Human cloning should be legalized.

As a scholarly article notes, "Cloning may cause long term health defects, a study by French scientists has suggested. A two month old calf, cloned from genes taken from the ear of an adult cow, died after developing blood and heart problems.

The cloning process seemed to have interfered with the normal genetic functioning of the developing calf, according to the researchers whose findings are reported in the Lancet (1999;353:1489-91).
Cloned sheep, cows, and mice have been known to die before or shortly after birth. But the latest case highlights for the first time the long term damage that the cloning process may cause." As you can see, cloning would be unethical as it would cause pain and suffering merely for the case of research. Pro must over come this in order to win the debate.

This is very confusing and not backed by any sources. How would you clone organs or parts on their own? How would you support these organs? The topic is "human cloning", not "human organ cloning", and hence this argument is nonsensical. 

And why, precisely, must it be humans, our own kinds? What precisely is wrong with our current experimentation with animals?

This creates an evolving problem where certain malicious people can clone a specific "superior" race and justify racism, causing controversy and fights break out between people. As CBC network warns, "It is the antithesis of the impulse to foster and appreciate human diversity in all its complexity, and to accept others as they are. It is the quintessential manifestation of human beings acting as if they are God." 

Not backed by any sources to be remotely possible.

What? Our growth has been exponential and incredibly quick. Pro is being nonsensical and praising a potential drain of resources, furthering the gap of poor and rich. Considering how expensive human cloning is, would it not be plausible that only the rich would be able to clone themselves? This growth of population is undesirable and absurd. 

A) Pro states there is economic growth potential but makes no mention of all the people living under poverty that we could hire first for work before needing to clone extra bodies to help colonize space.

B) Pro thinks that numbers win, but consider the fact that a billion ants or a trillion ants make no difference against the power of a flamethrower. Similarly, incredibly advanced technology beyond a nuclear bomb makes numbers meaningless as all those concentrated in an area would die to a massive explosion. Technology advancement and quality of troop matter far more than the numbers.

Arg 3

It is impossible to clone the human mind and its inner workings. "the problem of wiring up a brain is so complex that it is beyond the power of the genomic computer.

The best the genes can do is indicate the rough layout of the wiring, the general shape of the brain. Neurons, in this early stage, are thrown together more or less at random and then left to their own devices. After birth, experience makes and breaks connections, pruning the thicket into precise circuitry. From the very beginning, what's in the genes is different from what's in the brain. And the gulf continues to widen as the brain matures.
The genes still exert their influence -- some of the brain's circuitry is hardwired from the start and immutable. People don't have to learn to want food or sex. But as the new connections form, the mind floating higher and higher above the genetic machinery like a helium balloon, people learn to circumvent the baser instincts in individual ways." You might be able to clone Hawking's brain, but to clone his experiences is another matter entirely. Negated.

