The Instigator
Wylted
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
janetsanders733
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

In In Defense of Evil part 2 of 3: A Wide Scale Eugenics program would be beneficial to the U.S.A

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/5/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,036 times Debate No: 45251
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (24)
Votes (2)

 

Wylted

Pro

This is part 2 of 3, in my defending evil series.

Here is part 1 http://www.debate.org...

The title of the series is different then the resolution. As pro I will be arguing that a large scale eugenics program would be beneficial to the United States.

I've limited the debate to people who have completed 5 debates. This is to avoid forfeits in a debate, I put a lot of effort into. If you have less then 5 debates and you message me explaining that you will see this through and provide a competent argument then I will adjust the settings so you can join.

Round 1-acceptance
Round 2/3- Arguments and rebuttals
Round 4- no new arguments. Rebuttals and closing statements.

Also, if I need to amend this debate to make it more fair then let me know.
janetsanders733

Con

I accept, state your case.
Debate Round No. 1
Wylted

Pro

Thank you con for accepting this debate.

What the eugenics program won't be.

Part one

Benefits of a higher IQ society,

Lower crime rate-

IQ has been shown to be highly correlated with a person's likelihood to commit crime[1][2]. Increasing the average IQ of the nation will substantially lower its crime rate. A reduced crime rate would mean a safer society for everyone.

Less poverty,

IQ has also been linked to the level of income and education a person receives[1][2]. Putting a significant dent in the poverty rate. Any eugenics program implemented would likely pay for it's self by reducing the level of welfare payments being paid out by the government as well. Likelihood of collecting welfare is also highly correlated with IQ levels as well [1][2].

Increases the GDP of a nation,

IQ is also highly correlated with the GDP of nations[3]. If the United States implemented a eugenics program we could increase the nations GDP.

Increase the countries military strength,

There is a strong connection between military strength and GDP. By increasing the GDP of a country you also increase it's military might. Top 10 countries by GDP[5] and military strength[6].
0highest GDPmilitary strength
1United StatesUnited States
2ChinaRussia
3IndiaChina
4JapanIndia
5GermanyUnited Kingdom
6RussiaFrance
7BrazilGermany
8United KingdomSouth Korea
9FranceItaly
10ItalyBrazil


As you can see a eugenics program that increases IQ level will also increase military strength.

A big reduction in genetic disorders,

Imagine a world with significantly less genetic disorders. A good eugenics program can provide that. Here is a list of genetic disorders that may be preventable[7].

1. Cystic fibrosis
2. Down syndrome
3. Fragile x syndrome ( commonly associated with developmental delays and retardation)
4. Inherited blood clotting problems
5. Huntington's disease
6. Muscular dystrophy
7. Sickle cell anemia
8. Tay Sach's disease.
9. Alzheimer's

And many, many more.

Part 2

How to implement the eugenics program,

The propaganda campaign,

The war on drugs is a complete failure[8]. The money used on the "war on drugs" propaganda campaign can be directed to fund a propaganda campaign to encourage in vitro fertilization for couples trying to have children.

Subsidizing the eugenics program,

The reduced number of people on welfare and the reduced number of diseases that are extremely expensive to take care of should more then make up for the heavy amount of subsidization necessary to fund the eugenics program. This is a program that pays for it's self.

The process,

Once women go in to take part in, in vitro fertilization they will given a choice of healthy embryos with factors such as disease and intelligence taken into account while evaluating them. This process is known as preimplantation genetic diagnosis (or PDG for short)[9].

In vitro fertilization and extensive PDG won't be the only part of the eugenics program. Prenatal diagnosis and testing for genetic disorders combined with gene therapy would help avoid several genetic disorders as well as altering or removing genes associated with low IQ.

Research for gene therapy needs to also be ramped up by using federal funding to provide research grants. A lot of this stuff is already being done on a small level. What I'm talking about here is just ramping up efforts to make a smarter, healthier and safer society.

I anxiously await my opponents arguments.

