The Instigator
green_converse
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
AshleysTrueLove
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

technology is taking over

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
AshleysTrueLove
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/30/2012 Category: Technology
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,609 times Debate No: 22434
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (2)

 

green_converse

Con

I'm outraged by this statement. This statement is basically saying that everything that people have put into creating this technology, and upgrading it is a waste. But I'm here as a voice. I'm here as a voice to the technology creators, nerdlings all over the world who are obsessed with gamingthe most important people of all – US – high school kids who need to do their assignments, and hand them in on time. Us, who need to know who feel a Need to share every thought or every "awkward moment" we encounter throughout the duration of our day. But most importantly, I'm here as a voice to the best us – the us who just wants to have fun, and listen to music, and just play Temple run whenever we feel like it! Technology helps us... It tells us the weather, when movies are on, or what your BFFLs are doing. Without technology, all hell would break loose. People would kill themselves because they wouldn't be able to use their blackberry. And if you don't agree with my statement(s) then why are you here, debating online?
AshleysTrueLove

Pro

Resolution:Technology is taking over.
My opponent has provided no definitions at the start of this debate but for practical purposes only I will provide a makeshift definition which I will claim is no better than my opponents unless she wishes to contend this very definition. I take the resolution to mean that Technology or technology of convenience is becoming mainstream and is becoming obsessive in the eyes of the public.
Technology is a tool at the best of times and a monster at the worst. Technology of necessity is what should be promoted not technology of connivance. The ramifications of technology are arbitrary at best but this is exactly why we must be careful. The dependency factor is really one of the most prominent risks of technology. Most of the so called advantages of technology are really a harmful factor as one great chemistry teacher once said "The better you are at Math, the worse you are at arithmetic." This is clearly a negative aspect of technology. A reliance on technology for information may be useful for research but when it becomes a primary source of information (especially being generally editable) then the source of the knowledge defeats the purpose of learning. Any technology that tries to make something easier in terms of learning defeats the very subject. In others words a calculator defeats arithmetic. I am not arguing that technology isn't useful in the learning process; I am only arguing that any argument that would try to place Technology as needed or very useful toward learning fails because if someone argues this they must accept that learning can simply be understood as looking to read and copy off literally the Internet. In fact if one wants to say that technology can help in learning they must not account anything to comprehension. Also Technology isn't only non-helpful in learning due to the possible consequences and the possibility of distraction. Overuse of technology also may lead to addiction to the very thing that is supposed to be helping. I would like to point out that while the benefits of technology are few and grossly exaggerated but I feel that we compromise ourselves intellectually when we say technology is conductive to learning.
Furthermore, my opponent has already conceded this debate. She says "People would kill themselves because they wouldn't be able to use their blackberry" this clearly shows that materialistic nature of technology is at the very least taking over. If one is to kill themselves over losing a possession then one ought to be able to admit that that possession has taken over there life.
And finally concluding my case, the fact that technology of necessity exists is a testament to the fact that technology is "taking over.
I would like to move to refute my opponents case:
I would like to refute the most fallacious statements first then move to the more suddle ones:
"Without technology, all hell would break loose."
I honestly doubt things were anymore peaceful before the atomic bomb or even before the Iphone really. People kill people, it may not be a nice fact of life but it is. There maybe people that too distracted by their phones to mug someone but this solves none of the problems of society.
"But I'm here as a voice. I'm here as a voice to the technology creators, nerd lings all over the world who are obsessed with gaming the most important people of all – US – high school kids who need to do their assignments, and hand them in on time. Us, who need to know who feel a Need to share every thought or every "awkward moment" we encounter throughout the duration of our day. But most importantly, I'm here as a voice to the best us – the us who just wants to have fun, and listen to music, and just play Temple run whenever we feel like it! "
Ahem, ad populum anybody. Regardless of who believes that they can do what they want, it doesn't make the validity of a harmful technology any better.
"Technology helps us... It tells us the weather, when movies are on, or what your BFFLs are doing"
Sure, and I readily grant that. But we are not talking about whether technology has benefits but rather are the risks substantial enough to consider that Technology is taking over.
"And if you don't agree with my statement(s) then why are you here, debating online?"
Ad hominium anybody? Showing that the character of the person making a argument is bad doesn't make the argument bad.

Thank you and I eagerly await your response.