I'm going to go over framework, opponent's points, and my points.
Framework
Extend all of the framework since it was ceded.
Opponent's points
1. The issue of clones not being healthy themselves is solving itself. Science is already developing solutions to these issues. One that is gaining a lot of traction is gametogenesis. (1) Gametogenesis is where the embryo is developed through normal cloning means, stem cells are extracted from the developing embryo, those stem cells are turned into a sperm and egg cell, and a clone is developed from that. Since science is always evolving and moving forward, it will solve itself. Being able to do human cloning would actually allow us to eventually figure out all the issues within the process that much faster.
2. The issue of female reproduction health has two flaws.
A. Gametogenesis solves. Once again, since we figure out how to create eggs, we won't need to utilize hormone treatments or unneeded surgeries. If we can create eggs through the process, then none of the issues brought up by Con will come to fruition.
B. Consent allows for it. I know my opponent led a preemptive argument against informed consent, so I'll answer it separately. What I will say is that the issues about hormone treatment and surgeries to extract eggs are fully understood and we can get fully informed consent, meaning the arguments that my opponent did make about consent do not apply to acquiring eggs.
3. The issue with my opponent's arguments against consent is twofold.
A. We can give all the available information and very clearly articulate that there is more we don't know. To say we can't give informed consent means that you say the average person can't understand the idea that we simply don't have all the answers. Most people who volunteer for research understand that we don't know all the facts, that's why we're doing research. Informed consent means we tell them everything we know and make it clear that there's a lot we don't.
B. The argument that a child can't consent to being born in a certain situation toes a very thin line. Can the disabled have kids if there's a high chance there child will have the same disability? Whatever the opponent answers is a double-bind for against the argument. If they say yes they can, then obviously the child's consent isn't a weighing factor, and if they say no, then their logic is justified from the ableist idea that physical conditions detract from the value of a life, in which case we shouldn't evaluate ableist arguments.
4. The entire line of social questioning has a couple of different flaws.
A. Firstly, my framework outlines that tangible advantages have to come before ethical ones. All of this is an ethical question about the social placement of clones. Even if you believe that I completely lose this social point, if you think I have more tangible advantages on my side, then I win the debate on that point, especially since my opponent never challenged the framework, so he agrees that the tangible comes before the ethical.
B. Let's say that clones that have brains, so not the organs or cadavers, have full rights. They are a separate entity that has full autonomy. I would argue that any nation that would enslave clones en masse to create a military or research buff would probably violate international law to do it. The only nations that are really held back by law is the nations who would most likely respect the rights and autonomy of the clones. 
C. My opponent is creating a slippery slope saying that the fact we would study the first human clones for medical conditions means we would enslave them for science. My argument isn't that he uses the fallacy, but the fallacy is empirically flawed. We don't enslave the children born through artificial insemination, but we researched the first babies born this way to ensure they were going to be safe and alright. (2) 
My arguments
1. I'll answer all of the statements of my opponent.
A. Organ cloning is 100% possible and would work through the same process described earlier, but instead of turning the stem cells into eggs and sperm, we would use them to cultivate organs. (3) This is highly possible scientifically. The organs would be created in a lab and constructed when needed for transplants. The next question is does it fall under human cloning, to which I would say it does. Human cloning shall be defined as creating a perfect copy of human DNA. If my opponent wants to challenge that definition, then let him, but without defining it you really can't claim it doesn't fall under it. 
B. Because, while we can learn the basic of genetic manipulation by cloning animals and then genetically changing this code, we don't get species specific genetic information. Cloning of animals isn't going to give us the in depth genetic information we need on the human genome to better understand what is necessary to solve genetic conditions.
C. This argument is a purely ethical claim, meaning it comes second. If I prove that we can make humans better, any ethical issues with that get evaluated second. Also, as long as people exist in a diverse state like now, this diversity will exist forever. Different people will have different values, meaning they will inherently create different genetically engineered kids, meaning we will have diversity.
Sources
1. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2003/may/08/science.research1
2. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/worlds-first-test-tube-baby-born
3. https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/genetic/cloned-organ-transplant.htm

1) Gametogenesis: Solutions that cause yet more problems. This still falls into my "best race" counter argument that pro has yet to address. As statnews warns, "The issue becomes even more fraught with confusion when IVG is combined with preimplantation genetic screening. Couples, or even individuals, could in principle create hundreds of embryos and use genetic tools to select the “best” one. Some might see such embryo farming as a modern-day form of eugenics that puts a higher value on some lives than on others. Some bioethicists worry that such eventuality appeals to our worst instincts, which the authors of the Trends article characterize as “an untoward desire for mastery and human perfectionism in which reproduction becomes manufacture.” And what happens to all these excess embryos? We could see a commodification of embryos that resembles the current practice of selling sperm and eggs."

The legalization and distribution towards common people creates an unnatural level of control, and costly research to satisfy customers blurs the line between science and finance. Corporations and businessmen have always took advantage of products, making phones addicting, making fast food give more taste rather than being healthy. They don't care about the well being of people so long as they can pay up, and when you extend the ability to clone stem cells, the market result would fall into a spiral, a battle of the rich trying to perfect their copies, and the poor struggling to gain the recognition for the diseases that pro claims stem cells are trying to solve. By legalizing human cloning, pro ironically obstructs the very problem he advocates against. 

2+3) Pro brings up an interesting point against disabled children, however, I will bite the bullet and argue that in fact, we can, should, and already prevent disabled children being born. Consider the fact that incest is taboo in many countries, and that the reproductions directly cause mental and physical issues (the same site arguing "With very few exceptions, marriages between brothers and sisters and between parents and their children are verboten in every human culture."). For the future of humanity, I agree with Incest's problem on the sole basis of the children suffering as a result. There is hence no problem as a result here. My argument that human cloning causes severe disabilities, far more than usual birth problems, shuts down pro's argument. In evolution, only the strong and the well survive. To produce something that is contrary to such merely for research purposes should not be allowed. 

