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


Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/22/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 30,247 times Debate No: 14464
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)




Humans are not perfect. There are many of flaws. One of the biggest flaws is our DNA. Out of the entire genetic code, we only use about 10 percent. Our muscles are inefficient at delivering oxygen to the cells and energy conservation is scarcely there. Our joints creak and break under pressure and our blood vessels get clogged with organic sludge. Our brain is infected with vile emotions such as greed, lust and hate. Eugenics is the key to fixing our problems. Keep in mind this is not the eugenics of the 1940's where Hitler purged the world of a race he thought inferior. This eugenics is the genetic manipulation of human evolution to the point of perfection. The flaws are few and the possibilities are endless and exponentially successful in later generations. I believe Eugenics research should be conducted for the enormous increase in human potential stemming from the increase in physical health, mental health, and other bodily imperfections.
Many religious and moral-questioning figures denounce the thought of Eugenics to the masses and preach of the Nazi's horrible reign of destruction under the flag of Eugenics. They say that Eugenics is a direct violation against a deity. I say that this is not the case, that, if anything, this is something any deity would be proud of. Genetic manipulation would be using the tools given to us to make us healthier and smarter. The only reason humans aren't other animals is because they can find and use tools that aren't already given to them. That is what Eugenics is, the most human thing you can do.
More generally, Eugenics will solve the imperfections of the human race. Beauty imperfections will be demolished. Everyone would have a chance at a perfect relationship and no one would ever feel self-conscious. Disorders and disease would never be seen. Diabetes would be unheard of and no one would ever need to see a doctor. Most importantly, genetic garbage will be exterminated. This will increase cell efficiency by a significant amount and our bodies would never age and wounds would heal in moments.
Also, Eugenics will increase physical health and potential. Organs will be stronger and more efficient. Heart problems would become nonexistent, child birth would be painless, cramps would never occur and appendectomies wouldn't happen. Muscle growth would also be increased. This would eliminate obesity and dwarfism. Also, muscle sensitivity will be heightened. This would mean that human reflexes would be faster and more precise. Humans would be robotic-like in precision and intricacy. Surgeons will save thousands more lives with a steady hand and an articulate touch.
Most importantly, Eugenics will also increase mental efficiency. First, brain capacity will be increased. This means that the attention span of the person would be increased and the memory of them would be even greater. People would remember things that no normal person should know. Also, mental concentration would be more powerful. Geniuses will become common and legends will be born. String theory would be thought in middle school and relativity would be common family topic of debate. Most importantly, emotions would be less detrimental to society. Murderers would be nonexistent and felons would be hard to find


I would like to thank my opponent for setting up this debate, and hope that the audience will find it intellectually stimulating.


My opponent claims that we (I assume humans) only use 10% of our DNA. I respectfully request a citation on that claim, as I can find no corroborating facts. At most, I find esoteric and pseudo-scientific New Age types making these kind of claims.

My opponent also alleges that his version of eugenics is nothing like the eugenics programs used by the Nazi's. The problem is that it's a slippery slope, and to some degree always will be. Who decides what are or are not desirable traits? Therein lies the problem. For it is a select few that decide what is or isn't desired in the population, and it was precisely this ideology that Nazi programs were built around.

PRO's understanding of eugenics is also a bit sophomoric and naive. For instance, he goes so far to claim that it would solve relationship problems because everyone no one would feel self-conscious about their looks. This, of course, is an exaggeration that he's erected in his mind. It's a hypothetical that he's pawning in order to sell the Utopian dream. You still have the DNA from a spermatozoa and an ovum. Whatever phenotypical traits exist there, exists. You cannot simply create a Mr. Potato Head at your whims. The raw data that exists can't be added to. For instance, if you want your child to have Nicole Kidman's nose, it's as easy pressing a button. That cannot happen. You still need to map Nicole Kidman's genome, locate the exact locus, and specifically use her DNA. DNA manipulation doesn't create genes that don't exist, it simply alters them. Think of it as intended gene mutation. Until PRO can demonstrate how it works, it's nothing more than saying in the future we can travel back in time. It's very attractive, but it doesn't mean that the reality is anything like the fantasy.

PRO continues asserting wild vagaries like murder and greed would cease to exist without the slightest bit of corroboration. In essence, his entire premise exists only on the theoretical basis of everything going exactly as planned. Moreover, he evidently has no realistic sense of what his perfect world and perfect beings would take in order to invent his race of supermen.


