The English version follows the Chinese version.
犬子艾倫近日代表他所在的學(xué)校在蘇州參加國際中學(xué)辯論大賽。
辯論正方：人類必須禁止基因技術(shù)。
辯論反方：人類不能禁止基因技術(shù)。
比賽團(tuán)隊分別來自國際中學(xué)的八年級（相當(dāng)于初二）至十二年級（相當(dāng)于高三）學(xué)生。艾倫代表的團(tuán)隊是初二學(xué)生，第一次參加比賽。可想而知，初二學(xué)生整體實力無法和高三學(xué)生抗衡。艾倫的團(tuán)隊沒有獲獎。但是據(jù)他自己說，他對他們的表現(xiàn)感到很滿意。
艾倫比賽回來那晚，我看到被他扔在地上的文件夾，撿起來看了一下，是他的辯論詞。不看不知道，一看嚇一跳，我趕緊讓他把文檔發(fā)給我學(xué)習(xí)。
以下即是艾倫分別做為正反兩方準(zhǔn)備的辯詞。據(jù)他說，他和他的團(tuán)隊一起討論了，但是他成文寫下這些陳辭。
正方辯詞：
尊敬的審判員，計時員，對手，我是Alan Deutsch，正方辯論隊的第一個發(fā)言人。
自從文明的曙光，人類就變得越來越獨特。在人種，宗教和社會觀念方面，每個人的身高，智力和其它遺傳特征各不相同。正是這些獨特的遺傳特征，基因技術(shù)正在試圖消滅。
我們的世界已經(jīng)見證無數(shù)改變了我們的生活方式的發(fā)明和革命。從燈泡到互聯(lián)網(wǎng)，如果所有這些創(chuàng)造都不存在，生活將會有極大的不同。但是，這些發(fā)明都沒有直接的負(fù)面影響。如果這些發(fā)明失敗了，那么他們就是單純地失敗了; 沒有更多，沒有更少。然而，在（基因）醫(yī)療領(lǐng)域，一切都不同。一旦失敗可能會永久性地嚴(yán)重地改變某人的遺傳結(jié)構(gòu)。盡管人們一開始可能會不知道，隱藏的疾病和不正?，F(xiàn)象可能會在幾代人身上繼續(xù)，最終感染整個家族。
通過社交媒體，電視紀(jì)錄片和互聯(lián)網(wǎng)，我們的社會看到了無數(shù)鼓勵我們?nèi)肀И毺貍€性的例子。然而，如果允許人類修改未出生的后代，增強(qiáng)基因又能帶來什么好處。通過基因技術(shù)，人類將得到機(jī)會來創(chuàng)造所謂的“設(shè)計師”嬰兒，未出生的孩子通過基因轉(zhuǎn)移給予不自然的特殊性狀。這是絕對不能接受的。誰知道，幾十年后，一個人可以買到寶寶，允許支付更多錢來增加對寶寶的修改。這些“設(shè)計師”嬰兒將促進(jìn)人類的理想主義?？梢钥隙ǖ氖?，執(zhí)行對基因的增改并不會便宜，這在極端的層面上鼓勵一個“你負(fù)得起多少就能買得到什么樣的孩子的社會”。這樣，將更一步加劇貧富分化，有能力的和無能力之間的分化。
從而，使更富有的公民能夠增強(qiáng)他們自己或未來的子孫后代的身心特征，進(jìn)一步加強(qiáng)已經(jīng)世世代代的貧富差距。隨著時間的推移，由于智力和社會的優(yōu)勢，世界的就業(yè)和經(jīng)濟(jì)將由擁有加強(qiáng)基因的人類主導(dǎo)。由于他們的孩子也會有同樣的特質(zhì)，世界將以“皇帝制”為基礎(chǔ)做為結(jié)構(gòu)。權(quán)利將世襲相傳，而無法去靠自己贏得。這樣的政權(quán)結(jié)構(gòu)很久以前就被拋棄了，那些還保持著這樣的政權(quán)的國家，它們都在掙扎中。改變基因不僅將使窮人的生活變得更加艱苦，還為他們挖了一個洞，使他們永遠(yuǎn)無法從洞里爬出來。面對基因的巨人，他們將沒有任何機(jī)會。
