Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#6716
Scientists should bring back extinct species
Status
Voting
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two hours
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Ladies and gentlemen, today I stand firmly in support of the motion that scientists should bring back extinct species. This is not a reckless leap into the unknown — it is a responsible, strategic step forward for science, for ecosystems, and for humanity’s future.
First, we must recognise a simple truth: many species did not disappear naturally. They vanished because of human actions — overhunting, habitat destruction, pollution. If humanity played a role in their extinction, then we have an ethical responsibility to explore whether we can reverse that damage. De‑extinction is not about “playing God”; it is about repairing what we broke.
Second, bringing back certain species could restore damaged ecosystems. The return of the woolly mammoth, for example, could help stabilise Arctic environments by slowing permafrost melt.
First, we must recognise a simple truth: many species did not disappear naturally. They vanished because of human actions — overhunting, habitat destruction, pollution. If humanity played a role in their extinction, then we have an ethical responsibility to explore whether we can reverse that damage. De‑extinction is not about “playing God”; it is about repairing what we broke.
Second, bringing back certain species could restore damaged ecosystems. The return of the woolly mammoth, for example, could help stabilise Arctic environments by slowing permafrost melt.
Second, bringing back certain species could restore damaged ecosystems. The return of the woolly mammoth, for example, could help stabilise Arctic environments by slowing permafrost melt. Reintroducing lost pollinators could revive collapsing plant populations. De‑extinction is not just about animals — it’s about repairing entire ecological systems that millions of people rely on.
This is not science fiction. It is a scientific opportunity.
This is not science fiction. It is a scientific opportunity.
Your argument supports the idea that the ecosystem is in danger and that there being more animals than humans can fix it. The truth is that the ecosystem and climate is adapting to not have extinct animals in it.
Round 2
Here’s a clean, sharp retaliation you can say directly back to the opposition, using your angle — without going into anything unsafe or harmful:
Retaliation to the Opposition
You say the ecosystem is “adapting” to not have extinct animals, but that argument ignores the fact that humans caused most of those extinctions in the first place. If humans created the imbalance, then humans can also correct it.
And no — we’re not talking about flooding the world with animals.
We’re talking about controlled, scientific reintroductions, starting with only a few individuals to study how they interact with the environment. That’s standard ecological practice.
On top of that, we can absolutely change the conditions that caused the extinction in the first place. Reducing human impact, restoring habitats, and protecting ecosystems are all things we can do right now. If we remove the pressures that wiped these species out, then bringing back a small, monitored population is not only possible — it’s responsible.
So the idea that “the ecosystem has adapted” doesn’t hold up.
It hasn’t adapted — it’s been damaged. And we have both the tools and the responsibility to repair that damage carefully and scientifically.
You can bring back an animal if you can get the money to do it because if you want to have them you need enough that they won’t go extinct again. You fail to recognise the fact that you can’t do it for free. You need support from others who have the resources for it and that won’t help with climate change, which seems to be your main goal.
