The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The cloning of human beings should be developed and practiced

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/14/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 621 times Debate No: 54714
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




Debate Rules & Regulations

1)You may include as many sources as you want, or no sources if you wish.

2)All source citation types and sources will be accepted.

3)The winner will be decided by an "Open Voting" style taking place over the course of a month after the debate is completed.

4)Failure to post an argument in 48 hours will not result in automatic disqualification although voters are encouraged to vote for a debater who does in fact post an valid argument for each and every round.

I personally believe that the cloning of human beings offers more benefits than it does problems to society, therefore cloning should be practiced with my respective limitations.

The order and purpose of the five debate rounds are as following:

1) Challenge & Acceptance
2) How the cloning of humans would affect society.
3) Examples of scenarios that would come with the cloning of humans.
4) Who, if anyone should be allowed to clone.
5) Final arguments and thoughts on why voters should "vote pro" or "vote con".

To whomever my con challenger is I wish them best of luck and I hope this will be a quite a spectacular debate.



I will be arguing that while cloning is great in theory, it would damage society to the point where it is just not practical to allow and practice cloning, even with limitations.
Debate Round No. 1


MB17 forfeited this round.


The cloning of humans would affect society in a number of ways. Firstly, it will be the designer babies debate all over again. People will want to choose what clones will look like. Assuming we have the ability to clone, we will eventually have the ability to refine clones and rid them of imperfections. This isn't morally right, people are made the way they are made. There is also religion playing a large part in this. Those with a religion will say only God (or whoever else they think is in charge) has the power to give life and take life away. It is not our responsibility to create life. Not only this but what happens during the testing period? Is it right for us to let people die in the name of a scientific experiment? I think not. I hope you don't forfeit round 3.
Debate Round No. 2


Abdab, thank you for accepting my debate. I will soon hope to show why cloning humans is a good idea both in theory and in practice.

I believe that the cloning of humans would impact society in a good way because:

1) Clones would be able to learn faster and store more information than humans. Since clones would be genetically designed scientists could change their interests and intelligence level, this would mean that they could focus more on learning about science and social problems an therefore they would find more creative ways to combat many problems that the world faces today.

2) Clones could fight wars instead of humans. First, Let me say that I do support war of any kind as I believe it cause unnecessary deaths, but if clones were fighting wars instead of humans the clone would be more efficient and less susceptible to make a major mistake. The clones could be genetically programmed to have the ability to stay awake and alert for long periods of time.

3) If clones worked in hospitals they could deal with patients that have transmittable diseases since their genetics would be programmed so their immune system could fight off any disease, this would also lead to the cure for diseases such as cancer and AIDS because scientist could see what the the clones bodies do to fight off these diseases.

Also, in response to you concerns designer babies wouldn't be a problem as only governments and scientific institutions would be able to clone, not the general population. And as for your concern for religion, people have the freedom to choose their own beliefs, but just because their religion says something is wrong doesn't mean the rest of the world shouldn't be able to do it. For example Christianity, Judaism, and Islamic all believe in fasting, but that doesn't mean everybody in the world has to fast because it would be offensive to those 3 religions if they didn't.


I will number my responses to your arguments and letter my own counter arguments to avoid confusion.

1) We have the power to change people's genes through splicing and the like, but we will only be able to change the genes that we have already found and tested. The majority of a humans DNA is still unknown, which is why we can't simply remove the cancer gene or the muscular dystrophy gene in newborns. This said, I highly doubt we will be able to add extra intelligence genes to a clone. I realise this isn't exactly how it works, but I'm simplifying here. Also, our interests are not determined by our genes, they are influenced by our environment and interactions. They are a choice we have. For example, I was interested in guitar a few years ago, I learned to play, and then I moved on to a new interest. It is not in my genes to play music, or it would be hereditary, and nobody else in my family can play an instrument, none of them are interested in learning either. Also if it were in my genes I would still be interested.

