The Downside to the Embryonic Stem Cell Debate/Argument

Negative Team’s Case Brief for the Debate on Embryonic Stem Cell Research Funding Issue

I. Preliminary Matters

Issue: Should the Federal government fund Embryonic Stem Cell (ESC) Research?

Presumption: The presumption on this issue is in favor of not funding Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR). The Federal Government is currently allocating funds toward Adult Stem Cell Research. The major dilemma is the issue of using potential life for research purposes. Furthermore, the Constitution was created to preserve the right to life. In terms of the general public, as a whole, they have a religious background with a pro-life attitude.  Logically speaking, the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of anyone arguing to fund ESCR.

Proposition:

            Affirmative: The Federal government should fund ESCR.                                          

Negative: The Federal government should not fund ESCR.

Uncontroversial Matters: Both sides agree on the necessity for improvement of medical research. It is the United States government’s duty to strive to improve the quality of life for its citizens. Also each side agrees that the government should fund medical research for the advancement of information and cures of diseases.  The issue, then, regards whether or not the government should allocate funds aimed at ESCR.

Burden of Rejoinder (Negative): Since the presumption is in our favor, our objective is to further convince the audience that ESCR should not be funded. It will be our duty to rebut the prima facie case made by the affirmative side. Our burden is to argue the unnecessary killing involved with ESCR. In addition, funds spent on ESCR could be spent on more benificial research that would advance our nation. In the case that the affirmative side proves ESCR is necessary, the negative side would then show how the right to life has no pricetag.

Burden of Proof (Affirmative):  Since the presumption is in Vadim’s and Victor’s favor, their objective is to persuade the audience that ESCR is vital for medical advancement. It will be their goal to prove that ESCR must happen in order to establish a better quality of life.  In addition they will argue that the government should fund ESCR.

II. Outline of Argumentative Strategies

1. Deliberative Stock Issue:

Ill: The use of embryonic stem cells for research purposes is murder and immoral.

Blame: The Federal Government is providing funding for Adult Stem Cell Research (ASCR), which is still killing embryos with little advancement in the medical world.

Cure: The Federal Government should not fund ESCR to prevent the countless murders of innocent lives. 

Costs/Benefits:  Denying funding would prevent the immoral act of playing god and prevent the useless destruction of embryos..    

2. Constructive Argument Outline:

Central Claim:  The United States government should cease any funding given to embryonic stem cell research. (Policy)

Grounds 1:  ESCR could also be done on Adult Stem Cells. (Circumstance)

Backing:  The same research that is being done on embryonic stem cells can also be done on adult stem cells. Adult stem cells can be harvested by from a living adult’s bone marrow making it possible to do such research without the unnecessary murder of human life. (Clarification)

Warrant: If adult stem cells can be used for the same research then we there is no need to fund or perform research on embryonic stem cells.

Grounds 2: Stem cell research cannot be proven yet to cure any diseases in humans. (Circumstance)

Backing:  No current proof that stem cell research actually provides any benefits in curing any human diseases. Then only current proof is that of laboratory mice. (example)

Warrant: If we don’t see any proof of positive benefits then money should not be given to fund such research.

Grounds 3: $250 million of current funding is already being wasted by the federal government on the research of embryonic stem cells. (Circumstance)

Backing:  1.25% of the total federal funding provided by the National Institute of Health is already being put towards research without and notice gains or advancements within the field. (Sign)

Warrant:  If money is being spent and nothing is being gained from this then there is no reason to continue to do so.

Grounds 4: The search for the correct embryonic stem cell involves significant amounts of money and often times fails to find a suitable embryonic stem cell. (Circumstance)

Backing:  In order to find a quality stem cell the process must first go through animal testing which is highly expensive.  Moreover individuals that wish to donate embryonic stem cells must go through a rigorous testing procedure involving large amounts of time and capital.  Often times no suitable embryonic stem cell can be found and many are discarded leading to more unnecessary deaths.(cause)

Grounds 5:  Blindly throwing money at disease research does not guarantee a cure nor does it justify spending tax payer’s money on it. (Circumstance)

Backing:  Over $25 billion tax payer dollars have also been spent on cancer research while our ability to cure or even treat cancer has remained largely unchanged. (Example)

Warrant: If even after spending billions of dollars no noticeable gains have been found that we should not continue to provide money for such research.

Grounds 6:  The use of embryonic is still murder regardless.(Circumstance)

Backing:  Any embryonic stem cell has been created by conception is alive regardless of age and the use of it for research purposes requires it to be killed. (Sign)

Warrant:  If the research involves the murder of innocent life then the government should not provide any funding for it.

Grounds 7:  Currently the federal government has already allocated 64 cell lines for the use of stem cell research. (Circumstance)

Backing: Only 22 out of the 64 cell lines are actually usable for research.  Which means that more than half of these lines are unusable and therefore killed off or discarded. (Example)

Warrant: If the government has already allocated so many cell lines then there is no need for further funding.

Grounds 8: Using embryonic stem cell research is the first step towards playing god. (Consequence)

Backing: Once doctors have the ability to create and alter life this will give them the chance and ability to clone humans. (Cause)

Warrant: Federal government should not fund doctors to learn the techniques to create and destroy life.

Grounds 9:  Using embryonic stem cells will only give a reason to justify abortion. (Consequence)

Backing: The same cells that are aborted during abortion are the ones that are used for embryonic stem cell research.  With this said this idea will simply give a justifiable excuse for individuals to have an abortion. (Example)

Warrant:  If research supports the idea of abortion which is murder then the federal government should not support it nor fund it.

Grounds 10: Embryonic stem cells have the potential to cause cancer. (Consequence)

Backing: While embryonic stem cells are versatile they have a possibility of becoming malignant and therefore cancerous, much more so than their adult stem cell counterparts. (Sign)

Warrant: If the potential to a cure is worse than the disease itself then it should not be funded nor researched.

» left by Cracken

from Florida 6 years 122 days ago.

i have a debate tommrow on this topic... all the sudden i feel as if i can win !

Respond to this comment

» left by shaunna

from calgary 4 years 90 days ago.

I had to re-do my paper on this subject. This page helped alot. Thank-you.

Respond to this comment

» left by zeshan

from albany newyork 170 days 8 hours ago.

i need biography on the author (david trent)

Respond to this comment