The English version follows the Chinese version.
犬子艾伦近日代表他所在的学校在苏州参加国际中学辩论大赛。
辩论正方：人类必须禁止基因技术。
辩论反方：人类不能禁止基因技术。
比赛团队分别来自国际中学的八年级（相当于初二）至十二年级（相当于高三）学生。艾伦代表的团队是初二学生，第一次参加比赛。可想而知，初二学生整体实力无法和高三学生抗衡。艾伦的团队没有获奖。但是据他自己说，他对他们的表现感到很满意。
艾伦比赛回来那晚，我看到被他扔在地上的文件夹，捡起来看了一下，是他的辩论词。不看不知道，一看吓一跳，我赶紧让他把文档发给我学习。
以下即是艾伦分别做为正反两方准备的辩词。据他说，他和他的团队一起讨论了，但是他成文写下这些陈辞。
正方辩词：
尊敬的审判员，计时员，对手，我是Alan Deutsch，正方辩论队的第一个发言人。
自从文明的曙光，人类就变得越来越独特。在人种，宗教和社会观念方面，每个人的身高，智力和其它遗传特征各不相同。正是这些独特的遗传特征，基因技术正在试图消灭。
我们的世界已经见证无数改变了我们的生活方式的发明和革命。从灯泡到互联网，如果所有这些创造都不存在，生活将会有极大的不同。但是，这些发明都没有直接的负面影响。如果这些发明失败了，那么他们就是单纯地失败了; 没有更多，没有更少。然而，在（基因）医疗领域，一切都不同。一旦失败可能会永久性地严重地改变某人的遗传结构。尽管人们一开始可能会不知道，隐藏的疾病和不正常现象可能会在几代人身上继续，最终感染整个家族。
通过社交媒体，电视纪录片和互联网，我们的社会看到了无数鼓励我们去拥抱独特个性的例子。然而，如果允许人类修改未出生的后代，增强基因又能带来什么好处。通过基因技术，人类将得到机会来创造所谓的“设计师”婴儿，未出生的孩子通过基因转移给予不自然的特殊性状。这是绝对不能接受的。谁知道，几十年后，一个人可以买到宝宝，允许支付更多钱来增加对宝宝的修改。这些“设计师”婴儿将促进人类的理想主义。可以肯定的是，执行对基因的增改并不会便宜，这在极端的层面上鼓励一个“你负得起多少就能买得到什么样的孩子的社会”。这样，将更一步加剧贫富分化，有能力的和无能力之间的分化。
从而，使更富有的公民能够增强他们自己或未来的子孙后代的身心特征，进一步加强已经世世代代的贫富差距。随着时间的推移，由于智力和社会的优势，世界的就业和经济将由拥有加强基因的人类主导。由于他们的孩子也会有同样的特质，世界将以“皇帝制”为基础做为结构。权利将世袭相传，而无法去靠自己赢得。这样的政权结构很久以前就被抛弃了，那些还保持着这样的政权的国家，它们都在挣扎中。改变基因不仅将使穷人的生活变得更加艰苦，还为他们挖了一个洞，使他们永远无法从洞里爬出来。面对基因的巨人，他们将没有任何机会。
每个人都是不同的，正如我之前提到的，每个人都以自己的方式独一无二地存在。那么，完美的人类是否会促进一个完美的社会呢？
不会。
反方辩词：
令人敬仰的裁判员，尊敬的计时员和杰出的对手，我的名字是Alan Deutsch。我是反方团队的第一位发言人。
通过许多在伦理和道德上支持的理由，显而易见，并需要重点强调地是，人类遗传基因技术一定不能被禁止。在反驳了我的对手的很多论点之后，我现在将以禁止基因技术实施的伦理关切来支持我的观点。
在我们这个世界，人类一直在前进。同时也在不断地为了进取而冒险。看看我们现在的位置，我们的世界已经在这样以成指数的状态发展。作为人类，我们必须保持开明的态度。一个开明的社会才能使我们成功。一个开明的社会才能使我们创新和创造。如果我们关闭所有的门和可能性，如果我们关闭了所有的机会，我们将能走多远？
不会。非常。远。
在整个文艺复兴时期，对中世纪时代与现代世界之间的文化桥梁，人们充满了怀疑。人们对科学家和哲学家所提出的远大思想和发现感到震惊。人们受到与改变相伴的风险和“机会”的打击。但是，假设我们没有经历那一步，我们今天会在哪里？答案是...哪儿也到不了。改变是人类生活的本质，自从人类还只是洞穴人，从发现火焰到发明轮子，改变是将我们与任何其他物种区分开来的东西。
现在，我们正处在发现可能结束一些人类最大问题的方案的当口，而这时，却存在着担心为什么要承担实施基因技术的风险。但我说，那我们为什么去月球呢？去月球成为了二十世纪的里程碑之一。那是否有风险？当然有！许多生命承受危险，有些生命为此永久失去，但作为回报，我们获得了知识和希望，比任何以往更多地影响了我们的社会。
随着所有理论和基础的完成，基因实施不仅在可及范围内，而且正在紧锣密鼓地进行着。但它正面临着一个巨大的障碍：公众的许可。坦白地说，这真是让我目瞪口呆，因为我听起来永久治愈最致命和有害的疾病是好事儿。现在我的对手可能会说，治愈这些疾病有很大的风险，但恰恰相反，由于基因技术已经在50年前就开始第一次实验，世界从过去的经历中学到了很多，例如多利羊。虽然那只羊只活了正常羊一半的寿命，我们从错误中学习，现在知道我们在哪里错了。所有的基础工作已经完成，风险已经降到最低限度，所以为什么等待，没有任何东西在阻止我们。
Alan Deutsch (13)
5.13.2017，Suzhou
辩论词原创：狄艾伦（13岁）
翻译：湘伟
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.
