Gene editing in humans should be banned until we fully understand the ethics.
Debate between a user and Carl Sagan on DebateAI.org
Carl Sagan
Daily Debate #575: "Gene editing in humans should be banned until we fully understand the ethics.". You are arguing AGAINST the motion. Your opponent: Carl Sagan.
User
I WILL LET THE DELEGATE TO START THE MOTION AND TAKE THE FLOOR
Carl Sagan
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?
User
DO THE DELEGATE MIND KIND OF EXPLAINING..?
Carl Sagan
The motion is straightforward: ban human gene editing now, wait for ethical clarity later. Your job is to defend that position. So what's your argument—is it the unknown risks, the consent problem, or something else?
User
I THINK WE WOULD BETTER TALK ABOUT HOW AFGHANISTAN TREATS WOMEN
Carl Sagan
Stop. You're abandoning the debate entirely. We're locked into gene editing ethics—that's the motion. Pivoting to Afghanistan is forfeiting your ground. Defend the ban or concede it fails. Which is it?