The excessive use of technology has resulted in degradation of moral values in youth
Debate Rounds (1)
-Sean Parker (Co-founder of Facebook)
In today"s era of technological advancement, world has been pacing towards development by leaps and bounds. The scientific gifts of electronic gadgets to the nature have reduced the large map of the world to a small global village.
As, too much of anything is also not good. So, sadly it is a one-sided story. Man has been completely ensnared by the cobwebs of computers,laptops,TV,mobile phones to such an extent that he is not able to wriggle out even to fulfill his social and moral obligations. As, soon as the child grows up enough to understand and analyse things, he notices one hand of his parents on the phone, the other hand punching keys on the laptop or in their free time they are glued to the TV screens. Tell me my dear opponents why these parents do not have time from their mobile conversations and TV shows to have a heart-to-heart conversation with their children to imbibe the moral values in them. I guess technology is the only answer.
As are the words of Mahatma Gandhiji "there is enough for everyone"s need but not for anyone"s greed."Similarly, the youth of today has been consumed by consumer ism and materialism to such an extent that his desires have become insatiable.Now, the child enters his teenage where emotions easily dominate over rationality and mobile phones become our best mates. WHY? This is so because in today"s world relationships are built on phones or through internet. I agree that these are a means to communicate, but now they are becoming the only means to communicate making 1 on 1 conversations less frequent, which are a prerequisite for humanism (moral values).I wouldn't be doing justice without mentioning the role of social networking sites in a teenagers and youth"s life. For e.g. FB at present has 500 million users, which is equivalent to the population of the 3rd largest country in the world. The result is that we don"t get time from facebooking and texting giving rise to the weeds of generation gap and cyber bullying.
Let me share with you a FB status to elaborate the generation gap."Last night my internet connection wasn't working, i spent time with my family; they seem to be nice people."For cyber bullying let me share with you, a true life incident. This recently took place in a renowned school in girl. There was a multifaceted, happy-go-lucky type of girl, who was about to be adjudged the school head girl. Then suddenly comes the shocking news that she has committed suicide.WHY? Because she was a victim of cyber bullying. Her opponent couldn't take her success and posted vulgar and personal stuff about her life on FB and she couldn't take it. This is just one incident, there are thousands of them taking place on a daily basis. Thus, it wouldn't be wrong to say that technology has instilled the sense of inhibition. This has further made us imbibe indiscipline, aggressiveness and selfishness instead of discipline, composure and selflessness.
Acc. to Nicholas Carr(author),Computers are rewinding our process of evolution by reducing our attention span and decision-making skills. Thus, it has been rightly said that "We have become the people unable to comprehend the technology we invent". Instead of building close ties with our family and friends, we are isolating ourselves by virtually creating a world where everything is possible except true friendships and social values. In the end I would like to conclude by saying that," DON"T LET THE KEYPADS AND KEYBOARDS BE THE KEY TO UR HEART"
My opponent unfortunately provides no sources, only emotional quotes, so you should reject my opponent's points from mere lack of sourcing. However, I'll go on to disprove each of these three points, and turn them AGAINST my opponent.
Technology reduces social interaction and increases consumerism. (Or not.)
My opponent defines social interaction as between people who are physically close. However, my opponent has not provided any reason why physical closeness is key to interaction, and admits that MORE interaction is possible when it's easier to contact people you know!
My opponent provides no reason why technology increases consumerism, rather than merely the availability of goods. I'd imagine that living in a capitalist society causes consumerism more than anything. Moreover, my opponent has not shown that consumerism is bad!
However, the increased availability of goods has MASSIVE benefits. For example, the average American is about 96% more wealthy today than two centuries ago . What comes with this new technology and new wealth? A people less ravaged by hunger, a people where pain and suffering are uncommon, where the average Westerner (ie, those who have been more largely exposed to technology) lives almost three times as long as their ancestors did a millenium ago .
Reject my opponent's first point.
Technology reduces human mental capacity. (Or not.)
IQ trends show the exact opposite. As life is less based on survival, we become more unbiased, scientific, and pattern-recognizing, as the IQ test measures . This upward trend (aka the Flynn Effect) is most extreme in people in developing countries, who are most rapidly gaining access to technology.
Reject my opponent's second point.
Technology and its effects cause a loss of altruism and increase of aggression. (Or not.)
If this was true, we should see rising crime rates and falling donation rates.
Donation rates are consistently going up, and consistently outpace economic growth .
Violent crimes are going down . So are teen pregnancy rates . So are burglaries . In fact, the increase of sales of video games generally correlates AGAINST violent crimes . So, in fact, the correlation between technology and aggression is NEGATIVE -- more technology, less crime.
Reject my opponent's third point.
Pro has failed to uphold the BoP. Vote Con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by voxprojectus 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||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Con was much better argued in terms of sourcing, layout, and rightfully calling out Pro for the lack of sourcing. Also, Pro, we don't "imbibe" our children with things unless we mean to force them to drink things. I'm reasonably sure you meant "Imbue" or "Instill". Just saying.
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.