The Instigator
mfigurski80
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Science is a major threat to human existence

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 1 vote the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/2/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,522 times Debate No: 76072
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (57)
Votes (1)

 

mfigurski80

Pro

I will be arguing that humanity's existance is directly and inderectly threatened by science

I have made this debate impossible to accept. If you wish to debate, please apply in comments.

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Main Points
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Defense against round 3 rebuttals

Rules
No forfeits
No deconstructive criticism
No vulgarities
No changes to debate structure, or definitions without consent of both debators.

If a rule is broken, the offending debator forfeits the debate.

Definitions:
Science - the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Threat - A person or thing likely to cause damage or danger
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Human - Of, relating to, or characteristic of people
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Existence - The fact or state of living or having objective reality http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Thanks to all who apply, and good luck to my partner!
Wylted

Con

I accept with the understanding that the definition for science is descriptive not prescriptive, since science is such a large field and hard to pin down.
Debate Round No. 1
mfigurski80

Pro

I would first like to thank Wylted for accepting this debate, and confirm her understandings on the definition.

1) Science is slowly moving into area's where it should be restricted by morality. Cloning of animals and especially humans, as well genetic engineering experiments show us that scientists are eager to move past the public's discomforts. However, if clioning of humans were to become more widespread and therefore more acceptable, the value of a human life would diminish. From succesful cloning, things can go two ways: either governments will give human clones full rights or they won't. (or they could restrict the creation, but that wouldn't last.)

The first is out of the question. Cloning would effectively divide the society into several groups, ranging from "desirable" citzens to "undesirable" ones, because everybody would know that the troublesome people aren't necessary. You can always clone good taxpayers and kill or banish half of the country to create a race of obedient people. Don't laugh, Hitler tried but didn't know the secrets of cloning. It would be like excising a tumor, getting rid of the bad cells to create better ones.

The second would obviously lead to a very distopian world authors would portray through a book. We could clone humans, and have them do the dirty work for us. Mining, farming, clearing sewage; tasks like these would be taken over by the not-really-people people. Slavery would return, not everywhere but it would become a major issue even in the USA. Because why work when you can buy another to work for you? And if society ever gets to that state... well, we'll deserve the uprising we'll get.

These are the fruits of science.

2) Science also gives humans a greater capacity for destruction. The most famous example of scientific destruction is the nuclear bomb. If we look at some very early examples, the nuclear bomb named Little Boy had a yield of 16 kilotons. The largest nuclear weapon ever was detonated at half-strength by the USSR, and had a yield of 50 megatons. That's a bit less than 5,000 times what was dropped on Hiroshima. And it was only half-full. Over the years, USA has probably managed to pull together something that goes bang much louder on detonation. On this website there is a chart that I find portrays the situation quite well: "http://www.businessinsider.com... in mind that the last one, Castle Bravo, was created in 1954. Some professors argue that if eight or more modern nuclear weapons were detonated on the surface at roughly the same time, 95% of Earth's life would die of either the blast, the radiation, or the nuclear winter following.

These are the fruits of science

3) Established technologies, such as the wireless smartphone, are dissecting families in first world countries. Many individuals are embracing autonomous lives on the internet, which pulls apart families as a unit. Mr. Anderson, the president of probe ministries and an author of many essays and books, thinks that it is specifically this dissection of a family that brings down nations. This is shown based on his studies of ancient Rome, Greece, Persia and Assyria; whenever families members started competing or not socializing, the nation slowly withered and died.

Thes are the fruits of science.

(1) http://www.abpischools.org.uk...

(2) https://answers.yahoo.com...
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...;
(2) http://www.businessinsider.com...;
(2) http://www.answers.com...;

(3) http://www.theatlantic.com...;
(3) http://www.leaderu.com...;
(3) https://www.probe.org...;

http://idebate.org...;
Wylted

Con

Wylted forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
mfigurski80

Pro

My partner and I have both agreed to change the following rounds to allow him/her to upload their arguements. Thanks for everyone's understanding.

Round 3: Arguments and rebuttals
Round 4: Counter rebuttals

Wylted

Con

Framework

It's important to know what this debate is about. The debate is about determining whether or not the existence of mankind is threatened by science. We can see this is what the debate is about by taking a look at the title of the debate, and my opponent clarifies this is the case in R1. Here is a quote from her;

"I will be arguing that humanity's existence is directly and indirectly threatened by science" (spelling corrections mine)

It's important to take not of this because my opponent has veered off topic a little.

Cloning

This is the first argument my opponent makes, and we can see that it is not applicable to the resolution. As unethical as my opponent claims cloning is, it was not established to be a threat to man's existence. My opponent merely claims that it is unethical. The argument is off topic, and I urge the judge's to ignore it.

Cell phones

My opponent brings up another irrelevant argument, about technology hurting the family unit and extending it to saying that harm to the family unit can topple nations, however no argument has been made that would show, any of it will eliminate mankind.

