The Instigator
saurab.sasi
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Firewolfman
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Science and technology Have made mans life happier

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: 12/20/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,225 times Debate No: 28488
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

saurab.sasi

Pro

Just think about a world without any technology.No phone,No cookers,no internet,no vehicles.Just Think
Firewolfman

Con

I accept this debate, and look forward to R2, where hopefully my opponent will list his arguments and points, as so far he has not really made any relevant arguments as to how the audience thinking about a world with no technology has to do with the topic at hand which is, " Science and Technology have made mans life happier" but he fails to point out how thinking about a world without technlogy, proves anything relevant to the argument, so I request that he revises his arguments and posts a more relevant argumental response in round 2.

Back to you, pro.
Debate Round No. 1
saurab.sasi

Pro

There are many types of technology like information technology, biotechnology and medical technology. One of the most influential technologies is medical technology.
Medical technology is the application of science and technology to improve the management of health conditions.It has contributed greatly to the society as it can save lives and increase chances for patients to survive their ordeal. Technology in the medical field has allowed individuals with chronic illness to have productive and healthier lives. These individuals can now lead independent lives without any need for physical, emotional and financial support. Advanced medical aids also enables patients to continue recovery at home reducing their hospital stay and at the same time saving money on hospital bills.
An example of medical technology that has benefited lives is the treatment for of cardiovascular disease, the use of coronary stents - artificial tubes used in cases of coronary heart disease to keep the arteries open " have halved the number of those dying from heart attacks or suffering from heart failure. Patients with an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD) " a small device implanted for those at risk of sudden cardiac death " now have a 98% chance of surviving a cardiac arrest, compared to only 5% without the implantable device. In addition, the minimally-invasive surgical techniques which are now used to treat aneurysms can mean a recovery time of around four weeks, compared to over a year for older procedures.
Hence, all in all, medical technology plays a vital role in allowing people to remain valuable and contributing members of the society. Thus i shall end off by reiterating my stand that technology is more of a boon than a bane to society.That is It has made in somewhat way mans life easier
Firewolfman

Con

I would like to thank my opponent, and my audience, and hope to proceed to have a splendid debate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REBUTTALS
======================

1.) My opponent begins his argument by saying, "There are many types of technology like information technology, biotechnology, and medical technology.", but I would like to point out that Pro fails to include evidence, or even a definition of technology. I hope this was just a error on his half, but I must point out that this statement is baseless unless you can source and show us proof, and use other terms of debating to convince us, as nobody knows whether you are lying, or you are just super smart and know the definition of 'technology' by heart.

Also, to save Pro the trouble, I will help him present his arguments, by offering a definition from a commonly used dictionary website, known as dictionary.com.

Also, it is a requirement that my opponent must post in his next argument, whether he accepts this source, [dictionary.com], or deems it invalid, and if it be that he deems that using dictionary.com is invalid, because of blah blah blah, then please include it in R3, otherwise if no response is posted then I will assume you accept the usage of this source in this argument.

Link to source: http://dictionary.reference.com...

Definition:

tech"nol"o"gy [tek-nol-uh-jee]
noun
1.
the branch of knowledge that deals with the creation and use of technical means and their interrelation with life, society, and the environment, drawing upon such subjects as industrial arts, engineering, applied science, and pure science.
2.
the terminology of an art, science, etc.; technical nomenclature.
3.
a technological process, invention, method, or the like.
4.
the sum of the ways in which social groups provide themselves with the material objects of their civilization

Since my opponent has not defined his own definition, or what he means by the term 'technology', however this definition is the right version, (if you accept dictionary.com as a valid source,) and if you had thought otherwise then please apprehend such thinkings and etc.

2.) Since the rest of the argument is only 'valid', on terms of how my opponent deems technology to mean, I cannot argue over this, as it might of been a mistake and I would only be wasting my time, and it wouldn't do much to argue over a minor mistake, as my opponent might have errored slightly.

Until a response, I can not really get into depth with rebutting my opponents arguments, so please, quickly apprehend this and help me fix the definition of 'technology', as we need one universal, (at least for our debate,) definition of 'technology'.

3.) However, when my opponent says "These individuals can now lead independent lives without any need for physical, emotional and financial support." he again, forgets to add a source, and again I point out that this is baseless until you can put some sourced evidence, as I could do another example of what your doing and say, "The Earth is flat, and everyone is happy because the Earth is flat." but as we all know the Earth is round, and this statement is baseless, as I have not included any backup source or evidence, therefore it holds no relevance on anything whatsoever.
However, my opponent claims that because of, (technology, [which is still undefined therefore invalid] in the medical field has allowed individuals with chronic illness to have productive and healthier lives), these people will now have no troubles and have a perfect life because of medical technology. They will no longer have any troubles with their jobs, taxes, or anything, as my opponent claims that technology grants them this perfect quality, but does not prove this in any way. And again, I must point out that when my opponent says 'productive and healthier lives', that is subjective, as productive to one person might not be the same to another. Please define what you mean by 'productive', otherwise this point will remain invalid just like everything else, until technology and productive is defined.

4.) The last chunk of my opponents arguments provides lots of copied statments, numbers, and percentages, but AGAIN FAILS TO SOURCE! What else can I say, BASELESS UNTIL SOURCED!!! If you don't include sources, (which you did not do, no sources were included AT ALL,) then everything is invalid, (which it is as you provided no sources,) and your arguments have very minimal relevance to the debate.

Arguments
========
Since my opponent has taken the BOP on himself, I have no need to provide any arguments to win this debate; as my opponent MUST prove that {technology has made mans life happier} and all I have to do is rebutt all his points, and disprove everything he says; therefore I prove that nothing has been proven from my opponent, therefore my opponent has failed to meet the BOP, therefore losing the argument.

Please provide all of the mistakes I mentioned earlier, as this argument heavily depends on factors of definitions, and sources-as your whole argument so far is invalid and baseless as you have not sourced anything, or defined anything-and therefore have failed to meet the BOP.

Back to you, Con.
Debate Round No. 2
saurab.sasi

Pro

saurab.sasi forfeited this round.
Firewolfman

Con

Firewolfman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
saurab.sasi

Pro

saurab.sasi forfeited this round.
Firewolfman

Con

Extend arguments; vote con!
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.