They are some disorders or to specific, products from technology that destroy a humans immune system because of bacteriae and viruses.
Points of reasoning why it does more harm than good
1.) Dependence of peoples (all around the world) in technology
2.) side effects which lead to disastrous end
3.) age bracket goes down
4.) Effects of technology to humans (kids --> adults)
5.) More lost than gained
These lines of reasoning will be explained at round 2 and if possible i can do the rebuttal.
Waiting for someone to take my challenge (and I hope that you will surely love to debate with me and I hope that i will to) Report this Argument
As a classical historian, there was really no way I could turn down this debate.
Your definition of technology is acceptable, and ironically it is only fit to define modern technology. I would, however, like to define the phrase modern technologies as being technologies that began to develop in the late age of discovery, through the age of reason and into the industrial era and now the post-industrial era which is frequently referred to as the info age, or computer age in spite of the lack of accuracy both of those terms bear. Or, the last 350 years.
1.) The level of technology cannot be blamed for the mishaps of humanity, or the destruction of our civilization, species, or environment. The fault does not lie within the tool, but within the user. Humanity is solely to blame for the problems that their irresponsible use of technology has caused.
2.) In all of recorded history humanity has always been dependent on technology. From the simplest plow, to the most complicated combine, or agriculture has dependent on tools and the proper use of them. Cities, nations, peoples, and civilizations have in the past risen and fallen in the past without having the advantages of modern technology to accelerate their demises, or to aid them in sustaining themselves.
3.) We have the scientific understanding of the damage that we are doing to ourselves, there is a large portion of the population that accepts the damage that we're doing to ourselves, and yet we do nothing. Technology cannot be the cause of our demise when we are aware of its destructive forces, and have the ability to curb the destruction and choose not to act.
4.) Not only can we not blame technology for our downfall, we owe every achievement of the last two centuries, good or bad, to the advancement of technology.
I will, however, concede that individuals living thousands of years ago were likely happier with their stations in life and that technology has stripped some of the simplest pleasures from our lives. They had much more realistic expectations. Report this Argument
Good day Mr. Patrick. I wouldn't want you to let history enter this debate because you are a classical HISTORIAN and I'm only an average student who loves to write. I discourage you to post some facts about history. Since you are including history in it I have no choice but to limit the debate Parameters of the debate:
1.) the scope of the debate can be focused around the world
2.) History is not recommended but a practical answer is needed
3.) This debate is limited in simpler words because this debate will be informal (a friendly debate)
Please do consider my parameters for this debate because I wouldn't want an opponent with an unpaired...