Should the use of technology increase?
Debate Rounds (5)
I accept this debate.
We are arguing about current technologies, rather future ones. Specifically, we are arguing whether to use of technology should increase, not whether existing ones keep us safe.
P1 Using technology results in a greater frequency of technological advances.
P2 Advances in Nuclear technology could result in annihilation,
P3 Nuclear annihilation would be bad. [http://en.wikipedia.org...]
C1 Therefore, we should stop increasing the use of technology.
If we dont keep on useing it the cure may never be found.
I'm not arguing that the we should stop using technology altogether, just that we should stop increasing the usage of it. We will inevitably find a cure for cancer.
What will we find with just 21 cenurty technology later in thef future.In future we will be hilariously behind in technology that other countries will take us as a joke.
This debate also does not refer to the US or any country specifically, so that argument is defunct. Secondly I'd like to repeat that I'm not arguing that the we should stop using technology altogether, just that we should stop increasing the usage of it.
Mr.lemons forfeited this round.
gg. Vote Con!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by That1User 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:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Con's sylogism of nuclear technology went unrefuted, and pro forfeited.
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.