The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Jarhyn
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Western governments should not block the sale of genetically-reconstructed Neanderthal slaves

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
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 3 votes the winner is...
Jarhyn
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/27/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,123 times Debate No: 29596
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

These are exciting times here at Eggleston's Ethical Enterprises: the good people who brought you The SkyShrine fast-track prayer device; The Pak-a-Spak Rucksack commuter accessory and EuroPimps ethical soliciting services for punters with a social conscience. (1)

That's because our scientists are busy building on recent research done at Harvard University (2) to create artificial Neanderthal DNA based on the genetic code found in bone samples taken from the preserved remains of a long dead member of this extinct species of hominid.

The resulting DNA will then be inserted into stem cells which will be injected into a gorilla embryo in the early stages of life, and would be powerful enough to steer the embryo's development along Neanderthal, rather than primate, lines, thus creating a living, breathing Neanderthal baby. This process will be repeated to produce a sustainable breeding population in around fifteen years from now.

This revolutionary non-human breeding programme could bring huge benefits to the manufacturing and agricultural industries of developed nations (as well as massive profits for Eggleston's Ethical Enterprises) when the resulting Neanderthals are sold as non-human slaves to undertake the low skilled and potentially hazardous jobs in factories and on farms.

However, this all depends on government's not blocking the development of Neanderthal slaves on human rights grounds and crucial to this debate is whether genetically-reconstructed Neanderthals should be considered to be legally human or animal.

My contention is that, because these slaves are the species Homo neanderthalensis, not Homo sapiens, they were not human, and I, therefore, assert that they should be subject to animal, not human, rights legislation. (3)

To illustrate this point, I ask you to consider the document from whence a human identity originates: the birth certificate. This how a typical a Neanderthal slave birth certificate might read:

BIRTH CERTIFICATE
Given Name(s): Dave the Slave
Family Name: Not applicable.
Date of Birth: 27th August, 2027
Father's Name: Not known, but possibly Thug, Oik or Yob.
Father's Occupation: Paleolithic hunter-gatherer
Mother's Name: Hairy Sue from London Zoo
Mother's Occupation: Gorilla

The authorities would never accept that, would they? They may as well give birth certificate to a pet dog or cat.

And because Neanderthals would be considered as animals rather than humans, bosses could legally make Neanderthal slaves work without pay, only providing them with basic food and cages to live in, and thus saving a fortune on payroll costs.

Furthermore, owners of Neanderthal slaves won't have to waste money on safety equipment or make provisions for employee pensions or health care. Better still, these cavemen coolies could be worked 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

This will delight racists because Neanderthal slaves will take economic migrants' jobs and force them to "go back where they came from", but more importantly, the use of Neanderthal slaves in manufacturing industries will mean Western firms will be able to undercut rivals based in China, India and Brazil who are forced to pay their workers wages in exchange for their labour.

Personally, I can't wait to see the first batch of Eggleston's Ethical Enterprises' Neanderthal slaves go on sale and I am sure the members of Debate.org can't wait either, and I urge you to vote Pro in support of this scheme.

Thank you.

(1) http://break-in-news.com...
(2) http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
(3) http://humanorigins.si.edu...
Jarhyn

Con

Here at the Federal Trade Commission, we take our jobs very seriously. In conjunction with the Department of Social Services, it has come to our attention that the company named “Eggleston's Ethical Enterprises” is currently engaging in making false advertising claims through its company name, as well as participating in the illegal trafficking of persons. It is my unfortunate task to inform you that you must comply with the attached cease and desist order, and immediately halt all current and future contracting for neanderthal sales and further drop the phrase “Ethical” from your company name pending judicial review.

The reason for this decision is that neanderthals are entitled to some benefit of the doubt as to their potential personhood, being an intelligent and innovating species according to all that is known about them scientifically [1]. Given the known hunting strategies of neanderthals, it is noted that they likely developed language. Further, given the self-adornment and burial practices of neanderthals, as well as their large cranial capacity, it is likely that they are the intellectual equals of many individuals we grant citizenship to [2].

It is the decision of this board that Neanderthals may have the potential to attain a sufficient awareness of self and society to warrant a consideration of ethical personhood and thus citizenship, even if no known neanderthal has yet done so (similar to tea partiers, Westboro Baptists, meth addicts, online debaters, and William Lane Craig).

We have already taken the time to appeal this decision to judicial review, however the injunction stands until such a review completes.

Thank you and good day.