Sources
[1] Hernstein, Richard,ed (1994). The Bell Curve, Free Press,ISBN 0-02-914673-9
(Charts from the book can be viewed by using source 2)
[2] http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
[3]Lynn, R. and Vanhanen, T. (2002). IQ and the wealth of nations. Westport, CT: Praeger. ISBN 0-275-97510-X
( summary of the book can be found in source 4)
[4] http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
[5]http://data.worldbank.org...
[6] http://www.globalfirepower.com...
[7] http://m.steadyhealth.com...
[8] http://www.scribd.com...
[9] http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
janetsanders733

Con

I would like to thank Pro for the challenge. I think this is a very forgotten topic in the U.S. today since it’s been abandoned. I will now give reasons for thinking why Eugenics is wrong.


Who invented Eugenics?


Sir Francis Galton, a famous geographer and statistician, invented "eugenics" in 1883. Galton also got the idea of Eugenics partly from Charles Darwin’s Evolution Theory.[3]


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).[2]



Major Problems with Eugenics Studies during the Late 19 and Early 20th Century:


One of the main problems with the Eugenics movement during the 19th and 20th century, was that some of the traits done by Scientists and Eugenicists had little backing and grounds. The movement was categorized as “Criminality” because it would plan on removing people with weak or deficient genes/traits.


Such persons that would be eliminated were:



  • Epileptics

  • Bipolar

  • Alcoholics

  • Feebleminded



Over the course of 29 years, the ERO collected hundreds of thousands of pedigrees that documented the heritability of the aforementioned undesirable traits. When direct interviews were not possible, family members were categorized in absentia as either affected or unaffected based on hearsay evidence or on records kept by prisons and psychiatric hospitals. [1]


The Immorality of Eugenics:


I will now list some main reasons why Eugenics is morally ‘wrong’.



  1. 1. Why “Perfection” is subjective: It would be hard to argue that a parent who wanted a child with better memory or greater physical dexterity was simply indulging his or her biases or prejudices. As long as people are not forced to make choices about their children that are in conformity with particular visions of what is good or bad, healthy or unhealthy, there would seem to be enough consensus about the desirability of some traits to permit parents to make individual choices about the traits of their children in the name of their health. Of course everyone wants or desires perfect vision, stamina, higher IQ level, dexterity, but none of these things can be achieved absolutely from a test tube. It would be un-ethical to think that we should force upon Americans and others this idea of pulling the plug on someone who does not have these things.

  2. 2. Coercion: In what way does the government or third party have the ‘right’ to infringe evil upon humans? The right to reproduce without interference from third parties is one of the fundamental freedoms recognized by international law and moral theories from a host of ethical traditions. America would be just as worse as Nazi-Germany since they did the same thing in practice on the Jews.

  3. 3. Equality: The idea of performing un-ethical treatments to other human beings would be unfair. What about those of a different social-class or gender? It would lead to homogenisation in society where diversity and difference disappear in a rush to produce only perfect people, leaving anyone with the slightest disability or deficiency at a distinct disadvantage.

  4. 4. God: We as human beings want to have power and authority over people. Imposing eugenics would be playing God. God has the power to give life and take it away. We on the other hand don’t have the power to do either. When you take the life of another human being, you can’t bring it back to life. This would be murder. [4]


Lessons from the Holocaust:


On July 14, 1933, the Nazi dictatorship fulfilled the long-held dreams of eugenics proponents by enacting the Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring, based on a voluntary sterilization law drafted by Prussian health officials in 1932. The new Nazi law was coauthored by Falk Ruttke, a lawyer, Arthur Gütt, a physician and director of public health affairs, and Ernst Rüdin, a psychiatrist and early leader of the German racial hygiene movement. Individuals who were subject to the law were those men and women who “suffered” from any of nine conditions assumed to be hereditary: feeblemindedness, schizophrenia, manic-depressive disorder, genetic epilepsy, Huntington’s chorea (a fatal form of dementia), genetic blindness, genetic deafness, severe physical deformity, and chronic alcoholism.


Nearly all better-known geneticists, psychiatrists, and anthropologists sat on such courts at one time or another, mandating the sterilizations of an estimated 400,000 Germans. Vasectomy was the general sterilization method for men, and for women, tubal ligation, an invasive procedure that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of women.[5]


American Medicine and Technology in the 21st Century


Is Eugenics even necessary in the United States today? No, it’s not. In the past few decades, through Science and Research, doctors, surgeons, and scientists have been able to come up with medicines and treatments that can help save lives, cure diseases, in order to pass on genes to the next generation. Below will be a Top 8 list of such Medical Breakthroughs.



