The Instigator
draxhunter
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Owlz
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Is it possible that we maybe turned into slaves by technology?

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 3 votes the winner is...
Owlz
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/1/2014 Category: Technology
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,717 times Debate No: 51395
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

draxhunter

Pro

People have always wondered we will never go that far. People say that government can never rule us. But whenever I go by a bus stop or downtown I see 12 year old girls and boys getting amused by technology. I know that when I was a kid I used to go to bus station and downtown and just observe what is going around me. Now people not old 12 year olds seem like that are being brain washed to their technology. I mean every time I walk by someone all they talk about is video games. Where is that bond with a friend? I Know I've play video games too. Most of the people that I go to college with all the do is talk about how awesome that character from video games are. Then I go to a soccer field and basketball court then I am confused. There is no one there. What do you think? Is it possible we are being controlled? I believe so.
Owlz

Con

I accept this debate. I look forward to a fun debate and wish the Pro good luck.

First I will be clarifying and defining some things.

This debate"s title is; "Is it possible that we maybe turned into slaves by technology?"

I believe that the word "possible" is a very strong word to use for a title of a debate. According to online version of the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the word "possible" is define as; "able to be done, able to happen or exist, able or suited to be or to become something specified". By this definition it is clear that almost everything imaginable could be possible, even if the probability of it is near zero percent. By this argument, all things are "possible" and gives the Pro an unfair advantage as it proves the Pro"s choice true despite any arguing.

To keep this debate fair, I believe the debate title should be thought of as the statement; "We are being turned into slaves by technology." With the Pro being for that statement and myself, Con, being against that statement.

I will be personally defining the word "technology" to be used in this debate loosely as: electrically powered devices used for the betterment of humans. Examples would be phones, tablets, radios, computers, calculators, gaming consoles, vacuum cleaners, microwaves, DVD/Blu-ray players, etc.

I will be defining the word "slave" using the online version of the Merriam-Webster dictionary as; "someone who is legally owned by another person and is forced to work for that person without pay, a person who is strongly influenced and controlled by something".

Definitions and clarification out of the way, I will now move on to refuting Pro"s arguments.

"People say that government can never rule us."
This is off topic and irrelevant as this debate is about technology enslaving us, not the government enslaving us through technology.

"I know that when I was a kid I used to go to bus station and downtown and just observe what is going around me."
- This is a personal experience and is irrelevant.

"Now people not old 12 year olds seem like that are being brain washed to their technology."
- This sentence was poorly written and based upon its wording I took it to mean "People under 12 years old seem like they are being brain washed by their technology."
- If I am correct in this interpretation, this is a personal opinion and has no backing evidence. Just because something "seems" a certain way based off of an observation does not always mean it "is" that way.

"I mean every time I walk by someone all they talk about is video games."
- Talking about something does not mean you are a slave to it. I"ll touch more on this later. Besides, this is a personal observation with no backing evidence.

"Where is that bond with a friend?"
- We are not debating about technology making us anti-social. Thus this is irrelevant to the debate.

"I Know I've play video games too."
- Merely background knowledge about the writer. Not evidence.

"Most of the people that I go to college with all the do is talk about how awesome that character from video games are."
- This is a personal experience and observation. Irrelevant.

"Then I go to a soccer field and basketball court then I am confused. There is no one there. What do you think? Is it possible we are being controlled?"
- This is a personal experience followed by a question that is, assumedly, targeted towards commentators or voters. Once again irrelevant.

With that out of the way I will be moving on to making an argument of my own.

In the definition of "slave" I used above you will note it says "someone who is legally owned by another person". In this situation the "someone" who would be "legally owned" would be the human using the technology and the technology would be "person" in ownership. This is ridiculous. The technology does not legally own us. In most cases, we legally own the technology. The definition goes on to say; "a person who is strongly influenced and controlled by something". I will not argue that humans are not "influenced" by technology, we are. However, we are beings with free will and the technology talked about in this debate does not have the power to forcibly "control" us to use it. It is our choice to use it.

I believe with this definition I have proved that it is impossible for technology make us "slaves" and thus proving this statement of "We are being turned into slaves by technology" false.

