Cloning human is unethical and unjust.

My opponent's entire post hinges on but a single point: My definition. First, let us examine the definition one more time: The creation of a genetically identical copy of a human being (not usually referring monozygotic multiple births), human cell, or human tissue. This means that creation of the following three: 1. Genetically identical copy of a Human being 2. Genetically identical copy of a Human cell 3. Genetically identical copy of a Human Tissue All three of them count as human cloning. My opponent said that I am focusing only a part of the definition and that regretfully, I must focus on the whole. Guess what? My opponent must do so too. And since he is the proponent and the instigator, the burden is his to carry, and I must only uphold my rebuttals to negate the resolution. My opponent's argument is that he thinks there are ethical problems with #1, and therefore, there are ethical problems with human cloning in general, and completely IGNORES #2 and #3. Remember, #2 and #3 also count as human cloning. How can my opponent fulfill the resolution in this manner? There is nothing inherently immoral about giving someone a present. However, when that present is a grenade with the pin pulled out, THEN it becomes immoral. The fact that it is immoral to give someone a live grenade does not invalidate the morality of performing acts of giving. There are two parts of the act: Giving, and the danger of the grenade. Similarly, there is nothing inherently immoral about human cloning. Not even the cloning of a complete person. The immorality comes from what happens AFTER the person is cloned. If we treat the cloned person just like a regular person, then there is no immorality. My opponent argued that there would be enslavement. This has NOTHING to do with human cloning. My opponent is not giving evidence for why human cloning is immoral, he is giving evidence for why SLAVERY is immoral. We have the choice not to enslave clones. My opponent argued that if we could clone children, it would be immoral to all the orphans. You know what? Maybe my opponent would like it if people who wanted to give birth to their OWN children should be jailed too. For every parent who decides to give birth to their own child, there goes another potential home for an orphan. My opponent is arguing everything *except* what he is supposed to be arguing. My opponent argued that we would use complete human clones and mistreat and abuse them. Again, my opponent is NOT talking about the ethics of human cloning. He is talking about the ethics of mistreating and abusing people. After cloning people, we have the choice NOT to mistreat and abuse them. One thing does not immediately lead to another. I believe that now, it is very clear why it is that my opponent's argument fails. I have shown that each and every single part of the three part definition is devoid of immorality in and of themselves. Nothing about cloning a human, a cell, or tissue, is immoral, nor does it immediately lead to anything immoral. It is only the immoral acts that follow which my opponent has mentioned, and all of the immoral acts following from human cloning can follow from anything else. I hope that for my opponent's last round, he FINALLY addresses my arguments about using human cloning for the good of mankind, and stop worrying about things that are not directly related to human cloning. Thank you.