The Instigator
kizamag
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
gerrandesquire
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Technology makes us powerless

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/12/2011 Category: Technology
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,759 times Debate No: 17019
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

kizamag

Pro

There have been a lot of innovation in the human existence.
Since the Stone age period to the Middle Age, The human being has been obligated to find new surviving way in making life much easier and comfortable, But there are serious problems in the the last years.

Technology makes and will makes us much more depending on it if the developments stays the same.
There so many developments in the Technological world that we can't let go without bringing the ethical debate to life.

Take the example of Internet. This source was brought to life to make communication easier, but according to research, The World Economies would turn back with 20 percent in 355 days if there can't be an Internet Connection 1* Havard University.
Take the Mobile phone. According to the University of Amsterdam, 4 on 5 Dutch guys believes that life would mean nothing without a telephone.

These developments are the basic reason form me to conclude that people are powerless and technology is making us more dependent on it, instead of the reverse.

And I'm curious about what my opponent is going to say about this tragic development in the human being existence.
gerrandesquire

Con

I thank my opponent for opening this timely debate, and hope we both do justice to it.

The topic on hand is how technology has apparently made us powerless.

http://www.merriam-webster.com... defines powerless as ‘devoid of strength or resources' .

// Technology makes and will makes us much more depending on it if the developments stays the same.
There so many developments in the Technological world that we can't let go without bringing the ethical debate to life.//

This I agree with. Yes, the technology has made us dependent on it. But that doesn't make us powerless. On the contrary, the very fact that we are using it more in our daily lives points out how helpful we find these devices. I will elaborate on this afterwards.

Also, why should we ‘let go' of these developments. The very reason the developments have taken place is because we need them, and the reason we have adopted them in our lives is because we find them helpful.

// Take the example of Internet. This source was brought to life to make communication easier, but according to research, The World Economies would turn back with 20 percent in 355 days if there can't be an Internet Connection 1* Havard University.//

I am sorry but I could not find anything about the said research on the internet. Could you please provide a link to the said study?

// Take the Mobile phone. According to the University of Amsterdam, 4 on 5 Dutch guys believes that life would mean nothing without a telephone.//

So that would mean that the power of technology is quite large, would it not, if it is the *lack* of technology make us feel powerless? The purpose of each new discovery is the same.

// These developments are the basic reason form me to conclude that people are powerless and technology is making us more dependent on it, instead of the reverse.//

I would like you to prove how so. Being dependent on a thing does not make us powerless. Going by the definition of powerless, it helps us on both counts, it is a handy source of all resources, and helps us to organize our lives more systematically, and is empowers us to deal with multiple things at a time, thereby securing high benefits.
Debate Round No. 1
kizamag

Pro

The main argument of my opinion is the fact that people have became under dependence of technology. And I am very that my opponent agree with this, and I quote:
\ This I agree with. Yes, the technology has made us dependent on it.\

But how can my opponent be so naive by pretending that being under dependence of something doesn't make you powerless? I hope my opponent knows something about history, because as you all know: Every tragic development stars with making people under your dependence. And after this, people lose control, they are not any more able with deal without you and that's why you can get all the power to do what you want.
We can see this when it comes to slavery , European expansion, The communism revolution and so on.

But that's not the only problem.
A human is a creature that is connected with the nature. We talk, we eat, we sleep and all what we do is a natural development based on how we ware made/created.
But the coming of some technological systems did made us to lead an other life then what natural one. In the Train we don't talk to each other any more, everyone has his ipad, someone with her smartphone, an other one with her headphones listening to music, it's like we don't even exist. This is not a natural situation, it is a technological life one.

And don't even forget the counterproductive effects of technology.

Let me make a little analyse of 9/11 2001. Who doesn't remember this day?

This day wasn't a incident. Of course the Al-Qaaida was only able to create such a great attack thanks to developed technological machines.
When we first discovered guns, we somehow knew that it will be used to kill, maybe to kill ours elf. It is one of the technological development that's created, and the end it will make the human being powerless.

The 9/11, The Iran debate on Nuclear Guns, The Google and Facebook existence, Some medical innovations, and all other things that are made possible thanks to technology are all a very big threat to a natural human development, and I can't conclude nothing that saying that it makes us powerless.

/The very reason the developments have taken place is because we need them, and the reason we have adopted them in our lives is because we find them helpful./
Who says that? Because it's just not true. Every technological developments isn't just introduced because a human being is needing it. Don't tell me that When I don't have a fork, that I can't eat. Don't tell me that everyone need to fridge in order to lead a good life.
Technology is based on bringing product on the market. The intention of the going to the market is to earn money, and with money you can target power, that's how things work.

I am sorry I can't give you a link to the study of the Havard University, because it's a closed study, not yet available on Internet because of its controversy among some economy professors.
But I can guarantee you that what I am saying is the truth, nothing than the truth: Without Internet, the whole market in reach countries can meet serious problems.

And why don't we just recognise all these points I just mentioned and accept the dangers and the power of technology?
gerrandesquire

Con

//The main argument of my opinion is the fact that people have became under dependence of technology. And I am very that my opponent agree with this//

I disagree with the fact that dependence makes us powerless. This I explained quite profusely in my earlier argument.