4) Pro argues that merely because the research benefits results in greater gain than the support, that it is fine. However I will remind pro that he merely asserted it can cure genetic diseases and find a solution to cancer, without any evidence backing whatsoever. In order for pro to win, he must prove that it WILL bring a solution, otherwise mere potential will just be a waste of resources. Indeed, research admits the same room for potential as pro states, however, it warns that there are countless problems in the way -- "Scientific roadblocks impeding advancement in therapeutic cloning are tumorigenicity, epigenetic reprogramming, mitochondrial heteroplasmy, interspecies pathogen transfer, low oocyte availability." Whether the solutions will arrive on time are highly questionable, while the scientists are on high pressure against society to quickly produce results. The impractical nature of the legislature suggests that more research should be done on the topic before a hands-on approach. The probability is very willy-nilly and pro has not given a good standard of time-frame to efficiently stabilize the solutions and find a way through to convince people to accept contributing their cells for cloning research.  

Other arguments

1) Organ donation: Pro's very source notes a very practical problem with this -- "Aside from bioethical issues, there's a lack of available human eggs for research. Laws and ethical regulations from the National Academy of Sciences and the International Society for Stem Cell Research prohibit monetary compensation for females who donate their eggs for embryonic stem cell research. Coupled with the newness of the science and the potential risks involved with egg donation, stem cell researchers have been hard pressed to find donors. " If nobody is willing to do it, then pro's argument is completely useless. 

2) Animal Genome: Pro tries to say that animal genomes are not enough, but the Human Genome project has already gained much development and research. From here, it's evident that we can learn much about animals that share DNA and their evolutionary traits. The fact that we are still not very successful at merely cloning other animals puts a huge hole in pro's argument; we may still yet improve the cloning technique with the currently legal method of cloning other animals, so that cloned humans will not suffer needlessly, and that time will not be wasted on failed experiments with the low amount of supply and support we have.

3) Supporting other planets: Pro keeps trying to say that we have to artificially create more people, has he not considered that the population will level because we want it to? Because it is currently limited to earth? If there is resource and space for more people, then the demand will obtain more supply. Pro's argument makes no sense here, if people wouldn't want to produce children naturally, why would they be willing to do it through this extremely controversial and artificial manner?

4) Limited labor: Pro does understand that humans can only do so much? As technology advances, machines may do the extremely difficult jobs mentioned with space mining, construction, etc. Pro's argument still destroys itself as he praises the absorption of resources that we are currently unwilling to distribute to the poor for aforementioned labor, in exchange for more resources. It is logical that only the rich and powerful that invested into the project would gain from this, to invest in more projects. It doesn't solve our poverty problem currently existing that is arguably more important than looking into outer space. 

Conclusion: Human cloning has little support, so the ability to supply for it, even if legalized, would be minimal and halt the development. This results in an endless loop of inability to produce results and call by legislators to stop the madness, not to mention the problem of the rich's strong control over the cloning. The world where human cloning is legalized would be quite the dystopia, with the powerful gaining even more power by cloning themselves and the weak not gaining any benefit from the diseases cured by the research -- even if after decades the scientists finally gained ground. 

I will extend the framework, answer my opponent's points, and then defend my own.

Framework

Extend both points. He hasn't contested either one, so they're still both in the debate and setting the guidelines for the round.

Opponent's points

1. He's made two separate points, and I will answer them both separately. I would like to prove that I found a solution to clones having health defects, and that he has dropped the original argument and is now going for this ethical argument about eugenics/racism/forced evolution which is it's one general argument. The reason I'm clarifying this is because I'm making it clear that he can't go for the fact that he isn't going for the fact that clones might have health problems.

A. His first is that it leads to an unethical race to the bottom, but there's a couple different issues here.

I. He still hasn't contended the framework, so any ethical claim has to be evaluated second to tangible benefits like research and economics. The argument that it leads to unethical prioritization of life inherently is a secondary argument because he hasn't contended the fact that, in my framework, I said it was, meaning if you feel there is a health or research benefit to be gained, all ethical implications aren't relevant to the conversation.

II. Even if he prevents this one unethical act, tons of embryos are killed in the status quo, as well as the commodification of unborn life. I would argue that the existence of relatively similar abortion rates across the world, legalized or not, (1) destroys any chance for Con to say we live in an ethical world. Without some counterplan to solve this, he can't really claim that I'm causing anymore damage then where the world is heading, especially since abortion laws are, in general, being liberalized globally. (1) This killing is also done because babies have medical conditions, meaning, once again, unless he can prove that I'm really changing the direction the world is already heading, he isn't defending anything. And on the commodification of life, he says it's already happening with sperm and eggs. Once again, unless he can prove that I'm making the world any directly worse than where it's already going, then I'm not changing anything.

