The Instigator
Tiny_beautiful_nature
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
dexterbeagle
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Is nature worth more attention than 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 2 votes the winner is...
dexterbeagle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/18/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,741 times Debate No: 60628
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Tiny_beautiful_nature

Pro

Nowadays people spend so much time in devotion to technology (our little creation) but we often forget that nature is the one making our lives possible. She is the one that gives us unlimited supply of air and oxygen and she never demands nothing in return. Now imagine yourself creating something and than just giving it for free even though the users of your product harm you over and over again and never even thank you. I don't believe that you would last long. But we have to change our ways because otherwise nature will turn her back on us eventually. Sooner or later she will have enough of us treating her this way and when that day comes people will regret their actions but it will be too late. Sadly it is in our nature to miss things only when we lose them.
dexterbeagle

Con


I accept the debate. Good Luck—I see you are new to DDO too.


Debate Round No. 1
Tiny_beautiful_nature

Pro

Yes I am new and thanks. Good luck to you too.

I never understood how can people ignore all of the complexity and beauty in nature. I mean why would someone willingly spend their time rather on a piece of tech than outside with people. So many opportunities are missed because of that.

Now I understand why people think so highly of technology. I mean it surely makes our lives easier but the easy way isn't always the best way. But on the other hand when people stay away from nature for a long time they start craving for it. They need it because we are a part of it. For example people who live in cities always like to go to nature for holidays to relax.

And just by taking this common phrase to go in nature to relax.... it shows that people prefer nature over technology, because if it was the other way around people wouldn't go hiking, climbing, cycling, .....

But it is hard for most of the people to resist the easy way of living that technology offers. Technology supports our laziness. And I think that this is the only reason people like it... and if you look deep into every persons heart I'm sure that they would prefer living their lives in some hut in forest by the lake without any worries, to rooms full of computers, televisions and other technologies.
dexterbeagle

Con

My opponent is argument thus far can be distilled into four statement provided by Pro (see below). Let me rebut them before making my own argument against the main proposition.

Pro states:

1. “She [Nature] is the one that gives us unlimited supply of air and oxygen and she never demands nothing in return.”

2. “But we have to change our ways because otherwise nature will turn her back on us eventually. Sooner or later she will have enough of us treating her this way and when that day comes people will regret their actions but it will be too late.”

3. “And just by taking this common phrase to go in nature to relax.... it shows that people prefer nature over technology, because if it was the other way around people wouldn't go hiking, climbing, cycling, .....”

4. “Technology supports our laziness. And I think that this is the only reason people like it... and if you look deep into every persons heart I'm sure that they would prefer living their lives in some hut in forest by the lake without any worries, to rooms full of computers, televisions and other technologies.”

Con’s rebuttals:

1. First, “air and oxygen” are not unlimited. In addition, the history of the earth as a planet reveals that existence is mercurial, random and often ends in extinction. 98% of all species that ever existed on Earth have gone extinct. [1] Neil deGrasse Tyson in Cosmos addressed this along with the “five great extinction events” in a recent episode of Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey.[2]

2. The “she never demands nothing [anything]” at the end of claim one as well as claim two emphasize this anthropomorphic view of Mother Nature. While Pro implies Mother Nature is some kind of kind benevolent and gentle force, the opposite is actual true. Slavoj Zizek recently dissuaded the naiveté that some delight in when they talk about environmental catastrophe, namely “we are all guilty, we exploited too much, we weren’t feminine enough. All this is bs [edited to meet the standards of DDO]. Why? Because it makes the situation “safer.” If it is us who are the bad guys, all we have to do is change our behavior. But in fact Mother Nature is a crazy bitch.” [3] What Zizek goes on to say is that think about the ecological catastrophe and sheer destruction that took place and lead to large fossilize deposits that are now the source for fuel. More specifically, what he is trying to get at and what I will argue is that Mother Nature is a freak show of contingent disturbances with no inner rhyme or reason. The version that Pro argues is that nature is a pure idyllic creation. Nature conceived as the balanced cycle of life is a human fantasy.

