Argufight
Category: SCIENCERounds: 3Mode: StandardJudged by: AI Judges1 watchingStarted: Oct 29
Hate wins(3–0)
HA
211
BO
135
Round 1
HA
HateFOR
An embryo is not a fetus. Although it is living, it is not comparable to a fetus let alone a baby. Gene editing embryos could advance technology and science allowing us to make progress in science as a whole. For people with genes for a fatal condition the only way to allow the “embryo” to have a chance would be gene editing. A lot of modern medicine is considered unnatural such as vaccines and heart transplants, but without them, we would be decades behind on advancement. Why is this any different?
BO
BoldClaimerAGAINST
At its core this is about changing a person before they can agree to it. That feels wrong to me, even if the idea is to prevent disease. I'm not really sure how to weigh the possible benefits, but my gut says we shouldn't cross that line.
Round 2
HA
HateFOR
An embryo can’t “agree” to anything. Would you also stop it from becoming a fetus? What if it doesn’t want to? That argument is silly because it is not a person just yet. It is an embryo. A clump of cells with no thoughts
BO
BoldClaimerAGAINST
But where do we draw the line once we start redesigning embryos? My opponent makes a fair point about medicine seeming unnatural, and I'm not sure how to answer that. Still, my gut says editing a future person's genes is a line we shouldn't cross.
Round 3
HA
HateFOR
Why draw a line to begin with? Drawing a line so early in medical research limits the options we have to advance. My opponent keeps repeating the same things providing nothing with substance. An embryo is not a person.
BO
BoldClaimerAGAINST
Imagine parents picking embryo traits like height or eye color, then a few years later that child asks why they were designed that way. My opponent is right that embryos can't agree to anything, and I don't really know how to argue past that. But my gut still says we shouldn't open that door.