I now pass the "microphone" over to Pro for round two. Good luck. :D

Sources:
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
draxhunter

Pro

Sorry for the late reply for this argument. So let's get rolling.

~When I said government ruling us. What I really meant is they are using out tech such as smartphones or computer to put contents in our minds.

~When some usually talks about video games it's either they have a obsession or they have nothing else really to talk about. Obsessions also means that they are attached to one type of image. Slaves of technology can also mean that some is has addiction to technology so much that they start using it.

"We are not debating about technology making us anti-social. Thus this is irrelevant to the debate".
~ You are correct in a way but this is an impact that is being created by technology. People spend less time with buddies and more time on the computers or video game. This bringing back to obsession with technology.

~Final point is video games are becoming real. I know this is not the topic about video games, but saying that technologies are making it real and we are getting addicted to the craftsmanship of this game.

Sorry for late reply. Also I apologize if I go off topic. This is my actual debate with you. Good luck Con.

Sources:
http://www.cnn.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://dictionary.reference.com...
Owlz

Con

Good to see you're alive and well Pro. :D

Moving on to rebuttals.

"When I said government ruling us. What I really meant is they are using out tech such as smartphones or computer to put contents in our minds."
- Keep in mind that this doesn't change the fact that this debate is about technology enslaving us, not the government INFLUENCING us via subliminal messaging.

"Obsessions also means that they are attached to one type of image. Slaves of technology can also mean that some is has addiction to technology so much that they start using it."
- This actually furthers my case. It shows that because we are obsessed/addicted to technology we use it. Not that we are slaves to it but that we CHOOSE to because we have the DESIRE to use it. We do retain the ability to "say no" to using the technology even if addiction makes it hard to do so.

"People spend less time with buddies and more time on the computers or video game. This bringing back to obsession with technology."
- Your clarification does not change the fact that we are not debating technology making us anti-social. I stand by my original statement of; "Thus this is irrelevant to the debate". Also, I would like to restate that technology being an obsession helps my case.

"Final point is video games are becoming real. I know this is not the topic about video games, but saying that technologies are making it real and we are getting addicted to the craftsmanship of this game."
- Please note that the Con ceded that this was off topic. Although I must say that I found the topic and the article quite interesting. I believe the game "L.A. Noire" published by Rockstar used graphics and actors in a similar way. Anyways. Thanks for bringing it up.

Please note that at this point in the debate my argument about it being "impossible for technology to enslave us", having used the definition of slave to support it, was not attacked by Pro and still stands.

One other thing. Pro. One of your sources was from Wikipedia ... I was under the impression that Wikipedia is not a valid source to use on DDO. But, if I am mistaken or the voters are fine with it then I am too. After all, it supports your "video game addiction" argument which I have used to support my argument that we retain our free will.

Thus concludes round two. I eagerly await the finale, round three. Pass to Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
draxhunter

Pro

Yes but there has to be a culprit behind the screens. Yes it's not about the government controlling us. If the technology is used to feed our addiction. Then the government steps down from the all this and we are left with technology. Doesn't it become technology feeding our addiction? Doesn't it become that we need technology now. We need to have it or else we can't go anywhere.

Yes I get the fact that obsession is a desire. If the desire is something of a addiction and you need it how can you control that? Yeah I get it that it's in our hand, but if technology is meant to be used for almost everything we do then how can we control that? One can simply stop using technology if he/she wishes, but there would be no way to live in modern time. Technology is improving vastly and yet there are no strong AI in SOME PRODUCTS. Yes there has been self learning AI's that are out there. It's scary but it's there.

About video games becoming real. FB has bought the OCULUS RIFT virtual passage to learn things. Doesn't hat surprise you? Know you can meet your friends over technology than real life? yes, it's social issue but if we can be controlled by it doesn't it make us being controlled? I know I'm not the one inventing it but I sure do know that where we go can now be controlled then we might face the issue on trust.

Impossible for technology to enslave us. I oppose that dearly. Look at how fast the tech industries are growing. They are building self learning AI's that could surpass our intelligence. IBM has already come up with something like that where it can learn self aware and make judgments from that. It will be used for medical uses. It's already raising concerns. We may not have the technology to enslave us right now at this point. We are surely getting closer and closer each day. Corporation like Google are getting more power to develop technologies like this behind our backs where they store information. We may not know but we might be looked into by some sort of beta self learning AI? Who knows? Who is behind the screens know a days? It could be a human or a bot.

