The Instigator
Tjeerdomon12
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Blade-of-Truth
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Reproductive cloning on animals

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 2 votes the winner is...
Blade-of-Truth
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 543 times Debate No: 83985
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

Tjeerdomon12

Con

In my eyes, the continued research on reproductive cloning is irresponsible. As we have seen in the past, War can conclude into disastrous events. I think the continuing research on reproductive cloning, even on animals can lead to horrible situations. I have researched a bit onto the reproductive cloning, and I saw that scientists are already trying to invent mutations, so that the animals ,which are almost extinct, are able to reproduce faster. I think this is a big step in the wrong direction. The fact that animals can be mutated, means that in the wrong hands, also human could be mutated the same way. In war, this leads to scientists making the new, what I call, "Super human". This humanoid organism is then manipulated in such way, that it has some clear advantages to other humans. For example, I have read a thread in which I read that the research on Vectors to use Gene therapy with, can also be used in embryos. This, together with cloning makes the impossible could be possible.
Blade-of-Truth

Pro

Greetings,

I believe reproductive cloning is beneficial and will show how throughout this debate.

Arguments

I. Increase in food production

With an increase in population comes an increase in food demand [1]. Reproductive cloning allows for an increase in the population of animals we use as food sources, thus alleviating the pressures of an increased food demand.

II. Spares species from Extinction

With reproductive cloning we can save species from our increasing extinction rate issues [2] by storing their genetic material for future cloning [3].

III. Disease Resistant Organisms

Through reproductive cloning we can create stronger offspring of animals that are resistant to common diseases [4]. A healthier food source means a healthier population.

Sources

[1] http://www.usda.gov...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.nationalgeographic.com...
[4] http://www.nature.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Tjeerdomon12

Con

I am going with the worst possible outcome on your statement 3. I therefore can show you how bad the outcome could result into.
As you have said, we could make sure we have enough food with this method, probably for the rest of our existence. I am not here to cause chaos, but we have to keep in mind there are some clear things which can go horribly wrong with this method. While testing the reproductive cloning on animals, there are multiple things which can go wrong.
Whenever mutations are applied to animals, to create a stronger offspring, these mutations could result into more things. For example, Mutations can cause some animals to being more aggressive, because there is something not right in them. These mutations will reproduce. This could cause, that some predators of this specific species, could result into getting extinct. Do we really want to continuously make more animals, because their prey is mutated in such a way that it isn't the predator's prey anymore? I don't think so
Blade-of-Truth

Pro

In this round I will be providing rebuttals to the arguments raised by Con in R1.

Rebuttals

Can lead to horrible situations

This is just an opinion, not a fact. If Con wishes to prove this point, then Con needs to provide evidence supporting the claim - as it stands now it's nothing more than an opinion with no supporting evidence. I've already given evidence showing the benefits of this technology.

Mutations - faster reproduction

Con claims that faster reproduction for animals facing extinction is a step in the wrong direction, but why? For Con, it's because it'll lead to mutations for humans which would create super humans with advantages over others. Again, why is that a bad thing? If anything, that would be beneficial in wars, giving us a clear advantage over our enemies.

Con ends by saying that it'll make the impossible possible - but gives no reason as to why that's a bad thing.

Ultimately, Con lacks any and all evidence for these claims. They are nothing but unsupported opinions.
Debate Round No. 2
Tjeerdomon12

Con

Tjeerdomon12 forfeited this round.
Blade-of-Truth

Pro

Con has forfeited the final round. Therefore, I extend all rebuttals that remain unchallenged.

In this round I will respond to the rebuttals Con raised in R2, and then conclude.

I. Increase in food production

Con drops this argument.

II. Spares species from Extinction

Con drops this argument.

III. Disease Resistant Organisms

Con rebuts this by stating that mutations can cause results such as more aggressive animals. However, with modern technology, we are able to isolate certain genes that will serve to be beneficial mutations rather than negative ones. I already gave evidence of this with source [4] in my first round, which Con seemed to ignore completely. With control over the gene selection and therefore the mutations themselves, we run no risk of allowing negative mutations to occur, thus this potential risk is ultimately a non-issue.

In closing,

I've shown several benefits, none of which Con was able to overcome. Con also forfeited the final round. For these reasons, please vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Tjeerdomon12 1 year ago
Tjeerdomon12
That's what I want to try out.
Of course we can immediately start with a immense post onto this subject, but with only 1000 characters, it is a bit of a challenge :).
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Blade-of-Truth
I'll post my rebuttals to your first round arguments in my second round. Having a 1,000 character space limit really... limited what I could fit in the first round, lol. Fun challenge.
Posted by Marksworth 1 year ago
Marksworth
Ever see The Island? 'Nuff said
Posted by Briannj17 1 year ago
Briannj17
Whoa glitchy!
Posted by Briannj17 1 year ago
Briannj17
I feel I inspired this debate.
Posted by Briannj17 1 year ago
Briannj17
I feel I inspired this debate.
Posted by hldemi 1 year ago
hldemi
You are focusing on the worst. Why not use this to help cure genetic illnesses, to produce people better suited for some tasks. Why not want to allow us to prevent cancer with such technology. Why not make of better for the sake of peace and health not war and death ...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by EverlastingMoment 1 year ago
EverlastingMoment
Tjeerdomon12Blade-of-TruthTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeits his last round, losing the conduct point. Along with presenting vague arguments that are more opinion than fact, he doesn't back up any arguments or rebuttals with sources, pro was the only person to fulfill his BOP and effectively defend the points he brought up which evidently resulted in him winning the debate, coming to a clear conclusion and properly structuring his arguments along with factual sources to back up his claims. No detailed analysis needed on this.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
Tjeerdomon12Blade-of-TruthTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff