EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
2784

That human cloning is immoral

(PRO)
0 points
(CON)
WINNER!
12 points
fire_wingsfire_wings (PRO)
Human cloning: Human cloning is the creation of a genetically identical copy of a human. The term is generally used to refer to artificial human cloning, which is the reproduction of human cells and tissue [4].

Immoral: not moral; broadly : conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles [5].

I will be making my opening argument this round. They will be very short, because this is not a topic that I wanted to debate about, and the max of your argument is 4000 characters.

Human Life is very important. You don't want to die. There is a phrase called, "Human life is more important than money" That's how much human life is important. And if you still don't believe this, think if there is a war. What do you want to save? Yourself. It is that scary, and is that important for you. So, I said that human life is important.

Now, as I said Human Life is important, and cloning contradicts this claim. I want to quote how this happens, but that will take to many characters, so I will just do a bit.

"Scientists would have to clone thousands of embryos and grow them to the blastocyst stage [one week] to ensure that part of the process leading up to transfer into a uterus could be “safe,” monitoring and analyzing each embryo, destroying each one in the process. Next, cloned embryos would have to be transferred into the uteruses of women volunteers [or implanted in an artificial womb]. The initial purpose would be analysis of development, not bringing the pregnancy to a live birth. Each of these clonal pregnancies would be terminated at various points of development, each fetus destroyed for scientific analysis. The surrogate mothers would also have to be closely monitored and tested, not only during the pregnancies but also for a substantial length of time after the abortions [2]."

Okay, now you can understand a bit of cloning, right? Cloning makes human life look unimportant. Even in a source, it says, "It is manufacturing human life and then treating it as if it were nothing more meaningful than potter’s clay." Potter Clay. That is how unimportant cloning makes people.

My opponent might not say that I didn't prove this is immoral. Well, I did proving it makes a human life useless. And, if you search this, look at all the sources which come out.

Even the government wants to ban human cloning too [3], because it is immoral, and unethical. If the government thinks it is immoral, we should stop cloning altogether.

Conclusion

I have shown that human cloning is immoral, as it makes human life unimportant, and the government wants to ban it. Because I have shown that cloning is immoral, as we are basically making fake humans like human life is not important, this is extremely immoral. The resolution is affirmed. Vote for PRO.

[1] http://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/03/human-life-is-more-important-than-money/

[2] http://www.lifenews.com/2012/12/21/human-cloning-the-unethical-manufacturing-of-human-life/

[3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/4266907/Human-cloning-is-immoral-and-Parliament-should-ban-it.html

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cloning

[5] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immoral

Thanks for lannan to do this topic with me, and vote for Pro. I am sorry that my sources don't have a link, command+c and command+v them.



Return To Top | Posted:
2016-07-28 08:37:14
| Speak Round
lannan13lannan13 (CON)
===Framwork===
My opponent puts a whole lot of emphasis on Human, as shall I. When we look at a society, we have to look at the traits benefiting it the most. Through any and all instances we must view society through the lens of Utilitarianism to adhere to Hedonism to see what, on balance, benefits society the most and creates more pleasure than suffering. The very foundations of a society are built around the concept of utilitarianism which is why civilization exists in the first place as it helps give people a mutual benefit. If cloning provides more instrisic pleasure to more humans than not, then the plan must be enacted.

C1: Disease

One of the ailments that have plagued humanity has been that of disease. With the modern movement to ban mandatory vaccinations and other re-emergence of disease, not to mention the tons of life threatening birth-defects which include cancer, people are begging for an answer. The answer is cloning. This is done by selecting an egg and sperm and breeding them selectively which is done to prevent ailments and infects to occur [1]. Babies would be born without dying days later of cancer or some mutation that would have normally occurred. A family would be able to live a normal life instead of having to shell out millions for kemo and other kinds of treatment. This not only helps the family, but it prevents the suffering and possible death of a newborn child.

C2: Children for the infertile

Another issue that humanity has yet to solve is how to help those who are infertile. In the US, it is estimated that 11-15% of those living here are infertile. The more shocking statistic is that 95% of that group suffers from depression as a result, which many lead to suicide [2]. Cloning, as I have described from before, will help create a children for the infertile couple as they would have had their own child. This not only prevents a large portion of the depression, from this cause, in the US, but also suicide. This shows there is an increase in the net benefit and net increase of utility from this. Under the status quo, the child's rate of survival from treatment of these disease is only 10% [3]. This cloning method produces a completely healthy child and increase the net happiness of all. This may even lead to homosexual couples being able to have children in the future.