  1. 1. Human Genome Discoveries: In 2000, scientists with the International Human Genome Project released a rough draft of the human genome to the public. For the first time the world could read the complete set of human genetic information and begin to discover what our roughly 23,000 genes do. This incredible breakthrough has helped doctors develop a genetic test for a gene associated with prostate cancer.

  2. 2. Information Technology: has made life safer for the patient. Once admitted to a hospital, they get a bar code which matches their blood samples and their IVs.

  3. 3. Anti-Smoking laws and Campaigns Reduce Public Smoking: 27 states and the District of Columbia have enacted smoking bans, including seven states that ban smoking in bars and casinos in recent years.

  4. 4. Therapies for Cancer Expand With New Drugs: Clyde Yancy, MD, of Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas, Texas. "As of today, we have seen a near 40 percent reduction in death due to coronary artery disease since 1998/2000. Yancy remarked that research shows about half of the gains in heart disease came from new treatment interventions, the other half (up to 60 percent) are due to prevention.

  5. 5. Drug Therapy Extends HIV Survival: Thomas Coates, MD, of the University of California Los Angeles, pointed out that the HIV death rates are still dropping due to continual HIV research."The drop in death rates from HIV in the developed world (is) due to improved medications," Coates said. "There was the 10 percent drop in deaths due to HIV in the US between 2006 and 2007."

  6. 6. Robotic Techniques Revolutionize Surgery: What would normally leave a 10 inch scar, has now been left to one incision. in late 2007 the surgeons at the Cleveland Clinic began removing kidneys through a single incision in the patient's navel by using robotic technology.

  7. 7. Study Finds Heart, Cancer Risk with Hormone Replacement Therapy: Hormone replace therapy, or HRT, was is thought to be good for the bones, the brain, the skin, the figure, and the libido, and was considered the best treatment to control the annoying and sometimes disabling symptoms of menopause such as hot flashes, depression, and sleep disturbances.

  8. 8. Scientists Peer Into Mind With Functional MRI: developed in the early 1990s, fMRI began to shape research at the beginning of the decade. Using this technique, researchers are learning valuable information about disease such as depression, brain cancer, autism, memory disorders, and even conditions such as the skin disorder psoriasis.[6]


First Conclusion:


As we can see, there are so many negative factors that make Eugenics wrong on all levels.


Sources:


[1] http://www.nature.com...


[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...


[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


[4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


[5] http://www.ushmm.org...


[6] http://www.medpagetoday.com...

Debate Round No. 2
Wylted

Pro

Thank you to con for your arguments.

Definition,

I agree with con's definition as it is extremely inclusive. I will use a much narrower definition while arguing for eugenics. I'm referring to genetically improving the human species prior to birth or conception.

What I'm not arguing for,

I won't attempt to defend how eugenics was used 75 years ago. This is the 21st century and eugenics is going to look a lot different then it did in the 1930s under Hitler and earlier in the United States.

Rebuttals,

Keeping in mind I'm only defending how eugenics would work under the theoretical eugenics program I proposed not under Nazi Germany, I will now go into rebuttals.

The morality of eugenics,

Perfection is subjective,

I agree. The aim isn't perfection. Each parent who opts for in vitro fertilization as opposed to just rolling the dice with the fate of their children would be given a choice of healthy embryo's. Genetic predispositions will just affect overall statistics which is all we're after. These statistics will have a real world affect on the quality of everyone's life even those who choose not to participate.

Even though there may be disagreements as to what perfection is we can all agree on some things we'd prefer for our children. Everyone pretty much agrees they would prefer their children not have Tay Sach's disease, Cystic Fibrosis, Sickle Cell Anemia or Down Syndrome. Everyone would agree they would prefer a smart child as opposed to a dumb child.

Perfection is not the goal. The goal is a better society for everyone and for children not to have to endure needless suffering just because they were born with defects in their DNA.

Coercion,

No coercion is necessary. Just subsidies and a rather large public awareness campaign. Some laws enacted to ensure large scale genetic testing on fetus's would be helpful as well so gene therapy becomes more common.

