Science caused more suffering than good for humanity
Debate Rounds (5)
First round is definition of your position and acceptance only. Save arguments for round two.
In this debate I am going to try and prove that scientific advancements in general did cause more bad than good for humanity.
While few consequences of discoveries may have been positive, the overall trend leans towards the negative.
I wish my opponent good luck and look forward to a fun debate.
Goodluck with this debate, fella.
Firstly I would like to thank my opponent to accept this debate. I am looking forward to a fancy discussion that will increase both our skills and knowledge in the process.
Humanity is weak
Science has caused a lot of trouble that outweighs its benefits for many reasons.
One of the reasons is that the human species is not biologically and mentally adapted to the high technological standard we reached in the past few hundred years. 
The technologies we have today and the lack of natural enemies makes humanity biologically weaker. A status we seek to compensate with said technologies. That is a vicious circle. The great amount of obese people alone proves how weak as a species we have become. 
Before the invention of weapons that could kill someone with the mere actuation of a lever the act of slaying someone was a rather brutal one that would require unscrupulousness in order to be achieved. Even a severe beating is usually survived, while a single gunshot has a very high chance of taking someone's life.
The human mind is by far not used to the idea of being able to kill someone within a second and that leads to a way increased amount of murders because the murderers have no time to contemplate their actions as they pull the trigger of a gun, unlike those who try to kill their victims through severe beatings or even stabbing. 
There are many more great scientific achievements that came with a price like the theory of relativity. Even the invention of the wheel lead to the construction of more efficient methods of war. Chariots and siege towers were made possible with that invention. Not to mention tanks and other wicked vehicles that cause great terror.
Through technological advancements it is even possible to kill many people without being at the same location or being part of the mechanism that takes the lives of the respective victims. One example for such a mechanism would be the atomic bomb the former president of the United States Truman commanded to be used on Japan. It's a by product of Einstein's theory of relativity. 
Nuclear bombs are about to be out of date already, as advancements in the field of medicine will allow us to kill great amounts of people way more efficient with the use of biological weapons of mass destruction. Their advantage is that they can be spread to more than local territories but throughout whole countries or even continents. 
The theory of relativity increased the average life standard of the human population, no doubt. But it came with a horrible price that lead to the cold war between Russia and the USA that ended with a financial crisis in Russia.
Nowadays it's not a cold war between Russia and the USA but Christianity, Hinduism and Judaism versus Islam and Communism versus Capitalism. Russia, China, India, Iran, Venezuela and so forth are currently in conflict with the USA, Pakistan, Israel and European countries.  Any of those conflicts could potentially cause another world war. And that all because fanatics in power possess the technologies to evaporate each other. They could potentially destruct most ecosystems on this planet and eradicate humanity.
Modern slavery and struggle for resources
Not only great amount of killings are caused by science. Another product of science is the suffering it causes all over the world on a daily basis. Would it not be for scientific advancements, African, South American and Asian countries would not get exploited economically like these days.
Due to the economic globalization slavery is, yet again, a very valid and actual concept. Now that companies can acquire very cheap workers in their home countries, rather than being forced to transport them overseas in order to use them, mass production is way cheaper and more efficient than ever.
The same slave workers than produce our shoes and basketballs are used to exploit the resources of third world countries.
Minerals are very cheap due to the exploitation of mines in several African countries. Consumers in industrialized nations benefit from the cheap devices they can acquire due to blood minerals. 
A more prominent example are blood diamonds. 
Not only do we exploit poor countries for cheaper production, but we also are willing to kill many people just for the sake of driving our cars around for a cheaper price.
The USA invaded Iraq just for that purpose, using obviously false theories about a potential danger that got disproved later on.
Now their oil is in the hands of rich corporations which gladly deliver cheap oil to the United States while profiting greatly. 
To us western people the Iraq war was nothing but a political dispute that did not affect up personally and even those who did oppose the war do not mind using its benefits to their own advantage.
ThePayneTrain forfeited this round.
I would like to give my opponent another chance to respond to my arguments as I put quite some effort into them.
The first con, is the fact that there is a lot of money and effort put in certain researches, while in the end, when there is no result at some projects, there basically is thrown a lot of money over the bank, not knowing where it all went to, and not getting it back.
Secondly, animal lovers argue about the fact that there are animals being used to test projects. A lot of actions and disagreements are around all over the world, 'cause there are animals dying while it isn't even necessary. Many animals don't survive the tests, which is a pity for the animal lovers out there.
As a 3rd reason, I'd like to say something really cheesy. People try to prove everything these days, even the smallest things, with science. A lot of the things that are being set as facts in this world end up with 'oh yeah, that's science'. Which is actually not quite true, I think. I've read that people are saying that even love is a science. In my opinion love is more like a choice, if you like someone, you like someone. If you start loving them, you do, but there's no science about that.
I agree, some of the projects in science really made a change in the world these days, but it also caused sadness and dissagreement. The discussions and arguements these days are a lot about science. You can compare it to the simplest things in life, for example, the Internet.
pros: we find information quickly, we can purchase things online, etc.
cons: we can be able to use it for criminal purposes.
I think that there are pros and cons in this subject, however I'm strongly on the cons side, as it has brought a lot of confusion and arguements in everyone's life these days.
My opponent argued for my position as I argue pro science caused suffering and is bad overall.
I rest my case.
ThePayneTrain forfeited this round.
I guess I won this debate then.
ThePayneTrain forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.