The Instigator
tidehavenboy
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
Broken
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

technology is on the rise

Do you like this debate?NoYes-7
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/5/2009 Category: Technology
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,325 times Debate No: 10343
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (7)

 

tidehavenboy

Pro

As you may all know technology is everywhere. It is also done the following tasks by increasing by the day: taking tasks off people's hands, entertaining people, protecting people, and saving people. However, I did not include all the magnificent thing that technology has done for the world. This is why you should vote for the pro because I resolve that technology has substantially increased since 1960.

Definitions
technology-–noun 1. the branch of knowledge that deals with the creation and use of technical means and their interrelation with life, society, and the environment, drawing upon such subjects as industrial arts, engineering, applied science, and pure science.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

substantially-–adjective 1. of ample or considerable amount, quantity, size, etc.: a substantial sum of money.
Related forms:

substantialty, substantialness, noun
substantially, adverb
http://dictionary.reference.com...
Broken

Con

First, I would like to thank my opponent for instigating this debate. I would like to wish him good luck. I will first state my case and then refute me opponent's.

I. Definitions - I accept both of my opponent's definitions, however, I have noticed that he had failed to define "rise." Therefore, I shall offer my own definition.
Rise: to return from death (http://m-w.com...)
Knowledge: the sum of what is known (http://dictionary.reference.com...)

II. A. The topic is stated as "technology is on the rise." Technology, based on my opponent's definition, is a "branch of knowledge." Knowledge is the sum of what is known. It therefore can not return from death. Since technology can not return from death then it can not possibly be "on the rise."
B. In order to return from death, you must first die. Technology has never died and therefore can not return from death.

III. My opponent has failed to make a single argument of any relevancy to the topic. He has stated that "technology is everywhere." Whether it is here or there has nothing to do with returning from death. Even if it had, the very statement is wrong. Technology does not exist inside of a volcano. My opponent has stated that "It is also done the following tasks by increasing by the day: taking tasks off people's hands, entertaining people, protecting people, and saving people." The very statement does not make any sense. I ask my opponent to clarify what he means by this in the following round so I can properly refute it. He follows up by saying "However, I did not include all the magnificent thing that technology has done for the world." Whatever technology may have done is irrelevant to the topic. The topic is "technology is on the rise." By taking the pro side of the argument my opponent has the burden on proving that technology is returning from death. Whatever it may or may not have done for the world does not prove that is has returned from death. I have already stated that knowledge can not die, and therefore can not return from death. My opponent then states that you should vote for him "because I resolve that technology has substantially increased since 1960." It is not within his power to change the topic of the debate once it has started. The topic, at the moment of creation, was "technology is on the rise." He cannot change this and must debate the original topic.

IV. In conclusion, knowledge can not die. Also, you must first die to return from death. Technology has done neither the first nor the latter. Therefore, technology cannot be "on the rise." Also my opponent has failed to present a proper case and does not have a single contention in support of his case. Therefore, you should vote con.
Debate Round No. 1
tidehavenboy

Pro

My opponent is saying I'm off topic and i apologize if i had strayed. My opponent has said that i was not specific and i will now clarify this. What i ment by "on the rise" is, technology has and still is increasing. He/she also said that i needed to clarify "It is also done the following tasks by increasing by the day: taking tasks off people's hands, entertaining people, protecting people, and saving people." What i meant was that technology, by increasing, has helped humanity. If there was any confusion i apologize. He/she also argued that i did not state any contentions and i will also clarify this as well.
Contention I
Technology is increasing by http://in.answers.yahoo.com...
There are so many, but here are a few:

1964-- BASIC, the computer language from which all computer languages emerged was invented by John George Kemeny and Tom Kurtz, led to development of the calculator (1967), the first video game (1972), word processing (1972), the Cray super computer (1979), MS DOS (1981), PC (1981), Apples (1983), Macintosh (1984), Windows (1985), and Java (1995)

1969-- Bar Scanner, because it has changed our ability to inventory, track, ship, and even make purchases

1969-- ARPANET, an early version of the internet for the US Military, allowed for the creation of ethernet (1973), email, the public internet (1981) and WWW (1990) that permeate society today

1973-- Gene Splicing and all the amazing issues of Genetic manipulation, including Genetically Modified foods that make up 60% of US foods, Genetically modified animals, cloning, designer babies, etc.

1978-- The Artificial Heart, Jarvik 7 by Dr. Robert K Jarvik, was a milestone and set a mark in artificial organs

1979-- Cell phones and the walkman for obvious reasons.

1986-- Scanning Tunneling Microscope, invented by Gerd Binning and Heinrich Rohrer, led to the creation of nano technology

1988-- Doppler Radar, invented by Christian Andreas Doppler, has revolutionzed our ability to predict and forecast weather patterns

1989-- HIDEF TV, possible a early trigger of the demise of sports bars, pubs, and taverns

2003-- Translucent Concrete, developed by Aron Losonczi which will likely change architecture in the future

These advances in technology have helped humanity, period.
Also, my opponent's definition of rise is insufficent and is not what i meant. I will clarify.
Rise-(v.) 7. to spring up or grow, as plants: Weeds rose overnight.
http://dictionary.reference.com...
Broken

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for his prompt response. I will first acknowledge my opponent's arguments and then move on to present my own.

I. Definitions - My opponent offers a new definition for "rise." I reject this for one reason. By choosing not to define it in his constructive speech, he passed on the responsibility to me. He had every opportunity in the world to define it before I had accepted the speech. We are now in the middle of our debate and he suddenly proposes that we change the definition. I believe it it too late for my opponent to make that move.