2) This is a quality of life vs sanctity of life debate. Some may say let the clones fight wars because humans won't die, however, if clones are made from humans, and they are a genetic replica, does that not make them human too? Is it right for us to let them die just because they were created asexually? Is it right to design a person, just so they are better at killing someone? Do clones not deserve to live the way they want to?

3) People may not want a clone as a doctor. Scientists created genetically modified foods, which are made the same way as clones. They remove the genes they don't want and add genes they do want. This is how we have tomato plants that survive through a particularly harsh winter and at one point there was even GM vegetables [1] in an attempt to get children to be healthier. This did not work though as people did not want scientifically modified food going into them, the same would happen with clones. People will not want 'fake humans' or scientifically modified doctors operating on them. And once again quality of life plays a part in this. If clones really are people, would it be fair to give them life threatening diseases just for the greater good of the humans?

4) As for my religion comment, I don't think I explained very well. I meant the majority of people are religious [2] and believe it is not right to play God. They would not accept their government doing this so it simply would not be allowed as governments try to avoid riots and revolts.

A) Examples of scenarios that would come with cloning humans would be: Failures. In that we are never going to successfully clone a human the first time. The way a human would be grown is to genetically modify the gametes, grow them in a petri dish and then insert into a womb, like IVF and surrogacy. According to religion once an egg is fertilised it is given life (though according to science I accept this is different) But do you really think people are going to stand for countless 'murders' of children until we can get it right? Also think how this will accept the surrogate mother, surely it is not fair to make her pregnant when she knows she will lose the baby. I doubt the donors will be too happy either.

B) Riots. I think people will simply not accept that we are playing with science and they will say we have gone too far. If their government continues with cloning regardless the people will take it into their own hands, causing unnecessary destruction and violence.

C) It may simply not work. Sheep (which have been successfully cloned) are made up entirely different from humans (which have not been successfully cloned) this one is simply hypothetically speaking, but what happens if we never develop the technology, or don't have the intelligence to clone ourselves?

Debate Round No. 3


As I have already stated in Round #3, I believe that only governments and scientific institutions should be able to clone in order to prevent the "designer babies" problem. You may think that the government keeping cloning technology is wrong and unethical, but come on, the government has already lied about so many science and war experiments that it wouldn't surprise me if they already have the technology to clone, and please don't regard me as a crazy conspiracy theorist as this is a possible scenario, one that I do not think is very likely.

As I have already stated in Round #3, I believe that only governments and scientific institutions should be able to clone in order to prevent the "designer babies" problem. You may think that the government keeping cloning technology is wrong and unethical, but come on, the government has already lied about so many science and war experiments that it wouldn't surprise me if they already have the technology to clone, and please don't regard me as a crazy conspiracy theorist as this is a possible scenario, one that I do not think is very likely.


Just because they have the technology doesn't mean they should though. After all, the question we are debating is 'should cloning be developed and practiced' not 'is there a possibility cloning is secretly being developed and practiced'. That's all I really have to say in regards to round four. The government shouldn't be allowed.
Debate Round No. 4


abdab, in response to round #4, humans have a lot of technology that we shouldn't be using, and yet we have used these technologies and still do. We had nuclear bombs in WW2 ,which we shouldn't have used, but we still did, we have guns to kill people, which we shouldn't use, but we still do. If humanity thinks it's perfectly acceptable to destroy life using technology, then why shouldn't we think that it's perfectly acceptable to create life using technology.

In conclusion I believe that clones would be more efficient and safer than humans, only governments should be allowed to clone, and that cloning could be vital in humanities future. I wish you best of luck in the voting period.


You are contradicting your own argument. Yes we use all of these technologies but we SHOULDN'T. Your point was whether we should, not whether we have the ability to. In conclusion, I think that even if we do have the technology to, it would never be a smart move to globally start cloning, as society would mostly be against it.

Thank you for this debate, I really enjoyed it :)
You really got me riled up at parts and it was fun (and sometimes difficult) to counteract you! I hope we can debate again some time.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by LtnDog 2 years ago
Hmm... Interesting discussion so far (Written in the midst of Round 4).
No votes have been placed for this debate.