The Instigator
FanboyMctroll
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Emily77
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

Eugenics needs to become mandatory

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 1 vote the winner is...
Emily77
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/18/2018 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,175 times Debate No: 112940
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

FanboyMctroll

Pro

The following story from CNN is exactly why we need mandatory eugenics. To eradicate this form of zombie deformities and illness, which incidentally is passed down through generations of deformed genes by people who should not be reproducing.

These creatures/mutants born, need 24/7 supervision and care and cost millions of dollars to keep this ameba petry dish experiment alive through health care.

At what point do we finally say enough is enough, I mean what's next are we going to keep a ball of hair with one tooth alive because it's a person, no it's not a person it's a deformed zombie specimen that should be aborted prior to birth or incinerated after birth as a deformed virus/zombie.

https://www.cnn.com...
Emily77

Con

I look forward to an interesting debate!

While eugenics itself is a very interesting topic, I believe the theory and it's criticisms are far too extensive to respond to what has been offered as a very specific example. Therefore, I will seek to narrow my response to address the limited scope presented. This means my argument will seek to prove that the example of Sophia given by my opponent does not bolster my opponent's position and in fact, works more in favour of natural selection.

If my opponent wishes to expand the scope of this argument outside of the particular example, I am happy to move in any direction he sees as compelling.

Understanding and Defining Eugenics
The first order of the argument is to try to set a standard for what eugenics actually is. This is difficult as there is no agreed upon consensus for what classifies as eugenics however, what we can state with relative certainty is that it is the alternative to a 'natural selection'. natural selection operates from the bottom up model of gene selection in an organic fashion whereas eugenics seeks to impose a top down model through standards and restrictions imposed by man. I will therefore use the following definition for the basis of my argument:

"The practice by which man seeks to manipulate natural selection through imposing and/or enforcing inorganic standards and policies to attain predefined genetic manifestations".

If my opponent wishes to change this definition or use a different one, I am open to adapting as long as it is still in line with contemporary understanding of the definition.

Sophia: Eugenics vs. Natural Selection
Now that we've defined eugenics, I will seek to argue that natural selection would be more effective in curtailing genetic abnormalities and "deficiencies"* such as Rett Syndrome. In order for eugenics to be effective in preventing these conditions, the all of the following assumptions and premises would have to be sound:
  • I. Rett Syndrome is more likely to be passed down through existing genetics than by random genetic mutation.
  • II. Those in possession of the Rett Syndrome are likely to reproduce.
  • III. The genetic benefits of natural selection do not outweigh the cost of Rett Syndrome on society.

Addressing Assumption I: Based on the current genetic analysis, 90% of the instances of Rett Syndrome are by mutation of the MECP2 gene caused by damage to a sperm cell.(1) Moreover, given the nature of the mutation as caused by damage, the likelihood of it being passed on even in the instance of reproduction is less than 1%.(2) This means that there is overall greater than a 99.9% chance of Rett Syndrome being completely outside the scope of eugenics in every instance.

Addressing Assumption II: Based on the damning evidence above, this point almost becomes moot. However, if we truly are concerned with the less than 1% chance of the mutation being passed on, we will address the possibilities of reproduction. Rett Syndrome typically always affects females as a random mutation on the 'X' chromosome. As boys only have one allele for this gene, the instance is extremely rare and usually ends in death for a fetus for a male infant with the deformity (they must have another rare condition called Klinefelter Syndrome in which they have two 'X' chromosome to survive).(2) Do to obvious reasons of deformity in addition to problems with protein synthesis, the likelihood of women being able to procreate with Rett Syndrome is nearly impossible unless she suffers from a form so mild as to passed unnoticed.