===Rebuttals===

My opponent claims that human life is important and I completely agree with him, this is why I have selected Utilitarianism as my Framework. My opponent claims that cloning will require the destruction of a fetus, but that isn't the complete truth. There are tons of other methods, like how I brought up, my opponent's source is talking about Stem-cell cloning, which is only one of several forms of cloning. The main issue that my opponent seems to find with cloning is that they are "Manufactured" and "unimportant." If they are manufactured, couldn't you say the same about anyone? The clone is the same as any individual [4]. Take a twin for an instance. They are formed from the separation and a mutation in the fertilized egg resulting in a splitting. Does that mean that one of the twins aren't a human? The answer is simply no. The clone is still made from the male and female parents being the same as a normal child and they are the same. The method is the only thing that is different.

With that I thank you and urge a ballot in Negation!

Sources
1. (http://tinyurl.com/h8cx2vd)
2. (http://tinyurl.com/zt9hqnp)
3. (http://tinyurl.com/4xm89tn)
4. (http://tinyurl.com/zdcrcq7)

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-07-28 15:57:13
| Speak Round
fire_wingsfire_wings (PRO)
Ave

I thank my opponent for his arguments, and I will rebut them in this round. My arguments will be very precise, as this debate is a very short debate. I assume my opponent accepts my definitions, as he doesn't mention a word about it. My opponent gives a short rebuttal about my case, but I will defend my case in the next round. 

Framework

My opponent chooses Util as his framework. My opponent says that we need to bring more pleasure than harm, and ends his framework. He explains nothing more. He doesn't explain why we should bring more pleasure. He needs to say more about his framework, and as he didn't, voters must not buy his framework.

My framework is obvious. It is that we need to ban things which are bad, or immoral, as we need to bring more happiness. This is because people enjoy to be more happy, and want to be more happy. So bad things/ or immoral things need to be banned, and stopped. If I show that human cloning is bad, or immoral, then I win the debate.

My opponent gives 2 arguments. I will address each in turn.

R1: Disease

My opponent says because of cancer, many children can die. He says that babies will not have dying days, and says that families can live a normal life. My opponent says it will help the family, and a possible death.

First of all, yes cancer can kill people. But some need to die. Or else there will be tons of people, and will result overpopulation. Scientists have proven that the Earth, and people might be extinct in the next 50 years [1] [2] [3]. This will have a problem with overpopulation. And, families can't have normal lives, if their father, or mother got cloned. My opponent does not prove how it will help the family. Therefore, my opponent is wrong about this argument, and the argument is refuted.

R2: Children for the infertile

My opponent says that if there is cloning, then there will be no problems of infertile. My opponent says that this will prevent suicide. However, my opponent doesn't talk about the costs. "Zavos believes estimates the cost of human cloning to be at least $50,000... [4]" A normal household makes $51,000 [5]. That will be that they have 1000$ to buy a house, and do all those things a normal household needs. Most people can't buy these cloned humans. It's useless, therefore my opponent's argument about this is not realistic at all, and won't happen. 

Yes, even though this will prevent suicide, it won't, almost none. As I said that normal household's do not earn that much money to buy a cloned baby, that means that most people will not, and cannot buy a cloned baby. This will still make these suicide not happen. They will happen still, only a few reduced. We don't want only a few. We want the majority. And, as my opponent didn't prove that, his argument fails. Argument is Refuted.

Conclusion

My opponent's arguments all fail. As his arguments, fail, his framework fails. And his framework fails anyways, as his arguments aren't even related to his framework. You provide a framework to actually use the framework, not just writing it, waste characters, and don't even bother it. Therefore, my opponent's arguments are refuted. The resolution is affirmed, and vote for Pro.

Sources

[1] http://www.un.org/press/en/2005/pop918.doc.htm

[2] http://www.overpopulation.org/whyPopMatters.html

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/jul/07/research.waste

[4] https://projects.ncsu.edu/cals/course/gn301/Supplements/HumanCloning.html

[5] https://www.quora.com/How-much-money-does-the-average-American-make-in-their-lifetime

Thanks for the debate lannan. Vote for Pro. Over to lannan now.