PRO seems so imbued with the possibilities that he doesn't entertain what atrocities might come slithering through the back door. For the time being, let's look at it from a practical vantage point. Since the kind of eugenics he is discussing is in its infancy, let's be realistic. Only the top 5% richest people in the world could afford to pay a team of geneticists to genetically engineer the perfect child of their dreams. For the sake of the argument, let's say that every characteristic of your choice was properly coded and went as planned, and the child's organs are healthier than average, certain genes that were previously prone to cancer are eradicated, all the little imperfections are gone, etc. We have, in essence, the world's healthiest baby.

Now, only a handful of the super wealthy can afford this procedure. The cost for such a procedure would be simply be impractical or altogether impossible for most people to pay. What we have is a monopoly on perfection (which is, of course, a relative term). But what of the billions upon billions of people who cannot afford such a procedure?


Borne in with this idea is the unintended consequence of creating a new kind of discrimination. The new discrimination details how those who have been genetically engineered have a preferential advantage over those who have not. Those who were born naturally, like you or I, could be shoved aside for the man who has the documentation proving that he was genetically engineered. Because he's supposed to be healthier and smarter, we who are not fortunate are cast aside. The population of the genetically altered people increases because it's now becoming cheaper as the demand is higher. The superhumans are beginning to populate at a rate competitive with those conceived by completely natural means. The superhumans snub their nose at those who are deemed inferior, and it progressively gets worse with time. For example, insurance agencies would be able to look at one's genome and decide if you are eligible for coverage by seeing if you are pre-disposed to specific diseases.

The societal implications are numerous.


There is another potential consequence that must be looked at before seriously considering entering in to a genetic experiment of this magnitude. By altering somatic cells, you are essentially making everyone's genetic makeup similar in order to prevent disease. The problem with this is that narrowing a gene pool leads to more genetic problems down the line. We see this today with dog breeding. Purebreds are disposed to all sorts of ailments specifically because the gene pool is so shallow, even though certain dogs were paired to improve upon it. Artificial selection is not always better than natural selection.

And what of the horrible genetic mistakes that one can almost certainly guarantee? One cannot imagine that trial and error must be necessary before geneticists actually got this right. What of the horrible chimera's that are created? Do they have a right to live? What about the parents -- do they have a right to sue? They paid geneticists a lot of money for the perfect baby, instead they received a baby that's deformed and riddled with disease because someone decided they can play God better than natural selection.


While I appreciate my opponents enthusiasm on the subject, he is nonetheless trying to sell you the horizon. You see it, but you can quite ever reach it, no matter how long you sail for. In this vain quest for immortality, it will ultimately end as all other promises of eternal youth and health. Utopia and perfection are things to aim towards, but one must always remember that is an unachievable goal. It's simply a standard to strive for, not something that can be seen in reality.

One MUST not neglect to examine the potential disasters in the name of science. The sordid history alone of eugenics is enough to prove Murphy's Law, that what can go wrong, will go wrong, and to seriously dissuade anyone from playing God. To say the least, there is a fine line between benevolent and malevolent when it comes to the topic of eugenics.

I thank you for your time and look forward to my opponents next installment.

=== SOURCES ===
Debate Round No. 1


To respond with the citation I have found, (and keep in mind I remembered this I remembered this off of the top of my head) here one of many articles found simply by typing in human junk DNA states that 98% of human DNA is not used: and click on the subsection "Fraction of noncoding genomic DNA."
I agree with my opponent in stating that my claims were a bit naive, but that is because it was the silver-lining and not the whole picture. The quest to perfect Eugenics WILL NOT be instantaneous and probably wouldn't even be mastered by the time we die, but the quest is still worth it in the end. My opponent states that utopia is an unachievable goal, and I say that eugenics is what makes utopia achievable. Perfection is achievable, but only with hard work towards this goal. DNA manipulation is a complicated process, but with the understanding we already have, we have already manipulated a rat's DNA to an achievable effect. We have also taken human cells and made them live twice as long using DNA engineering.
On a monetary note, genetic engineering wouldn't be an extremely expensive procedure in general and it could be a public good that is paid for everyone. This would split up the cost and make it more (note this word) acceptable. And I am not saying that this procedure would be used by everyone, but it could be given to many. Plus as this becomes more and more popular, the procedure would be almost like a manufactured process. Computer programs would pinpoint target DNA of interest and fix them and technicians would have to be less qualified than the professionals that would foresee the operation.
On the issue of manufactured discrimination, this is how life is in general. All eugenics would be doing was creating a larger upper class. I mean, doesn't the preppy kids in high school always down the lower castes of high school? Don't rich folk bag on poor people? Yet poor people and the lower castes play a major role in society that, although not seen by most people that way, play the largest part in society.
On the issue of genetic mistakes, when I talk of eugenics, I am not thinking of creating a society in which everyone looks and acts the same, but looks and acts better. The genetic traits that would be altered are traits that could lead to physical and mental deformity. I wouldn't think of eliminating individuality as a whole. I believe individuality is extremely important in society as a way of having a self image.
And as you can relate this to the fountain of youth, I can assure you this is completely different. Eugenics has significant physical evidence and peer-reviewed proof unlike the fountain of youth. I am telling you that a utopia is achievable after
a period of transition. The upper class will expand to envelope the lower castes slowly until perfection is achieved.


