my Humanzee™ hominid hybrids' abilities and characteristics are not yet proved. That is why I am currently seeking business partners to help me develop this exciting and revolutionary new scheme. Specifically, I am seeking specialised embryologists to see this project through to fruition, the result of which will be of enormous benefit, not only to my fortunate shareholders, but also mankind in general.

Thank you.


Bushido forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Just to reiterate, because a Humanzee™ may have some human genes that doesn't it human. To illustrate this point I should like to ask the voters to consider the following analogies:

The Porsche 911 evolved directly from the 1937 Volkswagen Beetle, but you wouldn't describe it as a "Nazi staff car" would you?

Next, let's say you walked into a delicatessen to buy a sandwich for lunch and on the blackboard one particular filling took your fancy:

"Succulent slices of slow-roasted, honey-glazed wild boar topped with the finest quality mozzarella cheese made from organic buffalo milk - $10.00"

$10.00 is a bit pricey but it sounds delicious so you order it. However as the server prepares your sandwich you notice that she is taking the meat out of a container labelled "Value Pack Wafer-Thin Honey Roast Ham (made with mechanically-recovered pork with added water)" and the cheese is from a tub labelled "Economy Range Processed Cheese Spread (made with reconstituted milk solids with added vegetable oils)".

Now, even though the server pointed out that the ham came from pigs and pigs were originally bred from wild boar and that the cheese came from cows and cows were originally bred from buffalo, I think you'd have every right to complain.

Similarly, say a British movie company wanted to remake the classic film "American Werewolf in London" but they couldn't't afford a Hollywood actor to play the lead role so they got an aspiring thespian from the West Bromwich and District Amateur Dramatic Society, and they couldn't afford to film on location in London so they shot the film on an industrial estate just off the A1(M) in Hertfordshire, and they couldn't afford a real wolf so they had to borrow the director's neighbour's lapdog instead. Should they have released it with the original title or would "Brummie Werepoodle in Stevenage " have been more honest? I think the latter, don't you?

In the final analysis, a Humanzee™ would be no more entitled to human rights than a chimp.

Thank you.


Bushido forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by tvann5m 8 years ago
kinda messed up could you imagine what a monkey with human DNA inserted in it would be like?
\Just imagine the kind of monster that could be created, and even if it did succeed, and it was able to understand basic human emotions than why would we possibly want to put someone under such intensive scientific study it would be cruel and inhumane.
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
+ Conduct to PRO 'cause forfeiting aint cool.

+ English to PRO 'cause even I capitalize I.

+ Argument to PRO 'cause he made several unrefuted points.

+ Sources to PRO 'cause he had sources, whereas CON did not.
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
@ PRO's R2: Lol.
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
Definitely I want to own one.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
Definitely too dopey a topic.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
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 s0m31john 8 years ago
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 PoeJoe 8 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70