Atomic Bombs

The only relevant argument my opponent brought up was about atomic bombs, but we'll shortly see why that falls short of satisfying the resolution. There are two big reasons why nuclear war is very unlikely to occur. The first major reason is that countries who have nuclear capabilities all have a mutually assured destruction policy, even if it's a silent one. Any planet that launches a nuke will be destroyed, right along with the country they targeted. Since these MADD policies have been in place, no two countries with nuclear capabilities have been involved in anything other than proxy wars.

War is becoming a more rare event, despite what the media would tell you. The number of deaths by war has steadily declined since World War Two. The world is becoming more interconnected. Countries find that they gain more through peace than war with all the trading. Countries are starting to become more Democratic, and history has shown us that Democracies are unlikely to go to war with each other.

http://theweek.com...

Nuclear war has close to a zero percent chance of happening.

Science Will Save the World

Science as opposed to being the death of mankind is the savior. A meteor could crash into the Earth and create another mass extinction, but science will allow us opportunity to blast the meteor out of the sky. Mankind is condemned to death, but every new scientific discovery brings us closer to a cure, for aging. We once looked at polio and leprosy as just a natural part of life, and now kids don't even know what those things are, just as science has all but eradicated those things, it may also eradicate aging and thus save mankind. A plague could come and wipe out mankind, but science has helped us create the technology to quarantine people, track a virus and still it in it's tracks. Science is not a threat, no more than a doctor performing life saving surgery is a threat. If you die in a surgery meant to save you, but with only a 10% success rate and you die during the course of it, it would be nonsensical to blame the tool attempting to save you, instead of the disease. At best my opponent's arguments, rest on blaming the tool, but more realistically they fail. Two arguments have nothing to do with the resolution and one argument, has proven to be something very unlikely to transpire.
Debate Round No. 3
mfigurski80

Pro

On Wylted's suggestion, I have looked through the debate several times, and I finally decided that a majority of what we both said is horribly off topic. As my partner pointed out, only my point about nuclear arms had any bearing on the direction of the debate.

Rebuttal
But fortunately, not all is completely lost. My partner's post, both his rebuttals and original arguments themselves, aren't arguing correctly as well.
My partner lists a series of ways science has, and will be able to, help our daily lives. However, strictly speaking, this debate wants to determine if science could cause humanity's downfall, not if science is usually good and useful. So, the BoP kind of lies on me, and my opponent can't present anything but rebuttals.

Counter
Again, we are veering a bit off topic here. MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is a political plus, but not scientific at all. Therefore, the raw fruits of science, without the political overlay, are dangerous to humanity.
Wylted

Con

"As my partner pointed out, only my point about nuclear arms had any bearing on the direction of the debate."

My opponent admits that only her argument on nuclear weapons was relevant. Voters should disregard all other arguments, besides the nuclear one, without any second thoughts. When we analyze what's happened this far in the debate, we can see that I'm the clear winner. On what I've already quoted, my opponent has conceded, every argument but one, and she actually concedes that, if you read a bit further in this round.

" Again, we are veering a bit off topic here. MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is a political plus, but not scientific at all. Therefore, the raw fruits of science, without the political overlay, are dangerous to humanity."

My opponent is supposed to be arguing the resolution, which is:

Science is a Major Threat to Human Existence

Her last remaining argument is thus invalid, because she admits that, nuclear war is not a serious threat to mankind, because of "political overlay". If we'll look back at the resolution, we can see that the debate is about whether or not, science is a threat to mankind. It is not a debate on whether it is a threat to mankind, without political overlay.

When looking back at the resolution, we can see that my opponent has conceded every argument in the debate. She completely undermines her own case, and nothing is left standing, without any further work from me, this is an automatic win on my part.

My opponent has dropped every positive argument, I've made and nobody in good conscience can vote against me. I'll end this round, like I ended the previous one.

"Science is not a threat, no more than a doctor performing life saving surgery is a threat. If you die in a surgery meant to save you, but with only a 10% success rate and you die during the course of it, it would be nonsensical to blame the tool attempting to save you, instead of the disease. At best my opponent's arguments, rest on blaming the tool, but more realistically they fail. Two arguments have nothing to do with the resolution and one argument, has proven to be something very unlikely to transpire."
Debate Round No. 4
57 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mfigurski80 1 year ago
mfigurski80
Jeez, Mr. Moderator is intrested in this debate. We had at least 5 votes, now we're back down to one.

