The Instigator
DebaterAgent
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
TheBoss
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

Given the technology, cloning endangered and recently extinct species should be legal.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
DebaterAgent
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/6/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,156 times Debate No: 27922
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

DebaterAgent

Pro

Let us assume for the purpose of this debate that this technology is feasible, affordable, fast, efficient, and effective
A large number of animals and plants, which could be very useful to the human race, have gone extinct as a result of human action or inaction. Cloning would allow us to get access to these species, which might provide us with new naturla treatments of our illness. Cloning in no way hurts us or other animals. Using this technology will help further the human race throught the development of medical technologies, and will also allow us to fix or correct our failures in the past. Cloning specific species will also benefit us economically. Certain shars, for example, have been driven to near extinction because their fins are a prized ingredient in Shark Fin Soup; a dish which is highly valued by many Asian countries.
For these reasons, we are proud to propose
TheBoss

Con

There are significant problems with DebaterAgent's arguments.
First, a reason the animals went extinct was because they can't protect themselves. If we clone it, it still can't protect itself. And even if cloning is cheap, if we keep cloning, it will eventually cost a ton of money. Also, we shouldn't focus on trying to revive extinct animals; we should focus on protecting the "close to extinction" animals. We shouldn't kill for food even if we are cloning it. We have killed animals and all humans are going to do, is kill them again. Also, the other side didn't say the points in why they want to clone. They gave multiple reasons which were all easily counterable. We shouldn't eat a clone. That is useless. An example of a Pyrenean Ibex to be cloned back to life from extinction. It only lasted for seven minutes. Even if it is cheap, do we really want to spend the money for hours of work into minutes of life? No We can spend the money on other stuff. For these reasons, we are proud to propose.
Debate Round No. 1
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
DebaterAgentTheBossTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter TMR
Vote Placed by The_Master_Riddler 4 years ago
The_Master_Riddler
DebaterAgentTheBossTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con debate too short!
Vote Placed by iamnotwhoiam 4 years ago
iamnotwhoiam
DebaterAgentTheBossTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's points are all good points. Con's rebuttals are oblique.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
DebaterAgentTheBossTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro automatically loses conduct for making a one round debate in that he precludes the possibility of counter or any sort of comprehensive argument in this debate. On arguments, things were close (in that neither argument was sufficiently expanded upon and were equally muddled). I have to give arguments to Pro though as con seemed to more or less just ignore his points. For instance, presupposing that cloning was cheap and quick, etc. was meant to preclude the possibility of time/energy-related counters. Con seemed to just ignore this and go along anyways. Furthermore, Con never responded to Pro's medical pint. He said that species could just die again (ignoring scientific facilities designed to offset that possibility) but never responded to the possibility of deriving important medical/scientific knowledge from cloning. That in itself was enough to sway the debate to the Pro-side as far as the utilitarian nature of cheap cloning is concerned.