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

Eugenics: Right or Wrong?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/30/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,075 times Debate No: 33078
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)




My Argument:

Eugenics- the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).

Eugenics is an immoral practice that should be banned in all countries. Even though the practice does not present itself a daily it is still being practiced and abused for the benefit others in other countries including India, China, and United States.

I feel that subjecting some to eugenics because of their negative or undesirable traits is wrong. Who are you to say that someone's traits are undesirable.

Undesirable - Not wanted or desirable because harmful, objectionable, or unpleasant: "the drug's undesirable side effects".


i agree that no one has right to say that other's trait is undesirable and should be discouraged to reproduce.
but at the same time i will say that eugenics should be practiced in a very controlled see many people leads miserable life just because they have inherited incurable disease from their parent for no fault of their own.NO
parent will ever want such miserable life for their children.Then what is wrong if such undesirable trait is not allowed
to be transferred from one generation to another.
Debate Round No. 1


My opponent believes that controlled eugenics is okay.

Controlled and not controlled it is still an inadequate practice. Why do we feel the need to fix everyone. People who are diagnosed with diseases such as cancer, influenza, Parkinson's disease,etc. it is a horrific thing. However, we should not end their lineage because they acquire these sicknesses.

1.) They did not ask for them.
2.) The disease could be biological. (In which case they could not control getting the disease themselves.)
3.) What if that person does not feel the need to die because of their sickness. (You may have cancer but you are doing everything you can to further or even get rid of it.)

It is not one's fault because they have either acquired or inherited such diseases. So should it be up to those who are "desirable" to determine the demise of those who are "undesirable'. Who are you to say so?

What are the benefits of eugenics:

1.) Average intelligence increase

(With all of the outstanding media, technology, entertainment, and other distractions that account for the "below intelligence" rate this argument is completely inadequate.) Unless we plan on getting rid of Housewives of Beverly Hills, Disney Channel, Black Ops, cell phones, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. our intelligence rate will remain the same and decrease even more over the years allowing the practice of eugenics or not.

2.) No genetic disorders present

This may be true. No genetic disorders will lead to a healthy human race. However, this will no doubt cause over- over- population (being that we are already an overpopulated Earth).

In order for others to survive, many must die. As heartless as it sounds, we all know that this is true. Not everyone can live long and it is essential that others die so that the world can maintain a constant flow of living.

Approx. 2013:
Numbers of Death a Day (Worldly): 81,629
Numbers of Birth a Day (Worldly): 191,215

As you can see on a daily we are birthing approximately half of the population of those who are dying on a daily. Maybe this is the reasoning for world's outrageous 7,114,072,972 population...

I am not a heartless person by the way. However, at this point in time we don't need any type of practice that will increase the chances at an even bigger world population. We need more people dying than living right now...


firstly i would advice my opponent to have a rational point ofview on topic like this which can be very misleading .you can't keep on saying it is morally incorrect without using your sense. nobody is advocating killing of the person concerned.In fact it is shocking ,morally unacceptable and inhuman way of interpreting it . It is not the only way of practicing it.there are plenty other ways like genetic engineering.
we should be rational and liberal enough to make use of the advancements in science.Through proper manipulation
of gene we would be able to get rid of that segment of gene responsible for genetic disease .Further we may be able to introduce traits that would make human more adaptive and healthier .
Don't you think it is illogical ,irrelevant and insensitive to say that in order to check population growth we should have people dying through disease undergoing so much pain and agony.If the life of people suffering and those of future generation who are yet to suffer from disease like cancer holds no meaning to you ,then i can't help.There are many other effective ways of controlling population growth.And if you are so much concerned of world population i would say it is better not have a child than having one suffering from incurable disease and leading a miserable life.
Debate Round No. 2


I would like to clarify that when I was discussing the population growth will longevity of life, no more genetic disorders, etc,. those were the arguments against "Eugenics being wrong". Just in case you had reasoning of justifying the practice. But your surely do not except for the fact of considering people's emotions and pain when enduring disease.

And getting to your point of manipulating genes to rid people of their diseases, that sir is Genetic Engineering. Which is a completely different practice when coming to Eugenics.


Eugenics- the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)

Genetic Engineering- the development and application of scientific methods, procedures, and technologies that permit direct manipulation of genetic material in order to alter the hereditary traits of a cell, organism, or population.

On your point of things being "insensitive". I do agree it is insensitive and sad to believe that in order for society to thrive people must undergo DEATH (not just disease in particular) so this could be anything natural cause, hit by a car, etc. BUT IT IS THE WAY OF LIFE. NO MATTER HOW THEY DIE, PEOPLE MUST DIE! Despite the pain and the suffering it is the way of life. We cannot play God just because we see someone in trouble.

People are born how they are. And as sad as it is we cannot cure everyone. Genetically altering people's DNA is proven to cause effects ecologically and for the person themselves. No doubt, we've had the technology to do things such as this for years. But we are yet to walk into a doctors office in 2013 and ask the doctor to rid us of all over "undesirable traits and DNA". Why? Because, they know the risk of practicing something so dangerous.

And I am not concerned with the population but it is a key piece in debates on Eugenics because people believe that practicing this will benefit the population, when it surely will not...

