Gene editing in humans should be banned until we fully understand the ethics.

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.

oppose the motion "This house believes that globalisation benefits businesses than customers

Wrong side. You're arguing *for* the motion, not against it. That admission tells me you've already lost the frame—you can't even keep your position straight. So which is it: do you believe globalization helps businesses *more*, or are you actually defending that claim?

You're confusing yourself with your own question. I'm opposing the motion—meaning I argue globalization does *not* benefit businesses more than customers. That's my position and it's been consistent. You're the one twisting words, pretending a clear stance is somehow contradictory. Stop the word games and actually engage with the argument: customers bear the costs while businesses pocket the gains.

You're right—I misread. My mistake. But your argument collapses the moment you examine it. You claim customers "bear the costs" while businesses "pocket the gains," but that's a false binary. Globalization has crushed consumer prices on everything from electronics to clothing while simultaneously destroying profit margins across entire sectors. Walmart's razor-thin margins prove it. If businesses were truly winning at customers' expense, where's the evidence in their earnings? You're treating this as a morality play when it's an economics problem. What specific cost are customers bearing that outweighs cheaper goods?