The Instigator
audreyyy4211
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bluenor
Pro (for)
Winning
26 Points

technological advancements

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 6 votes the winner is...
bluenor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2014 Category: Technology
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 659 times Debate No: 67470
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (1)
Votes (6)

 

audreyyy4211

Con

It is arguable that technology can be both good and. It has help bring medicines that save lives and it also allows us to communicate with the people we can't see everyday. Even with those amazing things, technology is still really bad for us. The medical advancements caused superbugs that can only be cure by more medical advancements and will only lead to more supebugs. Also , communicating with people you can't see often is nice but most people use their phones for much more than that. People use their phones to text the same person 24/7 which is very unnecessary. People also use their phones to go on social media all the time. They forget how to communicate with people in the real world a lot of the time. Having this much technology has poisoned this generations brains into thinking t at we cannot live without our phones. Most people wouldn't leave their house without their phone. Some technology like light and ovens and heat/cooling are very beneficial to us. But things like cells phones and ipads are very unnecessary and are becoming more detrimental.
bluenor

Pro

What's your point. You simply stated both sides of the argument proving both sides of the argument. The question is, do you agree or not? Anyways, here my argument for the pro side.

You stated, " The medical advancements caused superbugs that can only be cure by more medical advancements and will only lead to more supebugs. Also , communicating with people you can't see often is nice but most people use their phones for much more than that. People use their phones to text the same person 24/7 which is very unnecessary. People also use their phones to go on social media all the time. They forget how to communicate with people in the real world a lot of the time. Having this much technology has poisoned this generations brains into thinking t at we cannot live without our phones. Most people wouldn't leave their house without their phone. Some technology like light and ovens and heat/cooling are very beneficial to us. But things like cells phones and ipads are very unnecessary and are becoming more detrimental."

What in the world are superbugs? You never defined them... What you just stated about superbugs made 0 sense. Since I am the pro side... Our human race would not be able to survive without medical advancements in technology. Look at the Black Plague or the Potato Famine. They are simple sicknesses to cure nowadays but back then the Europeans did not have any medical knowledge or technology. Thats why 2/3 of Europe died during the Black Plague... You have no facts lol. People did not forget how to communicate with other people; people choose not to. All you have to do is put your phone down and go outside. Not that hard. You said light and ovens and heat/cooling are very beneficial. This depends. Some emit radioactive waves. Our cell phone and necessary. How in the world are we going to connect with outer people without them? Without phones, we would be redoing pony express pretty much again.

Overall... Your argument is complete bias and opinion ._. and you didn't prove a single thing. You attempted to prove my side too. lol
Debate Round No. 1
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by allen73 2 years ago
allen73
This had so much potential for one to debate against technology, the advances of technology. Sure there are good things, but the con's do not out weigh the pro's.

Examples of how technology has impacted us, One, it has changed a lot of things as far as employment goes, technology is now capable of doing jobs that people once used to get paid for! Some argue, why would people want to do those jobs, well, it's not a point of want.

The mass production of cars, well, the mass production of anything for that matter. There used to be a time when a lot of aspect, specifically the auto industry was done by man, now is done by machines. Yes, this were tedious jobs and not as many vehicles were made, but when they were made that way they lasted longer than they seem to today.

The concept of teleconference while not necessarily a new technology is responsible for multiple corporation expanding their operations overseas, yet again an economic problem for the US.

The argument cell phones are necessary, sorry but completely untrue, we choose to incorporate them into our daily lives. Many fail to realize the fact of why Analog phones are more practical and in times are even safer. In the event of long term power outages an analog phone draws its power directly from the phone line. Now everything being digital, power goes out, you will lose it, cell phones, power goes out and you have no charge on that phone you did lose it. So to correct the statement of cell phones are necessary, it's phones that are necessary.

I can't cast a vote for a winner as this wasn't a debate, but the one active participant failed to prove or disprove his stance, half the argument is a recital of the opening used, the other seems largely based upon opinion itself.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Eli01 2 years ago
Eli01
audreyyy4211bluenorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession. Win for PRO
Vote Placed by BLAHthedebator 2 years ago
BLAHthedebator
audreyyy4211bluenorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con argued for both sides.
Vote Placed by jyotipatel 2 years ago
jyotipatel
audreyyy4211bluenorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Actually, whatever con said is acceptable but the matter is ; his points shows both sides good and bad that's the only thing and other side pro made good points..
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
Krazzy_Player
audreyyy4211bluenorTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made better arguments.
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
audreyyy4211bluenorTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has proved his position.
Vote Placed by Oliark 2 years ago
Oliark
audreyyy4211bluenorTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Basically Con conceded by proving Pro's point