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

Should futuristic technologies take over everything (including jobs)?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2017 Category: Technology
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,044 times Debate No: 105315
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




People shouldn't trust futuristic technologies nor try to make them or commercialized them. They shouldn't as they could most likely steal all jobs and make humans obsolete, so without jobs, humans could loss money and probably become homeless and hungry (and no, UBI [Universal Basic Income] would probably not help). Self-driving vehicles have been confirmed to choose who to kill in any situations, unlike manual-driven vehicles. Drones are known to be very deadly and kill many people. If people allowed all of these technologies, the world would become a very dystopian future much like in many dystopian future movies like Terminator films, Matrix, etc. So I believe the world should stay the same as it is right now.


I believe that people shouldn't fear the progress of technology. As con has stated, technology (I'm assuming AI) will take over jobs and leave people without money. This is not true, as a post-singularity society will not have wealth. Humans will have the luxury of an infinite supply of goods (as computers are limitless producers unlike humans, they do not need sleep or wages). The development of technology will bring about a new age where humans become obsolete, as correctly stated by con. However, humans becoming obsolete in the workforce is a good thing, not a bad thing. Humans will be able to do as they please, instead of having to worry to pay bills or feed their families. The self-driving cars argument makes no sense to me. Mechanical error is lower than human error in every industry. Even if computers have the conscious to kill people at will (which is not true), don't humans as well? Humans can kill whoever they choose at will, it's called murder. Drones are not autonomous currently due to fear of AI. A person is required today to man a drone if weapons are involved. There is no factual evidence to support the argument that AI has evil intent. The reason why movies supporting this claim are produced, is because it plays to peoples' fears (which is what makes money)! Since AI will not be able to feel pain or fatigue, it will have no reason to feel anger towards humans. I believe AI will aid us in our endeavors and improve our society as a whole.
Debate Round No. 1
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by dinolover4242 2 years ago
This has noting to do with religion! This has something to do with futuristic technologies.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 2 years ago
This is off topic ... Religion section. Place in correct section please!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 1 year ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Same reason as SupaDudz's!
Vote Placed by SupaDudz 2 years ago
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: My RFD had to go PRO in this case. He presented a strong argument where humans would cause more damage than self driving cars. If this was a 2 round arguments, CON could have easily countered back, but sadly, PRO claims are left unanswered and outweighed. I think sources could have changed my mind for CON, but since there was none, it was opinions and strategic argument placing. PRO please note that we would still be paying bills because the govt would need money to help support the tech funds. If it was 2 rounds, CON could argue that claim and it would outweigh all claims. Since CON can't answer, PRO argument wins. I am not a fan of 1 round debates but overall it was good.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.