The Instigator
Tine
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
dtaylor971
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Should attempts at splicing human DNA with animal DNA 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 2 votes the winner is...
dtaylor971
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/17/2014 Category: Technology
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,481 times Debate No: 44150
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Tine

Pro

I believe that splicing could be a next step in human evolution and can equip us to help us face a rapidly changing environment.
dtaylor971

Con

I accept this debate challenge.

PLEASE, FOR THE LOVE OF GOSH, DO NOT FORFEIT!
Debate Round No. 1
Tine

Pro

Splicing of DNA could give humanity a better chance of survival by giving us features that we may lack that could be much better suited to a changing environment. For example let's say that the polar ice caps melt and sea levels rise dramatically, humanity would be displaced into more inland areas while other animals may flourish (Ex. Fish, whales, otters, etc.) Eventually displacement will lead to over population and then subsequent food shortages. If we could give humanity say gills, more slow twitch muscles, and some form of water proofing, we would be able to adapt to the more watery world and gain access to under water real estate that could be used to grow foods and possibly build homes/shelters. Although these may seem far fetched it is impossible to determine whether or not this idea is possible without further research into the concept of DNA splicing.
dtaylor971

Con

I thought you were going to forfeit there for a second. Thank you for posting an argument unlike many others that I have debated. I will assume that second round is for arguments, and third is for rebuttals, with no arguments allowed. With that said, I will now move on to the argument part of my section.

My BoP will be that DNA splicing between animals should not be legal. My opponents' BOP will be that it should be legal.

I can guarantee you my arguments will seem as far fetched as a flying monster pig. But trust me on this, they actually could (will?) happen.

Sub-points 2 and 3 may seem off-topic from the title. However, they are a result of the human-animal DNA splicing, so they are in line with the title.


--Argument 1: What are we doing?!--

For my fist section of arguments, I will show that the humans in the world, or the scientists, would take this thing too far have already taken this too far. And the results are absolutely horrific.

In context, it seems like a great idea. Splice cheetah DNA with human DNA and get a 50 mile an hour human. But, this is not what we are doing... at all.

--Sub-point 1: Cow-human milk... on the store shelves--

One of the main thing that a woman should be able to do is supply her baby with the milk that they need. It should be natural milk (on balance), as that helps babies grow better than formula milk [1]. But cow milk? Or for a better term, com-human milk? Yep. Chinese scientists have made this hybrid to produce human-like milk from cows. And it is expected to hit the supermarket in 10 years [2]. And worse yet? 42 transgenic calves were born... only 26 survived.

This could also cause an overpopulation of cows if the breed of cow becomes a money-maker (which it will if properly advertised.) The overpopulation, believe it or not, could damage the environment. Since cow emissions produce more CO2 than CARS [3], we need to keep the population under control. If a mass production of these cows were added, the ozone layer will be weakened more than it already is, and the world will get hotter.

Don't believe me? Use common logic. A cow's emission is more than a car emission. Another cow is more than another car. Another million cows is more than a million new cars and so on. Heck... the [3] link even shows that COWS ARE THE TOP DAMAGING THING IN THE WHOLE DARN EARTH!

--Sub-point 2: For the hell of it--

Scientists have created a mouse that tweets like a bird. The "reason" this was created is to try and better understand how human language evolved [3], even though this should take thousands of years, as human language did. It is not "vital" to our survival to learn how we evolved, as my opponent states by saying this (animal-human splicing DNA) helps us live. This doesn't do much, if anything at all, except create a monster.

Now, what happens if this genetically mutated animal was let out into the public on purpose or by accident...?

...it could SERIOUSLY mess things up in the ecosystem. It could make mice either easier or harder to find for birds. Birds, at least the carnivorous ones, rely on mice and worms for food [4]. If the chirping was widely mistaken for a bird by other birds, they could move on to other food habits, causing a big shift in the ecosystem (more animals and less animals.)

Even if the birds do not mistake the mice for other birds, there will still be problems. Since mice would be easier to find (since they emit bird sounds) it would cause an over-eating of mice which could also shift the ecosystem to a different food habit. While the change may be small, it would likely still be dangerous or harming.

Think about it. It's like a dolphin communicating like a whale or a lion communicating like a zebra.


--Sub-point III: We had Frankenstein make a fish baby--

It finally happened. We were able to make salmon that grows 3x as big and as fast. By genetically manipulating the salmon, we were able to achieve this. However, the consequences could be big to the health of humans.

Abnormalities have been found with the genetically modified salmon, or "frankenfish," that the FDA is choosing to ignore [6]. In Chile, 80% of the genetically-modified salmon have some type of syndrome or disorder that could be harmful in some way to consumption. If you are against this, it might not matter. You actually may not know if you are getting served normal, safe salmon or genetically modified salmon.

Also, this could put an end to the already endangered salmon species:

"We believe any approval of the salmon would represent a serious threat to the survival of native salmon populations already teetering on the brink of extinction." -Andrew Kimbrell [7]


Furthermore, this could open a market for more genetically modified animals. This could drive more animals into extinction, and put unsafe food on the store shelves. I speak for many when I say we do not want that.

I will refute in the third round. I hand this debate over to pro. Thank you for reading.


[1] http://umm.edu...
[2] http://www.theage.com.au...
[3] http://www.independent.co.uk...
[4] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
[5] http://birding.about.com...
[6] http://www.healthiertalk.com...
[7] http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...


Debate Round No. 2
Tine

Pro

Tine forfeited this round.
dtaylor971

Con

Despite asking him not to forfeit, he still did. He has dropped ALL of my round 2 points, plus was not nice/respectful in this debate (forfeit.) Thank you for reading.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Kreakin 3 years ago
Kreakin
Tinedtaylor971Tied
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: Ff. A very interesting topic though.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Tinedtaylor971Tied
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: Darn it would have been great if Pro had more relevant arguments and not forfeited, as I think Con raised some good points which went uncontested. Well done Pro. Sources points go to Con for actually citing sources. Also S&G go to Con as Pro really lacked grammar and sentence structure.