Resolved: The use of sexual reproduction is more justified than the use of asexual reproduction.
Debate Rounds (2)
Justification: Life is an intrinsic value. All other values could not exist without life.
Sexual Reproduction: The production of new living organisms by combining genetic information from two individuals of different types (sexes).
Asexual Reproduction: Reproduction without the use of gametes.
Justice: Giving each their due.
Contention #1: The self-sacrifice of asexual reproduction proves its superiority.
It is very clear that processes such as budding and fission result in the death or shrinkage of the original cell. This is clearly an altruistic behavior, and altruism clearly supports the ultimate value of life. This self-sacrifice provides an external precedent that would cause more individuals to sacrifice themselves not just in the name of reproduction but also for the benefit of the entire community, which supports both life and the universal quality of life.
Contention #2: Asexual reproduction is faster and more efficient, and thus supports life and altruism
Sexual reproduction generally can take a length of time ranging from months to years. Asexual reproduction can occur in milliseconds. Although individuals must sacrifice the aesthetic value of giving birth in order to achieve this efficiency, relinquishing that aesthetic value would benefit the entire community with the faster reproduction, showing that asexual reproduction supports both life and altruism.
Contention #3: Genetic coding is not altruistic and harms life.
Genetic codes can help produce several inherited disabilities. These disabilities could be mitigated through asexual reproduction, where genetic coding would not be required for reproduction. Although individuals would have to sacrifice the aesthetic value of raising a disabled child, asexual reproduction would therefore benefit both offspring and the community and support life.
"The self-sacrifice of asexual reproduction proves its superiority."
Sexual reproduction requires self sacrifice as well, to some extent.
The Mantis (an insect) male sacrifices his life, just for reproduction.
This is just one example, there are many creatures who suffer to sexually reproduce. Whether it is fighting to get a mating partner, going through pregnancy risking death (though this is just mammals) or in the extreme case something like the Mantis.
Hence my opponent's argument is invalid, as sexual reproduction can be Altruistic.
" Asexual reproduction is faster and more efficient..."
Agreed here, asexual reproduction is faster, but the number of offspring who survive is much lower in asexual creatures than in sexual. My argument below shall prove this point
A huge advantage of Sexual reproduction is genetic variation, in other words the genes of off springs are the combination of both their parents' genes which means that every offspring that the two parents make will have a variety of genetic codes (a random combination of genes from both the mother and the father). The off springs with genes that better equip them for survival will survive and will reproduce while those with genes that hinder their survival will die off and will not reproduce(natural selection).
Creatures who sexually reproduce are far quicker to adapt to a change of environment (change of climate, or a new disease) due to their genetic variety and natural selection.
This is why sexual reproduction is so predominant in this world.
My opponent stated that "Genetic codes can help produce several inherited disabilities". There are flaws with this statement since asexually reproducing creatures have genetic codes as well, its just that they lack variety. A sexually reproducing species is well able to get rid of those disabilities. The individuals with those disabilities will be on a lower footing when it comes to survival. They will almost certainly be killed off by mother nature before they reproduce. Therefore, inherited disabilities is taken care of, thus making my opponents statement invalid and sexual reproduction is proven to be superior.
My opponent also presented evidence showing that suffering for the collective good exists under a system of sexual reproduction. While this evidence does prove that organisms undergo a certain degree of strain in order to reproduce sexually, reproducing asexually explicitly requires the death or shrinkage of a parent organism is absolutely every case. The few examples which my opponent has provided of altruism through sexual reproduction are not as decisive as the evidence of altruism in asexual reproduction because asexual reproduction requires self-sacrifice in every case and not just a select few.
" The potential for disabilities is higher in a population with high genetic variety[sexual reproduction]"
This maybe true, but however they can be deal with in a sexually reproducing species as I have argued in the previous round. However if a defect[genetic defect or disease] occurs in a species that reproduces asexually, then that species is vulnerable to extinction. The asexually reproducing species will not be able to develop the right genetic code with the immune system that can deal with the defect/disease as quickly as a sexually reproducing species would.
Adaptability of Sexually reproducing organisms
Though I have mentioned this argument in Round 1, my opponent completely ignored it.
For the voters I have quoted the entire argument from round one below:
"A huge advantage of Sexual reproduction is genetic variation, in other words the genes of off springs are the combination of both their parents' genes which means that every offspring that the two parents make will have a variety of genetic codes (a random combination of genes from both the mother and the father). The off springs with genes that better equip them for survival will survive and will reproduce while those with genes that hinder their survival will die off and will not reproduce(natural selection).
Creatures who sexually reproduce are far quicker to adapt to a change of environment (change of climate, or a new disease) due to their genetic variety and natural selection."
My opponent had no response to this, I leave the rest to the voters.
Con does 'cherry picking':
My opponent 'cherry picks' arguments (note the single quotation is for when my opponent quoted my argument)
"...life cannot be supported under a system where organisms 'will almost certainly be killed off by Mother Nature before they reproduce'." My opponent has cherry picked my words and manipulated my arguments.
This is the actual argument
"The individuals with those disabilities will be on a lower footing when it comes to survival. They will almost certainly be killed off by mother nature before they reproduce. Therefore, inherited disabilities is taken care of, thus making my opponents statement invalid and sexual reproduction is proven to be superior."
I believe it is now obvious how my opponent has 'cherry picked' and twisted my arguments against me.
"asexual reproduction requires self-sacrifice in every case and not just a select few."
Sexual reproduction requires self sacrifice almost always, its just that it is not always to the same extent as the Mantis example I gave earlier. Fighting over rivals to get mates is not an easy thing to do and it often results in fights which further leads to death, whether directly or indirectly (through mortal injuries). Hence, my opponent's argument is invalid since sexual and asexual reproduction requires self sacrifice.
Now that I have done my arguments/rebuttals, I shall give reason as to why voters should vote for me:
1) My opponent has 'cherry picked' arguments as I have shown above, therefore I appeal to voters to voter for me on the point of CONDUCT
2) I have successfully rebutted all of my opponent's arguments while my opponent has resorted to cherry picking to make arguments, this is proof that I made more CONVINCING ARGUMENTS.
3) I have used external sources to back up my arguments, while my opponent has not cited a single source to back up his/her points. Therefore, I appeal to voters to vote for me on the point of RELIABLE SOURCES.
Vote for Pro! :)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: By the end of the debate, I'm still not sure why altruism should be such an important value, and I'm especially unsure why it should be valued over life. As Con does not argue why altruistic behaviors are so important, and as Pro provides this reasonable alternative, I see no reason not to accept it. Thus, most of Pro's argument goes away. The fact that some members of a given species will not survive due to genetic issues does not outweigh complete extinction. Pro has sources, so he wins there as well.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.