The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Will technology destroy 'democracy' as we know it?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/28/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 234 times Debate No: 87373
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




As most people know - no nation has a 'true democracy'. There will always be some sort of corruption involved. But that's not what I'm here to debate with you. My believes is that with time - technology will triumph humans, and will eventually give us (directly/indirectly) a new ideology - utopia, if you will.


I don't think I can agree with what you said. Quote: " nation has a 'true democracy'. There will always be some sort of corruption involved."
You are stating a categorical truth with no real supporting evidence here. I want to know how you arrived to this conclusion and to see some sources... is what I would say if we were debating this subject.

Quote: "My believes is that with time - technology will triumph humans, and will eventually give us (directly/indirectly) a new ideology - utopia, if you will."
What is the method with which technology "triumphs" humans? People are the ones programming the software so unless you program it so, it won't do such a thing. I think your arguments are based on this hypothetical situation happening, so let's go and have a debate about whether or not this situation could happen. If it happened, it would (arguably) cause what you describe as "technology triumphing humans", so the fastest way of going about this (as you put only two turns into this debate, we have to keep it concise). Let's go from there. How would technology give people a new ideology and using what definition is "utopia" one?

I would argue (as I am the "Con"-man here) that it is next to impossible that this would ever happen. Let's look at the facts: People are the ones programming software and technology can not do anything past its' programming, therefor we can conclude with these axioms in place that a human (or a group of people) would actively have to make computation devices that tried to "triumph" (I think you mean "triumph over" or alternatively "trump") humans. In that case I don't think it'd be technology "triumphing" over anything as much it would be people "triumphing" (sorry I use that so much, I want to refute what you said so I am using your words in my counter-arguments to you) over themselves. You may call that semantics, but I don't think it counts as such.

It may just be because I am a realist (also known as a pessimist), when I say that computers are not going to advance to the point where they can program themselves with new programs to effectively "learn" beyond the limits we give them. Computers (and the reason why I spend so much time talking about computers and not technology in general is because I think that the hardware is the easy part. If computers were as capable as people in thinking and coming up with things, they would have overthrown us already) are such tightly controlled things, that if you have ever seen anyone program anything, everything has to be put in. The program can not perform actions it has not been taught to deal with. That is the one flaw with all of these "technology versus people" -novels, -books and -movies. I have lost interest in them just because I can not suspend my disbelief about this factor.

Just some things for you to consider.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for joining.

First off all I'd like to inform you that I am pro democracy, but that it is about to change for the better!

As to your first respond on 'no nation has a 'true democracy', what I'm referring to is basically money. Money - in what ever form - has become our way of surviving, it's our source to survive - it's not food that keeps us thriving, it's money. And with this global 'scheme' starting with the banking foundation(s) - (though it's a valid and effective system) - it SHOUTS corruption. The reason for this is as easy as this - consider your self in this position - you have a lot of money;power, and you'd like to find out how you can take this new technology arising, and use it to your advantage. They knew that the globalization was eminent, and acted upon it as such - giving birth to national/international banks. It is these banks and other organizations (especially in the US) that really have the 'power' or call to action. They control the money flow. As for direct corruption, I have a very good example from the US - not to long ago. One name - George W. Bush jr. - My bet is the majority of the nation was very surprised when he won the election(?). The thing is - I have a friend, who's mother worked tight up against the polls and validation system of the votes - and hear this: they got the message to discard any votes that was remotely out of order - so if a card was clipped, slightly out of place of the sampled grid on the vote sheet, it would be discarded - in other words they manipulated the votes so that Bush won the election, class A corruption. This woman also fled to Belgium when she found out Bush won the election - and I quote: 'I did not want to live in a corrupt nation, and I knew what Bush could do, so I got out'. So the mentality here is - Bush was not the brightest man - so the elected few who control the nations economic interest thought Bush would be a perfect pushover and 'puppet' as he was easy to maneuver. Every nation in the world fights for economical positioning and (for the most part) the well being of their citizens, this is great and all - but the fact that corruption is taking place is unavoidable. And as the US has taking the position of being the 'world police' - there is no doubt that their warfare has economical benefits for the country(?). They indirectly (if not directly) create feuds in the middle-east, and use economical 'headman' to get their hand on the lovely necessary cash.
As we live in a modern civilized world, - it's easy to be naive - as our (for most of us) life quality is good. My logic is this - without corruption, warfare, at any level, would not exist.

So for my second statement 'technology will triumph humans' - I'm not talking about AI's here taking over the world - as you said, they are created by us, and will therefore always be under our control. But I'm talking about a free currency based system - that is not controlled by the government/banks. And I think something like bitcoin will be our saviour here. With a bitcoin-like system the money flow goes directly between peer & peer without going by the banks - this gives trading (as in exchanging one material for another - groceries for money) a more liberating and fair angle.

Most of the 'corrupt democracy' has been due to the economical benefits of raw material e.g OIL as one of the big ones. But as we thrive in our technology department, much of these needs goes away, as we find more clever, and self sufficient ways of sustaining our selves - no need to create hitman for more power (they will indeed figure this out in time, when new generations rise to the political tops)

If you want to know why I'm so optimistic please read the article on the bottom - it will explain (in detail) what the world will become in a couple of decades. I do not think you are aware of what's about to happen - things will definitely change, as everything we feel and see around us will be self sustainable and eventually free (almost).

As for when the political change of events will occur, is unknown at this time, but I'm betting it will be within the next 50 years.


OpinionatedChap forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by OpinionatedChap 7 months ago
Argh, was so busy with work that I couldn't make it in time. Was an interesting subject, too. How sad.
No votes have been placed for this debate.