每個人都是不同的，正如我之前提到的，每個人都以自己的方式獨一無二地存在。那么，完美的人類是否會促進(jìn)一個完美的社會呢？
不會。
反方辯詞：
令人敬仰的裁判員，尊敬的計時員和杰出的對手，我的名字是Alan Deutsch。我是反方團(tuán)隊的第一位發(fā)言人。
通過許多在倫理和道德上支持的理由，顯而易見，并需要重點強(qiáng)調(diào)地是，人類遺傳基因技術(shù)一定不能被禁止。在反駁了我的對手的很多論點之后，我現(xiàn)在將以禁止基因技術(shù)實施的倫理關(guān)切來支持我的觀點。
在我們這個世界，人類一直在前進(jìn)。同時也在不斷地為了進(jìn)取而冒險。看看我們現(xiàn)在的位置，我們的世界已經(jīng)在這樣以成指數(shù)的狀態(tài)發(fā)展。作為人類，我們必須保持開明的態(tài)度。一個開明的社會才能使我們成功。一個開明的社會才能使我們創(chuàng)新和創(chuàng)造。如果我們關(guān)閉所有的門和可能性，如果我們關(guān)閉了所有的機(jī)會，我們將能走多遠(yuǎn)？
不會。非常。遠(yuǎn)。
在整個文藝復(fù)興時期，對中世紀(jì)時代與現(xiàn)代世界之間的文化橋梁，人們充滿了懷疑。人們對科學(xué)家和哲學(xué)家所提出的遠(yuǎn)大思想和發(fā)現(xiàn)感到震驚。人們受到與改變相伴的風(fēng)險和“機(jī)會”的打擊。但是，假設(shè)我們沒有經(jīng)歷那一步，我們今天會在哪里？答案是...哪兒也到不了。改變是人類生活的本質(zhì)，自從人類還只是洞穴人，從發(fā)現(xiàn)火焰到發(fā)明輪子，改變是將我們與任何其他物種區(qū)分開來的東西。
現(xiàn)在，我們正處在發(fā)現(xiàn)可能結(jié)束一些人類最大問題的方案的當(dāng)口，而這時，卻存在著擔(dān)心為什么要承擔(dān)實施基因技術(shù)的風(fēng)險。但我說，那我們?yōu)槭裁慈ピ虑蚰?？去月球成為了二十世紀(jì)的里程碑之一。那是否有風(fēng)險？當(dāng)然有！許多生命承受危險，有些生命為此永久失去，但作為回報，我們獲得了知識和希望，比任何以往更多地影響了我們的社會。
隨著所有理論和基礎(chǔ)的完成，基因?qū)嵤┎粌H在可及范圍內(nèi)，而且正在緊鑼密鼓地進(jìn)行著。但它正面臨著一個巨大的障礙：公眾的許可。坦白地說，這真是讓我目瞪口呆，因為我聽起來永久治愈最致命和有害的疾病是好事兒。現(xiàn)在我的對手可能會說，治愈這些疾病有很大的風(fēng)險，但恰恰相反，由于基因技術(shù)已經(jīng)在50年前就開始第一次實驗，世界從過去的經(jīng)歷中學(xué)到了很多，例如多利羊。雖然那只羊只活了正常羊一半的壽命，我們從錯誤中學(xué)習(xí)，現(xiàn)在知道我們在哪里錯了。所有的基礎(chǔ)工作已經(jīng)完成，風(fēng)險已經(jīng)降到最低限度，所以為什么等待，沒有任何東西在阻止我們。
Alan Deutsch (13)
5.13.2017，Suzhou
辯論詞原創(chuàng)：狄艾倫（13歲）
翻譯：湘?zhèn)?/p>
2017.5.19，上海
以下是英文原稿：
Affirmative:
Honorable Adjudicators, timekeeper, opponents, I'm Alan Deutsch, the first speaker for the affirmative team.