Vale

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-07-29 13:03:39
| Speak Round
lannan13lannan13 (CON)
===Framework===

My opponent's refutation of my framework is a bit hypocritical since much of his tends to fit around my own Framework. A negation of my Framework would lead to a negation of his own. "It is that we need to ban things which are bad, or immoral, as we need to bring more happiness. This is because people enjoy to be more happy, and want to be more happy. So bad things/ or immoral things need to be banned, and stopped." This is Hedonism, which is one of the key aspects of Utilitarianism, so my opponent's Framework is practically mine, but he doesn't call it Utilitarianism. If you accept my opponent's negation of my argument, then you accept the negation of his own. All points extended.

C1: Disease

There are two fundamental issues with my opponent's argument. The first is that he argues for the murdering of millions of babies by allowing them to suffer as well as the financial burden to the families that they have to shell out millions and millions for treatment that might not even work. This isn't happiness, this is suffering, which is against my opponent's own framework here. In order to appease and increase happiness, we must allow cloning for the happiness of the families.  



The other issue revolves around the fact that many of my opponent's own articles for this source are outdated, one from 2002 and the other from 2005, the last is from a website dedicated to Overpopulation arguments, showing a complete bias in this source. We really can't accept his sources for this debate and we must throw his evidence out of the debate. We can actually see that the entire world population can fit into the size of Texas if they had the same living room as people of New York City [1]. "Let's do the math again, but this time for the entire planet. The total land surface area of Earth is about 57,308,738 square miles, of which about 24% is mountainous and about 33% is desert. Subtracting this uninhabitable 57% (32,665,981 mi2) from the total land area leaves 24,642,757 square miles or 15.77 billion acres of habitable land. Divide this figure by the current human population of 7 billion (that's 7,000million people!) and you get just under one hectare (2.3 acres) per person [2]." Thus my opponent's overpopulation argument is debunked. 

C2: Children for the infertile

There are interesting arguments to be made here. The first is the argument from his own source of Zavos, who has stated the price is expected to drop to nearly $20,000-$10,000. The fact is if we look to the economics of things, we can see once more and more people are able to start purchasing the item as well as the innovative technology that would come out to help with the process, the price will plument making things a whole lot easier. An example is how the 3D printers first came out with giant numbers and ludicrious high prices to now some are cheap as nearly $200! The next is that we have to compare the costs here. Let's assume that the cost of the clone is Pro's $50,000, the cost of Kemo a year is $141,000 for the first 12 weeks and then $256,000 a year after that [3]. When we weigh the costs, we can see getting a clone is a whole lot easier than having to deal with the harms of dealing with these illnesses. People could also get a loan for the clones, much like how people get loans for college, homes, and cars. My opponent doesn't show how it wouldn't prevent suicide, so we still have to take my arguments over that of my opponent's.
 
Sources
1. (http://tinyurl.com/hsans9x)
2. ibid
3. (http://tinyurl.com/j83xr5l)

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-07-29 16:13:00
| Speak Round
fire_wingsfire_wings (PRO)
Ave

Framework

My opponent says that  my framework fits around Util.  He says that we need pleasure. I am saying that we need to ban bad things, and ban immoral things. I do not see how this is a  same framework. My opponent doesn't actually refute my framework, only saying it is Same . i have proven that they are not the same, which leaves my opponent with no rebuttals about my framework.

I will be making my defense of my case, and the rebuttals of my opponent's defense in this round. I will be short, as there are 4k.

________________

My opponent says that  his framework is the same as my framework. As I have proven, this is not true, so the rebuttal of this is false. My opponent says, "There are tons of other methods, like I brought out..." The shocking thing is that my opponent didn't prove anything. My opponent doesn't prove any other ways which this does not happen, therefore, my argument still succeeds. My opponent says that I am saying that the clones are unimportant. My source said that. My opponent has no source, and no rebuttal of my source. My opponent says that a clone is the same as any other person. My opponent gives a source, a long document, and basically tells me to rebut it by reading it all. I am not going to waste my time. My opponent should prove this. And, I command+f "same", and reading the sentences it came out, there was no such statement. Therefore my opponent's rebuttal is failed. My opponent gives an example of a twin. This is really different. My opponent's rebuttals are all failed, so vote for Pro.

Now I will go onto my rebuttals of my opponent's defense.