II. My opponent has kindly clarified what he meant by "It is also done the following tasks by increasing by the day: taking tasks off people's hands, entertaining people, protecting people, and saving people." He states that what he was trying to say was "that technology, by increasing, has helped humanity." I thank my opponent very much for clearing this up for me. Now I will kindly say, so what? The resolution clearly states "technology is on the rise." Rise has already been defined as to "return from death." Therefore your argument has no relevancy to the topic, nor does it support your case, what so ever and should be ignored. Moving on, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding but I did not state that you do not have any contentions. I simply said that none of your arguments were relevant to the topic. I will admit though, your contentions were not very clear and I thank you again for enlightening me. Now I am glad to know that you can copy and paste your entire argument. Thank you so much for providing the link to the site you plagiarized as well. I'm sorry if my thankfulness is annoying you, I feel like thanksgiving has never ended. My opponent finished up by stating that "my opponent's definition of rise is insuffic[i]ent and is not what I meant," and then providing his/her own definition. He/she did not say why my definition was insufficient. Also, it is quite late into the debate to add new definitions. Therefore, I believe my definition still stands.

III. My opponent's only contention, still, is not relevant. He, as Pro/Aff, has the burden of proof in this debate. He has the task of proving that technology has returned from death. He simply copy & pasted the words of Mr. "I am America" from yahoo answers. This poor soul was just listing many important inventions from the 1960s and on. He is now a victim of plagiarism. I ask you all to take a moment of silence for him..... [several moments later] Moving on, my opponent did not refute either of my contentions. He did not say how technology can return from death or when it has ever died, and therefore, he concedes on both accounts.

IV. Conclusion - The Pro has chosen not to refute either of my contentions and instead conceding both. His only contention is not related in any way, shape, or form to the topic. I believe that this is enough of a reason for you to vote Con. Thank you for your time.
Debate Round No. 2
tidehavenboy

Pro

well this debate is pointless and i'm going to forfeit because i have to much stuff on my hands and i need to pick a better subject and learn how to debate better before i post another debate. broken, thank you for your participation in this debate, i have learned a lot from you. also i want to thank the people who commented on this debate to teach me how to do a better debate.
Broken

Con

Hello again everybody, I am very sorry for the delay in posting my argument. I have been very busy and exams are next week. Anyways, back to the topic... My opponent has forfeited and I will ask you all to vote Con. Also, I thank my opponent for the good debate, while it lasted. Anyways I am busy so I will leave it at that, I just wanted to finalize this debate. Thank you and have a nice day!
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Voted CON in all... PRO forfeited.
Posted by Alexby1 7 years ago
Alexby1
An unloseable debate on the pro vs. abusive definitions on the con … hmm …
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
That was a dumb forfiet.
Posted by tidehavenboy 7 years ago
tidehavenboy
well this debate is pointless and i'm going to forfeit because i have to much stuff on my hands and i need to pick a better subject and learn how to debate better before i post another debate. broken thank you for your participation in this debate, i have learned a lot from you. also i want to thank the people who commented on this debate to teach me how to do a better debate.
Posted by Broken 7 years ago
Broken
I'm sorry for the delay guys. My midterm exams are next week and I've been busy. Hopefully we can finish this within the next day or two. I love how my opponent plagiarized his argument AND gave is the link to the site he plagiarized. Talk to you all later!

- Broken
Posted by Broken 7 years ago
Broken
I agree Nags. I'll post my response in about 2 hours if I have time. I might have to wait until tomorrow afternoon.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
"What i meant was that technology, by increasing, has helped humanity."

That's nowhere near what the resolution said. You can't clarify what you meant in round 2, after someone has unknowingly accepted the debate.
Posted by Broken 7 years ago
Broken
The fact is, technology is constantly developing. No matter what way you look at it, it's on the rise, by normal terms that is. Even if some areas are not technologically advanced, technology is still advancing. I took the only approach I saw possible.
Posted by Flamingo 7 years ago
Flamingo
This debate is getting weirder by the argument-couldn't you just simply argue something semi-normal? Like the fact technology isn't substantially on the rise in, say, Madagascar (or places that still don't have electricicty and stuff), or that technology itself wasn't on the rise since 1960's, but ever since the first man took a stone in his hand...? Instead, the debate is about reincarnation of technology-awesome :)
Posted by Broken 7 years ago
Broken
Andre, the pro, as you've previously stated, instigated a fact rather than a debate. I, as well as I know how, made it a debate. The pro had every right to propose a definition for "rise." It is not my fault he did not. After all, the topics on debate.org should be debates, not facts.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by TheFreeThinker 5 years ago
TheFreeThinker
tidehavenboyBrokenTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Broken this is ridiculous. You can't use your own definition of a word to make it fit your argument when the meaning of the debate is clear and its context well defined. Clear win for Pro
Vote Placed by Rulerof52 7 years ago
Rulerof52
tidehavenboyBrokenTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:25 
Vote Placed by goldstandardanarchist 7 years ago
goldstandardanarchist
tidehavenboyBrokenTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by GeorgeCarlinWorshipper 7 years ago
GeorgeCarlinWorshipper
tidehavenboyBrokenTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by XimenBao 7 years ago
XimenBao
tidehavenboyBrokenTied
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 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
tidehavenboyBrokenTied
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 
Vote Placed by dasamster 7 years ago
dasamster
tidehavenboyBrokenTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:43