The World Is Becoming Too Dependant On Technology
Debate Rounds (4)
I accept the debate. Since my opponent did not take the time to set the definitions, I will do so myself.
By "the world" I assume my opponent means mankind and not the actual physical earth.
Dependent: needing someone or something else for support, help, etc 
Technology: the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry 
Putt-Putt forfeited this round.
phantom forfeited this round.
In first world countries, specifically America, technology has become a striving factor of obesity and laziness throughout the country,
Now I realize that other factors play into the cause of overweight problems, television and computers and cellphones have played a part in the lack of exercise taking place in an American's life. Technology has not only taken a part in major life changing events, but may also hinder our advance of future sciences.
I will end my argument here, because I hope my opponent will return to the argument, and I do not want to use all of my arguments in the first round.
In light of the argument pro chose to make, I would like to remind viewers what exactly it is we're arguing about. The resolution relates to whether the world is becoming too dependent on technology. The debate is about technology as a whole, not whether dependence on technology causes negative outcomes in a few areas. We could certainly use technology more wisely sometimes, but that is not what the debate is about. Pro has to demonstrate that the upward dependence in technology causes more negatives than positives.
Pro's argument is unfortunately not very convincing in light of what I mentioned above. Mentioning one single factor, which also only applies to a select few countries, is not nearly enough to affirm the resolution. We're talking about technological dependency as a whole. Pro ignores everything else technology is needed for. What about all the technology going into weight loss and health itself? If we decrease our dependence in technology, the technology related to health will also have to be diminished, as in many other areas. Perhaps pro could argue that TV and computers contributes to sitting around too much, which contributes to lack of exercise, which contributes to health problems, but TV's and computers are also very beneficial in other ways, such as communicating, looking up resources, participating in online debates, getting entertainment, finding and distributing valuable information etc...There's just too much good about these things to call them negative.
Furthermore where technology causes problems, it is not necessarily only a result of too much dependence on technology, but also a misuse of it. What does my opponent propose? that we stop depending on technology to the point where people stop getting obese? One, that would never happen. Two, it would have dire consequences on the economy and scientific advancement. You cannot have growth without negative side effects. Technological dependency has great rewards but it's impossible not get trade-offs. What my opponent is saying is that we should be less dependent on technology so as to curb lazinness and health issues. He is not saying that we should just stop sitting around watching TV all day, or any of the other ways technology contributes to obesity. If he were, he would not be arguing in concordance to the resolution. The resolution says we are too dependent on technology, not that we should be more wise in our use of it. Therefore, pro is not simply arguing we should be more practical in our use of technology. It's not that easy. He's arguing we should stop depending on technology as much as we are so as to counteract the negatives. That's extremely drastic seeing as there are so many greater benefits to the negatives that he mentioned.
My opponent also utterly fails to elaborate, nor provide any basis whatsoever, to his claim that technology may hinder scientific advancement. That actually makes no sense at all. Technology is part of what helps us to advance in science. Since he provided nothing more than a claim, I see no reason to linger.
This debate is also about the world as a whole. Many of the worlds problems can be solved by technology especially in third world and developing countries and some problems in those countries are because of a direct lack of technology. For example, cellphones would make day to day business much easier for the many people who do not have them. In many African countries, only a small percentage own cellphones and not because they don't want them. Easier access to cellphones would make things allot easier. (http://www.nytimes.com...)
One article mentions five technological innovations that significantly impact developing nations. Cheap tablets and computers, alternate energy and improved sanitation could all greatly impact the developing world's education, environment, well-being and quality of life. [http://mashable.com...]
Technology is a force for education, efficiency, economic growth, well-being, environmental stability and scientific advancement. In all of those areas, the world could do with more technological dependence, especially in developing nations. For growth to occur, more technology is required and thus more technological dependence. My opponent needs to provide a much stronger argument than the one he presented last round in order to affirm the resolution. There is much more good in our dependence in technology than bad.
It is considered poor conduct to post new arguments in the last round, but my opponent seems to be planning to do so, stating that he doesn't want to use all his arguments in the first round. He should use his arguments before the last round since that is common etiquette and gives him a poor disadvantage since he'll have no chance to respond to my rebuttal.
Putt-Putt forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 2 years 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: Pro forfeited and didn't respond to Con's arguments.
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.