My opponent is talking strange here. He says, "murdering babies" I never said about murdering babies. About cancer. My opponent gives rebuttals, and says that human cloning should be allowed. That is not the debate. It is about if it is immoral, or not immoral. My opponent doesn't give this, so it doesn't meet my burden to rebut it. Next, my opponent says that the whole country can live in Texas. He does not rebut however, that my source is about 50 years later, and much things will change 50 years later. My opponent doesn't also rebut what comes with humans, such as stores, houses, etc. All of these things are required for a human to live, and my opponent doesn't count this, only humans. 

My opponent says that my sources are outdated, as they are like a bit over 10 years ago. My opponent doesn't say how the information is outdated. Just because it is a long time ago, it doesn't mean it is outdated, my opponent actually has to prove if it is outdated or not, and he didn't, so his rebuttal is dropped. And my source doesn't say about expected. It says about, "hopefully", so my opponent's rebuttal is wrong.

My opponent argues that costs of cancer is much higher. However, then that means that we can make hospitality free for children. There are many plans for this. And because it is a baby, it will probably die right away, before the doctor. And my opponent doesn't talk about the cost of cloning, which my opponent needs/ and should actually refute, because that was my rebuttal. My opponent says that you can have a loan, like cars, and those. Though according to my opponent, clones are human, and we are loaning humans. This is like slavery, hence it is immoral. So my opponent's defense is technically in my side, as he is saying that loans of clones should be permitted, and I said it is immoral

Conclusion

I don't have many characters left. The resolution is affirmed, my opponent failed to refute my arguments, and I have rebutted his. I thank my opponent for the debate, and please vote  for PRO. The resolution is affirmed. Onto voting period.

Vale...

THE END.

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-07-29 16:58:14
| Speak Round
lannan13lannan13 (CON)
I want want to begin with saying that my opponent's entire Round 3 is unreadable, so I will attempt to refute what I see.

===Framework===

My opponent keeps mistaking the framework. He fails to realize that his entire framework is Hedonism, which is one of the key aspects of Utilitarianism. Since my opponent doesn't actually contend this I will extend this across. Either way, it's a Catch-22, if he attempts to disprove my Framework, he does the same to his, if he accepts his framework, then he accepts mine based on Hedonism. I'll even define it here. Hedonism is defined as, "the pursuit of pleasure; sensual self-indulgence" and "the ethical theory that pleasure (in the sense of the satisfaction of desires) is the highest good and proper aim of human life." Both of these are exactly what my opponent's Framework is, thus my opponent's framework supports my own.

===Opponent's Case===

My opponent claims that my twin example isn't correct, but it is practically the same exact thing due to the genetic similiarities and they are nearly the same due to the formation. Extend this argument across the board. My opponent's argument here makes no sense since it just appears to be a jumble of arguments attempting to be lined up, but I have no idea what in the world he is refuting making it litterally impossible for me to understand what he's talking about. I have broughten up several examples on why my case is superior, yet my opponent doesn't exactly specify what he's refuting. That by itself is a reason to vote Con due to Pro making the debate difficult to read. 

My opponent claims that the debate isn't about cancer, but it is a key example as it shows that we can save parents money and children from suffering. By simply refusing to help these children will result in death, effectively sentencing them to death. This is completely topical to the debate and my opponent drops it, please extend this across the board. I don't have to refute my opponent's first two sources since they are outdated and even if I did, my argument stands. He claims that we need to focus on a 50 year time span. Even if we quadruple the size, we can see that they entire world's population would still fit in the US, effectively showing that the US isn't overpopulated. Please extend this argument across the board. As for the stores, this is just in regards to living space. They obviously won't be crammed into Texas. Also, keep in mind that I have also shown the mathematical equation that showed and disproves my opponent's speculation.

My opponent's rebuttal to children cancer treatment is free hospice care for children. This is an untopical argument as there is no evidence he brings up and has no revivency to the debate and must be thrown out. My opponent claims that we are throwing clones into slavery due to getting loans to afford them, but this is completely false. Many families in the status quo can get loans to afford their own child care bills. Does this mean their children are slaves? The answer is a no. I have brought up previously that these clones are still humans and would be treated as such. Do people who adopt children treat them as slaves? The answer is once again no. Please throw this terrible argument out of the debate. 

With that, my opponent has no arguments standing in this debate. I uge a ballot in Negation. 

