Should the United States Continue to Allow Cloning

Before moving on for this round, there are two things I wish to first say. 1.) I apologize for this late response. 2.) I would first like to answer my opponent's question/refutation before looking over his argument(s). In regards to my opponent's question, I have two answers for this. If we go back to when Dolly the sheep was born, we see that she was successfully born by 1996 and lived to 2003. Technology back then was much less developed in comparison of that of when the project in regards to the mice occurred. It had much greater limits on success rates of cloning and cloning of healthy organisms. Clearly, we can see that that has changed a great amount since then. However, if you do not accept this then I will bring in one more answer. Recall how I pointed out Dolly's method of cloning was similar (if not the same) to that of the mice. I never said that where they started was the same. Dolly was born through an adult cell, the mice were born through the use of peripheral blood which had a different cell composition type (blood cell) in comparison to the type of cell used for Dolly (adult somatic cell extracted from udder). Despite the process being similar according to the Japanese researchers, the two have different sources. In regards to his comment afterwards about the company stating how the animals had underwent "unnecessary suffering", I have one thing to state. My opponent has no source or legitimate evidence card to show that the company which did this cloning project actually stated this, we have to assume that there wasn't "unnecessary pain." Drawing a small amount of blood is not that much of a painful process and was required to gain the peripheral blood of the mice thus making it a necessary and small amount of pain. Do not let him bring this up again for it is not allowed to bring up new evidence outside of that of your own case. In regards to his evidence from natural news. I have two things to state. 1.) Since it is Natural News, can we not assume that like BBC, NBC, CBS, etc. that Natural News will also be of some form of faulty? Also, 10% is a great number in comparison to the technology back at the time of Dolly so if technology improves even more, we can see an even higher number than 10% for a survival rate if what you say is true. 2.) What does this 10% statistic relate to? Unless you establish a clear link to the case study I bring up, this data has nothing to do with this debate. Thus, your refutations to my case falls. Now, I would like to go over my opponent's arguments on unnecessary pain and ethics. His first argument is an extremely short one. The following was his whole argument:"I will begin this debate by arguing that cloning has led to unnecessary suffering of the cloned thing."Unless he was foreshadowing to the ethics argument that he had brought up, this doesn't make any sense. Even if he were to foreshadow his ethics argument, he should have clearly stated that he would bring this up in the next round. Because he didn't we can only assume that this is a warrant less argument with no logic to back it up thus this argument falls. Do not let my opponent bring this argument back up again. However, if you still do not buy this we can look to the argument he would have foreshadowed to. This whole contention is basically saying one thing: Unnecessary pain is unjust. Here are the problems with this argument: 1.) He does not state what is the actual "unnecessary pain" and why it is "unnecessary" for this animal to feel. Obviously, if we want to be able to clone, we have to extract something like a somatic cell or in my case, peripheral blood. The extraction of this is not unnecessary pain because it is what is necessary for the process of cloning. 2.) My opponent may ask, then why not just stop cloning so the pain of extraction should not be felt? In response to this question in which I will link to my opponent's argument, I would like to respond by bringing up my own argument. Animal models are a safe way to avoid genetic/pathogenic research on humans. If we want more animal models to work with, then we will need to clone. Trying to find them in the wild could potentially make the species extinct instead of having to work with one specimen to make hundreds (or more). Also, realize that technology (despite developing at such a fast rate) needs to take its time to evolve to a level where we can do cloning successfully. This is and was true for most (if not all) technology related projects in science. Trial and error was what made these projects successful and this will be true for cloning as well. Thus, Dolly and the water buffalo argument is negated. In actuality, we see that mice are the better cloning specimen due to how easy, small, and fast they can get cloned with the enhanced effiency (which again, will improve). My opponent also brings up how there is always a group of results that have genetic diseases and such. In response to this, I bring up the technology refutation that I had just brought up along with one more thing. Realize that if they have genetic diseases and such, we can still learn from them. It is possible that what they get, we can get too. If this were not true, then we would not really use them as animal models. We don't have to sacrifice those lives in vain, instead we can try to research their issues as well. All in all, cloning in the medical field is used for animal models so we do not have to sacrifice humans. Thus through the refutations made above and because of my standing argument, I affirm.