Hey /adv/ [it might be a weird place to ask this] I have to prepare

>>18353440

Your teacher is naive if they believe it's not a thing yet.

As far as "other topics" - medicine.

Google "cloning benefits," go forth, and prosper.

Really isn't that hard.

The only opposing arguments will be logical fallacies like "WHO R U 2 PLAY GOD LOL" garbage.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-are-the-potential-me/
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/cloning/whyclone/
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/features/cloning-good-bad-and-ugly

>t. 2 seconds + Google

Whew! That was some hard work!

>>18353458
Thank you very much! I'll start with that

>>18353461
Thank you as well!

>>18353440

Assuming this is adversarial debate, here's how you're going to win.

>Know what's expected of you to follow my advice.

You'll have to do some research work and googling. This will take about 45 minutes for each serious argument you intend to make, which if you have teammates you can split up.

> First: Do a quick definition of your terms when you start for about 30 seconds.

"Hi [audience], I'm anon. I'm going to be talking today about cloning, and why it's a good thing.

Cloning, in practice, is [simplified word-using dictionary explanation of what cloning means in terms of either plants or animals].

(1/?)

>Why explain that shit?

Because your audience doesn't actually know what cloning is, which means your opponents will have a lot of room to misconstrue the debate in their own direction if you let them. They are going to, assuming they're competent, have research prepared against lots of forms of cloning: Plants, bacteria, Humans. You don't want to try to defend them all, because you don't have to: the affirmative's job is to try to define the terms of the debate; and the negative to dispute them.

There's a lot of decent definitions of cloning so start by picking ONE and have a decent argument why your definition is the best - they will dispute it to try to use the relevant research they came up with, and if you win on being more relevant, they're flat footed. An example:

>"In practice, cloning is, according to the OED, "A population of genetically identical plants which have arisen from a single parent by means of natural or artificial vegetative propagation, for example by the use of grafts, cuttings, etc."

>This may seem surprising that I'm bringing up plant's but it's the best /actual/ definition for cloning, because it's the most common one used by most actual scientists and those working in the field. while there is a fringe that is working cloning things like bacteria and even humans and animals, in practice, these things are in fairly early research stages and if one wants to seriously discuss cloning, plants are where cloning's actually happening"

Don't let your opponent define your terms.

(2/?)

>>18353530

Your next step is to build your first affirmative speech. This is where you tell the audience all the things that are good about cloning, called advantages. You should have about five things ready.

You come up with these by googling and finding an author with compelling credentials who says them. Use LexisNexis and Google Scholar if you have it, or high quality evidence online otherwise. You NEVER speak for cloning yourself, because you're a random college or HS kid. You speak on behalf of the evidence you have.

This gives you the moral high ground and when you disagree on factual issues, you can say things like

>We disagree, but you're not arguing with /me/, you're arguing based on your feelings against the author who made these arguments John Smith, a biologist from Caltech. I actually have the article right here, if you'd like to see it. I'm sorry, but your side just doesn't hold up against expert opinion.

Here might be some advantages I can come up with for you to research, without actually doing any research with what little I know about cloning:

>Cloning is good because we already enjoy its advantages everyday. After all Bananas are delicious, and all bananas are Cavendish banana clones of a single cultivar. These cloned bananas have all prospered as a good food for over 40 years. If you like bananas, you have cloning to thank for it.

>Cloning is innovative, here's just one example- seedless watermelon is actually almost an oxymoron, because the obvious question of "how the hell do you grow more of it"? It exists because of cuttings, which are a form of cloning.

>blah blah blah increased agriculture yields cheaply

>Blah blah more pest resistent crops

>Blah blah long history we've been doing it for thousands of years so just because some people use it as a buzzword doesn't mean you should let naysayers scare you away from cloning.

And so on. Finding the evidence is the time consuming part. Start as soon as you are able

(3/?)

>>18353584

Your next job is to build your second affirmative speech, assuming this is a multiround debate, in which you repeat the good points and defend against attack. If it's not, you need to fit the important counterarguments into your first speech.

Most counterarguments are predictable, and I bet you can guess a few.

Find at least one good article defending each point you want to make in favor of clones, and one against any possible counterargument you can come up with. Try to find as many articles as you can which make the opposition look biased, stupid, or factually wrong.

Find multiple source if you can on the points you really expect to take shit from the negative for.

If I had to guess, here are a number of counterarguments I'd expect (and I'd be looking for evidence for, if I were debating you):

>Cloning is impractical: Ineffective in animals and humans, they die young.
>Clones are weak: they're prone to disease because if one falls, all falls. This is happening with the bananas already!
>Clones are unethical: Playing god is wrong: Who are we to make more plants, animals or people, or to make a person twice?
>Unethical: There's a societal slippery slope to organ harvesting as replacement to organ donation by making a clone solely to slaughter.
>Unethical: Cloning implicitly justifies genocide: what good's a human life worth if you can just make another copy? In your world once the DNA's saved, what's the harm?
>Unethical: Human cloning is inevitable if research is allowed to continue, which will prolong tyranny under dictatorships. Imagine a Hitler or Stalin living forever, making backup copies. That's your cloning world.
>Unethical: Slippery slope to eugenics and you being obsolete, audience: Since we're making more, why not make better?
>Health concerns: Clones mutate. We don't know if they're safe long term.

Sounds like a lot of work? Fuck yeah it is. Winning is hard. If you're blindsided you lose. Good luck, anon.

(4/4)

This anon gave great advice, but if this is for a true "debate" just studying up / becoming familiar with logical fallacies will allow you to pre-emptively put down (or, if given the chance for rebuttal) crappy counter-arguments.

For example

Impractical: All technology increases efficiency with study, so we should clone more to get better at it
Weak: See above
Unethical: "Playing God" is its own logical fallacy, I could copypasta but you could google it
Same thing with "Slippery Slope" or appeals to mutation
Mutation: -WE- mutate, and see first two, etc.

As alluded to here >>18353458, you can expect some of these arguments, so be prepared to crush them ahead of time.

>>18353458

>HUURR NO OTHER ARGS
>being this smoked by >>18353663

>STOP_STOP_HE'S_ALREADY_DEAD
.jpg

>>18353699

Didn't

>>18353692

Point out that they're all illogical?

Point is to help OP though, but seriously, wtf?