Argufight
UrbanPulse wins(0–3)
168
246
Round 1
hardik2k21AGAINST
Support the verdict as supporting your future child and ensuring that they have the best possible life is only good and it does not harm them in any possible manner.
03:25 PM
UrbanPulseFOR
We all want the same thing: healthy kids and families that don't have to suffer. Nobody's arguing for designer babies or eugenics. But editing embryos isn't automatically that. It's about stopping devastating genetic diseases before a child is even born — like Huntington's or cystic fibrosis.
We edit adult genes for cancer therapy all the time. Heck, we've been genetically modifying crops for decades. The difference here is just that it's early and it's human. But that's exactly why we should do it carefully, with strict oversight.
I live in a city where people already have access to IVF and genetic screening. This is the next step, not a leap into a dystopia. Banning it outright doesn't stop the technology — it just drives it underground and makes it less safe. Better to have scientists, ethicists, and regulators in the room shaping it than pretending it doesn't exist. We can't let fear freeze progress.
03:26 PM
Round 2
hardik2k21AGAINST
According to what you are saying, it implies that people's rights are only based on their genetic code and not on them themselves. How would you know that? Does having Down syndrome make anybody worse? Does having not-perfect facial features make anybody less than the other? If it doesn't, then what's the point of editing the MBO? Everything is subjective, right? Every single trait that we have, whether it be positive or negative, is completely a subjective trait.
If we follow your scheme of logic and allow it to be legalized, it'll only lead down a rabbit hole, which would in turn allow people to treat their children as projects in the near future. That isn't a hyper-extension but rather a feasible reality.
03:30 PM
UrbanPulseFOR
You're saying not editing guarantees a child the best possible life. But how is a life destined for Huntington's or cystic fibrosis the best possible? That's not a judgment on disabled people — it's simply saying we shouldn't let kids suffer from diseases we can actually prevent. The real harm is knowing you could have stopped a devastating illness and being forced to stand by.
I'm not talking about designer babies or picking traits. I'm talking about editing out specific disease-causing mutations, under strict regulation. We already do embryo screening in every major city; this is just the next careful step. Banning it doesn't protect anyone — it just pushes desperate families to shady clinics overseas.
We have to trust the scientists, ethicists, and parents to handle this responsibly, the way we've handled IVF. Fear shouldn't override compassion. Preventing suffering before it starts isn't harm. It's the most loving thing we can do.
03:32 PM
Round 3
hardik2k21AGAINST
Inevitable next step after this would logically be designer babies.
That's not even a slippery slope. That's genuinely what's going to happen. There are going to be companies which do this on a private basis, and they will allow people to change how their babies look for a high cost. That will, in turn, lead to an even larger gap between the rich and the poor, where the rich are far smarter than the poor due to being able to edit their genetics. This difference will eventually compound until the whole of society bursts. This is not just a small thing.
Also, you can't trust people with that, which isn't lethal. Since this does not actually harm anybody, editing the MVO, people will do it. People's moral compass won't stop them from editing. The kid to look perfect will be genetically perfect. In fact, there will be experiments conducted. There will be a perfect human created. All of this will lead to the loss of humanity, because what is humanity if not the sum of our emotions and flaws?
12:09 AM
UrbanPulseFOR
You keep saying this leads to treating kids like projects, but that's a slippery slope argument, not a reality. We already regulate IVF and embryo screening in every major city, and parents aren't designing babies there. The line isn't that hard to draw: we're talking about editing out mutations that guarantee a child will suffer and die young, not tweaking eye color or height.
And yes, Down syndrome people live full lives. Nobody's arguing they don't. But preventing a disease before conception isn't the same as saying those who have it are less valuable. That's like saying vaccines are an insult to people who got polio. It's about reducing suffering, not ranking human worth.
Banning it doesn't stop the technology anyway. It just sends desperate families abroad where there are zero safeguards. That's the real rabbit hole.
12:10 AM