Instigator / Pro
Points: 1

Should we bring back extinct species?

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 1 vote the winner is ...
That-one-Noob
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Science
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Judicial decision
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Unrated
Characters per argument
30,000
Judges
Contender / Con
Points: 7
Description
No information
Round 1
Published:
I think we should bring back extinct species because we can research on them.
Published:
First off, it is likely that once we recreate a couple clones of a species (if it works), they will die again to humans. There is a long list of animals that humans have made extinct, and we will likely kill them all again.
There are many such animals and I am only naming 5 we have made extinct now: 
  • The West African Black Rhinoceros
  • The Pyrenean Ibex (A type of wild goat)
  • The Passenger Pigeon
  • The Quagga (a type of zebra)
  • The Caribbean Monk Seal 
These are only some in a long list of species that humans have made extinct. So you can imagine that even if we bring a clone of a extinct species back to life, it will die somehow. If it doesn't die and we manage to recreate so many more clones that they don't need protection any more, they will obviously die.
Deer are a common animal in the world, but even their population is dying off slowly, and that too it's because of us.

This is the showing that the deer population is declining by the millions and this is a common animal. So this means that many other animals will become extinct that are common now. So even if we bring the species back to life it is likely they will die in some way or the other. 

Even if the species survives there are natural factors that are involved, and resources are running out. So we probably don't even want to be spending time trying to bring species back to life when resources such as water are going down to low levels.

This chart shows that water is dangerously low in certain places and bringing many species back to life will not help with the water crisis even though it may seem inhumane to say that it is a fact that humans, and animals, will all die anyways because of the waste of resources.

















Round 2
Forfeited
Forfeited
Round 3
Published:
If we bring back extinct species, we can
* Research on them and find out more about the past
* Make less endangered species
* Make it ok to poach because if people poach animals, they can bring it back

People are actually cloning animals so we can do that also for endangered species.
Published:
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. 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. 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. 


























Added:
Too expensive and I don't know how any research gained from it would be important.
#1
Judge
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.