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 .
Immoral: not moral; broadly : conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles .
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 ."
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 , because it is immoral, and unethical. If the government thinks it is immoral, we should stop cloning altogether.
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.
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
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.
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 . 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 . 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% . 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.
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 . 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!
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-07-28 15:57:13| Speak Round
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.
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.
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   . 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... " A normal household makes $51,000 . That will be that they have 1000$ 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.
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.
Thanks for the debate lannan. Vote for Pro. Over to lannan now.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-07-29 13:03:39| Speak Round
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.
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 . "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 ." 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 . 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.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-07-29 16:13:00| Speak Round
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
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.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-07-29 16:58:14| Speak Round
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.
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.
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.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-07-29 17:52:06| Speak Round
There are no new arguments that I need to bring up this round.
Please vote Con.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-07-29 17:53:16| Speak Round
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