Sources
1. (http://tinyurl.com/z6m2kgv)

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-07-29 17:52:06
| Speak Round
fire_wingsfire_wings (PRO)
My opponent mistakes my framework, doesn't use his framework, he doesn't rebut my arguments, I refute his arguments, therefore vote for Pro. (I have no idea why there is a 2000 character round)
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-07-30 08:45:46
| Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
CrowCrow
@fire_wings

'Therefore the debate would be decided by how well the affirmative refuted the opposition. The affirmatives refutation was evident, but weak. '

The above is what I wrote. Note the word weak.

BTW, there are judge comments for asking questions.
Posted 2016-08-05 20:56:25
fire_wingsfire_wings
Tej, I know that, but there was a short amount of characters.
Posted 2016-08-01 17:04:00
fire_wingsfire_wings
I am affirmative. You said affirmative rebuted Con, but why did you vote for Con?
Posted 2016-07-31 10:35:47
CrowCrow
Theoretically I could just paste the pink text on to a text editor
Posted 2016-07-30 22:10:25
fire_wingsfire_wings
What are we supposed do in the last round anyways?
Posted 2016-07-30 17:05:35
fire_wingsfire_wings
I didn't want to use pink. I wanted to use dark blue.
Posted 2016-07-30 08:51:22
lannan13lannan13
See @Fire_wings, I'm not the only person who agrees.
Posted 2016-07-29 20:09:53
CrowCrow
It stresses my eyes,
Posted 2016-07-29 19:44:13
lannan13lannan13
WTF on that last round. That's barely readable.
Posted 2016-07-29 17:19:50
fire_wingsfire_wings
There is font color changing here. Pretty cool.
Posted 2016-07-29 16:27:45
lannan13lannan13
Just make them tinyurls. You'll save a ton of character space that way and it helps me out when I do it.
Posted 2016-07-29 16:13:48
fire_wingsfire_wings
Can sources be in the comments?
Posted 2016-07-29 12:39:28
fire_wingsfire_wings
This debate is too short.
Posted 2016-07-29 12:27:06
fire_wingsfire_wings
Actually they do have a link.
Posted 2016-07-28 08:37:42
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2016-08-04 01:57:25
SaxonHammerJudge: SaxonHammer
Win awarded to: lannan13
Reasoning:
Firstly and most annoying while judging - the difficulty presented in having to cut/copy/paste.
I did not feel that "Morality" was the issue, more that, it will hurt if we do and hurt if we don't.
Both side's introduced issues - base on, non-factual data - derived from a journalist point of view.
Did not feel that either party did justice to the Statement.
So the decision comes down to presentation - In this area the winner, was more formal - and I could read everything.



Feedback:
PRO - Need to work on style more - I noticed the change - Adaptation - Disastrous pink on white, killed you.
CON - Debate space - for words, small images - please
2 users rated this judgement as a vote bomb
1 user rated this judgement as good
1 comment on this judgement
CrowCrow
Not so sure about deciding a debate on "written" presentation.

In my humble opinion, it takes a lot more to justify that decision.
Posted 2016-08-22 00:51:21
2016-07-30 22:25:37
CrowJudge: Crow
Win awarded to: lannan13
Reasoning:
This debate is rather easy for me to judge.

Personally, I like to use my first round to frame a debate and keep control over how it develops. The affirmative did that, but over the line. It was mostly all framework, and there was a one line argument wedged in there.

The opposition decided to rebut the framework every round, which wasn't necessary. The original argument which defined the affirmative position was not substantiated on at all, so there was hardly anything to refute in the first place.

The opposition on the other hand, did make some substantiated arguments. They didn't blow my mind, but they were a whole lot fleshed out than the affirmatives.

Therefore the debate would be decided by how well the affirmative refuted the opposition. The affirmatives refutation was evident, but weak. The opposition's defense marginalized the affirmatives attacks significantly.



Feedback:
The leader reply round is designed to provide a final framework of the debate. Reminding about the structure and arguments made, is the last chance to convince the judges.

Postponing arguments for later, and not even putting them on the table, will give the opposition the opportunity to hijack the direction of the debate.