=== REBUTTAL ===

PRO begins his 2nd argument by graciously answering my request to substantiate the assertion that only 10% of our DNA is used. It only became apparent as to what he was referring to after he sourced a link concerning junk DNA, which I already knew about. I thought, however, that it's been common knowledge since the close of the 1990's that we know that so-called junk DNA is not junk at all, only that in the early years of genomics that non-coding DNA was well understood -- that molecular biologists didn't quite understand its function.

According to multiple studies, what was once known as "Junk DNA" has been demonstrated to perform the following functions, among others:

1. Regulation of gene expression during development
2. Enhancers for transcription of proximal genes
3. Silencers for suppression of transcription of proximal genes
4. Regulate translation of proteins



PRO asserted in Round 1, and alluded to in Round 2, that human vices in the form of greed and the desire to commit felonies would vanish. There is no such thing as an "evil gene," so I hardly see how this is possible. I respectfully request that PRO substantiate this argument in detail.


PRO concedes that eugenics is still in its infancy and that we may not see its benefit within our lifetime. He asserts that perfection will be achieved only through trial and error. On a strictly clinical basis, there is some room for that argument. However, my premise, if you'll recall in Round 1, was questioning the potential bio-ethical consequences. Who is held liable for any malpractice? Is the child entitled to protection? Is the child entitled the right to live, even in the event of genetic anomalies at the hands of geneticists who created the problem? The social implications are staggering and need to be addressed long before any human experiment is conducted.

PRO further postulates that discrimination already occurs, so therefore it doesn't matter what we can add to it as long as it's done in the name of science. That's like stating because racism exists it automatically grandfathers in sexism as a legitimate argument. Making sexism acceptable as a de facto position on the basis of other forms of discrimination's prevalence is a straw man. The obvious answer then to such a glib reply is that eugenics is not necessary then. Human beings already pick and choose mates based off of characteristics they find attractive, and this form of natural selection has obviously served the animal kingdom great good without impacting any ethical concerns.

But let us say for the sake of the argument that geneticists have gotten everything right from their perspective, and somehow all the ethical concerns have been assessed and corrected. We still have a practical problem, a major one, in the form of population growth. It is a statistical fact that the human population growth curve has always increased throughout human history, with only minor hiccups in the form of warfare, pestilence, and famine. The only thing that has managed to keep these numbers in check is death. As macabre as it is, death is as much a part of life as life itself. Artificially engineering a race of superhumans only means that the population increase would spike dramatically, thus endangering the lives of all. The earth's natural resources can only withstand so much of a population increase, and with people living longer, it invariably means that less resources are available. Famine, pestilence, over-population affect people whether they are more or less genetically fit, to the detriment of all of them.

As Thomas Malthus first noted, "Must it not then be acknowledged by an attentive examiner of the histories of mankind, that in every age and in every State in which man has existed, or does now exist, that the increase of population is necessarily limited by the means of subsistence; that population does invariably increase when the means of subsistence increase, and, that the superior power of population is repressed, and the actual population kept equal to the means of subsistence, by misery and vice."


In essence, there is a reason why natural selection exists. Natural selection purges without the least bit of human interference. Nature cannot be blamed for killing human beings in some moral context, but humans genetically interfering in the affairs of nature is an aberration all its own.


Other concerns that I have is the cost, both monetarily and ethically. PRO states that eugenics could be a public good, in other words, paid for through taxes. Health care, by leaps and bounds, dwarfs any other federal spending as it is. $850 billion dollars are poured in to health care, which is already burgeoning on the verge of collapse. The average tax payer is strapped as it is, and doesn't have a whole lot to show for it in terms of "public good."