III. If we can make the human race better by making every individual have the absolute best genetic options available to them, then why would we stop that. If we can make every individual a genius, perfect metabolism, and conventionally attractive, then why would we stop that for some vague ethical claim. Extend across the framework argument that ethics come second because it's subjective with no objective starting point.

B. His second argument that corporations would block all health benefits has a couple of issues within it.

I. It would inherently be profitable to cure genetic conditions, so they would sell the cure. Governments of the world would then legislate it to be covered under healthcare in most first world countries. Extend the framework argument that I don't have to defend a deregulated version of cloning, meaning I get to speculate how government would regulate the issues brought in the round. Also, if he makes the argument he's against it only being available in the first world at first then he is against all modern advancements. That's how the world works in general, especially medicine, so unless my opponent can prove that it would be handled worse than the status quo or he has a way to solve it, then I'm still making the world net better by healing some people's conditions. 

II. The argument that the genetic engineering portion would still be only available to the rich would still be false because insurance would want to be able to profit off it and then regulation would eventually follow. A great map for how this would work is mental illness, where it evolved from only being solved for the rich by them getting the best treatment, but now it's regulated to be forced to be included in health insurance. 

2. On the entire female health argument, I'm going to drop the consent point and say he dropped that gametogenesis solves from a purely health based perspective and that he only had ethical arguments. Extend across the entire first point to answer all the ethical points.

3. On the entire consent based argument, I'm going to extend that gametogenesis solves from a purely health based perspective and that my opponent only had ethical arguments. Extend across the entire first point to answer all the ethical points.

4. My opponent has dropped all the original ethical arguments and is cemented on this idea that I have to prove that it will result in health and research benefits. Firstly, extend a quote from my opponent's source in this point that says "Blelloch et al found out, from studies on neurons, that stem cells used as the nuclear donor have a higher success rate," which once again proves the gametogenesis solves the issues my opponent laid out and that simple evolution of science in the field of cloning has solved every issue my opponent has brought up. Now to answer the claim that cloning has to be proven to result in health benefits and research benefits. Therapeutic cloning is resulting in stem cell research that is being used to create organs for people who need them. (2) There, both are answered in a single statement. 

My points

1. The legalization of human cloning would begin to open up the legal access, and since we could do it for more than research, then the ethical and legal issues concerned with research could go away for the direct action parts, and women could be paid for he equivalent of a regular sale of their eggs. When it comes to research, simply that it's going slow doesn't mean that it's bad. At best, you argue that I can't create enough organs to heal everyone, but if I save one life, that's one life saved. If you think there's still any benefit, this point benefits Pro.

2. Yeah, we can still do animal cloning to do a lot of the legwork on cloning research, but we can also do human testing as well. There's no reason we can't do both to get the benefits of both.

3. There's two arguments here, and I'm going to answer both.

A. The issue of people not wanting to give birth is irrelevant with the advancement in the technology of artificial wombs. The technology has started to work, and the only reason it wasn't finished to completion is because of current regulations. (3) If these regulations ease up, as governments most likely would to quickly colonize space, then we don't need people to reproduce this way. Governments can utilize adoption systems to raise millions of people and then use them to colonize space.

B. The majority of reasons for the population leveling off is based on the modernization of technology and women's education. (4) Fertility rates fall as life spans increase, women are focusing on career building and education globally, we're getting used to low child mortality rates, and that there won't be more children on the planet. None of this has to do with there being space on the planet, so we need a way to grow the population to colonize larger areas.

4. Even if humans can only do so much, unless he's advocating for a post-human society, more humans are going to be needed to industrialize more areas of space. To improve our economy, we have to ensure that we have enough people to colonize space. Unless he's saying that the predicted 11 billion, which is where the population is going to level off, is enough to colonize and industrialize the entire galaxy, then we need more people.

5. He's completely dropped the military point, so extend this as a win for Pro.

6. He dropped the answers to cloning geniuses, so extend this as a win for Pro.

Conclusion

Cloning is essential to improving our capabilities in research, economics, military, and the health of the populace. There are tons more tangible benefits in favor of cloning than against, so Vote Pro!