The racism of Nazi Germany would also not apply to this type of eugenics. This type of eugenics program would actually help different races instead of eliminate them. Black people would have less cases of Sickle Cell Anemia under this eugenics program. Jewish people would have significantly less cases of Tay Sachs disease under this program. White people would have significantly less cases of Cystic Fibrosis. These genetic diseases are race specific (mostly). So instead of different races being victims different races are actually made to suffer less.

Equality,

This would actually create more equality. These technologies Are available and if we don't legalize and subsidize them, then the rich will be making designer babies in secret. We need to make these things widely available and cheap so everyone has the chance to participate in them. Gene therapy, PDG and other uses for genetics to reduce the chance of disease and mental retardation aren't going away. We should make sure everyone has access to them.

Technology and medicine in the 21st century,

My opponent would prefer to wait until after a kid is born to deal with his genetic disease. This type of reactionary medicine just won't cut it when there are ways to prevent them prior to birth. Why would parents wait to see if their kid has Tay Sach's disease to do something about it? Why wouldn't they just do some simple testing to avoid this scenario to start with? Actually since what I'm proposing is already being used, then why would we go back 50 years and make these technologies unavailable? Modern technology isn't an excuse to be against preventive medicine (eugenics), it's a reason to be for it. Modern technology allows for eugenics to finally be the ethical option.

My opponent plagiarized,

My opponent has plagiarized by cutting and pasting his argument from the sources he used. The only things that it looks like he didn't plagiarize are his closing sentence and his opening sentence as well as his argument that eugenics is playing God, which is the same argument people likely used to oppose heart transplants.

The plagiarizing is made worse by the fact that one of the sources goes out of it's way to specifically state that they aren't opposed to the form of eugenics that I'm proposing. It's his source number 4. Here is a quote taken from it.

"It is, however, a different matter for couples to undertake their own efforts to use genetic technologies and knowledge to improve the potential of their offspring. "

So by the article's own admittance the points con made aren't valid against the type of eugenics I'm a proponent of. As a matter of fact most of con's points aren't valid. He discusses the history of eugenics and modern technology. Con's arguments are baffling as how none of them really oppose the form of eugenics I'n arguing for.
janetsanders733

Con


Benefits of a higher IQ society, Lower crime rate & Less Poverty



“IQ has been shown to be highly correlated with a person's likelihood to commit crime[1][2]. Increasing the average IQ of the nation will substantially lower its crime rate. A reduced crime rate would mean a safer society for everyone. IQ has also been linked to the level of income and education a person receives[1][2]. Putting a significant dent in the poverty rate. Any eugenics program implemented would likely pay for it's self by reducing the level of welfare payments being paid out by the government as well. Likelihood of collecting welfare is also highly correlated with IQ levels as well [1][2].”


While I do agree that IQ does have a major impact on Crime rate and poverty that is by no means justification for permitting eugenics. There are many other factors as well that attribute to Crime Rate, as well as poverty.


For example: Race and Gender can be linked to poverty and Crime. A study was done across 20 cities that showed how local inequalities and diverse populations can have an impact on crime rates. Having a mixture of different ethnic groups within a neighborhood can cause tension and crime. More diversity= More Jealousy and Rivalry, thus leading to crime being more probable than not.


There’s no guarantee that a child who has a high IQ will grow up and be rich and wealthy. Also, you would have to take into account economic and other social factors as well. I.e. nature vs. nurture.[4]



Increases the GDP of a nation/Military Strength



“IQ is also highly correlated with the GDP of nations[3]. If the United States implemented a eugenics program we could increase the nations GDP. There is a strong connection between military strength and GDP. By increasing the GDP of a country you also increase it's military might. Top 10 countries by GDP[5] and military strength[6].”


