Eugenics needs to become mandatory

If I were caught plagiarizing, creating an imaginary reason so as not to have to respond and then lying about having written a thesis, honestly, I would have been too embarrassed to return. I think your courage is quite admirable. Let's Talk ArgumentsMisunderstanding Natural Selection: You stated: "What is natural selection? Does it mean we use modern medicine to improve our lives and use that as natural selection? "Now, I understand that, as you stated above, reading scholarly information "puts you to sleep," but you can't really argue for Eugenics if you eschew anything above a fourth grade vocabulary. I will decidedly say that the statement, "How many gene altering medication are used everyday by people, these medications do alter cells, affect growth and change body chemistry in people" belies a blatant lack of understanding of both medical science and evolutionary biology. Genes affect what medications work and how they work, not the other way around. The genes in your body at birth are the genes you are stuck with for life (at least for now). Now, you may and your mother may have had a conversation about how "I'm mean and should agree with you 'cause you're so smart! " while she folded your laundry yesterday, but history would agree that I pass every threshold ever historically held as a eugenics standard. I'm white, I'm attractive, I was classified as gifted all throughout my youth, I am now working on a masters in Neuroscience and yet, my father was bi-polar. Do I believe skin colour, level of attractiveness, overall IQ or level of education are healthy standards to set for eugenics? No. Not only are they arbitrary constructs of things humans some believe are of value, but they are a mixture of genetic traits that hold no value (whiteness) and traits that have no correlation whatsoever in genetics (level of education). So while I may have some recessive genes that are linked to bipolar risk (as most likely do you; most humans do), they require more than one allele and a mutation in order to activate them making it just as likely for my children to get bipolar disorder as it is for your children. I ask you, do we sterilize everyone? Misunderstanding Eugenics: Now, I would assume for a fellow who continually drops and then is forced to pickup an imaginary microphone, you wouldn't be so quick to sterilize people with cognitive and musculature disorders. I already argued for why limiting the gene pool causes more deformities and cognitive disabilities. You haven't actually responded to that. So I suppose in rebuttal to your position on Eugenics I simply need to repeat that stance and once again, after nap time when you feel as though you're ready to tackle an academic paragraph, go back an reread why limiting the gene pool causes this to happen. You don't even need to take my word for it. My links and citations are not imaginary theses that don't exist, but real links and books out there. Feel free to explore, my friend. Misunderstanding Rett Syndrome: You claim "How many millions of dollars will be spent keeping this mutant around? " and I will once again refer you to my cost analysis in the very first argument post. Math is tough, so you might want to find an adult you trust to help you go through the numbers. Much of the rest of argument on Rett Syndrome that follows is simply moralistic appeals to emotion, much like, what I can only assume you were hoping would be the response to your debate challenge in the first place. It's easy to clash emotional argument against emotional argument: no one actually has to know anything. That's not what this debate is; I've introduced facts and evidence. I'm simply asking you address them and provide your own (though it seems you don't even grasp basic plagiarism since what you ctrl+V'd was also an opinion piece). ConclusionAt this point, I've presented a lot of evidence, none of which was actually addressed. I can only hope the readers of this debate have a reading level above that of my opponent. Here is a breakdown of my arguments that have not been addressed.1. Rett Syndrome is based on a mutation of a gene rather than a gene itself.2. Rett Syndrome mathematically nearly always occurs in a parent who does not have Rett Syndrome.3. Natural Selection has already made it nearly impossible for Rett Syndrome to gain the two alleles that it needs to flourish by self-terminating most of its males affected.4. It would cost more to implement eugenic screenings that it does to provide support to afflicted individuals.5. Most disabilities and deformities are recessive in nature and require two alleles of the kind to be expressed which is extremely unlikely.6. The way the above becomes more likely is to limit the gene pool, something eugenics seeks to do. We need look no farther than incest to see the effects of limited genetic availability and the rate of deformity and cognitive dysfunction.7. Moral questions aside, this new understanding of genetics and alleles is the main reason we've moved away from eugenics rather than towards it.8. Natural selection is superior in reducing these rates because it naturally diversifies the gene pool where eugenics limits it.9. Natural selection is immune to human bias and error in trait determination and instead always gears us towards models better equipped to not only survive, but thrive in the changing environment. Post-Script to My Opponent:I would also encourage my opponent to post his "thesis" on this topic he claims to have written. I asked him for the link, and he simply linked me to his profile page which again makes me question his zealousness at euthanizing the mentally incompetent but I suppose the Dunning-Kruger is one of those tricky human biases natural selection seeks to avoid. However, I still encourage you to post this thesis but, make no mistake, as I know you are fond of taking credit for the thoughts of others, I will investigate any work you present to me and, if I discover it not to be yours, I will contact the scholar through email to let him know that you are plagiarizing work. I hope you at some point will read the information I have posted. You have managed to convince me that Eugenics is a good idea only insofar as your intellectual capabilities have been demonstrated here. Luckily, I believe that your children and grandchildren will be better equipped to handle an increasingly scientific world.