Sources

1. https://www.cfr.org/article/abortion-law-global-comparisons

2. https://www.eurostemcell.org/what-cloning-and-what-does-it-have-do-stem-cell-research

3. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/feb/10/medicalscience.research

4. https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/science/article/2016/07/13/four-reasons-global-population-will-level-soon

Pro continues to have very vague arguments backed by very little research, and little showing of precisely what the benefits of cloning Gametogenesis are, merely only mentioning organ transplant. I will now show direct differentiation to throw additional doubt, as I was waiting for pro to tell us precisely what benefits come from self-productive gametogenesis, but he showed none. 

As a strong research paper warns us: "We discuss the alleged distinction between therapeutic and non‐therapeutic uses of assisted reproduction in the context of IVG, and show how it is both problematic to apply in practice and theoretically dubious. ... We suggest that these principles generate strong reasons for the use of IVG for opposite‐sex and same‐sex reproduction, but not for solo reproduction."

The reasoning behind denying solo reproduction is very similar to my argument against incest: "However, where there is a significant risk of producing an offspring with disabilities so profound that they render life not worth living, then person‐affecting and impersonal considerations would speak against allowing such reproduction. Inbreeding, particularly within one individual, would have a significant chance of producing profound genetic abnormalities. For this reason, arguably, we ought not to allow solo reproduction using IVG." 

The same paper displays much worry about real world application within society: " This could translate to physically or situationally infertile individuals continuing to experience the psychosocial harms associated with non‐genetic parenthood. Paradoxically, in seeking to alleviate infertility‐related distress, IVG could actually increase infertility‐related distress for those who are unable to access it." Remember what I said about the expensive costs of IVG? Yes, this ties back into the practical application of human cloning.

This could similarly apply to human organ cloning. Just who would be so generous to spend time cloning their organs? Probably poor people, as they need the money. And who could afford these cloned organs? Rich people. So there's still the disparity of problems. Those who can afford replacement organs likely do not truly need it, indeed, if anything, the rich may abuse this to give an excuse to harm their bodies with excess alcohol and drugs because they may replace the organs willy nilly. However, poor people who can't get enough nutrition or born with organ problems ironically would have great issue with obtaining these organs. As such, pro's benefits are washed out and the result is nonsensical. 

Pro tries to compare abortion to the human cloning, but these are different issues altogether. Remember that we are keeping the cells/human-like organism alive for research purposes, and their disabilities are dehumanizing and unethical. The fact that pro infers he supports abortion of disabled children goes to show that human cloning would be very selective and take an eternity (considering the success rate of 1 out of hundreds with Dolly the sheep, and greater difficulty within mammals).

Pro tries to suggest that we could make humans perfect, however he has once again dropped my accessibility argument, especially with strong costs. Can we really guarantee that the rich and powerful that clone their bodies would be the "perfect" society? This is quite dubious. The idea of an "inferior" race blurs the line of racism and looks past the value of an innocent healthy human life on its own! Based on pro's argument, we should only allow extremely fit and smart people to have sex, preventing "average" people from reproducing. This is an incredibly dangerous argument and ignores the regular reasons we reproduce, to solve loneliness, to have someone to take care of, to love. Merely to reproduce for evolutionary advantages brings into question our own selective reproduction of animals, with pugs looking "cute" but their brains completely squished to draw concern and being nearly impossible to breathe. Let's face it, we don't know what true "perfection" would be. Pro's world is incredibly dangerous and biased in favor of those with the choice to clone humans, rather than the general public.

No sources to back up the cure to genetic conditions resulted from human cloning. 

1) any benefit is good -- Even at the cost of the time of the poor? Even if the rich are at fault, as noted above, and abuse this new system? Even if it takes decades of controversy and riots to finally reach a definitive benefit level? There are simply too many questions in the way of pro's dubious arguments. 

Wrong, the human suffering is viewed as far more important as it relates directly to us. As we improve the cloning technology with more technology (as animal cloning is currently allowed and viewed as more ethical by people), we could always postpone human cloning to a later decade, rather than now (as "should be legalized" infers taking action quickly and soon)

3) Colonization: Pro continuously drops the consumption of massive resources necessary for this operation. In addition to the cost of space mining, he now also argues that we can also spend resources on human cloning. Even though there are millions of unhired workers in poverty already. Has he not considered the likelihood once again, that the rich would have priority with sending their children first, resulting in a greater disparity in poverty? Is not the world finance stability overall more important than pro's world which increasingly looks like a dystopia with the rich getting access to outer space, cloning their bodies, while the poor cannot gain the organ donation, the diseases cured, so on and so forth? Pro has still not proved the gain is greater than the cost, especially since the majority of the developing countries would not stand to gain any advantage. It would be far more important to resolve this problem first, before draining resources away into human cloning. 

