The advancement of technology only leads to the harm of our habitat
Debate Rounds (5)
Thank you pro for this very interesting debate. I accept and will be arguing that Technology doesn't always lead to the harm of our habitat.
I affirm this resolution on the premise that history proves technology only leads to the the destruction of our habitat
Observation: The habitat I speak of includes its inhabitants as well.
First note that weapons only lead to the destruction of a habitat or its inhabitants ie: guns kill living creatures, knifes do to, as well as axes(which can harm a habitat as well).
More modern inventions (the car, power plants, etc.) pollute the Earth which harms a habitat.
Finally, things such as solar panels, bridges, wind turbines, phones, computers an etc. cause pollution through their creation and all require resources which leads back to harming the habitat. So, i place this burden on my opponent:
The Con must give one example that does not harm the habitat in anyway.
If he fails to do so, the Pro wins. Thank you and I await the Con response.
Thank you for the timely response and I wish you luck as well.
Before I begin since no definitions are given I will be providing definitions
With this Affirmative statement Pro is trying to Prove an absolute so therefore I will only have to prove an exception. I would also argue that Pros statement "The Con must give one example that does not harm the habitat in anyway." is in conflict with the Affirmative statement. The argument is not about how technology currently effects Habitats but where it leads or finally ends or the final result for example building green energy and technologies will lead to the eventually ending of harm on the habitat, not the ultimate ending of harm.
I would also like to point out that the word habitat in the affirmative statement does not read as environment, an environment is what surrounds where a plant or animal lives, but is instead a subjective term A Particular type of environment as a home for organisms. So the environment of humans would be cities, industrial centers villages, etc.
Firstly Technology is not always a physical product as Pro will try to conclude technology is only the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes. For example the technique of breeding plants to increase plant yield benefits the habitat. As the plant yields more food or fruit it can be used to feed not only humans but insects, deer, and other wild animals. The breeding of these plants would require no physical tools and therefore not cause any harm to the environments. Pro has to declare how breeding greater yielding plants negatively impacts a habitat or species therein.
My Second argument would be that eventually the advancement of technology will lead away from harm of habitats by physical technologies. Yes we are truly in a world where most, certainly not all technologies can lead to harm, but that is failing to address the future which is clearly hinted at by the word he used in his Affirmative statement "Leads". I assert that as technology advances we will eventually be able to Harvest Metals, and resources from other planets. Due to current knowledge, other planets in our solar system are filled with precious metals. Mars is one example of a planet that has Ore resources that can be used to manufacture green safe technologies here on earth. Due to the fact Mars is uninhabitable we would destroy no habitats and technology would lead to the betterment of our habitats here on earth. Also I urge the audience to think of the advancement of technology that we have today
If I failed to read the Statement correctly I will provide arguments for potential meanings For example. If the Statement was meant to be read The advancement of technology (Exclusively) leads to the Harm of (Human) Habitats. I would argue that currently Technologies not only affect Humans but other animal habitats as well. Also, if the statement read like this I would argue that technology does not Exclusively harm our habitat therefore it would positively effect it. Technology helps us because a habitat is what is regarded as a home for a species which is entirely subjective, and our Home has changed from being nomadic in forests into living in cities, villages, and towns, this is our Optimal habitat and technology only helps us in this habitat by providing abundances of food and shelter. Due to the fact humans now live in a technologically dependant era it would harm the habitat by taking technology away.
Due to the theoretical and philosophical nature of this argument my links will be few but Wikipedia.org is more accurate than encyclopedia Britannica 
I'm sorry for the delayed response. But let's jump right into it.
I can agree with most of my opponents definitions, but his definitions for lead and only are a bit vague so i will provide better definitions.
lead- to serve as a channel for
only-inevitably, although unfortunate or undesirable
With this the resolution becomes interpreted like so:
The (Improvement) of (the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes) (inevitably, although unfortunate or undesirable) (serves as a channel for) the harm of (the human races') (Environment regarded as home for organisms).
