- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
first, it doesn't tend to matter any way. if the popular vote is counted (All the absentees aren't counted if the gap is too big for them to matter) typically the electorate and the popular vote align.
but further the question becomes, who really matters when picking a candidate, and the answer should be "Everyone" Ignoring the electoral college means that the vote will always be skewed toward the desires and needs of the greatest population centers. and all their votes will essentially be counted three or four times over. it means that the voice and desires of those not in population centers, such as rural and suburban dwellers would get less say in what a government does, simply because there are less of them total across the whole nation. with an electoral college, and the spreading out of the votes over a wider area, it means that more votes only change the sample size taken in a specific area. which means typically, if all two million people in a city say they want the candidate with urban programs, it indicates that the urban program candidate aligns with the desires of this area. whereas a candidate with suburban and rural programs, would be favored by most of the other places that are not cities, which means the non-urban candidate actually has a chance to win, and additionally, if they're at least neutral toward urban programs they have a chance to win certain smaller cities as well which could feasibly be drowned out by the super city with large percentages of the population. this is a very simplified version but it should show some amount of why the college is needed. popular vote would drown out certain voter blocks and make them voiceless.
This is not about the phony science used by people who follow the logical fallacy of begging the question.
We assumed you weren't talking about creation from the title.
This is about the philosophical implications of belief in evolution.
The implications of the strawman you created? Or, actual evolution?
Let's try to keep the focus on the philosophy.
You want to focus on the philosophy of a scientific theory? How is that productive?
If you want whine about how your phony science proves evolution, take it to your local college and they will make you a professor.
It's a science, you mormon.
--Reduces risk of genetic diseases
Reduces risk of inherited medical conditions
those two issues are virtually the same thing. but this is almost the same as genotherapy for adults, just done as an infant....so it's more just approving the procedure and giving the ethical thumbs up for it... so... not really an argument TO allow for designer babies, as these are purposely targeted genetic treatments.
-Keep pace with others doing it
So make sure when North Korea has super soldiers we do too?
Not really a convincing argument. just because others are doing it, doesn't mean we have need or ethics that support such a project.
-Better chance the child will succeed in life
False. Genetics RARELY play into who succeeds or fails. if you believe it does, You're a racist. :P Environment depicts how close to their full potential the person in question becomes, genetics set where the full potential is.
-Better understanding of genetics
So... Get animal test subjects, you rarely NEED human trials for genetic experiements... So I'm gonna call bullshit.
Again... no reason we can't necessarily do this as adult genotherapy.
-Can give a child genes that the parents do not carry
So I can have a white son?.... this is not a fully explained why it's a good thing.
-Prevent next generation of family from getting characteristics/diseases
See point 1.
-Termination of embryos
You're suggesting what exactly? that abortions wouldn't happen with designer babies?
- Gap in society?
like Gattaca? Genes alone do not create the elite. parental investment is important, as well as the specific environment. if you believe that STRICTLY genes are in play as to who the elite are, then you're probably a racist :P Furthermore, how does this gap really change anything that isn't already happening.
-Baby has no choice in the matter
Then abortion should be Illegal as well. and LOOK AT HOW WELL THAT ARGUMENT WORKS with all the fucktards out there.
-Genes often have more than one use
My knowledge of genetics is telling me you're confusing genes and Alleles....So.....What? I mean, the first Trait that I'd edit out of myself if at all possible would be the carrier gene for pyloric stenosis. and just about nothing else. if the allele can be changed to match a non carrier for my disorder without effecting the whole Chromosone, then Whoopde-fucking-dee. if the whole chromosome has to be swapped, then the technology sucks and needs to be upgraded.
- Gene pool damage
It's assumed that some parents would opt out of a designer baby program. meaning that should we all genetically augment ourselves and somehow accidentally program out our ability to fight off the common cold, the normal un-augmented individuals would survive. same with something like low genetic diversity, assuming the Augs all start running the same genetic code.
-Geneticists aren't perfect
And neither are planes/Aerospace engineers. yet thousands of people use planes.
-Loss of individuality
Bullshit. Twins are still different people. Environment shapes people almost as much if not more than genetic factors. all genetic modification does is boost an individual's potential. it does not inherently make them smart.
- Other children in family could be affected by parent's decision
So.... What? That's the parent's decision.