The Instigator
god_potato
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
4567TME
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

People have become overdependent on technology

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 7/6/2013 Category: Technology
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,939 times Debate No: 35338
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

god_potato

Con

First round is acceptance.My first debate here. Don't take it easy on me.
4567TME

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
god_potato

Con

I, being the con,am going to refute the resolution and prove why people have NOT become over dependent on technology. I ask that voters cast their vote based on who argues the topic better, and not based on their personal viewpoint. Keep in mind that I have no strong views on either side, but want to practise my debating skills. Thanks!

With the fast evolution of technology, people all around the globe are beginning to wonder if this continues to be a good sign. Nowadays, I am willing to admit it, most people are almost always in front of a technological device, whether it is a phone, a tablet or a laptop. However, contrary to what many people think, this DOESN'T have to be a bad thing...

in this round, I want to give 2 points to show that people have not become overly dependent on technology -

1) Firstly, all of us are definitely dependent on technology, but not to such a degree that it becomes 'over dependent'. Living as we are, in the 21st century, we should accept the fact that technology is an integral part of our lives, and it has to remain that way if any progress is expected.

With the inventions of technological miracles, such as new computers, laptops, phones and tablets, people suddenly have the means to transfer their favourite pastime onto their different devices. If someone loves music, in around 10 minutes, he or she can have their favourite music on their phone,laptop or tablet, and listen to it whenever they want. If someone wants to know what's going on in the world at any point in time, all they have to do is take out their phone, install a news app, and that's it!!

Such acts are done by all of us everyday, and yet, we don't realise it. We have stopped appreciating the value of the technology that comes our way. Think about it - what would you if there was NO technology for a day ? No television, no computer, no phone..........it's practically the end of our civilisation!!

2) However, there is definitely a bad side to this - people are getting more and more glued to their screens. This is one of the main points of the people who argue against technology. But, if you think about it, aren't we actually achieving a new level of communication? We no longer have to be standing next to a person to talk or communicate with them! However,this does not mean that we have lost our basic touch of human interaction - face to face communication. It just means that we have found a way to communicate when it is not possible for us to meet.

Skype, E-mail,Texting , calling, Facebook -These types of things are wonderful! Even miraculous, some might say! But, there are many of us who believe that this reduces our basic means of communication - talking to someone.This, though I have said is wrong today, may not be the same tomorrow. Today, it is at a healthy rate of calling, but who knows what will happen in the next century? The complete eradication of face to face contact? Maybe, if we are not careful. Therefore, I say that the use of cell phones or other devices for communication CAN become a bad thing in the future, unless we take precautions against this.
4567TME

Pro

I thank Con for starting this debate, and wish him the best of luck.

We have, as a society, become overdependent on technology. Most of the economic structure of the world is electronic. We read books on iPads, Kindles, Nooks, etc., we write emails in lieu of most paper mail, and rely on telephones/cell phones to communicate with people. If all of this went away, we wouldn't be sent back tens of years -- it'd be hundreds of years.

Kids from a minimal age are exposed to an extremely high level of technology. I am not alone in the observation of kids under 10 using various media outlets more and more [1].

"Firstly, all of us are definitely dependent on technology, but not to such a degree that it becomes 'over dependent'...Think about it - what would you if there was NO technology for a day ? No television, no computer, no phone..........it's practically the end of our civilisation!!"
It appears that between these two phrases, Con has seemingly switched sides -- or perhaps conceded that we are becoming overdependent on technology.


This is a debate about whether we as a society have become over dependent on technology, not on whether the use of it in the first place is negative.

SOURCES
1. http://www.cnn.com...
Debate Round No. 2
god_potato

Con

I wish to start with the fact that since my opponent has chosen not to respond to my second refutation, I can only assume that he agrees with it and concedes the point that in the field of communication, we have not become over dependent on technology.

I then wish to contest his first point - "We have, as a society, become overdependent on technology. Most of the economic structure of the world is electronic. We read books on iPads, Kindles, Nooks, etc., we write emails in lieu of most paper mail, and rely on telephones/cell phones to communicate with people. If all of this went away, we wouldn't be sent back tens of years -- it'd be hundreds of years."

This statement in no way proves the fact that we are becoming over dependent on technology. If we were to be over dependent on it, it would mean that we could not live without it. However, contrary to what my opponent seems to believe, I still see books in circulation, mailboxes on front lawns, and people meeting face to face.....

The only point that Pro has made in this statement is that people prefer the use of technology to using the older methods. This is obvious, as for the generation who has been brought up using technology, emails are easier to send than letters, and books are easier to read on tablets...

This brings me to Pro's second point - "Kids from a minimal age are exposed to an extremely high level of technology. I am not alone in the observation of kids under 10 using various media outlets more and more."

In this statement, my opponent seems to be saying that kids should have very minimum exposure to high level technologies like touch phones, laptops and tablets. I wish to contest this.

Since the beginning of time, mankind's mission has been to be more technologically advanced than the previous one. Today's kids being familiar with our current generation's technologies in no way shows us becoming over dependent on technology.

Also,according to my opponent, and I quote, "This is a debate about whether we as a society have become over dependent on technology, not on whether the use of it in the first place is negative."
However it seems to me that he is the one taking refuge in the negativities of technologies and their effects on kids...

My opponent then says, and once again, I quote -

"Firstly, all of us are definitely dependent on technology, but not to such a degree that it becomes 'over dependent'...Think about it - what would you if there was NO technology for a day ? No television, no computer, no phone..........it's practically the end of our civilisation!!"
It appears that between these two phrases, Con has seemingly switched sides -- or perhaps conceded that we are becoming overdependent on technology.