Bibliography*

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

*While the above cited sources are wikipedia pages, all significant claims made in it have primary and secondary support.
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

I welcome the kind response to my proposals from a representative of the Federal Trade Commission, which exists to "prevent business practices that are anticompetitive or deceptive or unfair to consumers; to enhance informed consumer choice and public understanding of the competitive process." (1) Some might say this is a truly noble cause while others might say that America is in danger of becoming a nanny state and that, instead of interfering with the free market economy, the government should help foster the spirit of 'caveat emptor' where consumers perform their own due diligence before parting with their cash.

My opponent further informs us he is working in conjunction with the Department of Health and Human Services (HSS), which is "the United States government's principal agency for protecting the health of all Americans and provides essential human services, especially for those who are least able to help themselves" and, as such, some might say the HSS is a most worthy organisation while others might may point out that the "HHS represents almost a quarter of all federal outlays, and it administers more grant dollars than all other federal agencies combined" (2) and that the poor and needy are a bunch of work-shy scroungers who should learn to fend for themselves instead of expecting hard-working taxpayers to bail them out, and they might also add that the vast amount of money wasted on the HSS would be better spent reducing the budget deficit in order to pave the way for tax cuts for wealth-creating corporations such as Goldman Sachs, BP and Eggleston's Ethical Enterprises.

Moving on to the debate, I thank my opponent for highlighting the fact that Neanderthals are "an intelligent and innovating species" - this is one of the reasons why Neanderthals slaves should fetch high prices when they go on sale.

My opponent further points out that Neanderthals would have the ability to communicate with one another and have superior intellects to certain humans (Manchester United's Wayne Rooney springs to mind as an example) but the same can be said of dolphins (3) but they are not afforded human rights and often find themselves living in captivity in water parks and being forced to perform cruel and humiliating tricks for gawping tourists. (4)

Finally, I am dismayed and disappointed that reputable, law-abiding slave-traders such as Eggleston"s Ethical Enterprises should be subject to judicial review in America of all countries. Let's not forget the words of George Washington, a founding father of the nation, first President of the United States of America and proud owner of hundreds of slaves, who warned of the dangers of undue government interference in the affairs of the people when he said: "The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments." (5)

George Washington once also said: "The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves." This fine quote has inspired a quote of my own: "The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free to buy Neanderthal slaves from Eggleston's Ethical Enterprises."

Thank you.

(1) http://www.ftc.gov...
(2) http://www.hhs.gov...
(3) http://www.bbc.co.uk...
(4) http://www.peta.org...
(5) http://www.brainyquote.com...
Jarhyn

Con

Due to a lack of access to a PC until after the point in which my argument will be due, I am going to post this as an extremely truncated version. To put things succinctly, lacking certain knowledge that Neanderthals are incapible of personhood, and ambiguity as to whether their known capabilities put them on equal intellectual footing as modern humans, it can only be the case that they must be extended the benefit of the doubt rather than risk excluding actual people from our society of peers.

Dolphins and other animals are clearly different in that they do not seek to redefine their own existence in the way humans do. There is room for caution, and where the rights of persons are concerned, the inconvenience of caution is preferable to an accidental crime against an ethical agent.
Debate Round No. 2
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Jarhyn 4 years ago
Jarhyn
That's alright. I intend my closing to be in the form of an abbreviated judicial decision.
Posted by brian_eggleston 4 years ago
brian_eggleston
Thanks for being such a great sport and having a sense of humour with this one, Jarhyn, I hope I am able to respond in kind...but it will be tomorrow now as I am completely tied up with work.
Posted by Jarhyn 4 years ago
Jarhyn
Given the stakes, namely repeating the failures that led to the civil war, and the ethical fallout which is still reverberating in our culture, it seems prudent to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
Jahryn made the mistake of saying that neanderthals are people.
Posted by Jarhyn 4 years ago
Jarhyn
Apologies to PRO, as I was spending the majority of the weekend doing unspeakable things to my boyfriend which would cause even George Tekai to blush and say "Oh My..."

Also, given the interesting levity of the opening argument, I would hope my rather whimsical formulation of my rebuttal and counter-argument is acceptable.
Posted by YYW 4 years ago
YYW
Love this!
Posted by brian_eggleston 4 years ago
brian_eggleston
Great minds think alike, eh?
Posted by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
You beat me to it, I was just typing out the terms for the same debate idea.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
brian_egglestonJarhynTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con proved that Neanderthals are similar enough to modern humans to warrant consideration of their rights. Pro loses conduct points for suggesting that slavery could ever be acceptable.
Vote Placed by FritzStammberger 4 years ago
FritzStammberger
brian_egglestonJarhynTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made the more ethical argument.
Vote Placed by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
brian_egglestonJarhynTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not prove that neanderthals deserve the benefit of the doubt of being people, and their argument fell apart from there.