Secondly, I assume that PRO agrees that it should be the right of the parents to decide whether or not you'd like to have a naturally conceived child, or one that is genetically altered. Those whose genome has not been mapped, will they be less likely to receive definitive care? Will they be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions? Or vastly worse, will the government not even give you the option? When Social Security first came out, it was promised by the president that it would not be a compulsory tax -- that you could opt in or out. So much for promises on the campaign trail. SSI is now a mandatory tax, whether you or I ever see a dime of it. In the event the government signs a mandate stating that everyone must have this medical procedures against their will, "for the good of all," I ask PRO what his assurance is that we will not be forced to partake in his Social Darwin project.

At the end of the day, what this all comes back to is other people deciding for many the what is or isn't desirable. People's short term memory makes it so that they forget eugenics has been tried before, several times, all under the guise and pretense of "benefiting society." The Nazi and Imperial Japanese eugenics programs go without saying, foisting unspeakable atrocities on the common modality. But what about in America? It's been done, and in a landmark Supreme Court case known as Buck v. Bell, forced sterilizations of "undesirable traits" from the human gene pool were sought to be eradicated.... legally. These aren't simply whimsical concerns I bring mention. Some of them have already occurred with dire consequences.



I do not deny that eugenics has some merit to it on a very limited scale, but the naively grandiose world that PRO wants to create is no different than other "heaven on earth" program that's been offered to humanity. All have fallen in to disrepute, and I caution anyone ready to play God to think very long and hard about what we legislate in to law, lest we forget that all atrocities are hidden in the pretense of doing society a favor.
Debate Round No. 2


+In Regards To Noncoding DNA+
My opponent states that noncoding DNA has the functions of
"1. Regulation of gene expression during development
2. Enhancers for transcription of proximal genes
3. Silencers for suppression of transcription of proximal genes
4. Regulate translation of proteins"
Would these also not be simplified? These introns have the "function" of marking DNA, but with an extremely bulky price. Markers for DNA could be extremely more simple just by taking out the large, unused middle section of these DNA strains. With this loss, cell division would be exponentially faster (because DNA replication uses a large portion of that time) and would allow for less errors to occur in transcoding (which could stem the cause of diseases, mental and physical).

+In Regards To Human Vices+
I guess this is also a debatable topic, but I would say that vices come from faulty mental processes, correct? These mental processes are controlled by the brain and the nerves that process information. I would say that faulty mental processes would stem from a bad interpretation of the result of the actions of the individual or from a cloudy interpretation of the facts in which the body is given a faulty signal. Addictions could become regulated as understanding of the genetic implications in the nervous system becomes evident. Since addictions are a result of dependence on that substance or the substantial release of dopamine in an action. You could effect the reasons the body produces dopamine and instead make such vices extremely unpleasant for the individual in question. (I understand that this is a bit far into the field of theoretics like a lot of my claims)

+In Regards To Social and Pragmatic Concerns+
In concern of genetic liability, I agree with my opponent. If the geneticists ruin a child's life, then I believe that that geneticist is liable. However, I have two points. One is that you assuming that the mistake would be permanent. It is a known fact that viruses can be used in genetic engineering, as they essentially carry and inject DNA into all of the cells in the body. With a bit of research (and a lot less than would be required to make eugenics a reality), we could manipulate the DNA the virus injects and the cells it targets. With differentiation, the cells that would harm the child would usually (except in case of severe genetic butchering) be in a specific targeted area. The fixing of the mistakes would be simple. Also, I am saying that by the time any human trials would be performed, the genetic manipulation process would be perfected to an intense degree (as perfection would be needed to dare risk the life of a human for enhancing purposes).
In concern of discrimination, I believe my opponent misinterpreted what I said. I was saying that the extent of discrimination wouldn't be increased, and would probably decrease. As with ignorance, comes discrimination (possibly another debatable topic). Eugenetically-induced humans would be far from ignorant as their brain capacity would be increased and knowledge could probably even be implanted.
In regards to the disruption of natural selection, Eugenetics would just speed up the evolutionary process. Think for a second about what sets humans apart. I would say it is self-evolution. We have the unique ability to use tools to our desires and ends. Eugenics would just be an extension of this gift to an even greater degree. And, you must consider that other species are adapting too. Soon, we will be superseded by another species, if we don't learn how to directly evolve ourselves and keep ahead of any evolutionary flow.