5+6) Not dropped, negated naturally by pro's inability to prove that the uncertainty in gain, and the absurd amount of research, time, and money it would take to finally succeed in human cloning. 

Conclusion: All of pro's arguments for gametogenesis work as well for partner related production. He must prove this is unique to cloning yourself, while negating the fact that the disabilities would cause unnecessary suffering, not to mention people ostracized in society by those taking pro's approach. Pro continuously drops the accessibility argument which goes to show how unfair human cloning actually would be. He vouches for colonization while looking away from the currently existing unhired workforce, which suggests that only those who don't need to benefit (the rich) would actually benefit from this advancement. Pro has not proved any solid concrete gain unique to human cloning, and the lack of people to give their cells further support the lack of actual benefit. Remember that, mandatory organ donation default at death would solve the majority of pro's problems, leading him grasping at straws for anything cloning actually brings to the table. 

I'm going to extend the framework, answer my opponent's points, and then answer my own.

Framework

Extend both points since neither has been challenged by my opponent.

Opponent's Points

1. He's argued theoretical critiques against two forms of cloning and how dangerous they are, but instead of clashing with him on this theoretical level of how the genetics should work, I'm just going to challenge theory with empirics. 13 sheep clones, including 4 developed from the original DNA source as Dollie, are all healthily at 13 years old. (1) You should buy that actual empirical examples matter more than these scientific theories about the application of clones. Make the Con prove why this was the exception and not the standard.

2. My opponent continues to bring up this argument about unequal access, and says I dropped the argument, but he never answered the argument about regulated access, especially through health insurance systems.This is exactly how mental illness became something legally required to be protected under health insurance. To say that therapeutic cloning and all the benefits (organs, reproduction, genetic conditions) would somehow be insulated from this empirically proven natural course with no warrants is absurd. Trust that history repeats itself and cloning will be no different. Also, as a preempt, if my opponent says cloning will be different because it's ethically ambiguous, so was birth control, but it ended up being covered by health insurance plans.

3. My opponent brings up the ethics of keeping alive clones that have genetic conditions, but there's a multitude of arguments with this.

A. If this is purely an ethical claim, it is a secondary argument due to the framework that has gone unchallenged by Con and states that ethical arguments are secondary to tangible impacts. Simply claiming something is "unethical and dehumanizing" without justifying what that means, why that's bad, and why that isn't worth the tradeoff of research if I can prove research happens from cloning, then it inherently doesn't matter in relation to the rest of the debate.

B. Assuming that we already initiated the cloning process, what's the alternative, to kill a living child instead of doing our best to heal it? This argument says that if a baby is born with painful conditions, it shouldn't be alive. This leads to a double bind in the Con's logic, either the Con is utilizing ableist values of what life is valuable and what isn't, meaning they come from a much more unethical place of placing value on life, or Con says all life is equal and that I'm not inherently doing anything wrong. Either they're more unethical by saying not all life is equally valuable, or they think all life is inherently valuable, and I'm not doing anything wrong by creating life.

4. Lastly, on his claims about evolving humanity, he makes another ethical argument, which has multiple answers.

A. Extend across the arguments about why ethical claims violate the framework.

B. Extend across the arguments about why accessibility will not be an issue.

C. He's taking my argument that every parent could create the best possible future for their child and trying to say that means I justify selective eugenics. I'm not saying that the only valuable reason to reproduce is to create better genetics, and this is simply a strawman of my argument so my opponent doesn't have to truly engage with my points. Why does parents giving their children the best genetics inherently mean they didn't have the children for the same reason as the status quo? None of this is explained or warranted by Con because there isn't an answer, they just want to muddle the debate with claims I didn't make to try and steal the vote.

5. Lastly, he says that cloning doesn't help solve genetic conditions, but it does. (2) As is explained in the article, they take a fetus, screen it for conditions and if these tests come back positive, they clone the fetus and then correct all the genetic conditions within the fetus. This not only proves that cloning is key to solving genetic conditions, but any argument saying that cloning will lead to more genetic conditions simply doesn't realize that we can use cloning to its fullest potential.

