The Instigator
DPL
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
rajagopal23295
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Deminishing returns and research: Should we focus on modernizing (Pro) or research (Con)?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/9/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 426 times Debate No: 42010
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

DPL

Pro

Thank you for accepting this challenge.

Research has exploded creating a whole new world in the last few decades. Society is enjoying the benefits of new technology, but do we really want more? No!

1) research provides newly developed technologies that are taking interest away from things such as modernizing housing, infrastructure, and providing economic stability

2) research produces things that are exclusive to the wealthy, further dividing the rich from the poor contributing to increased competition built from the segregation of rich and poor. This competition has become fierce and is no longer a matter of good nature.

3) The growth of technology due to research is advancing so quickly people feel inferior when they cannot operate a new technology or one they have never heard of before.
rajagopal23295

Con

I accept the debate, and good luck to you sir.

Pro says that research is diverting our attention away from necessary things such as modernizing infrastructure, housing, etc. While this statement is not completely incorrect, what my opponent says about it being less necessary is something I do not agree upon. My opponent says that "research produces things that are exclusive to the wealthy". I counter this. Let us take the simplest of examples - smartphones. Android, for example came up as a product of extensive research into mobile operating systems. And I am from a country where there are cheap smartphones, for people with all kinds of budgets.

All the research going on in the world is not necessarily for products/technology that are "meant" for the rich classes. Let us talk about the medical industry. Research is yielding new drugs for treatment of various ailments, and that is something everyone has access to. True, a poor man cannot afford radiation therapy, but there is ample research going on, to provide affordable cancer treatment drugs. Research does not necessarily focus on one class of the society. A majority of the research projects in the world focus on products that will be useful to everyone. The problem is that the research which involves expensive products turns out to be cooler than everything else and hits the news, and hence creates a mentality that research focuses only on the rich classes.

My opponent says, "technology is advancing so quickly that people feel inferior when they cannot operate a new technology". Look at the sales records of the products you are talking about, and you will find your statement to be not completely true.

I hope that my arguments sufficiently disprove those of my opponent. Looking forward to my opponent's arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
DPL

Pro

Con does not agree that research is less necessary than modernizing despite the prior statements. Thank you for accepting the debate and your response Con.

Research is important for civil advancement, however I argue that we have come across a time where the return for effort is so diminished that we should take the time to place our efforts to modernize the entire civilized world. To help make my point as clear as possible consider an example, that many readers can attest to in their own lives. At super markets a consumer may purchase a DVD for $10, the same movie in Blue Ray will cost about $23. That is more than double the price for a marginal increase in viewing experience quality. I am arguing that the extra $13 spent for the upgraded quality should be placed into purchasing 2 of the DVD quality movies allowing twice the people to own the product. The point is a larger return will be observed when funding is spent on modernization instead of research.

Con's argument indicates awareness that drug companies spend huge amounts of money on research. It is important to know that modern medicine places emphasis on preventive medicine not responsive medicine. Several diseases not acquired through lifestyle choices deserve more research than lifestyle acquired disease. It is much cheaper to educate healthy lifestyle choices rather risk funding the development of another medicine. A large amount of research money is spent on blood pressure, anxiety, and depression medication all of which have other forms of treatment. I argue that even a large amount of drug research has hit a point of diminished return and the money could be spent more wisely on modernizing.

The last argument discussed details the psychological harm cause by inferiority suffered by those who cannot use new technology. Con's side refuted my argument stating that new technology sales are up. I agree that many sales are up. However, I did not mention any specific products yielding the refute damaged. To counter this refute all we need to think about are cigarette sales. Cigarette sales have existed in the economy producing many jobs and satisfying many uninformed consumers. As consumers have become more informed that the products are bad ( or in our case the funding used to produce them mean the sacrifice of modernization) the sales have declined. This example demonstrates why sales cannot always be used as a measuring stick.
rajagopal23295

Con

Firstly, "a marginal increase in viewing quality" is a totally unacceptable statement. DVD's resolution is limited to 480p whereas blu-ray can provide a resolution of 1080p. If someone feels this difference to be just marginal, he/she should visit an ophthalmologist, and get a really good pair of spectacles. And sir, when you say one can buy 2 DVDs instead of 1 blu-ray disc, if we start seeing things that way, then we could settle for 4 CDs. That kind of thinking would eliminate the need and scope of advancement altogether. Why are cars getting better everyday? Why are we trying to create better products each day? Because people NEED it. Research does not cater to only one part of society. You say cigarette sales have gone down, and that was because of research. And that somehow came up when you were trying to prove that people feel inferior due to not being able to use new technology. I just do not get the connection. Sales are not a good key, says who? If the research shows a product to be beneficial, the sales will go up. As in the case of cigarettes, research proves that it is harmful to smoke, it gives out a list of the possible diseases one may suffer from if they continue to smoke. You talk about the sales going down almost as if it was a bad thing. Harmful products being less sold is always for good, and it was the research that went into it that is saving a million lives today. And yet you say, research is not required. How you arrived at cigarettes from inferiority due to inability to use new technology, only you are aware. I still stick firmly to the point that such kind of inferiority is rare, and no product can ever be perfect for everyone's use. My opponent outlines the amount of money going into anti-depression/blood-pressure/anxiety drugs. He wishes that we focus on educating people about healthy lifestyle. Please sir, follow the news. The amount of research that goes into alternative methods of treatment (which includes a healthy lifestyle) is mind boggling. Musical therapy is just one example. You feel the money "wasted" in drug research (to which I don't agree as well) should be put to good use in modernizing. Modernizing what? Homes? When thousands of people are homeless, are the governments really ready to provide them modernized homes? If that is happening, I'd agree with you sir, but I just don't see that happening. Drug research is NOT exclusively for treatment of complex diseases. Wouldn't it be nice to have a cure for the common cold? If my opponent prefers blowing his nose during a business meeting, research is not the reason. It's his mentality. He'd probably want a modernized handkerchief to blow his nose.

I await the next round.
Debate Round No. 2
DPL

Pro

Thank you Con for sharing your perspective. Due to your unscheduled leave I will not post any argument for the third round.

Thank you Voters for voting and any comments.
rajagopal23295

Con

rajagopal23295 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by rajagopal23295 3 years ago
rajagopal23295
Won't be returning for at least a week, hence it's impossible. My sincere apologies to the Instigator.
Posted by rajagopal23295 3 years ago
rajagopal23295
I have to go out of town urgently and I will not have internet access. So I will not be able to present my views for the last round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.