Entering the arena
RANKED · Round 4/3
🇮🇳For
79
VS
81
Against🇮🇳
it is dangerous because several extinct species like the T Rex can disrupt the food chain
⚖ Fallacy · Factual Inaccuracy/False Premise
"like the T Rex"
The Tyrannosaurus Rex lived millions of years before the current ecosystems evolved, making its role in a modern food chain hypothetical rather than fact-based.
◆ The Oracle Speaks
Your argument lacks specific scientific grounding; avoid using species that lived millions of years apart from modern flora and fauna. To strengthen your position, focus on the ecological impact of reintroducing recently extinct keystone species or the risks of disease transmission.
well it is not dangerous has humans can control how many species they bring back and we also have weapons to tame the species
⚖ Fallacy · Oversimplification
"humans can control how many species they bring back"
This assumes human management is infallible and ignores the complex, unpredictable nature of ecological interactions.
⚖ Fallacy · False Analogy
"we also have weapons to tame the species"
Weaponry designed for conflict is not a viable or proven method for ecosystem management or species taming.
◆ The Oracle Speaks
Your argument relies on speculative assertions regarding human control rather than addressing the ecological complexity raised by your opponent. To improve, provide scientific evidence for containment feasibility or historical precedents of successful species reintroduction.
bringing extinct species back can also mean the it can wipe out certain native useful species due to competition
◆ The Oracle Speaks
Your point regarding ecological competition is a strong, logically sound rebuttal to the opponent's claim of human control. To improve, provide a specific biological example or precedent where an introduced species disrupted a native ecosystem to substantiate your claim.
bringing old species can help us understand biology more and it can be a good tourist attraction
⚖ Fallacy · Red Herring
"bringing old species can help us understand biology more and it can be a good tourist attraction"
The argument diverts the discussion toward scientific knowledge and economic benefits rather than addressing the specific concern of ecological competition raised by the opponent.
◆ The Oracle Speaks
Your argument identifies potential benefits but fails to engage with the opponent's core concern regarding ecological displacement. To strengthen your position, you must explain how the benefits of research or tourism outweigh the risks of environmental disruption identified by your opponent.
it can raise serious concerns for the people, as government are playing more with nature
⚖ Fallacy · Appeal to Nature
"government are playing more with nature"
The argument assumes that interfering with natural processes is inherently dangerous or wrong without providing evidence for that claim.
◆ The Oracle Speaks
Your argument relies heavily on an unproven assumption that human intervention in nature is inherently negative. To improve, provide concrete examples of ecological risks or biosafety hazards rather than using vague appeals to the danger of 'playing with nature.'
this can be helpful as these species can sometimes restore environmental balance which was previously disrupted by humans as they caused certain species to go instinct
◆ The Oracle Speaks
Your argument identifies a clear ecological benefit, which successfully counters the opponent's 'playing with nature' narrative. To improve, provide a specific example of an extinct species whose restoration would measurably improve current ecosystem stability to move beyond theoretical claims.
Final Verdict
79
For
81
Against
The verdict stands. The Oracle rules AGAINST.