My points

1. Yeah, any benefit is good. If it's save the riches lives or save no lives, I'd rather save the riches life. That isn't the optimal option, and I've already answered why that wouldn't happen, but if you buy into Con's false dichotomy, then realize that he has such a hate of the rich that he wouldn't want to save their lives. I mean, life is life, and we should try to save it at all costs, and cloning wouldn't cause the deaths of the lower class, so it's a matter of saving some extra lives or no extra lives. Also, on the secondary point he made about decades of riots before definitive benefits, once again, yeah. To say that decades of transition, riots, and unequal access isn't worth centuries, if not longer, of a technology that could lead to a medical renaissance is absurd. That's like telling Martin Luther King Jr. that the decades spent on civil rights wasn't worth the progress. Short term strife is worth long term gain. I guess I don't understand what Con is going for.

2. There's safe animal cloning now. Cross apply the safe animal tests from Dollie's relatives and other sheep earlier in the round. Once again, we can do a lot of legwork on cloning through these, but we can get a jumpstart on human specific issues.

3. I think it's funny that Con thinks the rich would go send their children to do intensive labor in uncertain conditions for the future of space colonization. Why would they? This historical account of Jamaica (3) (to clarify access to the source, click on the links under contents to read the account) shows that colonies in the past were inhabited with the scum of the new world. The rich are rich in the status quo, so why would they shake it up? Only the poor go colonize new areas, hoping to create their new fortune. The unemployed would jump at the chance to go into new situations to pull themselves out of poverty. Once there isn't anymore unemployed to really send out, then cloning is what we can move forward with.

4. On both the military and cloning geniuses points, force him to warrant why they're bad arguments. I've consistently answered all of his. If I could cop out by simply saying that Con has the inability to produce good arguments, then I'd just do this for all his arguments, but we can't. Force him to answer it, or it's dropped. Extend my previous warrants he refuses to engage with.

Conclusion

I've proven why all my opponent's arguments don't hold up while all of mine do. Vote Pro.

Sources

1.https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/07/26/487047575/clone-sisters-of-dolly-the-sheep-are-healthy-alive-and-kicking

2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1125280/

3. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A67527.0001.001?view=toc

I will keep this short as most of my arguments about suffering were not negated.

1) Pro seems to forget the hundreds of failures and suffering that I have previously mentioned that make human cloning incredibly risky as mammals are even more dangerous to experiment with. 

2) Pro compares to abortion but forgets I already refuted that last round

3) Pro argues research gains outweigh suffering, but makes no justification. Otherwise we would've already jumped to human testing, but no, animal testing is already controversial. It's hard to say the benefits outweigh the negatives in this situation given the evidence I have presented. Pro assumes we already have the cloning initialized but he is already assuming he won the argument, while in reality we are hesitant and able to stop this cloning madness.

4) I'm saying pro thinks the purpose of research succeeds while in reality, the social implications are ridiculous. I've already proved that it would likely be used to destroy our own individuality in the world, that the supply is low, and demand would naturally incline to those rich with power and influence, preferred as the major testing subjects by scientists. The result of the social arguments listed above prove human cloning doesn't work. The "framework" is irrelevant as pro only thinks about the best future possible while ignoring all obstacles in the way. 

5) that's great, but you contradict yourself again. You vouch for disabled children living and so genetic condition are okay according to your arguments, but now you say we must have a superior race without genetic conditions. So in the end pro believes that we should spend decades on developing children with genetic problems, in order to solve genetic problems. Even though he says it's okay to have genetic problems. There's a clear contradiction in pro's argument.

Any benefit is good: I don't think you realize the costs here. So one we have poor people's clones suffering due to the result of pro's want for research, with very little compensation in return. The so called "benefits" are now really wishy washy and I must stress the inequality of the world increasing as a result. To resolve the greater problems with poverty and allowing more people to live peacefully is the greater result. Even the arguments of military or space colonization have the same grand ambition without any true backing. If we need more people we are going to get it one way or another. China's one child policy repealed, for instance, could resolve a lot of pro's worries. 

Researching human cloning causes a ton of problems, the finance invested, the low chance of any true benefit, the contradictory claims of pro, wanting to solve genetic diseases, but in the process, causing a lot of disabilities in return. The social implications make it destroy the world as we know it, with treating humans as ends to a means and the "superior race" which pro seems to stress on. Any additional arguments in the liege of additional population only support the fact that we would most likely consider existing starving workers unfit (as they may not have "superior traits") and completely refute pro's argument from the inside. Pro has only given one source for reproducing a fetus to cure specific fetus diseases, which is entirely not enough to prove pro's research. The little amount of what is done is very troubling, even pro's own research expert agrees, "far too little is known about the technology and the safety implications". We must wait longer before legalizing human cloning.