0 highest GDP military strength


1 United States United States


2 China Russia


3 India China


4 Japan India


5 Germany United Kingdom


6 Russia France


7 Brazil Germany


8 United Kingdom South Korea


9 France Italy


10 Italy Brazil



No need to. The United States is ranked first in Military. According to the Global-Firepower website, The United States has over 1,430,000 men active frontline. 122,022,084 that are Fit for Service, and over 145,212,012 men and women for available manpower. It’s really not a good idea to correlate Military strength with GDP since our nation has spent the most amount of money on Defense. If the United States had added at least 37% of its GDP to our Defense in America today, the defense spending would be over $5 trillion.[1][3]


“A big reduction in genetic disorders, Imagine a world with significantly less genetic disorders. A good eugenics program can provide that. Here is a list of genetic disorders that may be preventable[7].”



1. Cystic fibrosis


2. Down syndrome


3. Fragile x syndrome ( commonly associated with developmental delays and retardation)


4. Inherited blood clotting problems


5. Huntington's disease


6. Muscular dystrophy


7. Sickle cell anemia


8. Tay Sach's disease.


9. Alzheimer's



And many, many more.


So can Medical Technology.



  1. 1. Cystic Fibrosis- Vertex has developed a drug called “Kalydeco”. It was given a test trial on two girls, Laura and Cate. The drug entered the cells and fixed the broken protein that was making them sick. On top of that, the girls have a specially rare case of CF, so the fact it worked on them shows great progress.[6]

  2. 2. Down Syndrome- Medical technology has shown that Prenatal testing and social-economical differences can aid in prevention or severity of down syndrome.[5]

  3. 3. Fragile X syndrome- A study was taken by Seaside Therapeutics, a drug company, and Rush University Medical Center, on a drug called “arbaclofen”. The study was taken over 15 months using a placebo on 63 people. The results showed that they were able to function a social level, and their social anxiety was lessened.[7]

  4. 4. Inherited blood clotting problems: Routine diet and exercise would help the person, and probably medicine for cholesterol.

  5. 5. Huntington’s disease- Scientists are using electronic devices for the brain to see what causes the defective gene, and how it affects metabolism, as well as the chemistry of the brain and body. [11]

  6. 6. Muscular dystrophy- a rare muscle disorder that affects 1 in 3,500 males.[8]

  7. 7. Sickle cell anemia- Usually young children catch this, and can be treated with penicillin. In order for a baby to be born with sickle cell anemia, both the mother and father must carry a sickle cell gene.[9]

  8. 8. Tay Sach’s disease- Very rare and more common in European/Jewish heritages.[10]



Most of these are rare conditions or diseases, that already have research being done along with treatments and medication that are proving to be “Beneficial”. Eugenics would be unnecessary as well again immoral.


Part 2



The propaganda campaign/Subsidizing the eugenics program,



“The war on drugs is a complete failure[8]. The money used on the "war on drugs" propaganda campaign can be directed to fund a propaganda campaign to encourage in vitro fertilization for couples trying to have children. The reduced number of people on welfare and the reduced number of diseases that are extremely expensive to take care of should more then make up for the heavy amount of subsidization necessary to fund the eugenics program. This is a program that pays for it's self.”


I would respectfully disagree with my opponent here. Our nation is over $17,000,000,000,000 in debt right now. Any investment in Eugenics would add more to our Nation’s debt, as well as to our Medicaid system, which means the taxpayer is going to have to pay for something immoral. [2]




Sources:


[1]http://www.globalfirepower.com...


[2] http://www.usdebtclock.org...


[3] http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil...


[4] http://www.nationaldialoguenetwork.org...


[5] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


[6] http://discovermagazine.com...


[7] http://health.usnews.com...


[8] https://www.rarediseases.org...


[9] http://www.mayoclinic.org...


[10] http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...


[11] http://www.ninds.nih.gov....htm


Debate Round No. 3
Wylted

Pro

I want to start off by thanking my opponent for taking time to form his own rebuttals and not plagiarizing like he did with his entire round 2 argument.

Benefits of a higher IQ society, Lower crime rate & Less Poverty,

"I do agree that IQ does have a major impact on Crime rate and poverty"

My opponent agrees that raising the average IQ would have a major impact on both the crime and poverty rate. He does go on after this to discuss other factors that contribute to crime and poverty. By mentioning those other factors my opponent misses the point. Implementing a eugenics program isn't meant to control every factor that leads to crime and poverty. It's meant to have a positive impact on society by reducing crime and poverty, among other things. We aren't looking to build a utopia. We are looking to make life just a little bit better for everyone.

