The Instigator
MASTERY
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
The_Scapegoat_bleats
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

Technology should be completely banned.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
The_Scapegoat_bleats
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/14/2014 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,179 times Debate No: 49088
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (3)

 

MASTERY

Con

Welcome to the debate
First round is for defining, last round for conclusions. I define technology as "Electronic or digital products and systems ". I define banned as "prohibited by law".

Thank you.
The_Scapegoat_bleats

Pro

I accept on the condition that we use the following definition of "law", in accordance with H.L.A. Hart's "The Concept Of Law", "one of the most influential works in modern legal philosophy" [1] and Merriam-Webster's Dictionary.

My definition:

"Law" is a set of rules made by the government of a town, state, country, etc., the aims of which contain "the human survival" [2].


[1]: http://books.google.de...
page xv
[2]: same place, page xxxv
Debate Round No. 1
MASTERY

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting my debate and I accept his conditions.

So, why should technology not be banned? Technology provides us with much faster communication and research. (1) We can simply turn on the computer and send messages, or call someone. If technology was banned, none of this would be possible. We would have to go the old fashioned slow communication - by letter. How would you feel withdrawing from your online presence and sending letters which take days to arrive? This is just how important technology is - and the consequences from banning it.

(1) http://www.ask.com...

Thank you
The_Scapegoat_bleats

Pro

The first humans emerged around 1.6 million years ago, with the appearance of "homo erectus" who spread "over two continents" [1].
We achieved domination over the world by the "Iron Age", which was roughly 5000 years ago [3].

Mankind thrived then and there were plenty of resources for everybody, and richer wildlife and plantlife than today, due to our most modern "advances" [4]. We started poisoning Earth, beginning with mining only 200 years ago [3]. Before that, we lived "in times of prosperity and peace" [3].

Electronics are fairly new to the game of destroying our planet [5], but have peaked in the last 30 years, with the mass production of computers in the 1980's. In this time we have turned the tables around:
Electronic waste is generated by the tenth of millions of tons each year, and crude recycling sets free toxic pollutants
[6].
The results are disastrous. Not only do the pollutants like heavy metals poison plantlife and wildlife, they lead to damage to the human DNA, resulting in cancer and the risk of hereditary diseases and mutation [6].
We can estimate that we're wasting drinking water by insane amount sufficient to supply a minimum of 6.500.000.000 [7][8]. That's 9.3 times more people than we have.

If law contains as one of its aims the human survival, we must act quickly and put a stop to this. This can only be done by banning electronic and digital devices. Only if no one has access to it, there will be a durable and fair solution.


[1]: http://humanorigins.si.edu...
[2]: http://www.historytoday.com...
[3]: http://www.seafriends.org.nz...
[4]: http://wwf.panda.org...
[5]: http://inventors.about.com...
[6]: https://www.iop.org...
[7]: http://www.dosomething.org...
[8]: http://everylittledrop.com.au...
Debate Round No. 2
MASTERY

Con

REBUTTAL

We started poisoning Earth, beginning with mining only 200 years ago. Before that, we lived "in times of prosperity and peace".

Electronics are fairly new to the game of destroying our planet , but have peaked in the last 30 years, with the mass production of computers in the 1980's. In this time we have turned the tables around:
Electronic waste is generated by the tenth of millions of tons each year, and crude recycling sets free toxic pollutants.
The results are disastrous. Not only do the pollutants like heavy metals poison plantlife and wildlife, they lead to damage to the human DNA, resulting in cancer and the risk of hereditary diseases and mutation.
We can estimate that we're wasting drinking water by insane amount sufficient to supply a minimum of 6.500.000.000 . That's 9.3 times more people than we have.

Banning technology is by far way too extreme, no-one would have ANY access to technology even digital clocks. Digital clocks certainly do not cause much waste or poison plantlife and wildlife. Limiting technology would be much better on cutting down pollution and providing some advanced things. For example, we could all be limited to, say, a mobile phone. That would cut down on pollution but still provide useful advance technology.


CONCLUSION
In conclusion, limiting but not banning technology is the way to go. Not only do we cut down on pollution, we still have the communication, and digital advantages that banning technology does not. With just a mobile phone we can plan, organise, share, research and receive information. We can also call anyone at any time. This is the advantages of limiting but not banning technology

Thank you.
The_Scapegoat_bleats

Pro

My opponent shows the typical ignorance for the situation we face.
Digital clocks - like any other electronic device, are toxic E-waste [1], but most of it ends up in landfills, poisoning our ecosystem [2].

