Debate Reflection

I debated against Mary Zielonka who's argument followed a clear order that explained what stem cells were and systematically went through each of the places where stems cells can be collected; adult cells, cord cells and embryonic stem cells. Along the way she listed the benefits to each method and the benefits of stem cells in general, such as their ability to replace damaged or dead cells. She also mentioned the benefits of donating, saying "if you don't donate you might as well be killing yourself", which I thought was a very powerful statement. Also, I though she did a very good job of attacking the core of my argument, the moral (religious) dilemma. For example, she posed the question asking me to prove that God did not want stem cell research to be conducted, possibly saving countless lives. She finished by saying who are we to decide that no one will have access to stem cells.

After Mary presented her argument I had to think on my toes and reorganize my argument to follow hers, breaking it down piece by piece and countering it. Because there aren't too many scientific reasons against stem cell use I played heavily on the moral reasons and suggested the idea that stem cells have been over hyped and funds from stem research should be redistributed into far less controversial projects. In the end I think I presented my argument well and hit on all the points I needed to hit on to make a strong argument.