For the final speech, I'm going to list the reasons I win from most important to least important.

1. There will be access for all. This means that the poorest of poor to richest of rich would have access in the long run. While this was defense against Con's argument against it all pooling to the top, extend my completely unanswered point about regulated insurance agencies and what a realistic world with legalized cloning would look like as independents reasons to vote Pro. This is all untouched, and he only extended an argument about riots, which I'll get to later. Very simply, by the regulated answer as it was extended through the framework as a way Pro could approach the topic, as well as, unanswered the entire debate.

A. The argument that it only pools to the top was answered and the answer dropped. Assuming that my argument about regulated access is wrong and it pulls to the top, it's still a net good. People's lives are being saved. My opponent hates the rich so much that he wants them to die from preventable deaths. Extend that one life being saved is better than no lives.

B. The argument about riots and controversy was answered and the answer dropped. My opponent says that good for hundreds, if not thousands of years for generations isn't good if it was a struggle to get there. He dropped my analysis which said that this line of logic says civil rights wasn't worth the struggle. This needs to be shot down because it was dropped, but also wrong.

2. The military prediction. It was dropped and my warrants were extended through the entire debate. This means that my opponent agrees that if cloning is successful, it is key to our safety and hegemony in the galaxy as we move forward. This goes untouched towards the second half of the debate. This means that if I can win cloning is successful, or at least a chance of being successful, then vote Pro to ensure humanities safety going forward.

3. The economic boost through space mining. This was dropped and my warrants were extended through the entire debate. My opponent dropped all his arguments against this as the debate went further and further in, and extended none to the last speech except a very generic extension about cloning accessibility pooling to the top, which didn't answer any of my warrants that it wouldn't. Extend that this will lead to an economic boost the likes which have never been seen.

A. The argument that the rich would send their clones out is false because that's never how colonies have been founded. He never answered this and therefore agrees.

4. Research outweighs suffering. My framework, which has never been contested within the round has said that tangible benefits, such as research, have to be valued higher than subjective issues like suffering. This has never been contested from the warrants in the first Pro speech, so it still stands. Don't let con try to win this argument by saying I never gave a reason when I've given reasons that just were never answers. Also extend that research ends suffering in the long term. I say research is key to ending genetic conditions.

5. Cloning is fully possible and probable. It's been done safely in the past to goat populations, and while we have admitted issues with other species, this proves that it is a species issue. this means that we need to uniquely be doing human testing and that it will work itself out. Even if you feel it will result in issues at the beginning, we learn from this and get research based solvency in the long run. They've ceded research outweighs suffering.

6. We get to evolve humanity into a super species. His only argument was access, cross apply all my answers on top.

7. We get to cure genetic conditions. His only answer is that there might be some in the short term research stage, but this is outweighed by the long term solvency. His comparison is correct, we'll create conditions in the short term to solve them long term.

Conclusion

Due to everyone having access to genetic cures, economic boosts, and all the other benefits of cloning, you must vote pro, especially since all of my opponents arguments are simply outweighed in the uncontested framework.

What nonsense. Throughout the debate I have vouched for only the rich being able to support the costly research and gaining unfair advantage. I have countless times brought up how pro's thinking with "superior race" destroys our individuality and our sense of self. Through doing so, he is willing to let those in poverty with weaker bodies (due to being unfed and having no access to medicine) to become neglected and contradict his very idea. I have stressed this many times in the debate. No matter how much pleasure and money the rich gain, they cannot outweigh the suffering of the disabled cells, and the countless experiments failed to produce the human clone. No matter how incredible the rich stress THEIR genetic cure to disease, it is far superior to have a disorder than straight out die, as pro supports sacrificing all the fetuses and the suppliers' cells. There is no support that this cloning will succeed in a short time, especially with my previous shown scholarly sources on how humans are far more difficult to clone than other animals. If we allow pro to win his world, we potentially allow racism, as justification for "worse genes". Pro's case seems to vouch even for Hitler's campaign on Jews to gain "more benefit for the superior race". This thinking is an insane slippery slope that leads down to a horrible result.

Vote for me.