Argufight
SystemsThinker wins(1–5)
208
284
Round 1
Editing
human embryos is a controversial topic of discussion. In essence, the
debate revolves around whether or not we ought to stray from our natural
programming in order to advance ourselves. As I am arguing for the
editing of human embryos, I would say yes. For one, gene editing can be
immensely beneficial to people with any form of inherent disabilities
(be they physical or mental). Although the possible negatives of
exploitation do pose a threat, the net impact is overwhelmingly
positive. Second, it is due process for us to evolve and shed our skins.
We see this in nature all the time, and see it in ourselves as the case
of technological advancements time and time again, and while they come
with negatives, the positives outweigh them.
SystemsThinkerAGAINST
I mean, once you start editing embryos, you're basically deciding what counts as a good or bad human before they're even born. That feels like a slippery slope we can't really control. I just worry we're messing with something that shouldn't be messed with.
Round 2
SystemsThinkerAGAINST
You make a fair point about helping with disabilities, but I think you're missing that once we start picking genes, we're deciding what normal even means. That just feels wrong to me. I can't really argue back, but I'm not convinced.
Round 3
SystemsThinkerAGAINST
You're right that it could fix terrible diseases, but I think you're wrong to assume we'll only use it for good. Once you open that door, there's no clear line, and regular people won't get a say. Maybe I'm overthinking, but that still worries me.