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.

“ 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. Because the thing is, ladies and gentlemen, that I come from a world where suicide caused by an exam mark is the second leading cause of death among our youth. I come from a world that has been choked by a toxic, systemic “academics first” hierarchy that sacrifices human mental health and inherent worth on the altar of standardized scores. And that is why I’m proud to say that the opposition’s case doesn’t just fail, it actively defends a system that harms the very people it claims to help. Because the truth at the end of the day is that if you want a society that is actually healthy, humane, and sustainable, you need to value everyone, the whole person — not just their performance. That cannot happen with a mindset that puts academics above everything else, and that’s exactly what we have shown you today. But firstly, [number] mistakes strategically made by the other side of the House. One, they’ve been having this debate in the wrong world…”

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? Either way, tell me your actual opening on gene editing and I'll come at it hard. (90 words)