3. Pro infers (incorrectly, I will argue) that since “go in nature to relax” is used, one will reach concluded that people “prefer nature to technology.” The claim and the reason seem to be lacking and evidence absent, at least here. Con argues the fact that the two most significant events in human civilization, the Agricultural Revolution and the more recent Industrial Revolution should make one conclude that people prefer technology. Whether it the technology of agricultural production or production of the steam engine. This might be distasteful but what Pro appears to argue is analogous to the one many abusive husbands make: “look baby, I don’t mean to hit you when I get drunk. But you know I love you. Don’t these flowers, jewelry, signs of affection prove that?” Pro, at least of abuses to nature, seems to say, “My darling, my darling, because you prefer to buy me thing, relax and share moments with me prove you're the only man I could ever love.”

4. Of Pro’s major arguments, the fourth one strikes me as the least plausible. First Pro claims by way of conjecture that people only enjoy technology because it supports our own penchant for laziness. My counterargument would be the result from typing in the word inventor and innovation in a google search. However, Pro goes on to say: “if you look deep into every persons heart I'm sure that they would prefer living their lives in some hut in forest by the lake without any worries, to rooms full of computers, televisions and other technologies.” Con argues okay, but maybe we should give the heart too much create, rather maybe we should rely on real-world indicators, like say, what people actually do. I would Pro point four if a billionaire (a person with virtually unlimited resources at their disposal) actual bought a large swath of land somewhere—in reality their own estate—and became nomadic hunter-gatherers. The reason is that a billionaire, especially if they believed in living out their hearts desire could probably hire horticulturalists, ecologists, and experts to artificially create an environment as close to “nature,” as they wanted but none seems to do that. This proves Pro’s claim is demonstrably false, otherwise wouldn’t I do know some high net worth individual actually attempt this lifestyle.



[1] George S. Fichter, Endangered Animals. (USA: Golden Books Publishing Company, 1995), 5.

[2] Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, "Some of the Things That Molecules Do," episode 2 (originally aired March 16, 2014).

[3] Liz Else from New Scientist interview with Slavoj Zizek, Verso books (Zizek’s publisher) has the quote here: http://www.versobooks.com...-s-new-scientist-interview-the-revolution-will-not-be-on-facebook

Debate Round No. 2
Tiny_beautiful_nature

Pro

First of all I'm sorry for not posting my argument earlier.

1.) Now I am not like con. I don't have to quote what some famous people have said because I have an opinion of my own and I intend to stand behind my words not behind other peoples believes.

2.) I don't think that con actually knows what he is saying. ( I will go to extremes for example. ) Con is saying that humans value technology more than nature. So lets say that something happens and all of the living beings on Earth suddenly die. Now lets say that technology somehow saved humans from extinction. Some people would start arguing whether or not humans should do something to save the nature. Now con believes that they would decide that Nature ain't important and they would let her die. Now oxygen would become a problem but people are smart. They would figure out a way to produce and sell it. People will in this case be living in their houses, paying taxes for oxygen and will never be able to go out without masks. Now generations would pass and people would forget about trees nature and everything. They would get used to it. But can you imagine a world with no nature? I bet that if you took a video of what the planet looks like today with the nature, trees, animals, pets and everything I bet that if you would show that video to a person in the technology based future that I described before they would start to look for a way to get it back. But I don't believe that people would chose technology over nature in the first place. But the scenario that I described is exactly what con is suggesting humans would do.

3.) Just to be clear I am not saying that we should abandon all of technology and go back to stone age. I'm just making a point that people should consider to what point is technology taking us. Because if things go on like this people will soon become slaves to technology.

4.) Con believes Nature is "a crazy bitch and a freak show" but let me just say something. We all know that kids normally have innocent minds so tell me why do they still prefer living dogs, parrots, cats to robotic ones. Because they do exist and are not that expensive.

5.) I agree with the con we are just like abusive husbands to nature. We beat her we say that she is worthless, we don't acknowledge her UNTIL we need her. Let me just say that technology has been with man (and by man I mean humanity just to be clear. I have nothing against women. ) only a couple of decades. But before all that nature was the one taking care of us, making sure we had food to eat and water to drink. So how are we not like abusive husbands to her. We used her and pretended that we love her for such a long time until we got addicted to alcohol (that stand for technology). Now a few years ago I read somewhere that we were almost hit by a wave that would destroy everything that runs on electricity. (I don't remember the details, sorry), but if that really happened if men couldn't get the alcohol (tech) their reaction would be the same as of the abusive husbands. First men would go crazy and than they would run back to nature. And she would help us regardless of our mistakes and how we are treating her now. So how can you say that nature is a freak show???

6.) And I would also like to back up my statement
"But it is hard for most of the people to resist the easy way of living that technology offers. Technology supports our laziness. And I think that this is the only reason people like it... and if you look deep into every persons heart I'm sure that they would prefer living their lives in some hut in forest by the lake without any worries, to rooms full of computers, televisions and other technologies."

Con has suggested that if my statement was correct billionaires would have to abandon technology and start a different lifestyle. Now that's not true. Because if someone worked hard their whole life to get that amount of power, respect, and money they can't just throw away all of the hard work that they have done in the past and go live in nature where their money doesn't mean a thing. But that doesn't mean that they don't prefer nature to technology deep in their hearts. It is just harder for them because technology for them is easy to get and it is always easier to take a simple lazy road but not always better. But regardless of that I haven't yet heard of billionaire who wouldn't have some cottage or hut or villa somewhere outside the cities in the nature.

7.) I would just like to end my argument with this.
If people were to hate nature than why do they build parks in the cities, why do we put flowers in our house, why is it considered more romantic to bring flowers to a girl instead of a new phone if people really do prefer technology.
dexterbeagle

Con

First, so I want to reiterate the proposition debated: is nature worth more attention than technology.

While the burden of proof is fully Pro’s, I will emphasize my position by state [technology is worth more attention than nature]

The Burden of Proof is Pro’s alone. This is Pro’s first debate, and I am relatively new too, but let me state the obligations for each party in the debate.

Pro’s obligation: Since pro is defending the proposition, nature is worth more attention than technology, it is up to Pro to provide reasons and evidence for it.

Con’s obligation: Since Con is on the “opposing side” Con only has “to disprove the evidence presented or explain why it may not be adequate.”[1]

Rebuttals

Rebuttal to (1)

First, I am not quoting “famous people” but rather experts or universally respected academics. Quoting Stephen Hawking or Paul Krugman is not the equivalent of quoting Scarlett Johansson or Daniel Radcliff (unless it is an argument related to acting). “Standing behind your own words” is fine, but just because I claim and have opinions about which variation of String Theory is the most accurate or have opinions about the validity of a multiverse, this does not mean I am not obliged to provide evidence or support for those claims. John Nash, the Nobel-prize winning economist who developed game theory models and helped develop differential geometry, was a genius but he also suffered from schizophrenia. He could demonstrate the accuracy of his mathematical formulas but could not demonstrate the aliens and other non-existent people he thought he was in frequent communication with. The reason: because his mathematical postulates could be proven by way of logical reasoning and providing evidence by way of mathematical models. People however did not find other claim true, valid, or worth entertaining not because Nash “didn’t stand by his own words” but because, they had no basis in reality, and they were not supported by evidence or logic.

A quick detour into the difference between opinion and argumentation:

Opinion and argument are very different. Arguments and debate require claims, reasons, evidence, and refutation of warrants. This is the structure for every academic field. But let me quote famous acknowledge experts, who set the standard for research/argumentation in the humanities.[2] So to be clear any form of argument is going to answer:

  • § What is your claim?
  • § What reasons support it?
  • § What evidence supports those reasons?
  • § How do you respond to objections and alternative views?
  • § How are your reasons relevant to your claim?

