Transhumanism is a Fundamentally Good Idea

Thank you for this great debate. It was fun.------------------------------------------------------------Rebuttal I: This is an appeal to consequence and fear. By that logic none of science should be explored due to the potential for abuse. Abuse and misuse will always be present. Pro has ignored my point. It's not that technology that could be harmful shouldn't be looked into, but that technology whose benefits are outweighed by it's cons to such a degree should be avoided. One shouldn't antagonize his destruction by opening bad doorways. Whether or not the Con's outweigh the Pros depend on the rest of the debate.Another example of technology we should have avoided for it's cons would be Pesticides, whose long term cons outweigh it's short-term pros.It's not appropriate for Pro to bring worth such a fallacy in this debate. The fallacy is questionable when the premise of the debate is to determine if we should research a new technology. He must prove his side by showing it's Pros, and I must argue by showing it's Cons. Bringing up that fallacy is the equivalent of saying "I may argue my case, but you can't argue yours." If Pro may argue that the Tech leads to good things, I may argue that it instead leads to bad things.Starting such a debate and then bringing up that fallacy is inappropiate.Rebuttal II: I don't see how you can make such sweeping generalizations.Pro doesn't account for my math and statistics later on in my R4 argument. This must be mixed with his next argument to finish my rebuttal...I don't think the Con understands Moore's Law. Moore's law has nothing to do with affordability but rather the speed at which technology grows. The African example is completely out of context. Pro is the one whom used Moore's law to describe costs becoming more affordable."A wonderful example of how technology becomes more accessible over time is through a systematic observation known commonly as Moore's law."The premise behind his argument is that Moore's Law makes technology more accessible (affordable) over time. I simply explain that this doesn't account for Africa, where even after 100 years, most African's (well around 90-95% in the undeveloped nations in question) can't afford a computer. This, again, was simply a rebuttal to his R2 Argument II: Standard of Life. The rebuttal stands, African's would feel no benefit and Standard of Life would not increase.Rebuttal III: Of course there will always be rough patches where technology fails and things go wrong but that is the case in any complex system that changes rapidly over time and certainly is not exclusive to transhumanism.Pro only explains that glitches are found in all technology, but fails to realize what technology we are discussing here. This isn't a microwave, a computer, or even a car... It's a human. What Pro's argument doesn't account for is the severity of damage. This principle is why a Military Firewall costs more than my firewall. Even a slight glitch can mess up the remainder of a human's life.Pro underestimates the severity of a Trans-Human glitch, and mixes it's severity in with that of Non-human objects.Rebuttal IV: Why does the Con assume such things will be an absolute necessity in such speculative topic? Because Cost is important. A parent can not afford replacing and upgrading a child's body part for 15-20 years straight. This would be the equivalent of a full body sugary and a new high dollar super computer ever year. Pro misinterprets the point of my argument. The parent can't ignore the Child's needs as he grows, letting a 12 year old live with the mechinical foot, hard drive, or even the mechinical eye of a 5 year old is not okay.Con leaves out the following from his observation:...Aging would present a large problem. Prior mentioned Durability from my Round 3 argument along with outgrowing and replacing parts that do not grow with you, presents a massive problem, albeit mostly financial, for anyone partaking in Trans-Humanization. The Financial aspect is important, most people will not be able to afford the replacements, especially for larger families or twins. Most wouldn't beable to afford it for one child, like buying a new super computer for your child every year (sometimes, twice a year) for nearly 15-20 years.Rebuttal V: I didn't drop your arguments. There was simply nothing to address as the previous points leading up to them had be refuted in the previous round. No rebuttals were found to address the following::Not quite the case with hardware. Broken components must be manually replaced at ultra-high costs. Hard drives have a life expectancy of 5 years if used constantly, which means 5-10 hours a day, as opposed to the 24/7 use of the human body. The average life expectancy of a human is 67.88 years, compared to the 4 year life expectancy of a computer.:Eliminating disease and most other forms of death, including crime, we would begin overpopulating the Earth in under a century, and we do not have alternative planets to occupy, and won't for well over a few centuries.Pro has not accounted for if Trans-Humanization does work, and we overpopulate as seen in my R3 Argument V: Overpopulation. Or the issue of Durability.Rebuttal VI: That isn't true at all because the vision of transhumanism and it's possible faults as I have listed are entirely fixable and adaptable.As my case shows, there are issues, and even if you fix them, there are issues behind them, as seen in this case:- Human's can't afford Trans-Humanization- If fixed, Human's can't continue to fix and replace body parts every 4-5 years... Annually for children. Durability will run thin.- Human's endure countless glitches and virus's that spread quicker then and outmatch the organic variant.- If all is fixed, we will Overpopulate from lacking of dying.Many issues listed are not fixable. Pro never shown the ability to overcome and fix Battery Life or Hacking, and countless others, as seen in a list of dropped arguments below.As I'm the last to reply, I will not put forth new arguments.Pro Has Dropped The Following Arguments:-Raising Healthcare Costs-Removal of the ideal of Human Equality-Battery life-Wartime Genocide-Negative Re-argumentation-Hacking/spying-Existence of Evil and Free Will, and the removal of Free Will.-The data provided in R4 Argument IV: CostsPro's dropped arguments and conceded points have left a massive hole in his proposal.Conclusion:The holes in Con's proposal and all conceded and dropped arguments leave his proposal crumbling. With this debate, I've proven that there are too many negatives to Trans-humanization that greatly outweigh any good that the concept may provide.Trans-humanization would leave humans more vulnerable to glitches, viruses, and inequality, as well as the oppression of the people, spying, and other forms of hacking and genocide. The concept would be a large step back in fighting illness and gaining personal security. It also leads to the option of Mass Genocide. In a world where everyone is trying to disarm nuclear weapons because of the threat they propose, Trans-humanization would give them the greatest weapon of all.Costs and the realization of literal Human Inequality, met with all other cons, simply leaves the idea a tragic mistake. Trans-Humanization is not a fundamentally good idea.