+In Regards to Population Growth+
In concern of overcrowding Earth, I must point towards the space program. By the time we have advanced science to the point of eugenics becoming a reality, do you not think we will have advanced to the point of terraforming Mars (which I must say is already an endeavor which we started planning). There is lots of space in the galaxy that is sustainable for human growth. Already sciences have pinpointed lots of exoplanets that have a possibility of sustaining life.

+In Regards to Interfering with Nature+
I have two points to make. The first is that survival of the fittest (nature's law) states, simply that the best survive. So, Eugenics would be the purest form of this law. We would literally be making ourselves the best that could ever possibly live, which is what human nature dictates us to try to do. The second is that the reason we take a backseat to nature is because we don't understand it very deeply. We don't understand most of the systems that occur in nature so we simply say "Don't mess with Nature." But once you realize and understand nature to a far degree, you can tame Nature.
In the time Eugenics could be possible, it is also the time that ecology would be a very complete science and provide a deep understanding into Nature and our irrational fear of it.

+In Regards to Monetary Concern+
On the topic of monetary concern, I will simply allude to a television or a computer. When they first came out, they were inefficient and extremely pricey. As time went on (and not much time), more and more people got them in their homes. Now, if you ask a group of kids who have a tv or computer in their house, a lot more than a few will raise their hands. My opponent made a fantastic point about the taxing of eugenics as a public good, and I completely agree with him. However, if it became a consumer item, it would spread and become cheaper in order to increase the clientele, until the process is entirely common.

+In Regards to an Allusion to Crude, Immoral Eugenics+
The eugenics my opponent talks about that occured in Japan, Germany, and in the Buck v. Bell trial are extremely crude, deformed forms of what I am referring to. So much, in fact, that I believe that the process should take a different term. The crude eugenics he refers were the butchering and erasing of people with physical or mental hindrances or, more commonly, because of their race. My plan would kill no one, and holds infinite promise.

+In Conclusion+
In conclusion, I would like to state that this process holds so many promises. So many problems would be solved that the ones described here almost seem trivial. However, they are important problems. I believe Con is clouded in his views. he is scared of change and what it brings with it, but I say that not only is change healthy, but it is essential to life as we know it. This is not an atrocity. Eugenics would be perfected in the laboratory over many years. Animal trials will be done and human tissues will be tested. This process is not gruesome and shouldn't be thought of that way. Eugenics is the next step in the evolutionary chain. The question is, are you going to be part of the next generation of humans or are you going to become extinct?



In Round 2, PRO postulates that "DNA could be extremely more simple just by taking out the large, unused middle section of these DNA strains. With this loss, cell division would be exponentially faster (because DNA replication uses a large portion of that time) and would allow for less errors to occur in transcoding." Of course, that is all theoretical, just as it was theoretical that junk DNA was junk.

The science is in, and within the so-called junk DNA, transposons arrange and influence thousand of strands of DNA, as a kind of cut and paste function that NATURALLY occurs, and it's importance is immeasurable. I find PRO's theories on removing non-coding DNA dangerous, as he lacks both the credentials and the wherewithal to be making assertions like this. "Junk DNA" is not junk, and removing large segments of DNA would obviously have deleterious effects. [1][2][3]

PRO proceeds to graciously answer my request for how he proposes to rid the world of human vice. Again, however, PRO does not offer anything beyond his own theoretical musings, with zero scientific justification to back them up, as he oversimplifies human vice and overstates the role of genes. What we refer to as "vice," and how it all happens, is a complex ballet between nature and nurture in tandem with one another.

Some of the most compelling studies to conclude that nurture is as important as nature comes from separated hereditary twin research. Twin studies have been made to determine whether hereditary is the leading factor, or if it's the environment. The results have shown that it's basically an even amount of influence on a person. Separated twins often share common interests in food, struggle or succeed in math, have natural athleticism, and have similarities in temperament, tempo, and ways of doing things. The effects of nurture, however, show their working habits, and thoughts; whereas one twin might be liberal, the other conservative. How they view and respond to the world, however, reflects more upon how they were raised. Consequently, this is what affects serial killers and other crimes of ill-repute more than nature. They had similarities due to heredity, but they often have marked differences because they grew up in two very different environments.