Addressing Assumption III: Finally, because your argument was in favour of human intervention as opposed to natural selection, we must assess the practicalities associated with genetic screening for Rett Syndrome as opposed to letting natural selection take its course. Above, we discovered that natural selection is over 99.9% effective in deterring the continuation of this gene in every instance so in order for eugenics to be better, it must meet two criteria:
  • i. It must be 100% effective in eliminating Rett Syndrome in every instance
  • ii. It must be more cost effective for the government and overall populace to impose a eugenic solution rather than allow natural selection to continue.
In addressing the first concern: currently, prenatal sequencing of the affected gene yields only a rough 95% success rate in identifying the mutations with the best techniques and equipment available.(3) This is something that many clinics do not have access too and so, the more realistic estimate when looking at well-run laboratories it comes closer to 80%.(4)

In addressing the second concern, the test itself to test for Rett Syndrome can range from anywhere to $1100 to over $10,000 depending on the equipment and facilities available. This would, of course, have to be government funded as it is a federal regulation and therefore would cost, if we look at a number of pregnancies and subtract for abortions we get a rough, conservative estimate of around 5 million.(5) Multiply that by even the lowest estimate for Rett Syndrome screening and we are left with a whopping 5.5 billion dollar price tag for a pre screening procedure with less than an 80% success rate (remember, because we were conservative on the amount we were willing to pay, the pr screening is less likely to be successful).

In contrast, we can look at the average cost of Rett Syndrome annually which amounts to a median of $21,158 annually. If we multiply this by the estimate of those afflicted in America which is 27,200 we get a total of $575,497,600 annually which, is a significant reduction in the price tag.(7) Moreover, it is very important to state that the vast majority of this cost is a burden upon caregivers, whereas the cost of pre screening would have to be incurred upon the government in order for it to be effective. Though almost a footnote, I believe it to be an incredibly important distinction.

Conclusion
Based on the above information, I conclude that natural selection is a superior method to eugenic intervention for preventing cases like Sophia's from burdening society. If my opponent wishes to expand his scope to other topics involving eugenics, I am happy to do so.

Sources Used
1. Joanna Dragich, Isa Houwink-Manville, Carolyn Schanen; Rett syndrome: a surprising result of mutation in MECP2, Human Molecular Genetics, Volume 9, Issue 16, 1 October 2000, Pages 2365–2375

2. Amir, R. E., Van den Veyver, I. B., Wan, M., Tran, C. Q., Francke, U., & Zoghbi, H. Y. (1999). Rett syndrome is caused by mutations in X-linked MECP2. Nature Genetics, Oct;23(2), 185–188.

3. Ruthie E. Amir, MD, V. Reid Sutton, MD, and Ignatia B. Van den Veyver, MD, Journal of Child Neurology, Vol 20, Issue 9, pp. 779-783

4. As through the Greenwood Genetic Centre et al.

5. Statista, Pregnancy & Facts, 2010, https://www.statista.com...

6. Hendrie, Delia et al. Measuring Use and Cost of Health Sector and Related Care in a Population of Girls and Young Women with Rett Syndrome. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. Vol. 5. Iss. 2. Pages 2011 901-909.

7. Healthgrades, Prevalence and Incidence of Rett Syndrome. http://www.rightdiagnosis.com...

*Technically this term would be incorrectly used from an evolutionary perspective but in the context of this individuals genetics, it can be utilized.
Debate Round No. 1
FanboyMctroll

Pro

Eugenics has historically been a very controversial topic. From its conception in Plato"s Republic, to its formalization by Galton, it has always attempted to achieve one thing: make humans better. Does that sound like a bad thing? Of course not! The problem lies in its application. Romans applied it by drowning their deformed (or otherwise impaired) children, the USA built Cold Spring Harbor where they sterilized and euthanized the "unfit to reproduce," Germany had Auschwitz where the Nazis decided who lived or died, Canada had sterilized the mentally deficient,

Eugenics genuinely is a great idea: reduce crime rates, decrease human stupidity, create beautiful people, but you must concede that there are some ugly-azz people out there regardless of race, increase human intelligence, increase human benevolence by researching the genes responsible for evil predispositions, cure health problems, etc.

Sure, we"d be depriving imbeciles from their constitutional "rights and freedoms," but who the hell cares!?