Don't put all your stake into one argument. It is a terrible debating strategy.
1 user rated this judgement as a vote bomb
2 users rated this judgement as biased
1 user rated this judgement as good
6 comments on this judgement
adminadmin
Stag I'm not sure this actually addressed the arguments raised in the debate. Community judging standard is in effect, remember? Could you please clarify your judgment or risk having it removed.
Posted 2016-07-31 12:33:57
CrowCrow
Go ahead and remove it. The community judging standard if awful.

Judgements should provide a narrative of the debate, sense the correct style of judging should be analyzing overall persuasion.

The attachment to straight up negation was shit on DDO, and you brought that over here, even though it contradicted the original concept behind judging you had.
Posted 2016-08-22 00:51:21
CrowCrow
The original concept being that everyone could get into judging.

This new concept removes judgements? You used to be super opposed to removing judgements, and you finally won me over. As soon as you win me over, you revert to removing judgements just because some part-time nazis from DDO asked you too.
Posted 2016-08-22 00:51:21
CrowCrow
How am I supposed to try and change the culture of how online debates are judged, if 90% of debates are going to restrict me from providing my simplified and easy to follow narrative style judging?

Among the 3 best examples of Edeb8 selling out is the community judging standard.
Posted 2016-08-22 00:51:21
CrowCrow
And I read the entire debate in detail. I even tried to decipher that invisible round.

I gave feedback at the end, because I thought it responsible of me to give advice to both debaters, even though I also vocally oppose the extra point it adds.

I defend this judgement, and this is how judgements should work if you want a lot of people doing them. They should be simplified narratives that show the debate was read in detail, and within them is the explanation of why the judge found one position more convincing.

If you go by the awful community judging standard, then here comes back the elitist vibe in tow with over complicated and unnecessarily detailed judgement.
Posted 2016-08-22 00:51:21
CrowCrow
@admin
Posted 2016-08-22 00:51:21
2016-07-31 11:58:10
gavstone21Judge: gavstone21
Win awarded to: lannan13
2016-08-01 15:38:07
TejreticsJudge: Tejretics
Win awarded to: lannan13
Reasoning:
This is a very clear victory for Con. Pro makes no coherent case for why human cloning is immoral in any way, starting off his round by defining human cloning, explaining what it is, and then saying that somehow cloning makes human life "meaningless" without any justification whatsoever. First, there's no impact to making human life worthless or meaningless. Second, the ability to create new humans has no explained link to making human life meaningless, and merely sourcing one random author that thinks so doesn't act as a warrant. (I'll also add, though this didn't form a part of my decision, that humans *already* create new humans via sexual intercourse... there's no "meaning" in sexual reproduction that doesn't exist in asexual reproduction.) The only remaining offense from Pro is the population turn, which Con destroys (1) on probability, by showing that humanity runs no actual risk of overpopulation, and (2) on magnitude, by showing that killing so many babies causes net suffering greater than any improbable, minor risks from 'overpopulation.' Con, by contrast, has actual impacts of disease prevention and allowing children for those who are infertile and want the pleasure of having children. On impact analysis, Con clearly wins.

Feedback:
I would strongly recommend that Pro strengthen his warrants. Debates should be based on the "claim, warrant, impact" method: make a claim, justify that claim, link it to the resolution and explain the probability and magnitude of the impact. There was no proper warrant OR impact to the claim that cloning makes life "meaningless." Merely quoting some random author who thinks so doesn't provide warrant that's sufficient at all. Similarly, the risks of overpopulation had minor impact that was easily outweighed. Also: REBUT (and not merely 'respond' to) the arguments of the other side. Find the claim and attack the validity of the claim, or respond to the warrants and shift the burden of proof, or mitigate the impact, or weigh the impact against another - those are the only ways to actually rebut an argument. Don't just say "this is false" and state some incoherent justifications of the same. And, Pro needs to work on his grammar/structure. Con also needs stronger warrants, though, from reading Con's debates, I am aware that Con is capable of doing better than this and I imagine he knows what he lacked in this debate. Basically, bolster the credibility of your sources and expand on arguments while explaining them clearly. That's all.
3 users rated this judgement as constructive
0 comments on this judgement

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 3 rounds
  • 4000 characters per round
  • Reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds means forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Unrated debate
  • Time to post: 2 days
  • Time to vote: 1 week
  • Time to prepare: 1 day
This is a random challenge. See the general rules for random challenges at http://www.edeb8.com/resources/General+rules+for+random+debates+%28version+2%29