CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


Twitter
Twitter addict? Follow us and be the first to find out when debates become popular!


pic
Report This User
Permanent Delete

Allies
View All
None

Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
pic
pic


RSS MaxLiawjl

Reward Points:2
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
100%
Arguments:8
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
8 most recent arguments.
5 points

People like you make this site worthless. When you join a debate, you join it with an open mind with an eye on your thesis and your stand. Ideally, if you want to be taken seriously, you fight an argument with an equally logical argument. Even if those arguments do not convince you, then you should at the least defend your stand, otherwise, you are merely one of those brainless nitwits that believe in something they don't know about.

Don't just take a stand and ignore all arguments. FIGHT for your stand with proper, concise and well substantiated arguments! Otherwise, piss off this debate.

1 point

That's pinpointing. Medicine isn't intended to give us all eternal life but it has increased our lifespans. Furthermore, you state that medicine does save the `odd life'? Whereas 100 Americans die every day because of a medicine overdose? Really? I think not. Take away medicine and yes, you save 100 more people a day, but thousands more will die. It's quite a claim you're making there.

A very interesting argument here regarding wars. Regarding human nature, even if technology didn't exist, we WOULD go to war in the masses with just our fists. And your statement that `Technology of some form will have been used to take lives in these wars, and therefore it can safely be said that technology has taken billions of lives in the past'. That's a slippery slope. It's hardly logical. It once again begs the question, despite having taken much lives, ; Has it taken MORE lives than it has saved?' I do not mean saved directly, but also indirectly (e.g If doctors didn't learn how to treat the pneumonia that came with the spanish flu. Mankind might be endangered now. So it can count as having saved the billions of people that exist now, the saving of one generation subsequently means saving the next generation and so on)

If anything, medicine has prevented billions of lives lost through disease (see spanish flu and black death). In the absence of which, mankind may actually near extinction.

`Logically, it appears more life has been lost due to technology'.

Through my argument above, no. Your only point was that `technology has been used to take lives' therefore `it can safely be said that technology has taken billions of lives in the past', which I have pointed out, is a fallacy and therefore not valid.

`Cars crash, trains crash, and boats sink, taking tens of thousands of lives'

Yes, but what about the other things it has done? A catalyst to globalisation: Technology. In a straight lives saved VS lives taken debate, the kill count for accidents may very well outweigh the number of lives DIRECTLY saved. But what about globlalisation? The progress of society? (Not through the deaths of these innocents but simply through progression of technology) Furthermore, cars crash, trains crash and boats sink not because of the existence of these technology, but human error. It is quite fatalistic to say that more technology simply means more ways to die.

Technology on it's own does neither good nor bad. It is how it is harnessed, used, and what it means to people when it is harnessed that defines how 'good' it is. Someone cannot die because of technology alone; technology is mostly inanimate. Someone can also not be saved by it.

Well , precisely. But technology has brought mankind to the forefront of research, where we are now on the brink of breaching the final frontier, and the achievement of many dreams actually in sight (marred by capitalism in my opinion but that is another debate). The potential of current technology is to eradicate hunger and overcome scarcity. The same can of course be said of its potential to cause Armageddon.

But it is my belief that technology now has brought us more advantages than disadvantages and we are in a much better position with technology than without (While you may point out that this is not the crux of the argument, assuming that advantage<disadvantages, then we should be better without technology, hence linking this to the statement)

1 point

You're comparing the loss of life from the existence and use of weapons to the benefits gained from a new computer. I'm comparing the possible lives saved through the existence of advanced technology. Not just a new computer, but the transport and mass production of food, the development of drugs, the advancements in the field of medicine all count as technology and these have most certainly saved lives. My point was that there are more lives saved than taken through technology. I think we'll reach a stalemate at this point, it's rather hard to even find evidence documenting the numbers.

'sometimes nuclear reactors explode - and this causes loss of human life in colossal quantities.'

Yes, I completely agree with you. But I must also point out that sometimes, cars crash, trains crash and boats sink, taking tens of thousands of lives every year. Nuclear accidents take very little lives. Even if you factor in the diseased children(including those that may be born deformed) that die from radiation from a single accident, it is hyperbole to say that `millions may die'. Nuclear reactors are after all constructed to prevent the worst of the radiation from escaping and to limit the effect of an accident. If you were to check the causes of nuclear reactor accidents, you would find that most of the accidents were caused by human error or a construction contractors oversight. Most accidents with a few notable exceptions only affected workers within the nuclear reactor.

Yes, I agree that nuclear reactors require dangerous and limited uranium to power, but when compared to the detriments of other power plants (with the exception of wind farms, which require specific conditions and solar plants, which require land area some countries do not have) , is far more efficient and has less effect on the environment.