In these wonderful modern times, we have enough resources and knowledge to know exactly which genes affect which behaviors, and we have a sufficient societal history to know which traits we truly deem undesirable. The government should spend precious tax dollars in developing an extensive database upon which every single human will be profiled according to their IQ, psychological propensities, health, background, history, etc. Imagine a dating app where you can see your potential matches" complete genetic profile.

People with truly horrendous genes should be sterilized. As a society we must decide our future, and our future is in our descendance. If we keep allowing for imbecility, deformed, zombie looking humanoid mutants and genetic diseases to exists, we are only dooming our posterity. People with truly remarkable genes should be put in government-funded breeding programs.

Doesn"t it seem incredibly selfish to bring children into this world knowing that they"ll suffer from health problems and low intelligence? It"s not right to bring children into this world simply because you want them.

As a society we simply can"t afford to keep letting the unfit deformed, mentally ill, zombie walking mutants continue breeding.

fanboy out

mic drop
Emily77

Con

I suppose I need to again reiterate here that I will be debating the arguments proposed by the blog listed below since my opponent copy-pasted his response from there:

https://medium.com...

Before addressing these, I would also like to encourage my opponent to actually read the argument I crafted above; not a single word of his response addresses any of what I argued above (I guess that's yet another pitfall of the ol' Ctrl+V strategy). I hope that, in what you've promised to be your own thoughts and insights in the next round, you address the arguments I have previously made in addition to the new ones presented here.

Clarifying the Argument
Since my opponent has widened his scope on the topic of Eugenics but has provided no parameters for the debate, I wish to propose my argument: natural selection is a better method for biological success in humans than eugenics.

I would also appreciate it if my opponent would clarify his stance on which type of eugenics he promotes; there are many styles of implementation. He has argued an extremely wide-range of styles that are often mutually exclusive.
  1. Is your argument seeking to pre screen babies? If so, please address the issue of cost I discussed above.
  2. Are you seeking to sterilize individuals with undesirable traits? If so, please clearly state which traits you believe should be the standard for sterilization.
  3. Are you seeking to euthanize those with less desirable traits? If so, please make clear what the parameters are in this instance and how you feel it should be effectively implemented.

Rebutting the Plagiarized Argument
I will now address the plagiarized arguments presented. For the record, citation is sexy.

Argument I: Eugenics is a great idea.
Rebuttal I: Natural selection just does it more effectively.
I can't help but agree with the statement that eugenics is a great idea. Therein lies the problem; the idea behind it is great, but in practice, it's simply less effective and efficient in its overall goal than natural selection. One of the main reasons is that natural selection is immune to human bias and error: it simply always follows the trajectory of enhancing a species to ideally fit their environment. In order to do this, it operates on a bottom up model where is seeks to use the mixing of different genes in addition to mutations in genetic code to create a robust genetic diversity as a breeding ground for creating well fine-tuned and well-adapted traits.

Eugenics, on the other hand, while it's aims (in my opinion) are noble, it just doesn't work as effectively as natural selection. This is because it imposes a top down model on genetics which has the consequence of limiting genetic diversity. my opponent might say, "this is a good thing! We want to limit genetic diversity so that we get more of the traits that we want in a limited gene pool!". Unfortunately, that's not actually how genetics works. For a prime example of why this is problematic, we need look no further than incest. The reason why incest is more likely to produce genetic defects is because of the limiting of the gene pool. Let's look at why:

The Briefest Summary of Genetics Ever Written
Every single complex organism on earth (yes, this includes humans!) has a collection of genetic material. In humans, these are organized into chromosomes, and chromosomes are made up of DNA (the iconic double helix strands). Each one of those "bars" we see on the double helix is actually made up of two alleles. The reason why we get constant mixtures of alleles is because haploid cells (sex cells) only contain half a person's genetic material. So you get half your alleles from the father, half your alleles from your mother.