//But how can my opponent be so naive by pretending that being under dependence of something doesn't make you powerless? I hope my opponent knows something about history, because as you all know: Every tragic development stars with making people under your dependence. And after this, people lose control, they are not any more able with deal without you and that's why you can get all the power to do what you want. We can see this when it comes to slavery , European expansion, The communism revolution and so on.//

Lol. This is quite a stretch of imagination in regards of technology. But if you are serious, I would like it if you could come up with a realistic scenario when we would be held captive in our own homes and lives with technology as our baits, because my na�ve mind cannot comprehend it.

//But that's not the only problem. A human is a creature that is connected with the nature. We talk, we eat, we sleep and all what we do is a natural development based on how we ware made/created. But the coming of some technological systems did made us to lead an other life then what natural one. In the Train we don't talk to each other any more, everyone has his ipad, someone with her smartphone, an other one with her headphones listening to music, it's like we don't even exist. This is not a natural situation, it is a technological life one.//

But what is the problem in that? Living a ‘technological' life does not refute the importance of a ‘natural' life. I bet most of the people are going to their colleges/ schools/ jobs which means that they are pretty much ‘in' their ‘normal' lives. They are just filling the void. Also, I bet many of them are chatting up with their friends which means they are using technology to ‘connect' with their friends, which means they are in sync with their nature.

//And don't even forget the counterproductive effects of technology. Let me make a little analyse of 9/11 2001. Who doesn't remember this day? This day wasn't a incident. Of course the Al-Qaaida was only able to create such a great attack thanks to developed technological machines. When we first discovered guns, we somehow knew that it will be used to kill, maybe to kill ours elf. It is one of the technological development that's created, and the end it will make the human being powerless.//

Ah yes. When the terrorists used aeroplanes to crash into buildings. But that would mean misuse of technology, since the airplanes aren't actually meant to crash into buildings. Like, for example, we can stone a man to death. Forest fires still kill a lot of people. Bu that doesn't mean that fire is inherently evil. We shouldn't ban stones. Similarly, yes, technology has the power of being misused, but ultimately, its good uses marginally overrule its ill effects.

Guns do have a bad use, but guns do not equal technology.

And guns, when used in self defence, make us feel powerful, don't they? Or even just possession of guns, for that matter.

And since you bought in 9/11 to the debate, do you know how easier and faster the rescue operation became due to the ‘technologically' developed ambulances and ‘medical innovations'?

//The 9/11, The Iran debate on Nuclear Guns, The Google and Facebook existence, Some medical innovations, and all other things that are made possible thanks to technology are all a very big threat to a natural human development, and I can't conclude nothing that saying that it makes us powerless.//

How are they a threat to natural human development? The existence of google and facebook certainly isn't. In fact, Google for one, is such a eminent resource engine that my assignments have a considerably better quality because of various resources I can access due to it. Medical innovations are a lifeline.(as I said previously). It does not make us feel powerless, if we go to the definition earlier.

//::/The very reason the developments have taken place is because we need them, and the reason we have adopted them in our lives is because we find them helpful./ :://

//Who says that?//

I say that.

//Because it's just not true. Every technological developments isn't just introduced because a human being is needing it. Don't tell me that When I don't have a fork, that I can't eat. Don't tell me that everyone need to fridge in order to lead a good life.//

Kitchen forks trace their origins back to the time of the Greeks. These forks were fairly large with two tines that aided in the carving and serving of meat. The tines prevented meat from twisting or moving during carving and allowed food to slide off more easily than it would with a knife.(1)

Fork was used because some people needed it to eat neatly.

A fridge is better if we need to save food from rotting. Ultimately it helps most of us, and that is why we use it.(2)

//Technology is based on bringing product on the market. The intention of the going to the market is to earn money, and with money you can target power, that's how things work. //

But if someone brings some useless thing into the market, like a plank of wood or whatever, it isn't going to gain market, and you *aren't* going to earn money. So, you would have to bring forward something that the public needs, or would have to convince the public that they need it, and the mass sure isn't stupid.

//I am sorry I can't give you a link to the study of the Havard University, because it's a closed study, not yet available on Internet because of its controversy among some economy professors. But I can guarantee you that what I am saying is the truth, nothing than the truth: Without Internet, the whole market in reach countries can meet serious problems.//

A controversial study that isn't published yet isn't a good source to base your argument onto.

//And why don't we just recognise all these points I just mentioned and accept the dangers and the power of technology?//

The technology is powerful, but just because something is powerful doesn't make us powerless. I have replied to all your arguments.

1. http://inventors.about.com...
2.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
kizamag

Pro

kizamag forfeited this round.
gerrandesquire

Con

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by gerrandesquire 5 years ago
gerrandesquire
I almost forgot that this has a 24 hour timeframe.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
kizamaggerrandesquireTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit fail
Vote Placed by baggins 5 years ago
baggins
kizamaggerrandesquireTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: All the points raised by Pro were addressed. Arguments to Con. Pro forfeited and thus loses conduct.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
kizamaggerrandesquireTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit, this could have been a solid debate without the abandon.
Vote Placed by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
kizamaggerrandesquireTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit