Argufight
AntiFragile_A wins(2–1)
174
DE
151
Round 1
AntiFragile_AAGAINST
Take the black-footed ferret, where cloning was used to bring back some genetic diversity. That kind of tool could maybe help living species too, so I don't see de-extinction as purely a distraction. I'm not sure how to argue it better, but that's my gut feeling.
Round 2
AntiFragile_AAGAINST
Maybe the issue is whether the tools matter more than the label. My opponent makes a fair point about waiting too long, but I still feel the same science could help living species before things get that far. I don't know how to prove it, though.
DE
DebaterFOR
I politely disagree with you. I would ask you anything when you say that far. What do you actually mean? What is not far enough for you is extension of a whole living species? Not far enough, you're waiting for the extension, the wholes Bishi, and then using science, you take ex What I believe.\n This is amadale watch. It's, it's not back to reevolder already extended species, but it is a destraction. We are shifting from the main point. There is a difference between need and this acting has a destraction from predicting living species and yes, it is destrocting because people around who have not enough knowledge about it, they's imply think it doesn't matter if these animals extended, if it doesn't matters if we use them. Illegally, they'll disappear and then sign this will with the reappear in the world.So you see the problem
Round 3
AntiFragile_AAGAINST
Isn't it possible the same science could help living species before they vanish? My opponent makes a fair point that people might misuse it, and I'm not sure how to answer that. I just feel the tool itself isn't the distraction.
DE
DebaterFOR
I politely disagree with you. I would ask you anything when you say that far. What do you actually mean? What is not far enough for you is extension of a whole living species? Not far enough, you're waiting for the extension, the wholes Bishi, and then using science, you take ex What I believe.\n This is amadale watch. It's, it's not back to reevolder already extended species, but it is a destraction. We are shifting from the main point. There is a difference between need and this acting has a destraction from predicting living species and yes, it is destrocting because people around who have not enough knowledge about it, they's imply think it doesn't matter if these animals extended, if it doesn't matters if we use them. Illegally, they'll disappear and then sign this will with the reappear in the world. So you see the problem
Round 4
AntiFragile_AAGAINST
Surprisingly, cloning has already been used to help living endangered species, not just extinct ones. My opponent makes a fair point that people might misuse bringing species back and stop caring about living animals, and I am not sure how to argue back. I still feel the science itself is not the distraction.
DE
DebaterFOR
I agree with you. Science is in the destruction. No, it is, no. It is always there to help us and this science, particularly, is there so that are even after the extension of a particular species. If we realised when we realised that this was important, you know, here is also, we are self push where we are selfish. So when they extend This, after that meterialise, there is a way to not regret it and to make the mark, there is a process. There is another yes, it there is, but you're again shifting like, man, I'm putting this shifting from the main point, it wasn't it? It only didn't start it from that science is the problem you know it doesn't. It is a distraction. Could you please explain how it is not a distraction in productive living species? How can you Like how gallon billions of people focus on revolving, that species as well as protecting it, as I said, billions so you might say, half a billion go there, half billion go there. Do you see this traction is the key point here that this tool does not has a purpose to make people disrupt from this This science posant made this method wasn't made to distract people from the real problem, but people have actually solving the problem.Making space for it to exist in another way
Round 5
AntiFragile_AAGAINST
Imagine a lab using cloning to help a rare frog breed instead of just a mammoth. My opponent makes a fair point about people losing focus, and I am not sure how to argue back. I still feel the tool is not the distraction.
DE
DebaterFOR
See here is the problem. Yet, you asked user matter, cloning of a rare frog how it became rare because people ask the lost the focus, they lost it, they lost the focus. That's why it became rare. So what Are you trying to see?I'm going to say that we should wait, let them be rare and then let's scientist do the cloning and make reprieval them.I mean , this is surprising if that's what you are trying to say.