The "solution" my opponent proposes is naive. Allowing people cellphones means we still need factories to produce those, which means their plastic components, their circuitry, their displays etc. All those are DIFFERENT factories, so we wouldn't really cut down on the pollution one bit. All these factories need water (microchip wafers need to be rinsed with ultra-pure-water for 30-50 times) which cannot be used twice for technical reasons and is hard to filter in a way that it can be released into the environment without harm [3].
We need power-plants to feed those factories and the phones. We need transmitter masts, satellites, webservers in order to operate phones and have data to access.
On Google alone "the 300 million searches we do a day take 150 000 liters" of water [4].
If we retain cellphones in use, those alone make up a little under 1% of all E-waste [5]. But the industry behind them is huge and rests on the shoulders of our water-wasting electricity infrastructure.
By adding still more E-waste every day, how are we supposed to ever clean up what we already have? Cellphones alone make up 20000 tons of E-waste every year.

We conquered this planet without electricity. So we have proof we can live without it and still prevail. We have no conclusive evidence that we will survive the poisoning of our eco-system through E-waste. We need to ban technology and eliminate it gradually. Utterly.


[1]: http://www.brighthub.com...
[2]: http://www.abc.net.au...
[3]: http://infohouse.p2ric.org...
[4]: http://spectrum.ieee.org...
[5]: http://www.electronicstakeback.com...
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
pro has stronger diction and more sources. Although I disagree with him, he has won against mastery.
Posted by The_Scapegoat_bleats 2 years ago
The_Scapegoat_bleats
I totally agree.
Posted by simpleguy 2 years ago
simpleguy
Zendayalover156's vote is extremely skewed and biased rather than analysing the arguments given and really should be discounted.
Posted by The_Scapegoat_bleats 2 years ago
The_Scapegoat_bleats
Because this is not about "right" or "wrong".
I'm only being the devil's advocate here. It's about argumentation, sources and being able to get a point across.
Should we actually ban all technology? Probably not, but that's not the idea of debating.
The idea is to hone our debating skills without using foul language, giving no reasons at all and trying to insult other members.
Please try to consider that. Thanks!
Posted by Dishoungh 2 years ago
Dishoungh
That is bullcrap. How is Pro winning?
Posted by MASTERY 2 years ago
MASTERY
I would like to wait if possible until the

Microsoft vb<x>script compilation error '800a03e9'
Out of memory
/errors/500/default.asp, line 0
Microsoft vb<x>script compilation error '800a03e9'
Out of memory
/debates/debate/default.asp, line 0

error has disappeared so I can use the onsite spellchecker. I used an external spellchecker last time which destroyed my formatting. If that is not possible, I will carefully use another external spellchecker.
Posted by MASTERY 2 years ago
MASTERY
Also, the spellcheck isn't working. Compilation errors.
Posted by MASTERY 2 years ago
MASTERY
I apologize for forgetting to select the 5 round tab.
Posted by The_Scapegoat_bleats 2 years ago
The_Scapegoat_bleats
Drat, my autocorrect made a mistake. It's "tens of millions", not "tenth". I wish we had an edit feature. Oh, well, it can't be helped.
Posted by Dishoungh 2 years ago
Dishoungh
This debate is pointless. Technology makes everything easier in life including phones and computers. I know you said you mean technology as of electronics and digital products. But, still, those things help our infrastructure, our economy, and military defense. So, you're saying that you still want us to throw away all of our iphones, computers, fighter jets, etc.? Ah yeah, medicine is also a technology. You want us to get sick? You want us to die?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 2 years ago
Seeginomikata
MASTERYThe_Scapegoat_bleatsTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro point that people and the planet would be better off are both ridiculous. Pollution on the industrial scale started two hundred years before electricity. People of the past had much shorter lifespans because their lives were dangerous and hard. Constant tribal warfare and mass starvation of the pre-industrial era is not what I'd call "peace and prosperity". Con point that digital technology helps people overrides weak pro points.
Vote Placed by judeifeanyi 2 years ago
judeifeanyi
MASTERYThe_Scapegoat_bleatsTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Though technology should not be banned but on this debate, con won
Vote Placed by Defro 2 years ago
Defro
MASTERYThe_Scapegoat_bleatsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: The only source provided by Con was ask.com, which is not a reliable source. Pro provided several credible sources that supports his arguments. Both Pro and Con provided separate points. Con argued that technology makes communication more convinient. Pro argued that it harms the planet. Therefore, this was a debate about which one outweighed the other. Con did not refute Pro's point effectively, because Pro easily discredits Con's rebuttal in the next round, followed by another valid point that supports the definition he provided of the term "law".