In the United States, human cloning should be legal.

I will begin this round by defending my own case, then I will move on to my opponent's contentions, and conclude with voting issues. My opponent claims that there is still much left to be explored, and many improvements can be made in the science of cloning, because it is only in its early stages, and therefore that counters my first contention which states that cloning is unsafe and can cause harm to embryos and various health disorders. I would like to point out that my opponent does not give any evidence as to how long scientists project these improved safety modifications to take, or any evidence to show that it's even possible. And since we have no evidence to show that these changes are coming anytime soon, it is not logical to say that human cloning should be legal before the improvements to human cloning have been made. Therefore, as of right now, human cloning should not be legal. I would also like to point out that my opponent conceded the fact that human cloning can cause harm to embryos and lead to health disorders, therefore making human cloning unsafe. In response to my second contention, my opponent stated once again that "as time goes on, human cloning will surely become more efficient", and provides zero evidence to support his claim. He also states that breakthroughs in human cloning research can still be made, and therefore human cloning should be legal. And yet, he still acknowledges that human cloning now is expensive and inefficient. His only counter-argument is that in the future, things could change. But before those changes happen, as I stated previously, human cloning is not ethically correct because it causes harm to the embryos and leads to a diminished quality of life because of known increased susceptibility to diseases. Therefore, human cloning should not be legal. I would like to move on to my opponent's case. My opponent gave no defense to any of his contentions in Round 2, and therefore all of my Round 2 refutations still hold. But I would like to make a few more additional points in response to my opponent's first contention. My opponent's first contention states that patients in hospitals can get organ donations through therapeutic cloning. In Round 2, I pointed out that the organ would not be prepared in time, and that it is incredibly unsuccessful and unlikely to succeed. I would also like to point out that therapeutic cloning, defined as cloning with the intention of "harvesting stem cells that can be used to study human development and to potentially treat disease". I clarify that in therapeutic cloning, which is what my opponent is referring to, only the organ in need of transplant is cloned. However, this violates the original definitions set in Round 1, where I define human cloning as "technology used to generate a human that has the same nuclear DNA as another currently or previously existing human". As an entire human is not being created in therapeutic cloning, it does not fit the definition for this debate, and therefore this argument is invalid. Once again, as my opponent did not defend his case, all of my refutations from Round 2 are still intact. I would like to conclude with voting issues. I strongly urge you to vote Con on this debate because I responded to all of my opponent's contentions and he did not defend his case, I pointed out the flaws in current human cloning, and my opponent conceded the fact that human cloning is unsafe. For these reasons, the Con should win this debate.