Alright now to his Contention 1. He states that my argument does not focus on on how technology currently effects habitats. Yet I fear he must read the resolution over. These can still be provided to be cases that lead to harm on the enviroment. Further more, he goes on to focus on how technology will affect the future. Finally, I've also stated how they currently affect the enviroment. Thus my argument stands.
On to his Contention 2. I did not see how this was an attack on me, but I will provide a response. First, our habitat means the Earth in total since
1) Human influence extends into habitats not inhabited by humans
and 2) Human habitat is influenced by habitats not inhabited by humans.
Under this, the purpose of this resolution is to state that technology only leads to harming a habitat, any habitat one can choose, not only a specific habitat. Thus, the Con has the burden of proving one example where tecnology does not create harm towards any habitats.
On to his arguments.
His first argument. The physical product is considered technology due to the fact that its technology put to use. Therefore, I limit this debate to applied technology. The example he gave sadly is extra resolutional because it only benefits the inhabitants, not the habitat. My observation states that living organisms can be an extension of the habitat, but it must also show a change towards the habitat itself. Since this example does not do so, drop it.
His second argument. Con only states it will lead to harvesting other planets for Ore. One must remember however that this requires creating shuttles with Earthern Ore(harming the habitat) and the harvested ore will be used to create more technology which will lead to the harm of habitats. His urge to focus on current technology will make the audience realize that all current technology is harmful to a habitat. Thus you vote Pro.
The alternative argument can be dropped, because the Con has the BoP that technology solely leads to benefits without any harm occuring. Since he has not done so within this argument nor throughout his case and rebuttals, you clearly denote that the Pro is winning. His "taking technology away" point is extra resolutional since the Pro only seeks to prove that technology leads to harming the habitat.
My observation stands that a habitat includes animals. Yet the point was to state technology not only harms a habitat, but it harms animals as well. Therefor, the opponent must link how an effect on animals leads to an effect on the habitat, because the overall goal is to prove how technology harms the enviroment. If he fails to do so, drop all arguments speaking on harming animals(and not the habitat).
I am winning on the fact that:
-Con never addressed my burden, thus he has not fulfilled it.
-Con has not provided sufficient argumentation towards the Pro.
-No refutation on the Pro means that the Pro is fulfilling his burden.
I am also sorry for the delayed response and will try to break down your rebuttals as thoroughly as possible. I can agree with Pros definitions although they seem to have gotten more vague than that of clarity, also changing none of my points.
Channel: V Direct toward a particular end or object
So lead would read as
Lead: to serve as a direction toward a particular end or object
Only: inevitably(same as exclusively)
Also seeing as this will come up later
Burden of proof: A duty placed upon a defendant to prove or disprove a disputed fact.
I fear my Opponent has failed to see the meaning behind my statements and I will elaborate.
My Opponent stated that Technology only Leads to the harm of our habitat, my first Contention was that of clarification If I push someone on the ground to prevent them from being hit by a boss, the harm I provided at the present was to prevent future harm which would benefit the person I pushed. For even more clarification if we dig minerals and resources to build green, renewable self replicating technologies it will eventually lead to the end of harming our habitat.
This certainly was not an attack or argument against Con but rather one of providing a definition for a future argument Contentions aren't the argument themselves but the facts/reasoning that supports an argument. Pro asserts that "Human influence extends into habitats not inhabited by humans" This alone does not prove anything, just because something has influence doesn't make it part of its habitat for example the mars rover influenced the surface of mars this however does not make mars our habitat. and "2) Human habitat is influenced by habitats not inhabited by humans. Under this, the purpose of this resolution is to state that technology only leads to harming a habitat, any habitat one can choose, not only a specific habitat." but by your Resolution "Our Habitat" you are in turn choosing a habitat because what is considered a habitat is solely dependant on what the organism is.(Refer to habitat definition) He also stated "Thus, the Con has the burden of proving one example where technology does not create harm towards any habitats." I argue that I have prove this point and that Con just disregards it without providing any logic to why it is discredited.
