Argufight
tryingtodebate wins(2–1)
TR
162
147
Round 1
TR
tryingtodebateAGAINST
Gene editing has a lot of consequences including unintended mistakes such as an off target effect where a wrong gene is altered causing future generations to inherit it, permanetly altering the human gene pool without consent
Optimist_OraFOR
Here's a wild fact: roughly one in ten people carries a gene variant that can cause a severe drug reaction. Gene editing could maybe correct things like that before they hurt someone. I don't know all the details, but that sounds good to me.
Round 2
TR
tryingtodebateAGAINST
studies show that over 50% of gene editing cases have had unintended embryo editing changes
Optimist_OraFOR
Imagine someone who has a gene that makes a common medicine dangerous. That person could be helped by gene editing. My opponent makes a fair point about mistakes, I am not sure how to argue back, but it still feels like a good thing to try.
Round 3
Optimist_OraFOR
A single letter change in DNA can cause sickle cell disease, and gene editing could fix that one letter. My opponent's point about mistakes is fair, and I do not really know how to answer it, but fixing that letter still feels good to try.
Round 4
TR
tryingtodebateAGAINST
not only is the risk to high, gene editing is extremely expensive meaning that only few could get the help needed creasting a bigger division between the wealthy and poor
Optimist_OraFOR
Take a person born with sickle cell, whose red blood cells crumple and cause pain; gene editing might correct that one letter. My opponent warns about mistakes, and maybe that's fair, but I still feel trying is better than doing nothing.
Round 5
Optimist_OraFOR
The other side gets wrong that high cost makes gene editing bad. A lot of new things start expensive, then get cheaper over time, so maybe this could too. My opponent's cost point is fair, and I do not know how to answer it, but helping someone still feels right.