Life isn't as simple as DNA, lest humans are merely a sum of their parts. I doubt very seriously that if we were to take one of PRO's perfect humans who have allegedly been genetically rid of vice, and tortured them for the first 10 years of their life, that they would be well adjusted human beings. They'd be homicidal like anyone else. Our external experiences are equally as important as our genetic makeup. [4]

The next portion of the debate focuses on liability of researchers who genetically alter a zygote. I had previously asked if they would be held accountable for any mistakes made when, say, they attempted to make one of PRO's superhuman with deformities. PRO thinks that, however, we can simply go back and make changes like we're changing oil or changing out a tire. That is science fiction. You can't just sit somebody down in a chair and change their DNA, that would be absurd. The whole eugenic process must occur on the zygote level, that is, an inseminated ovum is extracted from a mother's womb and researchers study the genome and tweak it, a priori, not posteriori. Of course, even that is a gross oversimplification of the process, but PRO's insinuation that we can correct problems later is based on pure fantasy.

At most we can do is something known as "gene therapy," which on a very limited basis, inserts healthy genes in to diseased ones. Gene therapy has not yet been approved because it is in the clinical stages.

PRO further postulates, in regards to my point of rampant population growth, that In concern of overcrowding Earth, I must point towards the space program." And so we see PRO using another science fiction to cover the other. There are no definitive plans for humans to move to the moon, Mars, or anywhere else in the solar system. Just because NASA entertains the theoretical possibility does not mean that one can rely on that as an answer to a troubling concern. As far as I'm concerned, that's a non-answer to my legitimate question. I trust the reader will render the same judgment.

In regards to nature, he made the following comment: "But once you realize and understand nature to a far degree, you can tame Nature" PRO seems to think that humans can and should control nature, simply because humans are intelligent. Everything on planet earth seems to be at his disposal for manipulation. What about nature is there to "tame" anyhow? There is no right or wrong with nature, it just is. Humans, continually altering nature, are constantly endagnering the very nature we need to survive and share a symbiotic relationship with. Global warming and nuclear holcausts are just two examples of how anthropogenic efforts intended to help us, end up hurting ourselves and nature.

PRO then assures me that his version of eugenics is nothing like what occurred in Germany, Japan, or in America with Buck v. Bell. He states that those people were viewed as hindrances, which is why they wanted to eradicate them. But is this not what PRO wants too? Does he not desire a race of people without weakness? His first post in Round 1 makes it clear that he does in fact want a world free from the ills of society. Sure, PRO may not desire to kill the sick and the lame, but the slippery slope of eugenics is that it's thus far been the reality. He may not want that, but who's to say that his protege won't? Or the government?

We must remember that all of the atrocities I pointed were foisted on us under the pretense of benefiting society. At what cost? Genocide? Discrimination? The fact that the only recorded cases of eugenic programs focused on these makes it more than relevant to question the future of it. I don't think that is being overly-paranoid.


To be fair, I do understand the world that PRO wants. I certainly do not believe that he has any malicious intent, and as I stated earlier, I appreciate his enthusiasm and interest in science. His candor on the matter is much appreciated as well. Be that as it may, what troubles me is the lack of substance put forth to some of my legitimate concerns. I do not feel that PRO properly addressed my fiscal concerns, the bio-ethical concern, the over-population concern, the penchant to manipulate nature, or any other argument I set forth. PRO claims that I am scared of change, but this is simply not true.

All scientific efforts are in the interest of improvement, which I do not have a problem with, provided it is carefully dissected and we do not run in to it headlong with reckless abandonment. PRO simply wants humans to take the reigns as nature itself, making a grandiose claim that eugenics is the next evolutionary step. Evolution, in case any forgot, is an unguided process. The very act of manipulating nature to achieve selfish ends is the non-epitome of evolution. If that's not playing God, then I don't what is. To be so arrogant to think that one can usurp nature is playing the fool. It is a dangerous prospect that has already proved its self-destruction.

In closing, I want to again thank my opponent for such an interesting and provocative debate. I think he has a bright future at DDO, but nonetheless I think I have created a strong case of reasonable doubt. I trust the voter will see how I refuted his points.

For this reason, sensible voters votes CON! Resolution negated.

=== SOURCES ===

Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by NomadJD 7 years ago
Agreed, thanks for the debate. I am glad I got to let out my side without being judged. ^^
Posted by PARADIGM_L0ST 7 years ago
Thanks for the debate Nomad. As a courtesy, I won't vote on my debate if you don't vote on yours.
Posted by SuperRobotWars 7 years ago
Then there is no need to prevent the population from reproducing is there . . .
Posted by NomadJD 7 years ago
In my content, i am referring to DNA engineering, not natural selection.
Posted by gizmo1650 7 years ago
We already practice eugenics, every time we choice our 'mate'
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 7 years ago
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:03 
Vote Placed by SurvivingAMethodology 7 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Doulos1202 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06