"His first argument. The physical product is considered technology due to the fact that its technology put to use. Therefore, I limit this debate to applied technology." Pro tries to wiggle out of my proof and only strengthen my argument, Yes the better offspring of the plant is a physical result of applied technology that has no Harmful or Negative effect on the habitat. "The example he gave sadly is extra resolutional because it only benefits the inhabitants, not the habitat." I would argue that the plant helps the habitat by increasing niche capacity, the plan or as Pro would call it Applied technology actually has become part of the habitat itself and has helped improve the habitat thus no negative effect is known. "My observation states that living organisms can be an extension of the habitat, but it must also show a change towards the habitat itself." The change is increased Niche capacity and more plant life to support the inhabitants. Again how successful a habitat is, is solely dependant on the organism, Further Clarification for Pro, A Flood would be a harmful effect on our habitat, but in turn be a positive effect for the fish, alligator habitat providing a larger niche, and surface area to live in, again habitat is completely subjective. Therefore this argument stands and no rebuttal from Pro has broken it down.
"Con only states it will lead to harvesting other planets for Ore. One must remember however that this requires creating shuttles with Earthern Ore(harming the habitat) and the harvested ore will be used to create more technology which will lead to the harm of habitats. His urge to focus on current technology will make the audience realize that all current technology is harmful to a habitat." Again I believe Pro has failed to read his own resolution and my argument my point was one of potentiality, that not all roads lead to one conclusion as his Resolution would demand "The advancement of technology only leads to the harm of our habitat" My argument again goes back to the Bus analogy eventually the Harm will cease, only due to the fact that we are increasing technology now. Think of it like this now that we are so invested in technology it would be impossible to stop where we are at now and positively effect the habitat. This new argument is one of entropy if we continue as we are now with no advances in technology the habitat will surely be destroyed. However because technology advances we continue to get greener and cleaner resources, until one day that we will not harm the habitat at all. Pro ironically continues to argue the present harm of technology without looking at the potential success and harmony it can have in the future completely contradictory to his statement which focuses on the future. "His urge to focus on current technology will make the audience realize that all current technology is harmful to a habitat" I reiterate this point due to its significance not to my fault but to Pros, Pros urge to focus on current technologies harm will make people blind to the gifts it has in store in the future, I hope the audience realises this point.
"The alternative argument can be dropped, because the Con has the BoP that technology solely leads to benefits without any harm occurring. Since he has not done so within this argument nor throughout his case and rebuttals, you clearly denote that the Pro is winning. "That is not the burden of proof, the burden of proof is for me to find one case that technology doesn't lead to the exclusive harm of a habitat and I have given 3, on the note of Pro dismantling my arguments and rebuttals one look no further than my points above.
" My observation stands that a habitat includes animals. Yet the point was to state technology not only harms a habitat, but it harms animals as well. Therefore, the opponent must link how an effect on animals leads to an effect on the habitat, because the overall goal is to prove how technology harms the environment. If he fails to do so, drop all arguments speaking on harming animals(and not the habitat)." A habitat by definition is what surrounds a specific organism so yes animals living within a organisms habitat makes it part of the habitat, this has no effect on any of my arguments whatsoever. Pro continues to try and throw multiple Burden of proofs on me when the resolution only calls for one which I have provided, Audience should note this paragraph is one of desperation not one of argumentation.
I am winning on the fact that:
-Con never addressed my burden, thus he has not fulfilled it.
-Con has not provided sufficient argumentation towards the Pro.
-No refutation on the Pro means that the Pro is fulfilling his burden. "
If Pro was more focused on debating the issue at hand rather than trying to please the audience he would have brought more powerful rebuttals. I am not here to win arguments or debates but am here to voice reason and logic.
Also I would note not to penalize me this round for lack of sources, this was due to the fact that no new points were introduced and it was a complete reinforcement of my original argument
For clarification as well as an easier way to link the points, I will move down Con's layout.
I don't see a link between the resolution and the burden stated, nor did Con provide any, so drop this point.