It's like a purge or something.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 1 year ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
==================================================================
>Reported vote: TinyBudha// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Pro (S&G, Conduct, and Sources). Reasons for voting decision:Con uses a single source in all of his argumentation, as a result, I calculate that 74% of his claims are unsubstantiated. Compared to pro's 32%. This represents a statistically significant impact on the round just through citation deficit. Although a few of con's sources are from answers.com, the credibility level is sufficient to give credit to the arguments those citations seek to reinforce. In any case let it be noted that a poor citation gives infinitely more credit than none....the lack of proper accreditation is sufficient to take conduct but the reason I chose to take it was because of the ff. Finally, I would like to award spelling to pro because of his in-depth, poetic, idiomatic and persuasive languistic word choice. Take for example: the metaphor "like excising a tumor", the expression "the fruits of science.", or "technologies..are dissecting families". This distinguished pro from con in terms of spelling and gave him a pursuasive edge that the common, bland, and hardlined words of con simply couldn't contest. The closest con comes to pro's level is through a single analogy but, as an aside and in the context of debates, analogies tend to be harmful according to recent persuasivistic research, as it has been found to increase misunderstanding of arguments and promote straw man arguments, this, if anything this could go against con. For those reasons pro get s&g, conduct and sources.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Using arguments not brought up in the debate. (2) The majority of this RFD is incoherent. I have no idea where the voter got the 74% and 32& from. (3)The S&G point feels more like trolling than an actual RFD.
===========================================================================
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 1 year ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
==================================================================
>Reported vote: TheJuniorVarsityNovice// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Sources, Conduct), 4 points to Con (Arguments, S&G). Reasons for voting decision: This is a clear win for the Con team. Firstly though, I would just like to say that this would be a win for the Pro if they wouldn't have included MAJOR into the resolution. according to the definition of humanity, it is people/society as a whole, and science must be not only a threat, but a major threat to it. To start off PRO gives three arguments, two of which he concedes and one of which he doesn't. I have to agree with wilted on this remaining point though, which is, as pro concedes, that nuclear warfare is very unlikely, and thus although it may be a threat, it is not a MAJOR threat and thus the resolution is not affirmed and I must award Wylted the victory. I award conduct to pro for the concession and I award sources to pro because he uses a lot more. S&G goes to Wylted though because he had a better format for his rounds, putting him in the lead.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) S&G not explained with specifics. "Better format" is far too generic and needs elaboration on. (2) Awarding sources solely because one side had numerically more sources is not a valid reason to award sources.
===========================================================================
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 1 year ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
*****************************************************************
>Reported vote: Envisage// Mod action: NOT Removed<

1 point to Pro (Conduct), 3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: FF - Conduct. Debate boiled down to the use of nuclear weapons - which Con refuted with MAD. Pro never contested that MAD refutes that nukes are a threat to the existence of mankind (I personally think this is exceptionally contentious - especially with non-state actors), and only contested that MAD was non-topical. However I buy Con's final round argument that it was topical - the resolution is not specific enough to exclude external mitigating factors. Thus, I vote Con.

Reason for report: doesn't explain serveral key aruments

[*Reason for non-removal*] (1) Pro agreed in Round 4 that only his point about nuclear arms had any bearing on the direction of the debate. The RFD could have provided better feedback to the debaters but is sufficient to pass moderation review.
**************************************************************************
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 1 year ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
==================================================================
>Reported vote: Blade-of-Truth// Mod action: Removed<

1 point to Pro (Conduct), 4 points to Con (Arguments, S&G). Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con forfeited the 2nd round. S&G - Con. Pro had numerous spelling and grammar errors throughout the debate. While Con also had some minor errors, Pro's far outnumbered his, and thus Pro loses S&G points. Arguments - Con. Pro started by presenting three arguments showing that science is a threat. Con then showed how 2 out of the 3 arguments are not applicable to this debate. Pro conceded this point, but not before Con additionally showed the unlikelihood of nuclear bombs threatening human existence. That's what this debate essentially turned into, just replace "science" with nuclear bombs and bam. Con did so via MAD. Oddly, Pro then tries to modify her argument to say MAD is just political overlay and that nuclear bombs are still bad without it. This completely missed Con's point that *because of* political overlay, it's not bad. Ultimately, Pro never overcame this challenge, and thus loses arguments.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Lack of specifics on S&G point on what those errors were and why they impacted the readability of the debate.
===========================================================================
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
There is no way your that age and still that bad at analyzing arguments. I can give sloppy rebuttals, because the arguments were even sloppier. I didn't need to put in much effort to win.
Posted by TinyBudha 1 year ago
TinyBudha
I have nothing against you, but if you are going to debate then at least attempt to do so respectably, abiding by its rules...don't forfeit, give sloppy rebuttal and then attack those who voted against you because you disagree with them. I guess 4 years life experience really can make a huge difference....although I'm really not looking forward to the big 4, 0 in all honesty...
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
I'm done. When you're a grown up, you'll realize why your vote is immoral and just plain wrong. If you want to vote in an unethical way, that's your choice.
Posted by TinyBudha 1 year ago
TinyBudha
Ya know Wylted, my Grandfather actually taught me a German remedy for Just this very predicament, made from the extracts of Idontgivafruits, they call it kuitchbichin.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
I'm just being honest, it is more of a dim thing to place a horribly bad vote, that could cause the obvious winner to lose.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Envisage 1 year ago
Envisage
mfigurski80WyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: FF - Conduct. Debate boiled down to the use of nuclear weapons - which Con refuted with MAD. Pro never contested that MAD refutes that nukes are a threat to the existence of mankind (I personally think this is exceptionally contentious - especially with non-state actors), and only contested that MAD was non-topical. However I buy Con's final round argument that it was topical - the resolution is not specific enough to exclude external mitigating factors. Thus, I vote Con.