\n Mi corazon de bebe es mi mundo 3/5/2012-4ever
Debate Round No. 1
green_converse

Con

Ok, who gives a damn I didn't give a definition, and "all hell will break loose" is a figure of speech.
And I was saying "someone will kill themselves if they didn't have their blackberry" was figurative I wasn't being literal. I'm sorry I'm not being all technical becuase I want to have a little bit of fun!
A "makeshift" definition, that is just plain rude. I'm only 13 ok??? I'm not all technical and the brainiest of all people. And, if you Hate technology so much GET OFF THE COMPUTER!!!
And, ok, you think technlogy is taking over, go be AMISH!! becuase people need technology to live their everyday lives. So, don't use cash registers, or fridges, or phones, or COMPUTERS and online debating sites if you hate it so much.
Sorry, I had an outburst. You can proceed with your arguments.
AshleysTrueLove

Pro

Ok so we have established that my opponent has not refuted any of my arguments. Therefore it follows that she agrees with me and that flows to my side of the debate. She also seems to claim to be 13 as justification for her bad arguments however I am 16 and 3 years shouldn't be justification for such rude outburst. She suggests that I should be Amish but the fact is that Amish people are a form of Anabaptist which is not something I believe in, I happen to be Catholic so it doesn't logically follow that I should be Amish furthermore Amish people are not in the greatest socio-economic position. I would say that my case stands and here failure to understand my objections is in concession of these objections.

To Voters: Obvious misuse of conduct in last round. She has lost this debate. Thank you I urge a Pro vote.
\n Mi corazon de bebe es mi mundo 3/5/2012-4ever
Debate Round No. 2
green_converse

Con

Look, i apologized for being rude. And sorry if I offended you buy saying you shoud be Amish when you're catholic. And I don't agree with you. I just wrote the wrong title. I meant to say "technology is taking over but it's a good thing" becuase it is. As I said before, it helps us. And, this doesn't mean I'm agreeing with you. Plus, I said that I am not the smartest in the world, I didn't use my age against anyone.
Plus, I'm a newbie I'm not very good - the only reason I did this was for my school speech, but then I realised I should have said I was against it instead of saying for. Oh well, whatever vote for him.
Congratz, bro... :)
AshleysTrueLove

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for conceding this debate. Obviously she was not prepared this and I apologize for making an effort to make it more interesting. I am sorry that my opponent was not ready to refute any of my case nor defend her own. It can be argued that it isn't a good thing for the record...

Vote Pro :) Thank you.
\n Mi corazon de bebe es mi mundo 3/5/2012-4ever
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Y'know what. Screw this. We're debating it.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
A biased source? I quoted three freaking independant dictionary websites! How much more unbiased can you freaking get!?
Posted by AshleysTrueLove 5 years ago
AshleysTrueLove
We could debate this.
Posted by AshleysTrueLove 5 years ago
AshleysTrueLove
I guess we will have to agree to disagree until we get someone else to judge whether it is. It cannot be a biased source. So niether of us could invite them.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Google Defining Ad Hom: Attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain.
Dictionary.com: attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
Merriam-Webster: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

You were saying? Definetely not ad hom.
Posted by AshleysTrueLove 5 years ago
AshleysTrueLove
No not a contridictory position, but a example of engaging in a contridictory action regarding a position. Ad hom is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. She is calling hypocritical, therefore a neg characheristic, it has no bearing on the case.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Exactly my point. Ad hom isn't an argument that undermines credibility, it's an insult that undermines credibility. We both agree that it wasn't an insult, and thus not ad hom. That must have went over your head when you read it. Calling a person out on taking a contradictory position isn't ad hom.
Posted by AshleysTrueLove 5 years ago
AshleysTrueLove
It is textbook ad hom.
Posted by AshleysTrueLove 5 years ago
AshleysTrueLove
Ahem, it is not an insult it is undermining my credibuilty. That must of went over your head when you read it. Here we go again:
I believe that A is wrong.
She doesn't agree that A is wrong.
I am engaging in A.
Therefore, this undermines my credibuilty and I am wrong.
That is wrong because she is trying to undermine my credibuilty. Calling me hypocritical is not a reason to discredit the argument. Arguments are FUN!!! lol English teachers.
Posted by green_converse 5 years ago
green_converse
um, what do you mean by your last comment??? There's "a"s at the end of every sentence.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Travniki 5 years ago
Travniki
green_converseAshleysTrueLoveTied
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: conceded
Vote Placed by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
green_converseAshleysTrueLoveTied
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:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ended up conceding the debate, so I give the arguments to pro. I give conduct to pro because con changed the resolution in the middle of the debate. Super abusive and unfair thing to do, thus meriting a conduct point to pro. EDIT: Change to add S/G to con. When a thirteen year old is pretty much flawless gramatically the 16 year old has basic spelling errors all over the place, it's pretty awkward.