So my opponent gave an example of harming an individual to save him from the harm about to occur, which proves that, nonetheless, the action leads to the individual's harm. In the same way, harming our habitat to save it from harm, nonetheless, led to the habitat's harm. Thus, the Pro is winning this point.
The point of a contention is to contend(argue;rival against). Thus, this should not have been a contention, but an observation or analysis. Nontheless, it is being argued now so it shall remain as one. His refutation on my first analysis can be dropped since the idea that human influence extends into other habitats creates the understanding that humans can be found in places where they do not reside, turning this into their habitat. To his refutation of my second point, my point was stating that other habitats can be involved since human influence extends to them. Some examples include: human expansion, wildlife reserves, human actions towards harvesting resources. Thus, other habitats are included under the human habitat since human influence extends to those habitats. So "Our Habitat" involves others as well since human reach is quite vast as well as still growing. Thus, the Pro is winning this point.
Since the opponent wants to push this as a physical product (being the plant), then i shall show as to why this leads to harming our habitat. Note that 1)Our habitat involves areas of our influence ie:where we planted the plant. Also not that 2) other habitats influence our own. Furthermore, planting that very plant does several things: creates an imbalance in the soil pH, takes nutrients from other plants, creates an imbalance in the population, creates more competition not only among other plants but animals as well(to inhabitat the plant, recieve food from it, and etc.). Clearly, these can all be denoted as harmful effects on other habitats and thus, the eample is disproven as being an effective one. The flood point states habitat is subjective, yet we must refer to "Our Habitat" as the subject, so this point was clarified and since no further argumentation is left, the Pro is winning this point.
I urge to focus on current technology as a prelude to future advancements. "Greener" only means using different resources with less side effects as an outcome of use. Being truly green means no side effects of using the item/object/material, yet it must still be harvested from some source "creating harm". Furthermore, as technology advances to influence other planets, those planets become a part of our habitat as they become vital to our survival. Thus, it becomes an extension of our habitat and its sole purpose would be to provide ores(causing harm to the extension of our habitat). Thus, the Pro is winning this point.
Seeing as my opponents examples have all been dropped, under either BoP, the Con is failing in upholding his case and again, you denote the Pro is winning.
Its quite funny that Con throws away my next statement on the same grounds that I wanted to throw away his second contention. Clearly the Con must look to his own statement "This certainly was not an attack or argument against Con but rather one of providing a definition for a future argument Contentions aren't the argument themselves but the facts/reasoning that supports an argument." So disregard his point that he does not see it as an attack, because 1)he did so to my statement on his Contention 2 and 2)Its a BoP, it doesn't have to attack his arguments, it provides limits and goals the Con must achieve. So note it wasn't a "cry of desperation" as Con tries to persuade the audience, but rather a limit as to what my opponent can argue about as well as what he must further explain. The audience should note this unexplained dismissal as a cry of desperation since my opponent never argued it. Is my opponent admitting he can not uphold this burden?
"If Pro was more focused on debating the issue at hand rather than trying to please the audience he would have brought more powerful rebuttals. I am not here to win arguments or debates but am here to voice reason and logic." Another unexplained refutation that should be noted as the opponent agreeing the Pro is winning. He provided no refutation to my voting points, stated "he wants to voice reason and logic" which he clearly fails to do and thus you extend all my voting points and add these two:
1)Con forfeits twice to the Pro
2)Con clearly maintains flawed logic which he can not properly uphold and that has been disproven by the Pro.
Due to this, you clearly vote Pro.
Also note that this round was an extension of last round's sources, so please do not penalize me for this.
Due to the back in forth Banter I will provide further explanations for why my case is true and why Pros resolution is false.
My first point is that my opponent is arguing an absolute truth, an absolute truth is impossible to prove because one can not know how something was effected in the past or the future, making arguing such a resolution impossible, to do so would mean Pro would have to have known every possible reality, every possible outcome and every possible source which is itself theoretically impossible. Pro has tried to get another easy win(See eradicating humans will end human suffering) which will not allow him to do. Pro argues with statements that seem to be impossible to win but I have shown in this debate that Captain Kurt was right it is possible to win the impossible scenario, also note that I have refused to use illogical semantics to twist the original meaning. As Pro would say Thus Con is winning.
