Updated: Nov 11, 2018
When writing a constructive speech, I'm always concerned about the concept of ground. Ground is the available arguments that the Pro and Con teams can respectively make. A great constructive speech often creates a situation where many of the opponents main arguments (their ground) cannot function, thereby giving its side an advantage. So, how can this work on the gene editing topic?
If your constructive speech makes a strong claim that gene editing is inevitable, then most gene therapy good/bad arguments become irrelevant. For the Con team, argue that slow expansion is safer than fast expansion. For the Pro, argue that public expansion is better than private expansion.
Remember, there's various types of gene therapy, you can gain an advantage through specificity.
For the Pro team, prioritize the deontological value of the effort of saving every life thereby mitigating cost and logistics concerns moot. For the Con team, focus on a the role of the government as an actor that has to be responsible for the needs of the many, not just the few.
Remember, definitions and contextual evidence play a critical role in determining which framework is superior.