Despite what you "THINK" will limit the population nothing is more cause effective than people dying. But even that is barely keeping us afloat because like I said we are birthing more than half of the population that is dying in 1 DAY.


according to wikipedia Eugenics is the applied science of the bio-social movement which advocates practices to improve the genetic composition of a population, usually a human population.Sir francis galton who formulated and coined the term eugenics defied it as "the study of all agencies under human control which can improve or impair the racial quality of future generations".
I think now it would be clear to my opponent that genetic engineering is related to eugenics .In fact all the practices ,and not just biased reproduction, related to improving genetic composition is related to eugenics.Sir francis galton ,the person who developed the concept of eugenics,derived it from his cousin chales darwin's theory of evolution and so it is influenced by the theory of evolution.Darwing's theory says of the survival of the fittest i.e person having more desirable traits is more likely to survive . Hence it is the nature which chooses the fitter ones and causes biased population growth ,no matter human intentionally practice it or not.
It is unfortunate that the public and some elements of the scientific community have associated eugenics with Nazi abuses, such as enforced "racial hygiene", human experimentation, and the extermination of "undesired" population groups.And i think my opponent is one of them.However, developments in genetic, genomic, and reproductive technologies at the end of the 20th century are, as per some, definitely not all, perspectives, raising for some people numerous new questions regarding the ethical status of eugenics.
I think my opponent position on population control is very ridiculous and absurd one.IF we think of people dying of disease as one of ways of population control,then governments around the world would not be spending billions of
dollars to control disease like aids,tb,polio and there would be tremendous and sudden decrease in human population.
But you know that is not an option.what we think of population control is low birth rate without compromising life expectancy and health of population.Of course in order to have balanced population people must die but it is not about people dying of disease but natural death.
The danger associated with genetic engineering is of secondary importance.Our main priority
to judge the rationale behind practicing eugenics and deciding weather it is right or wrong.the so called danger is a matter of scientific advancements.In due course of time what seems dangerous today may become safe and reliable.
i feel helpless that the debate has not moved much forward because
1)my opponent questioning morality though no body is getting harmed.
2)my opponent ridiculous position on population growth
3)my opponent's inability to figure out various ways of practicing eugenics.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by elvroin_vonn_trazem 3 years ago
Some people object to eugenics on the grounds that it is "playing God". I have to laugh at that. After all, consider "souls". They are made in God's Image, right? They are OFFSPRING of God, right? Well, logically, what does a Child of God become when it grows up? "Playing God" is perfectly Natural, for souls!
Posted by Dann 3 years ago
If, by your own admission, we need more people dying than living, then why are you so against eugenics?
Posted by totenkreiger 3 years ago
pro has it right, its not being heartless, just a sad fact of life. on the other hand we should have practiced eugencies, with this said yea, i know i might not be here today, but as autodidact said, we shouldn't force our children into having something because we want to pass on our genes. with eugencies then the world population might actually be down, people would feel less of an urge to have children because their living longer, which in the case we could end up lowering the worlds population. but this is all speculation, tell me if you think any of it is wrong.
Posted by Sleezehead 3 years ago
another pint xD
Posted by Sleezehead 3 years ago
my poor grammar... Another pint; we're capable of so much. The only species in our whole galaxy that has gotten as far as we can. I really hope this isn't it. Human "morality," give up.
Posted by Sleezehead 3 years ago
Humans have made it "morally" wrong for us to consider things like controlled population eugenics. The fact of the matter is we have stop evolving. We're stuck, only now depending on what few scientists we have. The worlds has become just a materialistic waste hamper. Let's evolve!
Posted by graynet2013 3 years ago
The fact that many people respond to irrational fears does not make irrational fears moral. It really may only be fallacious thinking devolved from one's own misperceptions of some feeling of inferiority. That being said. The fact that some people believe that quote/unquote inferior people should not be messing up the gene pool does not avow them the right to decide with whom the ends of survival for the individual should be. It is the self-determination and room for error that allows the fit of every species to navigate selection and choice for survival. So called inferior species of course shall choose to survive the maladies and injustices of life for it is the living's right to do so. It should be so for every participant of the evolutionary process. <|P> The diversity of life and the resulting competition that arises from the limitations presented for the evolution of fit individuals does not preclude that seemingly inferior species are unworthy of the resources of that evolutionary diversity.
Posted by autodidact 3 years ago
it would seem to me pro is arguing that self determined eugenics is not immoral. there are some mutations that i would not fault a person for not wanting to pass on.
for example if i had a mutation of the "spellchecher gene"( it crates a protein that fixes copying errors ) it is likely that i uld pass this on and this gene being broken means one thing a life fighting cancer after cancer. would i wish to create child to suffer the same fate?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by medv4380 3 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 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: Con failed to clearly define the terms upfront resulting in Pro being able to use a looser definition of Eugenics. Con needed to establish a clear reason for it being immoral, and then add on additional supporting arguments. Reduction of genetic diversity, Artificial Selection of Poor Traits (see dogs), and others would have countered Pros stance. However, the primary reason Pro wins is because Con took an absolutist position that doesn't work well for Genetic Diseases were a child is most likely to be still born or die early. Arguing for a higher death rate only undercuts your moral position.
Vote Placed by rross 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: I do think that genetic engineering can be included in the definition of eugenics, because in the definition it said "especially by" controlling reproductive practices, which does not rule out other methods. And Pro's arguments for genetic engineering, though brief, were convincing. Also, Pro effectively demolished Con's population control argument.