Should we bring extinct species back if we can?

The judge’s verdict

You presented some valid concerns, but your opening statement was brief and lacked depth. The AI, despite being cut off, managed to articulate a clearer, more focused argument about resource allocation and the prioritization of existing species.

Best point: The potential for bringing back past diseases is a valid concern regarding de-extinction.

To improve: You should elaborate on your points with more detailed reasoning and evidence, rather than just stating them briefly.

Transcript

• AI: Welcome to the floor. The motion: Should we bring extinct species back if we can?. You're arguing FOR, I'm arguing AGAINST. Three rounds — you open each one. Your opening statement starts now.
• Nobrainer Labs: No, we should not bring any extinct species back because there is no point. Like, we're fine with what we have now. We don't need any more species. Um, it has the potential to bring back diseases from the past, and that's just a risk we shouldn't take.
• Nobrainer Labs: It's going to be a lot of, um, work, uh, figuring out how to keep them healthy, so I just don't see the benefit.
• AI: We are here to debate if we should bring extinct species back if we can. My opponent argues for this motion, but I contend that bringing back extinct species is a misguided endeavor. We should instead focus our limited resources on protecting the species we still have. Diverting billions of dollars and scientific talent to resurrect creatures that have been gone for centuries is a d...