Sorry I didn't know about the Wikipedia. I didn't know you couldn't use it as a source.

Sources:
http://www.pcauthority.com.au...
http://enterpriseinnovation.net...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://www.ibm.com...
Owlz

Con

I'll be starting with my rebuttals before moving on to my closing statement.

"Doesn't it become technology feeding our addiction? Doesn't it become that we need technology now. We need to have it or else we can't go anywhere."
- Yes, it feeds our addiction. No, we do not "need" technology. It is still a desire and can be refused. No, we don't need it in order to go places. There are many Americans I know who leave their tablets and phones at home to spend time with their family and friends in the form of a camping trip. This shows that technology has not evolved to the point where it can force us to do anything. We are its master, not its slave.

"If the desire is something of a addiction and you need it how can you control that?"
- Just look at drug addicts. It is incredibly hard to do but humans have incredible resilience in the area of breaking habits and addictions.

"Yeah I get it that it's in our hand, but if technology is meant to be used for almost everything we do then how can we control that? One can simply stop using technology if he/she wishes, but there would be no way to live in modern time."
- I agree that most jobs require it to be used. But we humans use it. Not the other way around. We use a hoe to farm because it makes the job easier. We use our tablets and smart-phones to work because it makes the job easier. Think of it as just another helpful tool.

"Technology is improving vastly and yet there are no strong AI in SOME PRODUCTS. Yes there has been self learning AI's that are out there. It's scary but it's there."
- I am assuming you meant "there are strong AI in SOME PRODUCTS." because your sources show there are. But, the modern AI is not yet powerful enough or capable of enslaving humanity. I was under the impression that we were talking about modern technology. Not some futuristic rogue AI from a Sci-Fi novel or a crazed video-game AI running tests on us involving portals while promising free cake.

"About video games becoming real. FB has bought the OCULUS RIFT virtual passage to learn things. Doesn't hat surprise you? Know you can meet your friends over technology than real life? yes, it's social issue but if we can be controlled by it doesn't it make us being controlled?"
- It is my understanding that this and the article in your sources show the possibility of a virtual reality. If our minds are uploaded to a virtual world then yes they can be controlled and enslaved. But it is my understanding that this virtual reality would not be like this. It would still be "come and go as you please". This meaning we still have the choice to not use it.

Your closing statement sounds more like a conspiracy theory than an actual closing statement. It was all theoretical. Even if it were true all that is shown by it is that some corporations have the ability to influence us through technology. Very different from technology enslaving us.

I have enjoyed debating this with you and I must admit that I love conspiracy theories, thinking about the possibility of an robot uprisings, and various ideas of Science Fiction. This does not change the fact that we currently do not have any technology capable of enslaving us. Modern technology is capable of influencing us, entertaining us, teaching us, and helping us to achieve unimaginable feats. But it is not capable of enslaving us. I would like to thank Pro for this debate and to urge you voters to vote for Con. Thank you for your time and have a nice day.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by draxhunter 2 years ago
draxhunter
If I lose this debate. I lose, I know I won't win but I did learn a lot from the pro.
Posted by Owlz 2 years ago
Owlz
Gosh, I just realized my fifth sentence is a mess. Oops. :/
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
draxhunterOwlzTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not defend his case as well as Con was able to refute it. Con had better spelling and grammar.
Vote Placed by demonlord343 2 years ago
demonlord343
draxhunterOwlzTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: With the debate title I am assuming being the topic, Pro did a terrible job at presenting his case. I did agree with Pro, however, for the debate, Con did win. Pro did not rebuttal Cons arguments effectively. Cons spelling was sufficiently better. Pro definitely took small conduct points against him, and his sources were lacking. Overall, Con did a great job.
Vote Placed by Haroush 2 years ago
Haroush
draxhunterOwlzTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't go into enough detail on backing up his claim. Furthermore, con did a great job at rebuttals. Lastly, con made a good observation about pro's spelling and grammar.