This is something you may not know, based upon your responses thus far: in every human, there are abnormal, mutated and damaged genes. Many of these genes are lethal. However, these kinds of genes are generally always recessive, meaning they generally require the gene to be expressed in both alleles. This means that each and every human is a carrier of many, many harmful and potentially lethal genes. When natural selection is allowed to flourish, we get remarkable diversity in the gene pool so that the likelihood of a single human having two copies of the harmful allele are extremely slim. When we begin limiting the gene pool with certain practices like incest or eugenics, we drastically increase the likelihood for both harmful alleles. This means that the more limited the gene pool, the more likely deformity, disability and genetic disorders become. "Moral" arguments aside, this development in genetic understanding is actually one of the main reasons we've moved away from eugenics rather than towards it.

Argument II: We have enough resources and knowledge to know exactly which genes affect which behaviours.
Rebuttal II: We actually don't know what over 98% of our DNA does.
Even though we've sequenced the entire human genome, this simply means we've identified all of the genes that are characteristically human and some of the common variants in those genes. Unfortunately, we have so much more work to do because though we know what genes differentiate us from, say, a banana, we don't actually know what proteins all those genes code, how they are affected by the expression of one another and, perhaps most glaringly, how all the other DNA in our bodies affects those genes.

Once the genome was sequenced, there was a huge amount of DNA we thought was useless. Only very recently has the scientific community begun to show evidence that they previously disregarded "junk DNA" may actually be the DNA that acts as a complex system regulating which genes are to be expressed, when, and where. One of the recent famous examples of this was the case of using this DNA to control where on the body a fly would grow another eyeball. (I have posted a link to this below if you're interested).

Argument III: Out of context emotional, moralistic plea for better genes.
Rebuttal III: Homogeneity makes us too susceptible to extinction.
I would argue that the real emotional plea in this argument is a future where we can keep growing and evolving better traits to suit our environment. Natural selection is a tool for a species to not only keep improving and avoid genetic deformities and disability (even animals generally do not practice incest). Just as importantly, however, natural selection is a method to keep genetics diverse so that we are more able to withstand external changes in the world around us. Mass exterminations of a single populace are preventable with genetic diversity and adaptive capability. In our species' infancy, a group of primates got split into two because jungle conditions began to be strained by the population. Half of our early primate ancestors got pushed into the fields while the other half remained in wooded regions. Those that got pushed out were forced to adapt because they could no longer use trees as a means for escaping prey. Instead, we had to learn to use tools. Those that were too 'unintelligent' to learn tool making and usage died; those that mastered it thrived and passed those genes. This kind of 'natural eugenics' continued until we ended up becoming the remarkable beings we are today. We are still continuing to evolve by this process, and interfering with it will actually do more harm than good.

Sources Used
Wilson, David Sloan; Wilson, Edward O. Rethinking the Theoretical Foundations of Sociobiology. The Quarterly Review of Biology. 82 (4). 2007. : 327–348

Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene. New York : Oxford University Press, 1978.

John R.Nambu, Josephine O.Lewis, Keith A.Wharton Jr., Stephen T.Crews. The Drosophila Single-Minded Gene Encodes a Helix-Loop-Helix Protein that Acts as a Master Regulator of CNS Midline Development. Volume 67. Issue 6., Rev. 2004, Pages 1157-1167.

Debate Round No. 2
FanboyMctroll

Pro

Ok I have under 4 hours to post my argument on here and I'm currently in a meeting and have 2 more to go to, so I will make this quick.

I guess I will need to respond to my opponents mounds of boring BS about eugenics and her nerdy reply to the debate that almost put me to sleep reading it, perfect example of why we need eugenics to eliminate people like her with mental problems that should be in a rubber room instead of posting mounds of information that qualifies for great sleeping material.

First of all, natural selection does not always work, As my opponent mentioned, natural selection would be better than eugenics, lets clarify that statement. What is natural selection? Does it mean we use modern medicine to improve our lives and use that as natural selection? How many people naturally have prescription drugs cursing through their veins while naturally selecting a partner? Is that natural selection? How many gene altering medication are used everyday by people, these medications do alter cells, affect growth and change body chemistry in people, so now these people reproduce with someone who is bi-polar but on meds, is this natural selection?

