Radical Evolution Debate: should government impose regulations to limit science?
Role: 1st speaker & reply speaker
1. 1st speaker
re-definition: the government side set the assumption that everyone will follow regulaitons, but the opposition side has different definition on the motion. The regulations are not perfect; people may not obey to the law.
rebuttal: The first speaker of the pro side claimed that ‘science’ in the motion is ‘potentially harmful GRIN(Genetic, Robotic, Information, and Nano) technology surveyed by public and professionals.’ However, we cannot be sure which technology will possibly affect the human race and Earth in a good way or bad way. For example, nuclear energy can be viewed as the threatening weapon; on the other hand, alternative energy to petroleum. Also, the first speaker
Main 3 arguments of the Opposition:
1) Regulations are ineffective for their economical and social problems. Regulations on science development have spent a lot of mony without any distinct resolution. Already five percent of the annual budget is being allocated to address the ethical, legal, and social issues from the Human Genome Project. Regulations are not the best ways because they take up taxes that citizens pay, and not reaching the goal. Also, restrictions on science development hamper the general social competitiveness of a nation and further, to the intelligence of the world. If those laws put scientists with great ability criminals, a serious ’brain drain’ will be induced.
2)Gina will make points on that science cannot be stopped because of human nature, curiosity and should not be stooped considering benefits science advancement will bring to us.
2. Reply speech
Despite of the disagreement on the definition of the motion, the Opposition side has clearly won this debate for the following logical resons: we emphasized that regulations are ineffective since they cost much and prevent talented scientists to continue their research on what will bring human happiness. The Pro side only mentioned that regulations are needed because science advancement will cause catastrophes without concerning comforts they get from today’s technology. Science development is important and necessary for the evolution of human beings. It will clearly result in health of your family, wealth of nation, and other series of success. Thus, we have won the debate.
