Human Cloning

1. Plastic surgery Irrelevant, your personal opinion doesn't matter. Human cloning would decrease the risk of it and people are always going to do it so there is a net benefit for the human race compared to the status quo. 2. "Potentially" I am not a psychic, I can't see the future. This argument is used for every new scientific subject. In this context, it means we can't quantify how much it would be helped. We can't definitively say that it will solve X amount of cancer or Y genetic diseases. This doesn't prove anything and con hasn't showed any sources so even human cloning has a small chance to proceed I still win the argument. 3. "Too many risks" Again, irrelevant. How do you think every single new modern medicine is tested? Consensual lab ratting. That is, volunteering to be experimented upon given the risks and benefit. Besides, this just shows Con's lack of knowledge on the area yet again, most of cloning has little to do with the original patient. It's mostly manipulating DNA and creating a life. 4. "Skin cells" This is pure speculation. This again shows how little con knows about cloning. You can't just take apart of a person and slap it in a computer and, BLAMO, cloned. Besides, it's a fallacy to not do something because their might be downsides. Everything has a downside, it's about showing if it has more upsides. My list clearly shows this. 5. "Cloning hasn't been perfected" Again, a fallacy, circular thinking. Cloning has not been perfected therefore we shouldn't look into cloning because it isn't perfect therefore we should't look into cloning... You get the point. 6. Morality argument Con states what I can only assume to be a morality argument. He claims that the life span is shortened of the clone, and that shouldn't happen just because someone was cloned. Not only is this most likely due to lack of research in the field but also the science around it. Still, con has a point. But it's flawed. Bringing this life into the world is not immoral. Do we not have dogs because they die faster than us? Con seems to think the clone is purposefully being set to live less time with his statement "If someone is going to live, their life shouldn't be shortened just because they have been cloned." We did not do this on purpose and that is actually the main point of debate on how to erase this blemish on cloning. Is the natural death of a child with a birth defect immoral? No, so why would this. 7. "Cloning is expensive..." Irrelevant. Cars were also only for the wealthiest people and now they are essential to western society. Every technology in it's rawest and most unresearched form is always expensive. Wasting money on it because it won't be 100% perfect? First, what is con's source? That is a very scientific claim? Second, how does one quantify the perfection of human cloning. Is it by length of the clone's life? Brain activity? Normality to other people? There is no measurable thing to claim it wont be 100% perfect. 8. Overpopulation Overpopulation is a myth. I will be using the following article to back up my claims. This article is a collection of 11 credible sources: https://www.lifesitenews.com... a. Food There is enough food, this is a fact. We make enough for 10 billion people while only having less than 8 billion. Starvation is an issue, but not one of overpopulation but of politics and poverty. "Famines are not natural phenomena, they are catastrophic political failures." Further research will make food even more accessible and prosperous. I personally believe the ocean is a prime place for this, but that is neither here nor there. b. Water The earth is literally 70% covered in water. We cannot use up or destroy water, this is because of the water cycle. Solar desalination is potentially the new frontier in water production. c. "We are growing exponentially" That is just simply untrue. Our rate of growth is actually on the decline. 1950-2000: 1.76% increase. 2000-2050: Projected .77% increase. Most of the growth will come from developing countries, the life expectancy there is expected to spike up in the next half century. 9. "No point in cloning because there are too many risks" Do you know how many risks there were to the first manned space mission? That was walking into a part of this plane of existence no human had ever done before. What about ships? Planes? Any scientific discovery? Risk is necessary for reward. Besides, the patients will be voluntary. They can make the decision to do what they want with their body. Con has provided no scientific or logical substantiation for any of his claims, Pro should win this debate.