Eugenics looks at having the best, strongest healthiest genes to reproduce, to have healthy strong people without medications, without the need for prescription drugs to reproduce. We want the best, healthiest, strongest people to survive and prosper on earth, like we have had in the past for centuries without modern medicine. People of today are spared because they have a pulse, we could have a zombie like Sophie who should have never been born, never raised as she is a lab zombie that has been released into nature and now society is supposed to take care of her through Medicare, and who will take care of this monster when the mother dies? How many millions of dollars will be spent keeping this mutant around?

Rett syndrome would not even be around if we just eradicated these people in the first place. Like lepers in the past who were isolated on an island to stop the spread of the disease, Rett Syndrome, Downs Syndrome, Bi-Polar, Schizophrenia can all be eradicated if we take all these infected specimen's and either lock them up or isolate them from the rest of society and chemically castrate them to remove any chance of reproduction. This is a 100% proof idea of eliminating these abnormalities and frail humans.

Unlike in nature where errors in natural selection lead to weak runts which in turn become food or just perish and only the strong survive, in humans we use too much emotion and many believe that we need to save every invalid, sick, mentally ill, deformed person on the planet. Well like the saying goes, "you are only as strong as your weakest link, do we want our weakest link to be Sophie? The mentally incapable zombie who everyone needs to take care of because the sick retarded mother could not keep her legs closed and decided to reproduce even though she herself is ill and should have been castrated long ago to stop the cycle of evolution of inferior human species. Do we want a society of droolers who need to be taken care of their whole life. Is this how these people would have imagined living, with debilitating illnesses? Is it fair to them to be drooling all day long and be confined to a wheel chair? For what because some degenerate parent decided to reproduce?

Eugenics is the way to go to have a young vibrant, healthy society without the tax, government spending on sub humans who are born with issues where they would not have if we had proper eugenics. Retards reproducing retards will continue to happen until we eradicate the problem, the parents the sick, degenerates who decide to reproduce with each other while sharing a plate of drool. The sick should not reproduce. Why care about the deformed genes? In nature this would never happen and natural selection works, but not in humans as everyone wants to be a savior and people will fight for even a fetus which is not even considered human until birth but because some believe it's already human they will raise these imbeciles in society because humans don't know when to say no.

Eugenics works and is the best solution to a problem that should be eradicated.

Sources Used

Fanboy McTroll - 1989 PhD Thesis, Volume 2, pages 34, 46, 57, 89.
Emily77

Con

I wish to thank my opponent for making the tough decision to follow up on the debate. If I were caught plagiarizing, creating an imaginary reason so as not to have to respond and then lying about having written a thesis, honestly, I would have been too embarrassed to return. I think your courage is quite admirable.

Let's Talk Arguments

Misunderstanding Natural Selection: You stated: "What is natural selection? Does it mean we use modern medicine to improve our lives and use that as natural selection?"
Now, I understand that, as you stated above, reading scholarly information "puts you to sleep," but you can't really argue for Eugenics if you eschew anything above a fourth grade vocabulary. I will decidedly say that the statement, "How many gene altering medication are used everyday by people, these medications do alter cells, affect growth and change body chemistry in people" belies a blatant lack of understanding of both medical science and evolutionary biology. Genes affect what medications work and how they work, not the other way around. The genes in your body at birth are the genes you are stuck with for life (at least for now).

Now, you may and your mother may have had a conversation about how "I'm mean and should agree with you 'cause you're so smart!" while she folded your laundry yesterday, but history would agree that I pass every threshold ever historically held as a eugenics standard. I'm white, I'm attractive, I was classified as gifted all throughout my youth, I am now working on a masters in Neuroscience and yet, my father was bi-polar. Do I believe skin colour, level of attractiveness, overall IQ or level of education are healthy standards to set for eugenics? No. Not only are they arbitrary constructs of things humans some believe are of value, but they are a mixture of genetic traits that hold no value (whiteness) and traits that have no correlation whatsoever in genetics (level of education). So while I may have some recessive genes that are linked to bipolar risk (as most likely do you; most humans do), they require more than one allele and a mutation in order to activate them making it just as likely for my children to get bipolar disorder as it is for your children. I ask you, do we sterilize everyone?

