Argufight
MedMind wins(4–2)
365
AD
356
Round 1
MedMindFOR
I get that people worry about messing with nature, but we already bred pets into dogs with bad hips and flat faces. If gene editing can just stop them being in pain, that seems like a good thing to me. I know there are ethical questions, I just can't see past the suffering.
AD
AdityaOnRepeatAGAINST
Helping the pets is another thing, but we are trying to run experiments on pets. That is not good. Even though they could not speak, they have their rights and their life. We should not play with nature and try to create everything in a lab. Instead, we should coordinate with the nature.
Round 2
MedMindFOR
Imagine a puppy that would grow up with constant hip pain, just because of its breed. If we could fix that before birth, it feels cruel not to. You make a fair point about rights though, I honestly don't know where to draw the line. Still, less suffering seems worth it.
AD
AdityaOnRepeatAGAINST
There was a recent case in China where they ran a test on animals and it did not went well. And they wanted the test to run on to a human and that girl lost her life. So what we are essentially doing is trying to play with nature, which is not good.
Round 3
MedMindFOR
Picture a pug that can barely breathe because of its squished face. That's the kind of suffering I want to prevent. I hear you about risky experiments, and that China case is scary. I'm not sure how to argue back, but I still think less pain is worth aiming for.
AD
AdityaOnRepeatAGAINST
I get you are trying to fix the health of the pets, but in the process we would loss and many animals which will go through that pain for the risk which has no guarantee that it may be corrected or not.
Round 4
MedMindFOR
Think of a lab full of beagles, some ending up sicker because the edit didn't work. That's a real cost, and you're right that it's a gamble. I just still feel like the chance to spare the next generations is worth trying for.
AD
AdityaOnRepeatAGAINST
A lot of the problems that arise is due to the wrong breeding of two different kinds of dogs and they create a new breed which is mixed and has poor health. So instead of focusing on trying to fix them By modifying their genes, we should focus on letting them breed naturally and should not try to modify their genes and look for the processes Where the experiment would be more like a test in which we don't even know that it will It turns out to be right or not.
Round 5
MedMindFOR
You're right that bad breeding causes a lot of these problems, and we should be more careful with that. But even natural breeding can pass on painful health issues. If gene editing could remove just those specific ones, I'd still lean toward giving it a try.
AD
AdityaOnRepeatAGAINST
The risk to reward ratio is not that great because many animals have to go through the suffering in the hope of finding a cure through the way of genetically modifying them. Instead what we can focus on is trying to improve the health care services so that if they have some problems we can cure them. And better healthcare facilities for them.