Should there be human cloning?
Debate Rounds (1)
My opponent hasn't started detailed arguments, so I'm assuming this round is for acceptance. Human cloning allows geneticists to advance in information and research which can help eliminate genetic diseases, defective genes, genetic infertility and undesirable recessive traits through experimentation. I think my opponent is confused on the purpose of cloning, it is to conduct trials, not release them into the world.
That is all, I hope my opponent provides a strong argument in the next round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 months 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||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Con chose to drop every point made by pro (single round debates should be done in the opinion section). Con offered fears of people now feeling like unique snowflakes if clones of them were released en mass; whereas pro offered how cloned cells are currently used for genetic research to help cure various ailments. Neither rose above assertions, but subjectively pro's seemed far more plausible, in addition to assuming both were the case (as they are not mutually exclusive) the benefits pro offered are great (health), whereas the costs con offered are negligible (hurt feelings).
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.