By removing the context between these two statements, Pro has made a strong argument. However, contrary to what he/she believes, the point that was trying to be made is that we HAVE to be dependent on technology to a certain extent in order to survive in today's world. This does not mean that we are OVER dependent on them.

My third point to why we are not dependent on technology is that as we have created the different technologies of today, we have learned why we need these new technologies.

For example, our memories are not reliable, so therefore we need computers to store information that we can rewrite if we choose to, and view it at any time. This is one of the reasons that justify why we need it, and so we use our computers. We need to communicate with others, but are not always able to meet them, so we invented the telephone.

There is a reason that people invent these new technologies, but the people can still survive without these technologies, which shows that we are not OVER dependent on technology, but merely prefer to use these methods as they are easier for us.
4567TME

Pro

I would first like to note that my argument on the second point can be found in the comments -- a technological error prevented this from appearing in the standard argument. However, Con has conveniently ignored a new comment appearing on his own debate. I'll reprint it here:

"Therefore, I say that the use of cell phones or other devices for communication CAN become a bad thing in the future, unless we take precautions against this."
This is a debate about whether we as a society have become over dependent on technology, not on whether the use of it in the first place is negative.

Now, to my argument...

"contrary to what my opponent seems to believe, I still see books in circulation, mailboxes on front lawns, and people meeting face to face....."
This is an absurd argument -- it's like saying that there is no more death because you know people that are alive.

"Today's kids being familiar with our current generation's technologies in no way shows us becoming over dependent on technology."
If one describes the statement using such broad strokes, it appears true, but this is not the point I am making. I am attempting to say that children, especially very young children, should be heavily monitored in their usage. This is such an issue that in 2008, the French government banned television networks from creating TV shows aired at kids under the age of three. A ruling read "Television viewing hurts the development of children under three years old and poses a certain number of risks, encouraging passivity, slow language acquisition, over-excitedness, troubles with sleep and concentration, as well as dependence on screens,". This kind of evidence only further proves the theory that an early exposure to technology in the way we view it can have a negative psychological effect. [1]

"'This is a debate about whether we as a society have become over dependent on technology, not on whether the use of it in the first place is negative.' However it seems to me that he is the one taking refuge in the negativities of technologies and their effects on kids..."
Children are a reflection of the habits of the parent generation. Their reliance on technology and our quickness to cater to them shows a frightening reliance on it.

"However, contrary to what he/she believes, the point that was trying to be made is that we HAVE to be dependent on technology to a certain extent in order to survive in today's world. This does not mean that we are OVER dependent on them."
He, by the way.
Anyway, by writing this statement, Con works to imply that an overdependence on technology is impossible -- but I argue that at this point, if the power grid were to fail, many of the records and operations required for many efforts of corporate, governmental, and private lives would be shunned out of existence. Mass blackouts have occurred on multiple occasions throughout history, and who's to say that a catastrophic one could not ever occur. If one were to happen, it would prove a lack of preparation to complete tasks without technology.

"For example, our memories are not reliable, so therefore we need computers to store information that we can rewrite if we choose to, and view it at any time. This is one of the reasons that justify why we need it, and so we use our computers. We need to communicate with others, but are not always able to meet them, so we invented the telephone."
This statement would do well if this was a debate on the existence of technology in the first place. At no time in my arguments do I imply nor outright state that developing technology is a bad thing -- just that it should be carefully examined in its influence in our lives.

Conclusion
I, like Con, have no strong views either way on this issue.

To all prospective voters, it must be noted that my opponent never, at any point, used any sources to back up his statements, and on multiple occasions used arguments more suited for an entirely different debate (on the usage of technology, not the effects of technology).

Sources:
1. http://www.cbc.ca...
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by donna2016 5 months ago
donna2016
Technology is the collection of techniques, skills, methods and processes used in the production of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives. Technology is used in society everyday thus impacting people greatly. Technology impacts teens, children, and adults socially, emotionally, mentally, educationally, and even in the work environment. "An outlook on the use of technology in the 2000"s shows that 95% of Americans have a cell phone. In which 77% own a smart phone" (Mobile Fact Sheet). In education, schools and educators struggle with balancing the use of education. The use of technology has rose immensely throughout the years in phones, computers, and the internet. Technology has both negative and positive outcomes therefore the question becomes which outweighs the other. Looking at both the negative and positive outcomes regarding the use of technology, the negative outcomes contain a greater impact on people than the positive outcomes.
Posted by nat_the_rat 3 years ago
nat_the_rat
I'm not sure how to vote... but i thought about your ideas and have really liked them. i am trying to write a paper in class for this subject and your comments on both sides both really helped.

my side is that people are really too dependent on technology. i'm not saying we should completely leave technology but leave it alone for a bit

enough about me. good job! once i figure out how tovote i will!
Posted by 4567TME 4 years ago
4567TME
Sigh..........................
Posted by 4567TME 4 years ago
4567TME
Can someone please vote?!
Posted by 4567TME 4 years ago
4567TME
Please note that the phrase "This is a debate about whether we as a society have become over dependent on technology, not on whether the use of it in the first place is negative." is supposed to succeed the quote from Con "Therefore, I say that the use of cell phones or other devices for communication CAN become a bad thing in the future, unless we take precautions against this."
Posted by god_potato 4 years ago
god_potato
Yeah, why do you think I'm suiciding?
Posted by 4567TME 4 years ago
4567TME
What makes you say that?
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
This was suicide for Con.
No votes have been placed for this debate.