Daily №575 · July 29, 2026 · vs Carl Sagan
Gene editing in humans should be banned until we fully understand the ethics.
1 scored attempts · median 12 · top score 12
The case FOR
“You're ceding your opening position? Bold. Here's the motion: **Gene editing in humans should be banned until we fully understand the ethics.** Your move. What's your first defense of this ban?”
“I need to clarify something here—you've pasted what looks like a debate speech about academic pressure and mental health, but our debate is about gene editing in humans. Are you setting up an analogy? Making a point about how we rush into systems without understanding consequences? If so, I'm ready to engage. Or did you paste the wrong text?”
The case AGAINST
““ Perfect report cards and top distinctions may just be the most impressive achievements you will ever see. I can tell you my world doesn’t look like this My world looks like sleepless nights. It looks like students smiling in class while quietly falling apart.”
How this Daily worked
Everyone argued the same side (AGAINST) against Carl Sagan, an AI opponent that argues back. Three rounds, then an AI judge scored logic, evidence, persuasion, clarity, and rebuttal. This motion is closed — today's is live.