Should we bring back extinct species?

Win for Con.

Arguments: Pro introduces the short case that we should bring back extinct species so we can research them. Con introduces his own case that extinct species, if they were to be brought back to life, would go extinct again, and how our resources are low enough that it would be pointless. Considering that that argument itself isn't especially strong (it doesn't address how we could just bring one animal back to research on it, as Pro said) it's a shame that Pro completely drops it and just adds to his unsourced list of arguments. Con then rebuts these arguments. Let's go over his final rebuttals:

"First off, I would like to say that poaching is never a good thing, so even if we bring back animals by cloning them we should never poach."

Con's rebuttal is poor here, because he just says that poaching is bad - he never mentions why. Pro's argument passes.

"Secondly, it will take a lot of clones to have enough to reproduce, and even once they do have enough clones so that they can all start making more of them, it will take very long for a large amount of time for the animals to make enough of them to not be considered endangered. So if all this works the species will still be considered endangered for a long time. Also, most of the clones that get successfully made have really bad defects by the time they grow up so they might not even be able to reproduce and the species would die of again."

Both sides did poorly here. Pro makes the very weak argument that we can make less endangered species. This argument is just ridiculous because Pro does not explain why this has any intrinsic value. Con somewhat successfully rebuttals this by showing how ineffective and short this method would be, but inherently concedes that there will be more non-endangered species. Since he doesn't explain why this is bad, the argument passes.

"Also, most of the clones that get successfully made have really bad defects by the time they grow up so they might not even be able to reproduce and the species would die of again. Once we bring back species, to research on them wouldn't work out well because there is always some kind of defect so we will be getting false information on the species if we tried to study the clone. "

This rebuttal isn't great, but it's sourced and it works against Pro's claim. This argument is won by Con.

Overall, both sides did roughly the same but if I had to strain my brain muscles would give the edge to Con here because Pro completely drops his case and Con at least attempts to rebut (and successfully rebuts once) Pro's points.

Sources: I don't give points for sources except for when a lack of sources detracts from the case at hand, which this time it does for Pro. Most of Pro's points are practically weightless like: "we should bring back extinct animals to research on them" simply because he uses no sources. Con doesn't do a great job with this either, but does use sources for some of his points, like his case with animals with birth defects. Con wins this point as well, although I recommend he detail in his case which parts of his argument have which sources. So like: animals have birth defects [Source 1] and put the source below.

S and G: Fine on both sides, nothing gave me trouble.

Conduct: Both sides forfeited an equal amount of rounds, but Pro dropped Con's case and introduced new arguments in the final round, the latter of which is poor conduct.