Rebuttal to (3)

Third Pro states:

“I am not saying that we should abandon all of technology and go back to stone age. I'm just making a point that people should consider to what point is technology taking us.”

Okay, so first this veers away from the proposition, again just to reiterate, Pro is arguing nature is worth more attention than technology. While my opponent has as of yet failed to provide a clear definition, and therefore Pro should provide “concept clarification”[3] for voters to discern or expose the underlying meaning of nature. However, since I convinced technology is as well as ought to be given more attention than nature, let me provide a modest definition and explanation of what technology is.

What technology is and is not (based on definitions purposed and accepted by etymologists, linguists, sociologists, and philosophers, historians)

The etymology of the word technology is of Greek origins and refers to the “collection of tools including machinery, machinery, modifications, arrangements and procedures used by humans.”[4] Its contemporary usage in the United States is often attributed to Read Bain, the renowned American sociologist. Bain wrote, “technology includes all tools, machines, utensils, weapons, instruments, housing, clothing, communication and transporting devices and the skills by which we produce and use them.”[5] But let me continue to clarify technology because the accepted uses that do not rely on conjecture are very important and relevant to this debate.

Merriam-Webster defines technology as “the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area and a capability given by the practical application of knowledge.”[6]

Albert Borgmann, a Canadian sociologist writes that technology is “an activity that forms or changes culture”[7] His field of expertise is technology and its application for the benefit of life as known. Borgmann notes technology predates both modern science and engineering. Borgmann provides the example of modern communication technologies, including the development of the internet and the computer.

Question for Pro:

The Stone Age was a product of technology it was not a natural.

Rebuttal to (4)

First, I do not “believe” anything. Nature is “a crazy bitch” by way of example:

  • § Volcanoes
  • § Floods
  • § Droughts
  • § Tornados
  • § Hurricanes
  • § Extinction of 98% of all species to very exist on earth

Pro wants to project human qualities on the nature:

Which is fine if it provided transparency to the debate. But so far, the anthropomorphic version of nature only obscures and conjures up some kind of vague new-age spirituality. There is nothing inherent wrong with have those feelings, but again, this is a debate not a recitation of conjecture and unsubstantiated postulates.

Evidence: None.

Con’s question: where can I buy an inexpensive robotic dog, cat, and parrot? I have never seen one, especially not one vaguely comparable to a living animal.

The reality: Pro claim and reason is irrelevant to the proposition argued. I could make the claim men prefer real women over robotic women. Apart from some rudimentary versions in Japan, there are not really robots comparable in appearance, intelligence, coordination, or anything else. If something doesn’t exist then they will by default choose the thing that exists.

Rebuttal to point (7)

First, no one said people hate nature. In fact, that is irrelevant to the debate. The fact people construct parks actually validates my large point that technology is worth more attention than nature.

How So?

Building parks is an artificial construction; parks do not exist in nature.

While the Burden of Proof is not mine, let me make a case for as to why technology is worth more than nature:

[This list is composed based expert and widely recognized use and understanding of the word TECHNOLOGY]:

Concrete Examples of technology [a list provided by a Wikipedia entry: List of Technologies]

The list includes technologies before the early modern era. Special comments are placed that directly address some of the claims made by Pro of nature but are in fact unnatural, artificial creations of man. This includes: animal domestication Pro mentioned in Round Two (dogs, parrots, cats). These are examples of practical technologies develop “unnaturally” by man.

Fire creation

Stone tools

Fur clothing

Mining

Logboat

Bone flute

Animal domestication

String

Painting

Ceramics

Sewing

Rope

Plant domestication

Brick

Metalworking

Salt cultivation

Leather

Irrigation

Equestrianism

Weaving loom

Wheel

Military Technologies

Acheulean hand axes

Spear and Javelin

Dart thrower

Boomerang

Mace

Microliths

Bow

Defensive wall

Astronomical Technologies

Classical Era

(3500 BC - 500 AD)

Practical Technologies

Writing systems

Mummification

Papyrus

Ard plough

Wheel

Glass making

Galley

Pottery

Metallurgy/Bronze forging

Plumbing

Abacus

Iron Smelting

Arch

Alphabet

Glass making

Steel

Saddle

Lock

Aqueduct

Archimedes' screw

Caliper

Crane

Odometer

Watermill

Paper

Aeolipile


If Pro is such an advocate of nature and the need for greater attention to it, then:

Why use the internet?