Increases the GDP of a nation/Military Strength

"No need to. The United States is ranked first in Military. According to the Global-Firepower website, The United States has over 1,430,000 men active frontline. 122,022,084 that are Fit for Service, and over 145,212,012 men and women for available manpower. It"s really not a good idea to correlate Military strength with GDP since our nation has spent the most amount of money on Defense. If the United States had added at least 37% of its GDP to our Defense in America today, the defense spending would be over $5 trillion."

You've completely missed the point. The point is: the better your country does economically the better it is likely to do in terms of military strength. The one source you cited says it's bad policy to tie the military budget to a percentage of the GDP. Nothing I've said would indicate that I'm for a foreign policy that does that. Your mention of tying military budget to the GDP. The fact you would mention something off topic like that is truly baffling.

To say it isn't necessary to increase the GDP is ludicrous. Obviously you should want the country you live in to continually grow their economy.

Preventing Genetic Disorders

"1. Cystic Fibrosis- Vertex has developed a drug called "Kalydeco". It was given a test trial on two girls, Laura and Cate. The drug entered the cells and fixed the broken protein that was making them sick. On top of that, the girls have a specially rare case of CF, so the fact it worked on them shows great progress."

Actually, the drug only worked on them because they had a rare version of Cystic Fibrosis. Had they had a more common form the drug wouldn't have done anything. This is progress but it's an almost insignificant amount and it's certainly inferior to not getting Cystic Fibrosis at all.

"2. Down Syndrome- Medical technology has shown that Prenatal testing and social-economical differences can aid in prevention or severity of down syndrome."

You really need to start fully reading your sources. I'll explain why prenatal testing and socio-economic status prevents Autism. Poor people don't receive the prenatal testing as often and as a result have their kid before realizing he is autistic. This results in them not being able to abort the fetus. Rich people and poor people get pregnant with an autistic child at the same exact rate, but rich people give birth to less Autistic kids because they find out sooner and are able to abort the fetus. Under the eugenics program I propose less kids would be born with Autism because of gene therapy not because of aborting them.

"3. Fragile X syndrome- A study was taken by Seaside Therapeutics, a drug company, and Rush University Medical Center, on a drug called "arbaclofen". The study was taken over 15 months using a placebo on 63 people. The results showed that they were able to function a social level, and their social anxiety was lessened."

Do you know whats better then reducing the anxiety level of mentally challenged kids? Preventing them from being mentally handicapped to start with. Why would you prefer a kid to be mentally retarded with low levels of social anxiety, over just having that kid be healthy?

"4. Inherited blood clotting problems: Routine diet and exercise would help the person, and probably medicine for cholesterol."

Eating healthy and being active helps everybody. It helps people with Cancer also. Should we just stop pursuing a cure and tell them to exercise and eat salads?

"5. Huntington"s disease- Scientists are using electronic devices for the brain to see what causes the defective gene, and how it affects metabolism, as well as the chemistry of the brain and body. "

This is just another way of saying there is no cure. The best way to prevent it is prior to birth through an ethical eugenics program.

"6. Muscular dystrophy- a rare muscle disorder that affects 1 in 3,500 males."

So what are you saying? Screw those 85,000 guys? 1 in 3,500 is 85,000 people in America. Way to down play the number though.

"7. Sickle cell anemia- Usually young children catch this, and can be treated with penicillin. In order for a baby to be born with sickle cell anemia, both the mother and father must carry a sickle cell gene."

The Penicillin helps prevent infection. It's not something that fixes the problem. Do you know whats better then treating Sickle cell anemia? That's right preventing it.

"8. Tay Sach"s disease- Very rare and more common in European/Jewish heritages."

What are you saying? It's common for Jewish couples to get tested to see what the chances of having a kid with Tay Sachs disease is. This testing is a form of eugenics because it helps prevent more children from having to suffer from this disease. Are you suggesting Jewish people not be allowed to volunteer in this voluntary eugenics program already in place?

My opponent suggests reactionary actions with concern to genetic disorders. I ask this simple question is it better to prevent genetic disorders, or is it better to forego prevention allow people to suffer in hopes that we'll be able to come up with a cure someday?