Misunderstanding Eugenics: Now, I would assume for a fellow who continually drops and then is forced to pickup an imaginary microphone, you wouldn't be so quick to sterilize people with cognitive and musculature disorders. I already argued for why limiting the gene pool causes more deformities and cognitive disabilities. You haven't actually responded to that. So I suppose in rebuttal to your position on Eugenics I simply need to repeat that stance and once again, after nap time when you feel as though you're ready to tackle an academic paragraph, go back an reread why limiting the gene pool causes this to happen. You don't even need to take my word for it. My links and citations are not imaginary theses that don't exist, but real links and books out there. Feel free to explore, my friend.

Misunderstanding Rett Syndrome: You claim "How many millions of dollars will be spent keeping this mutant around?" and I will once again refer you to my cost analysis in the very first argument post. Math is tough, so you might want to find an adult you trust to help you go through the numbers. Much of the rest of argument on Rett Syndrome that follows is simply moralistic appeals to emotion, much like, what I can only assume you were hoping would be the response to your debate challenge in the first place. It's easy to clash emotional argument against emotional argument: no one actually has to know anything. That's not what this debate is; I've introduced facts and evidence. I'm simply asking you address them and provide your own (though it seems you don't even grasp basic plagiarism since what you ctrl+V'd was also an opinion piece).

Conclusion
At this point, I've presented a lot of evidence, none of which was actually addressed. I can only hope the readers of this debate have a reading level above that of my opponent. Here is a breakdown of my arguments that have not been addressed.

1. Rett Syndrome is based on a mutation of a gene rather than a gene itself.

2.Rett Syndrome mathematically nearly always occurs in a parent who does not have Rett Syndrome.

3. Natural Selection has already made it nearly impossible for Rett Syndrome to gain the two alleles that it needs to flourish by self-terminating most of its males affected.

4. It would cost more to implement eugenic screenings that it does to provide support to afflicted individuals.

5. Most disabilities and deformities are recessive in nature and require two alleles of the kind to be expressed which is extremely unlikely.

6. The way the above becomes more likely is to limit the gene pool, something eugenics seeks to do. We need look no farther than incest to see the effects of limited genetic availability and the rate of deformity and cognitive dysfunction.

7. Moral questions aside, this new understanding of genetics and alleles is the main reason we've moved away from eugenics rather than towards it.

8. Natural selection is superior in reducing these rates because it naturally diversifies the gene pool where eugenics limits it.

9. Natural selection is immune to human bias and error in trait determination and instead always gears us towards models better equipped to not only survive, but thrive in the changing environment.


Post-Script to My Opponent:
I would also encourage my opponent to post his "thesis" on this topic he claims to have written. I asked him for the link, and he simply linked me to his profile page which again makes me question his zealousness at euthanizing the mentally incompetent but I suppose the Dunning-Kruger is one of those tricky human biases natural selection seeks to avoid. However, I still encourage you to post this thesis but, make no mistake, as I know you are fond of taking credit for the thoughts of others, I will investigate any work you present to me and, if I discover it not to be yours, I will contact the scholar through email to let him know that you are plagiarizing work. I hope you at some point will read the information I have posted. You have managed to convince me that Eugenics is a good idea only insofar as your intellectual capabilities have been demonstrated here. Luckily, I believe that your children and grandchildren will be better equipped to handle an increasingly scientific world.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by FanboyMctroll 3 years ago
FanboyMctroll
Your Bi-polar arguments won't win you any votes, there is a 50% chance that you will be passed down the genes from your father and will become bi-polar yourself, therefore you are not a credible witness or an expert on eugenics as your mental illness will show in the votes for this debate.

I was pretty certain a person of mental illness would take up this debate as this affects them directly. Thank you for accepting this debate, unfortunately you are not an expert witness on eugenics as you would be the number one reason for eugenics and your emotional debate answers will not sway the public in voting as I provided the more well balanced points and after I win this debate we wont be hearing from you anymore as you will have to be admitted into an asylum for bi-polar PTSD trauma of losing a debate you feel so passionate about pouring so much information into this topic to only lose in the end in the voting period.