Why not debate me in nature? All you would have to do is walk to where my house using whatever naturally device you can find. Oh wait, even the use of stars in the sky would be a technology, an unnatural invention of man.

Why does pro own a computer?

Why does pro use electricity?

Why does pro have some kind of artificial shelter?

Isn’t this contradiction an example of why when Pro “in his heart” believes technology is worth more attention



[1] "Burden of Proof." Rational Wiki. July 24, 2014. Accessed August 19, 2014. http://rationalwiki.org....

[2] Turabian, Kate, Wayne Booth, Gregory Colomb, and Joseph Williams. A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007), 52-54.

[3] “Editor’s Introduction,” in D. Moran and T. Mooney, eds, The Phenomenology Reader (London & New York: Routledge, 2002), pp. 1–26.

[4] Liddell, Henry George and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980).

[5] Read Bain, "Technology and State Government," American Sociological Review (December 1937): 860.

[6] "Definition of technology". Merriam-Webster. Retrieved 2014-08-19.

[7] Albert Borgmann (2006). "Technology as a Cultural Force: For Alena and Griffin," The Canadian Journal of Sociology 31 (3): 351–360.

[8] Christopher Browning, The Origins of the Final Solution: The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy

Debate Round No. 3
Tiny_beautiful_nature

Pro

Tiny_beautiful_nature forfeited this round.
dexterbeagle

Con

I will keep my comments for this round short given that Pro forfeited the last round.

Final remarks and statements by Con. Pro provides some claims and reasons for why nature is worth more attention than technology. However, they exclusively rely on inferences that Con does not accept as valid inferences. Here is Pro’s final statement from the third round:



“ 7.) I would just like to end my argument with this.
If people were to hate nature than why do they build parks in the cities, why do we put flowers in our house, why is it considered more romantic to bring flowers to a girl instead of a new phone if people really do prefer technology.”

The inference drawn is that because people in some instances incorporate nature into their lives, especially where they could have selected a technology in its place, then it necessarily follows that people in general believe nature is worth more attention than technology.

While Con does not accept this as a valid form of argumentation, this may not be the view of voters, therefore I will adopt it to make one final argument similar to others made in Round 3.

Because Pro uses the internet, is a member of DDO, and has a computer-based device, and consume electricity then Pro supports Con’s position that technology is worth more attention than nature. My evidence for this claim come from facts I can assume about Pro’s life. First, Pro has to use the internet otherwise it would be impossible to have this debate. Second, because Pro is a member of DDO and has not stated to belong to a debating society, then I will assume Pro prefers an internet debating forum over one where two human exchange ideas in nature. I used the word computer-based technology because this must be the case (laptop, desktop, cellphone, IPad, IPhone, Surface, etc.). Finally, Pro must have access to electricity of some kind. Therefore, all of these things lead Con to assume that in reality, Pro accepts Con’s position.

Voters should take into consideration the following:

BOP for this debate = 100% Pro’s

Con was the only side to provide claims backed up my evidence, cited in footnotes.

Pro did not rebut Con’s definition of technology to rebut any claims (which are Con’s central arguments) in Round 3.

Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Aerogant 3 years ago
Aerogant
The machine, the man, the mask and the animal are all important to creating "human".
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
Tiny_beautiful_naturedexterbeagleTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by RobertMcclureSmith 3 years ago
RobertMcclureSmith
Tiny_beautiful_naturedexterbeagleTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: FF by Pro in third round. Pro did not rebut Con's claims because of FF.