Argufight
dinodragon wins(3–0)
DI
214
142
Round 1
DI
dinodragonFOR
gene editing is a very effective way of treating and preventing genetic diseases as researcher led by Dieter Egli from Colombia University showed in their research. 80% of all rare diseases have a genetic origin whichis 450 milion people, 70% of all rare diseases cause neurological damage, which is disastrous for family's friends and those 450 milion people themselfs. gene editing is a proper way to drasticly decrease as researcher led by Dieter Egli from Colombia University showed in their research. there are ethical problems with gene editing: can we just shop our children like they are customizable items? what if people start changing the gender, eye colour or personality of their child. these are real concerns and therefore i propose this: gene editing should be a heavily restricted process only used for conditions like huntingtons disease, this should be a world wide imposed standard and this will probably be inforced by institutions like the UN.
LegalEagleAGAINST
Imagine a parent editing their embryo to be taller, then another to be smarter, and pretty soon everyone’s trying to design the perfect kid. That just feels wrong to me, like we’re treating people as products instead of accepting them as they are.
Round 2
DI
dinodragonFOR
yes, I already acknowledged that ethical problem and proposed a solution: that gene editing should be a heavily restricted process only to be used for fatal distructive genetic diseases like huntingtons, governments should be mandated to enforce this and if they will not access to research and result regarding gene editing will be completely stripped from them if they still refuse we could impose legal or even military consequences. think about how making atomic bombs is also heavily restricted and when a country illegally does so other nations correct them like what happend with the USA and Iran.
LegalEagleAGAINST
You make a fair point about restricting it to serious diseases. But even with restrictions, I worry about slippery slopes. Who decides what counts as a disease? And once we start, it's hard to draw the line. Just feels like messing with nature.
Round 3
DI
dinodragonFOR
I acknowledge the worry but do not think it apply's; we mess with nature all the time we stop tumors, remove cancer, use surgery from all those things you could argue that it interferes with nature. science decides what is a disease, the definition is: an abnormal condition that harms the body or mind and stops normal functions. we have world wide standards about what clasifies as a disease. brown eyes do not limit normal functions, neither does light skin or a normal intelligence. it isn't hard to draw a line and to demonstrate i will draw it: Gene editing must only be used on conditions that are distructive to someones live either ending it completely or lowering the quality of life to where even the basic needs as food, water, shelter, securate cannot be given in a normal way.
LegalEagleAGAINST
You make a fair point about enforcement. But here's a surprising fact: one gene edit can change multiple things at once. Even with rules, we can't predict all the side effects. That worries me more than the idea of designer babies.