Contention One only served as a loose analogy the point was that Pro cannot know every possible outcome of every situation, One action that doesn't have to be harmful such as a push can lead to the best possible outcome for a habitat.
Pro clumsily tries to though away my argument by saying that our sphere of influence makes everything our habitat, The definition of habitat doesn't read "The sphere of influence that is effected by the organism is its habitat" what the Pro is slyly trying to do here is change the definition of a habitat. The definition accepted read as "A particular type of environment regarded as a home for organisms" Our sphere of influence doesn't make anything else our home, so in this Case my argument still stands and our current habitat or home is cities, buildings, and all things created by technology. Please do not be fooled by his very sly tactics.
Pro assumes that I am talking about planting a plant when I only stated Cross-breeding to elaborate further that would be taking pollen form one plant and taking it to another, no planting occurred at all. On the soil pH I would refer Pro to a research paper conducted by Ray Dybzinski · Joseph E. Fargione · Donald R. Zak Dario Fornara · David Tilman. They discovered that Plant variety actually positively effects the soils increasing fertility. Now as for the Flood analogy I thought this was simple, imagine we are the crocodile for If we expand our Habitat by destroying others habitat it is a positive effect on our habitat Pro does not deny this in fact he agrees with it only pointing out that we are the subject "The flood point states habitat is subjective, yet we must refer to "Our Habitat" as the subject, so this point was clarified and since no further argumentation is left, the Pro is not(made a slight change here thought it was needed) winning this point."
Pro tries to derail argument two by saying lets focus on current technologies so I will do so, Scientists have recently discovered a fungi's that Eats plastic, this is a completely green applied technology that has no negative impact on the habitat and actually reduces landfills. Also I would like to note that taking seeds from a fungus has no harm at all as Pro will try to argue. "Furthermore, as technology advances to influence other planets, those planets become a part of our habitat as they become vital to our survival. Thus, it becomes an extension of our habitat and its sole purpose would be to provide ores(causing harm to the extension of our habitat). Thus, the Pro is winning this point." This argument is invalid for one reason there is no life on mars at all, If we do finally start mining on Mars and humans are their mining will still have no negative effect on our habitat because nothing there is alive to be harmed other than humans that only receive positive benefits from this transaction, please feel free to read the definitions.
Pro asserts that my Bop is there to keep me in check and gives me boundaries, I ask the voters to look no further than the Resolution that gives me no such restrictions, my only burden of proof is disproving the resolution that is it, no matter how much Pro would like to change that due to his arguments.
As the voters can clearly read the series of events from Top to body we can all deduce that Pro thought this was going to be an easy win, when I posted by First argument I caught him off guard his first move wasn't to try to disprove my arguments but rather throw them out because they proved him wrong, when I showed him that he couldn't throw out the arguments because they were completely valid we all saw how he tried to discreetly change the definition no habitat and add multiple burden of proofs. Pro stated that I had an unsupported claim that he was here for an easy win even though you can tell by reading every single argument he has to add thus pro is winning, I am fully confident that the voter can decide who is winning on their own accord and not have Pro tell them t who to vote for. I stated I'm not here to win I'm here to voice reason and show logic, and Pro stated I have failed to do that but I argue I am the only one here who voices reason and logic Pro stumbles on argument points, tries to randomly change unwanted definitions, and has to constantly remind the audience of why he will not win this debate. I have not forfeited at all to pro in fact not a single one of my arguments has been credibly refuted.
Vitreous forfeited this round.
I extend my arguments.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Viper-King 4 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||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit plus Pro had BOP and tried to lay it onto the Con. The Con even went to the degree to take the BOP and prove it. Con also successfully had a more organized and stronger case. Also Con had 8 sources while Pro had 5.
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.