Science is a major threat to human existence
Debate Rounds (4)
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
No deconstructive criticism
No changes to debate structure, or definitions without consent of both debators.
If a rule is broken, the offending debator forfeits the debate.
Science - the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Threat - A person or thing likely to cause damage or danger
Human - Of, relating to, or characteristic of people
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!
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.
Wylted forfeited this round.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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."
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Envisage 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||3|
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.
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.