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.

Resolution: The United States Federal Government Should Enact an Emissions Trading System: Affirmation. Build a public forum case

You're arguing FOR emissions trading, so I'm against it. Cap-and-trade is corporate greenwashing that lets polluters buy their way out instead of actually cutting emissions. Why reward pollution with permits when we could just ban it outright?

Your "just ban it" fantasy ignores reality. EU cap-and-trade cut emissions 35% while their economy grew. Outright bans kill jobs and get repealed the moment voters hurt. Permits create incentives to innovate, not excuses. You're choosing feel-good policy over actual results. A cap-and-trade system gurantees that emissions will be cut

You're cherry-picking one success while ignoring the fatal flaw: the EU set their cap so loose that permits became worthless. Polluters barely innovated because they could buy cheap credits instead. A real ban forces actual change overnight. Your system lets them play accounting games while the atmosphere burns. If cap-and-trade *guarantees* cuts, why does the EU keep tightening their cap? Because it doesn't work—you admitted it yourself.