Cloning animals is beneficial

Refutation 1: Comment by Sleezehead It states “Cloning of animals is fine. Animal rights? We eat them. Maybe when we don't we can talk about animal rights.” The common thing about both of them is that they both includes killing animals. But the difference is that cloned meat creates suffering for the animal that produced the meat while it’s still alive. So in comparison naturally bred animals are better for food.- Comment by Sleezehead is right, "cloning of animals is fine." But if you want to talk about animal rights in here than maybe we can if "when we don't eat them" but the fact that we eat it everything there are rights being violating. Take for instant, do you eat chicken? If so, chicken have to go through suffering but at the end of the day we eat it. (beneficial for humans) Chicken neck have to get cut off with all the gush of blood spilling. So animal right is this debate wouldn't be legitament for you to use as your stand against this debate.Refutation 2: Cloning animals with specific traits, like creating factory machines"My opponent has said about cloning animals that have certain traits in massive quantity and using them like machines."-I did mention quantity. "With the ability to clone, scientists will be able to genetically engineer animals for a particular protein and then mass-produce the proteins." but "using them like machines" i don't know where you got that from."factory farming is “Far from the idyllic, spacious pastures that are shown in advertisements for meat, milk, and eggs, factory farms typically consist of large numbers of animals being raised in extreme confinement. Animals on factory farms are regarded as commodities to be exploited for profit. They undergo painful mutilations and are bred to grow unnaturally fast and large for the purpose of maximizing meat, egg, and milk production for the food industry. Their bodies cannot support this growth, which results in debilitating and painful conditions and deformities.” It also states factory farming gives the environment a lot of pressure from pollution. I’m afraid that cloning animals will become the new kind of factory farming."-You going off topic. This debate is not about factory farming. But about animal cloning. "*Researchers' primary intention is to help cure diseases when natural methods do not work, not to act in harsh manners toward the animals, or to make a profit. *" farming is different from this debate. but i'll go further in this argument you pose, "They undergo painful mutilations and are bred to grow unnaturally fast and large for the purpose of maximizing meat, egg, and milk production for the food industry." we have a large population to support. we need this to be able to support the population, and it growing fast and large is good for consumers, producers, animals and the environment. "It also states factory farming gives the environment a lot of pressure from pollution. I’m afraid that cloning animals will become the new kind of factory farming." got the environmental protection agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) if such thing happen and they know its not good they'll tackle it.Refutation 3: Maintaining biodiversity-My opponent is obviously going back to the first round debate. Instead of refutating against my second round debate. This shows he's ignoring my argument."Even if cloning does become a reliable technology, the history of bringing back species to the wild has been fraught with difficulty." well you cannot prove so. Because you state "the history of bringing back species to the wild has been fraught with difficulty. In 1982, a huge effort went into restoring the Arabian Oryx to a refuge in central Oman. Almost all were wiped out by poachers. This shows even if you did somehow get the animals, that’s only a tiny part of the problem. Animal that are extinct have no place left to call home, as the environment is what causes animals to go extinct." because they weren't using realble technology at this time. Plus you state poachers, it nature. but this is another country we talking about. Maybe there not taking steps to stop poachers. But if we do clone animal we making more of it to "maintain biodiversity" because if we have one of that "animal" and it dies than it is extinct. because if there was one of it and you clone it to make more of it means even if it dies some of it is still left.Refutation 4: Biomedical ResearchAs I have already showed in my first round, cloned animals tend to have a lot of health problems. So the idea of creating a lot of genetically identical lab animals just doesn’t sound real. Also, there isn’t much reason for someone to want to have identical research models, as having a lot of diversity makes it more effective to know if your biomedical research actually works.As my rebuttal, as my research show cloning poses no unique risks to animal health, compared to the risks found with other reproduction methods, including natural matingMyth: Cloning results in severely damaged animals that suffer, and continue to have health problems all their lives. The vast majority of swine and goat clones are born healthy, grow normally, and are no more susceptible to health problems than their non-clone counterparts. During the early days of what is known as assisted reproductive technologies in livestock, veterinarians noticed that some calf and lamb fetuses grew too large during pregnancy, and had serious birth defects. This set of abnormalities is referred to as “large offspring syndrome,” or LOS. These same abnormalities have also been seen in calf and lamb clones, and have received a lot of attention because they occur at what appear to be higher rates than observed with other assisted reproductive technologies. The syndrome seems to be related to processes that take place outside the body (during the in vitro phase. As producers understand more about the cloning process, the rate at which LOS is observed in calf and lamb clones has been decreasing. The same kind of decrease in LOS rates was observed as people who used technologies such as in vitro fertilization in cattle learned more about the process. LOS hasn’t been seen in swine or goat clones. Most clones that are normal at birth become as strong and healthy as any other young animals. Calf and lamb clones with abnormalities at birth may continue to have health problems for the first few months of life. But after the age of six months, they’re completely indistinguishable in appearance and blood measurements from conventionally bred animals of the same age." Refutation 5: Cloning Dead Pets "Since cloning is still in a experimenting stage"-Cloning has envolve over the centuries. Some part of it may still be at the experimenting stage, while others are not. As you state yourself "A 2006 survey by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology that found American consumers are uneasy about cloning, with 64 percent of respondents saying they would rather not eat cloned meat. This means it takes 10 times more to “create” a slab of meat (remember, costs are also 10 times higher) but only 36% of the public will want it." you state they'll rather not eat cloned meat. it takes 10 times more to “create” a slab of meat (remember, costs are also 10 times higher) but only 36% of the public will want it. we'll if you state that its still at experimenting stage than why will they "rather not eat cloned meat" when it haven't been cloned. or 36% of the public will want it. Refutation 6: Treatment for human diseases Not really done yet, so “don’t count your eggs before they hatch”. -Yeah, now if you oppose animal cloning will we ever know if it could lead to treatment for human diseases? Some studies have shown that animal have cure to diseases. And facts have shown it. The potential animal cloning holds to treatment for human diseases will not be known until we further. http://www.fda.gov...