Cloning should stay banned

"Of course the bible has nothing to say about cloning beause it was writen thousands of years ago. " That is my point right there. The fact that is does not explicitly mention cloning technologies makes biblical interpretations irrelevant. It would be an unreliable source to derive a valid decision from. "but as all great documents in history it was writen to be intpreted. " Alright, perhaps at the time it was originally written, it may have been meant to be interpreted. However, simply because it may have been meant to be interpreted for future usage does not necessarily mean it should currently be. "The bible states that humans do not have the powere to create life only God. " If that were the case, then humans defy the bible each and every day. In order to produce new life, humans reproduce. This power resides in the power of the reproductive systems in humans. Thus, humans do indeed have the power to create new life. In fact, even every second a new cell is formed in humans, new life is created. Indeed, humans do have the power to create life. For all these reasons mentioned, they already invalidate my opponent's claim, nullifying the instigator's argument. "The second part of of this statement is false. this country was founded on christian principles and the bible. Most of the major colleges in the US (Oxford, Yale, and Harvard) were based on these principles to. It was like that untill the seperation of church and state. The only reason this country has fallen into this moral slop is because we have become lazy in our values. This lack of ideals has made us un-american. " The point is, regardless of whether or not this country was founded upon religious principles or not, a secular nation SHOULD still be/continue to be implemented. As well, the major universities mentioned by my opponent, though they may have been founded upon religious affiliations, eventually became secular in nature. However, even if the contrary were true, it would not support my opponent's argumentation, as it would be fallacious. The logical fallacy being used could be considered argumentum ad verecundiam, the appeal or argument to authority. That is, merely because a major university had such affiliation does not justify a country doing the same. Regarding the separation of church and state, it allows the country to have logical values, rather than religious ones. Logical values are values inherent and ameliorative to all of the society, while religious ones may only serve a selective, small population. It is better, and more logical, to serve the society as a whole, instead of only the religious. Again, values can still be adhered to in a secular nation, having just as much merit, if not more, than that of a non-secular nation. The concept of ideals works just the same. Again, I am not so sure what the explicit truth is on the nation being founded upon religious values, but it would be irrelevant anyhow. Even if it were founded upon any religious principles, all that would do is give an illogical rational to lawmakers as they create bills; essentially, this country has multiple religions, and no single one of them is dominant over any others, therefore, it can be derived that incorporating religion, while the nation has freedom of religion, into federal laws is completely unreasonable and ridiculous. The purpose of government is to do what is best for its entire society as a whole collective, not just of a particular religion. That would be discriminatory, which is unethical. Thus, the separation between religion and government is of essence. "How can we get those organs to be transplants unless we clone humans/ the definition of cloning is to create an identical reproduction of a single cell. If we are to do these transplants then we would be growing them not cloning. " The organs could come from stem cells (whether adult, embryonic, or similar reproducing cells), upon working to create optimal efficiency in cloning technological methodology. The definition of cloning, though, can be considered to create an identical reproduction of a single cell. However, I think conventional methods still technically have the egg cell's mitochondrial DNA. However, even so, in order to minimize the potential of tissue/organ rejection as an immune response, it could prove useful to clone (same genes) in order to produce valuable tissues/organs necessary. These results could yield countless successes, and save many lives. The point is, though, here, that cloning technologies would still be necessary to generate new tissues or organs awaiting transplants. Cloning is thus a valuable tool for the society, and should be encouraged by the government. Logic dictates a CON vote. I would also ask that potential voters, if they would like to, leave comments regarding their vote preference and reasons for it for this debate.