Thanks for participating, your straight jacket is down the hall from the rubber room. Of course eugenics would certainly solve this problem in the long run, eliminating zombies like Sophie and people with mental deficiencies. to have a master race of superior humans that I will lead in the quest for degenerate less society.
Posted by FanboyMctroll 3 years ago
FanboyMctroll
Here is the link, since you don't believe me

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Emily77 3 years ago
Emily77
I find it interesting that you felt the need to copy paste your post and are now claiming to have written a "thesis". Could you please provide a link to this thesis? My guess is that this is yet another attempt at fudging the system trying to make people think you're intelligent enough to actually make an argument since you can't seem to prove that here.

So please, provide the link. The point of citations is so people can verify the information from whence it came.
Posted by Emily77 3 years ago
Emily77
You're not even going to bother reading my argument?

Look, I understand people get passionate about a subject. I'm all for that. I'm also really baffled as to why someone would come on a website that is geared towards exploring ideas through formal debate style if you don't actually want to have formal debate.

First, you post some sloppily written, moral treatise. Then, you copy paste an argument for your cause. Now, you won't even read or respond to the counterargument I've proposed. Are you suggesting that since you are the one with the obviously lower IQ here, that it you who should have been euthanized?

You're aware that this is a practice forum and if you actually get better at debate, you need to make a modicum of effort, right? You're aware that you can be misguided on a topic and by exploring the ideas that run counter to the topic, you can better refine the way think, right?

You're actually no better than the insane moralists on the left who can't see beyond emotion....logical skills left to wither .
Posted by FanboyMctroll 3 years ago
FanboyMctroll
I'm sorry, I am out of town on business and have no access to e-mail or web. I'm off the grid so it looks like I win the debate having the last word.

Retards should be eradicated through eugenics, case close, apology accepted (mic drop)
Posted by FanboyMctroll 3 years ago
FanboyMctroll
Don't worry Emily I will have my own opinions in the next round of the debate, the only reason I used someone else's work is because I am 100% in agreement with the author, but for the next round it will be all 100% plagiarized free Fanboy McTroll author material, just like the comments on here.

I will even include source links of my debate to my profile
Posted by Masterful 3 years ago
Masterful
Emily's debate formula: C=2`0;r or C=`0; + a = a1 + (n " 1)d* 3(2 + x)=3(9 + x)

FanBoy's debate formula: Ctrl+C Ctrl+V
Posted by Emily77 3 years ago
Emily77
I just want to say, I can't help but notice you've plagiarized your entire argument by copy pasting the paragraph written at the following website:

https://medium.com...

I can't help but think this to be a little ridiculous on an informal platform for the sole purpose of entertainment. However, since you obviously wish to see a proper argument on Eugenics addressed, even if you are unable to formulate one yourself, I will address the issue and continue to debate that author's work. I hope when responding, you will post your own work. I suppose in my works cited section I will have to include a link to an academic document pertaining to the rules on plagiarism.
Posted by FanboyMctroll 3 years ago
FanboyMctroll
C'mon draw on all your evidence to prove that retards, schizo's, bi-polar, deformed degenerates should not be sterilized and placed on a sub human deserted island for unfit to be human specimens, which in nature would be killed off as runts, but in our bleeding heart society they are deemed human and have to be supported their whole life because of the Mother Teresa type, tree hugging people who believe that any ball of flesh and hair is considered a human being, when in reality it's a gnome hiccup that should be incinerated.
Posted by Emily77 3 years ago
Emily77
Unfortunately, you argument doesn't actually have any basis in fact. If my opponent decides to broaden his horizon beyond the Sophia case, I will be drawing on all of the evidence available in evolutionary biology and genetics to show why.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
FanboyMctrollEmily77Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: As Con pointed out in round two, Pro plagiarized at least some of his arguments. This is poor conduct.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.