CreateDebate


Debate Info

1
1
Yes No
Debate Score:2
Arguments:3
Total Votes:2
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (1)

Debate Creator

xMathFanx(686) pic



Do the Products of Science do More to Improve Lives or Harm Them?

"Science is the accumulation of knowledge in a systematic method to create general truths on the operation of the universe, most commonly referring to “the physical world and its phenomena, the nature, constitution, and forces of matter, the qualities and functions of living tissues.” (Webster’s)1 In this debate it can be understood to be the development and utilisation of new technology and the expansion of human knowledge in the modern era, though it should be noted that not all technological advances are from rigorous scientific analysis (such as the industrial revolution) and science has only significantly influenced technology in the last two centuries.2 What it means to be human is itself another debate, but here it can be understood to be both the collective entity of the human race and the defining features of humans which make them distinguishable from other beings.

Advancements in science have occurred for thousands of years as far back as the Ancient Greeks (who many believe invented scientific principles),3and their effects are becoming ever more pronounced. Production has shifted to mechanized factories and even killing in warfare is being replaced in parts with unmanned drones. The boundaries of medicine are being expanded with possibilities of cloning and stem cell research. Science has allowed acts that would otherwise be impossible for humans to consider undertaking. It has created previously unknown abilities to heal the sick or destroy all of humanity with Weapons of Mass Destruction.

This debate questions whether or not being able to undertake those acts is a benefit, and whether science does more to improve lives or harm them. Whilst this debate is on the principle in question, a proposition could practically propose that society hold public debates about the implications of issues such as genetic engineering, with possible moratoriums following.


Yes

Side Score: 1
VS.

No

Side Score: 1
1 point

Step one: Fuck you.

Step two: Everyone who disagrees with me is a retard.

Step three: People who disregard the importance of science and modern technology should just go back to the fucking stone ages and die of tooth decay at age 30 while a sabretooth bites them on the ass.

Step four: Science is better than no science

Step five: Compare the standard of living for inuits in the middle of fucking siberia or african tribesman to that of the modern westerner and tell me if we where better off without science.

step six: The life expectancy has gone up because science, the world is full of convenience because science, we have answers about the universe because science, we are dominating the planet because science, we are reducing disease because science, we are interfacing through a fucking computer because science, none of our bitch asses would even be here talking to each other without science.

Step seven: any problems supposedly caused by science are actually caused by a lack of wisdom and morality, not because of the actual science.

Side: Yes
xMathFanx(686) Clarified
1 point

@Grahamcrackr. "Step one: Fuck you"

F'ck me, F'ck people who disagree with your position on this topic, or F'ck the question?

Side: Yes
Grahamcrackr Clarified
1 point

Step one: Name calling.

Step two: Ad-hominem.

Step three: Responding to tone.

Step four:Contradiction.

Step five: Counterargument.

Step six: Refutation.

Step seven: Total annihilation of all opposing view points.

Graham's hierarchy of argumentation.

Side: Yes
No arguments found. Add one!