Since the dawn of civilization humans have become more and more unique. In terms of races, religions, and social views, every person is varying in height, intelligence, and other genetic traits. The same unique genetic traits, that genetic technologies are trying to extinguish.
Our world has seen countless inventions and revolutions that have changed the way we live. From the light bulb, to the internet, if all of these creations weren't around, life would be drastically different. But, all these inventions had no direct negative effect; if they failed, then they failed; nothing more, nothing less. Yet, in the medical field, all things change. A failure could possibly seriously change someone's genetic structure, permanently. Although unaware at first, hidden diseases and irregularities may be carried on after generations, eventually infecting an entire family tree.
Through social media, tv documentaries, and the internet, our society has seen countless examples of the encouragement towards embracing uniqueness. Yet, what good would genetic enhancement do if it were to allow humans to modify their unborn offspring. Through genetic technologies, humans will be given the choice to create what are known as “designer” babies, an unborn child given unnatural special traits through transfer of genes. This is absolutely unacceptable. Who knows, in decades, one could be able to buy their baby, allowing them to pay more for enhancing modifications. These “designer” babies promote idealism of humans. Implementing genetic enhancements will not be cheap is a given, encouraging a “you get what you pay for society,” on an extreme level. Something that will further separate rich from poor, capable, from incapable.
Thus allowing wealthier citizens to enhance their own or future offspring's physical and mental traits further strengthening the already secular border between rich and poor. In time, the world's ?jobs and economy will be dominated by genetically enhanced humans, due to their mental and social superiority. Since their children will also be gifted the same traits, the world will be structured on an “emperor type” basis. Giving power only to those who inherited it, not earned it. This government structure was abandoned long ago, and the countries that still adopt it, often struggle. Changing genes not only makes life harder for poor people, it also digs a hole for them that they may never climb out of. They have no chance when put up against the genetic giants.
Everyone is different, as I mentioned before, everyone is unique in their own way. So do perfect humans promote a perfect society?
No.
Negative:
Admirable adjudicators, valued timekeeper, and worthy opponents, my name is Alan Deutsch. I am the first speaker for the negative team.
Through numerous supporting ethical and moral reasons, it is evident to prominently state that human genetic technologies must not be prohibited. After having countered many of my opponent's arguments, I will now back up my argument with the ethical concerns of prohibiting genetic implementation.
In our world, humans have always been advancing. While also taking risks for the better. Look at where we are now, our world has grown at such an exponential state. As humans, we must stay open-minded. An open-minded society is how we succeed. An open-minded society is how we innovate and create. If we closed all doors and possibilities, if we closed all opportunities, how far would we be?
Not. Very. Far.
Throughout the time of the Renaissance, the cultural bridge between medieval times and our modern world, people doubted. People were appalled by the far fetched ideas and discoveries made by the scientists and philosophers. People were stricken by the risk and “chance” that came along with change. But where would we be without it. The answer is… no where. Change is the essence of human life, ever since homo sapiens were mere cave men, from discovering fire to inventing the wheel… change is what segregates us from any other species.
Now, as we are on the verge of discovering what could end some of humanity's greatest issues, there is “concern” as to why take the risk of implementing genetic technologies. But I say, then why did we go to the moon? Which turned out to be one of the milestones of the twentieth century. And was there risk involved? Yes! Many lives were at stake, some were even lost, but in return we gained knowledge and hope that impacted our society more than ever before.
With all the theories and foundations completed, genetic implementation is not only within reach, but well underway. But it is facing a massive hurdle: the public's approval. Which frankly leaves me dumbfounded, because permanently curing the most deadly and harmful diseases sounds good to me. Now my opponent might say that there is much risk to come with curing these diseases, but that is very much the opposite, since genetic technology had been first experimented with (50 years ago), the world has learned much from past experiences such as dolly the sheep. And although the sheep only lived half a normal sheep's lifespan, we learned from our mistakes and now know where we went wrong. All the groundwork has been finished and risk has been reduced to a minimal, so why wait, there's nothing holding us back.
