The Instigator
drhead
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
AbnormalReasoner
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Scientific and technological advancement results in a net benefit to society.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 3/9/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,857 times Debate No: 31111
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

drhead

Pro

I'll keep the introduction to this short and simple, since it is 3:14 AM as of me typing this sentence.

The Debate
This debate is (quite obviously, from what can be told from the title) about whether or not science and technology results in a net benefit to our society. As a transhumanist thinker, I hold a very strong opinion for this.

Burden of Proof
Burden of proof does not lie with anyone, the best argument wins. Things that Con might want to show would be evidence that technology would ultimately result in something that would destroy all of humanity, and that nothing could be done to stop this, which would include further development of technologies intended to counteract negative effects. This is just one broad example. Con would have to either show that technology results in net harm, or that all technology is a sidegrade (i.e. something that is a direct tradeoff, being a change that has no net benefit or harm). Obviously, showing the former would have more bearing, but showing the latter would be easier and enough for a technical win.

Rounds
Round 1 is for acceptance. Do not post arguments here.
Round 2 is for arguments. Wait until Round 3 before attempting rebuttals.
Round 3 is (as foreshadowed) for rebuttals of only content in Round 2.
Round 4 is for defending against rebuttals in round 3, and for closing statements.
So basically, ignore everything except the content of the rounds before the current one, with the reasonable exception of the first round. I apologize if I am coming on as verbose here - it's the sleep deprivation that is talking. That said, I am eager to debate this topic with whoever wishes to accept my challenge.
AbnormalReasoner

Con

Although it CAN benefit humanity overall, in terms of what it does to societies (such as dividing classes by health-care quality and technological availability of teaching facilities) it in fact is very detrimental to the society that was once so united as a barbaric unity of cavemen.
Debate Round No. 1
drhead

Pro

Please note that the first round was for acceptance only, and it was specified that no arguments should be posted in the first round.

This is the second round, so I'll post my arguments.

The ultimate goal of any technology is to make someone's life easier and/or better. While this statement may seem fuzzy when applied to certain technologies (e.g. military technologies), this statement still does apply in some way (it sure makes the non-victim's life easier, right?) While technologies that help some at the cost of others do exist, most technologies have the ability to help everyone at the cost of nobody. Furthermore, I assert that man has a certain moral restraint when it comes to using destructive technologies. I cite the fact that the US only used nuclear weapons in one war as an example of this. After WWII and the Cold War, everyone wanted nuclear non-proliferation, since they knew it would be a bad thing for people to be thoroughly blowing each other up with nukes all the time.

I'd also look at advances in medicine - out of all the good that has came out of this field, it greatly outweighs anything bad that has resulted from medical science. Computer science is another field like this, though computer science has several easily identifiable misuses and other bad things. However, a lot of these bad things aren't anything more than something that had already existed in the past, and even if we did count those things, computer science would still be giving a net benefit to society.

Now, I want you to post your arguments. You can repeat what you said or build off of what you said before, so long as you leave any rebuttals out. Rebuttals are for the third round.
AbnormalReasoner

Con

AbnormalReasoner forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
drhead

Pro

My opponent does not appear to be interested in posting arguments.
AbnormalReasoner

Con

AbnormalReasoner forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
drhead

Pro

Once again, my opponent has forefited the debate.
AbnormalReasoner

Con

AbnormalReasoner forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by drhead 1 year ago
drhead
I'm assuming that showing a net benefit is the majority opinion because of technology's great role in our society. This shows no sign of slowing down. However, I appreciate your concern and will remove the burden of proof, and change it to best argument wins.
Posted by larztheloser 1 year ago
larztheloser
100% agree with the below comment.
Posted by Center_for_Rationality 1 year ago
Center_for_Rationality
This doesn't make sense to me. Why does the Con have the BOP? The resolution should say "Scientific and technological advancement do not result in a net benefit to society"
No votes have been placed for this debate.