The propaganda campaign/Subsidizing the eugenics program,

"I would respectfully disagree with my opponent here. Our nation is over $17,000,000,000,000 in debt right now. Any investment in Eugenics would add more to our Nation"s debt, as well as to our Medicaid system, which means the taxpayer is going to have to pay for something immoral."

I already explained how the eugenics program would pay for it's self and how funds could be redirected to pay for it from some failed programs.

Summary,

1. My opponent agrees that a eugenics program would be beneficial. Which is my resolution. So my opponent pretty much conceded.

2. My opponent plagiarized his arguments.

3. My opponent fails to show how a completely voluntary eugenics program is immoral, though he claims it is several times.

4. My opponent offers obviously inferior alternatives or in some cases no alternatives at all to get the results my eugenics program is after.

Vote pro. Thank you very much.
janetsanders733

Con

Conclusion:


As we can see, a Eugenics program would not be benefical to the United States because it's immoral, costly, and unecessary to use. With breakthroughs in medical technology, and with research and medicine.. New diseases are being cured and or treated. With our national debt, we wouldn't be able to afford this program. Also, it is immoral to determine how a child should be born. We are not God, and we can't make decisions how a child should live or die. I would like to thank my opponent for having this debate, and hope everyone votes fairly:D
Debate Round No. 4
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Zhege,

I'm sure even Janet would disagree with you.

Also on another note, I didn't distort facts. I may have left things out. It's con's job to point that out.
Posted by Zhege 2 years ago
Zhege
Someone actually voted Pro had more sources? Pro only sourced one post. The rest was his own opinion. As for the plagiarized comment, Pro go as far as to mention Con plagiarized from his own sources and in reality that's how you correctly use sources to not be considered plagiarism. Difference between Con using sources and Pro is that Pro injected his own opinion to distort facts. Pro's victory is lead by the one voter that is clearly biased on the subject.
Posted by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
okay
Posted by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Juan_Pablo
Let me make it abundant clear: I'm not voting for the person, I'm not voting on the issue by itself . . . i'm voting on the arguments. You can review my reasons for my voting decision if you still don't approve and come back to me when you have something you want to point out.
Posted by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Juan_Pablo
effected = effective
Posted by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Juan_Pablo
Janet, I was communicating to Wylted. I agreed with most of the reasons you gave for believing that these social and medical science programs wouldn't be as effected as Wylted believed they would be.
Posted by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Juan_Pablo
Okay, I'll redo my vote . . .

Same result, with the same reasons for voting decision.
Posted by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
@JP Alright, well if I didn't convince you then you should vote for Wylted.
Posted by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Juan_Pablo
I did. You didn't convince me.
Posted by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
Should JP do his vote again? I want to make sure that this debate is won fairly. I don't mind if I have to lose by 100 points. I always think the audience and voters should vote who did better like Wylted said.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Juan_Pablo
Wyltedjanetsanders733Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Though I do agree that some of the programs Wylted advocates can have some benefits for our country, I think Janet effectively shows why they will not lead to the outcome that Wylted believes they will. As Janet points out, Nature by itself ( genetic make-up ) is just one of the essential aspects in creating good people, and thus an ideal society. The other would be Nuture! Society actually needs to understand how to raise people. As Janet shows, it's not all about genes! Points to Janet for making more convincing arguments.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Wyltedjanetsanders733Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro opened with a very straightforward proposition, in response to which Con rebutted strawmen via plagiarism. In the next round, Pro cleansed eugenics of it's age-old stigma by clarifying how it would actually benefit various races instead of exterminating them. Con's rebuttals were weak, involving arguments that Pro had already preemptively rebutted, like the cost of the Eugenics program. In the last round, Pro obliterated Con totally and wiped away any chance of Con getting a single point even if his plagiarism wasn't taken into account. Pro demonstrated that Con did not understand his own sources, and also that Con's plan to deal with disease was inferior to Pro's. Pro get's source points because Con's own sources defeated his arguments. Conduct to Pro because of Con's plagiarism. S&G was tied. I could give it to Pro just because of Con's plagiarism but I'm going to take it easy on him because I'm in a good mood. Can't believe I'm supporting mass murder =)