I have already addressed this point

Quote : It cannot be denied that others in the same field have saved millions of lives through appropriate use of technology.

Bad things happen because of technology, but do these bad things outweigh the good? Naturally, I cannot provide any statistics to substantiate my point. Technology isn't a bane. It is a saving grace from ignorance and scarcity. What is a bane, is mankind's nature to subjugate their counterparts through the abuse and use of technology for killing and wounding.

2 points

The nuclear bomb is the perfect example of misuse of technology. As shown in the use of nuclear reactors, nuclear technology has the potential to provide cheap energy for the world and reduce our dependence on hydrocarbons for power stations. The problem here isn't technology, but how the technology was employed. Admittedly, nuclear technology has yet to be perfected, as shown by the Chernobyl and Fujishiwa disasters. But accidents aside, one cannot deny that the use of nuclear technology has provided power to millions around the world. Technology has progressed far enough to ensure that nuclear technology can be used safely for power generation if no errors occur on the side of the operators and contractors.

Regarding your example of the thalidomide drug, the use of this drug is an isolated incident and cannot be used to generalise the field of medicine. Are you trying to imply that this single accident and the cumulative deaths leading from the misuse of chemicals outweigh the millions of lives saved through the same field? Yes, doctors and scientists have made mistakes, but through the work put into the field of medicine over the centuries, the average human lifespan has now been increased drastically. Humans make mistakes and over the years, it is inevitable that some overeager scientists will accidentally promote the use of drugs such a thalidomide but it cannot be denied that others in the same field have saved millions of lives through appropriate use of technology.

MaxLiawjl(2) Clarified
1 point

`are becoming (extinct) due to being eaten by hungry animals desperate for food'

Actually, animals in the wild are becoming extinct due to the decreasing area of suitable habitats. Animals have always been eating other animals (food chain). Although it is true that in some areas, y introduction of non-native species to the ecosystem has caused the numbers of native species to fall due to the addition of predators or competition for limited food sources (e.g the dodo became extinct due to overhunting and being preyed on by domesticated animals such as dogs introduced into their habitat by humans)

The entertainment and strong relationships forged with humans are largely for the benefit of humans and at the expense of the animals individual freedom. While you may argue that the individual animal in question is able to live longer in a more comfortable environment, the effect such commercialization has on the species as a whole is definitely an inimical one (see: The Cove) The statement questions the wellbeing of animals in zoos and circuses compared to its counterparts in the wild, not whether the captivity of animals benefits mankind.

Your assumption that animals die in the wild due to starvation/hunger or thirst is somewhat flawed and yet correct. Animals die in the wild all the time. The more capable ones live through more mating seasons and have more offspring, thus ensuring the propagation of only the strongest. Yes, animals do die of thirst and hunger in the wild, but that is the way it has always been ; It is the survival of the fittest. The weaker ones die and have less offspring, the stronger ones survive longer and have more offspring.

However, my arguments are based on the assumption and ideal that, left on their own without any sort of human intervention or introduction of invasive species, animals will thrive and follow the law of natural selection. Sadly, interaction with humans and the interference of humans in the habitats of animals is no longer avoidable. Zoos exist not only for the entertainment of humans but are also for zoologist to study and understand the needs of animals. This study allows us to understand how humans and animals can co-exist peacefully without either of the two groups being threatened (e.g formation of safari parks require knowledge of animal migration patterns/seasons and the study of animals in zoos allow scientists to understand the diseases that plague the species and prevent the extinction of such animals)

The only thing I disagree with entirely is the captivity of animals in circuses. You cannot deny that animals in circuses exist solely for the entertainment of humans and it is an undeniable fact that animals are often exploited and stressed out by the performances they are forced to endure.

1 point

While it is most ideal that all voters are aware of the political climate in the country, the problem lies in the feasibility of implementing such a concept into the act of voting. There is no way of determining the level of `ignorance' or political apathy of every single person in the country.

Furthermore, what does it mean to be `sufficiently educated'? A university graduate can still be politically apathatic whereas an uneducated construction worker can still be aware of the political climate in his country via newspapers and other media. Being educated (having reached a certain schooling standard) does not guarantee the absence of political ignorance.

1 point

While it can be said that the onset of crises can bring about a paradigm shift for the better or a period of accelerated advancement in technology, the scope of the question does not confine the term crises to any particular domain. In the context of political and financial crises, the existence of both the aforementioned definitely hinders the progression of technology, economic activity as well as the living standards of a country. Any financial crises will, due to the decrease of capital inflow in a country, result unemployment, social unrest and a lack of funds for the further development of technology and research. A financial crises can set a country back several years in terms of living standards or at the least, stall the progress of the country. The current Euro-zone crisis has sent the world's economy spiralling down, with many countries around the world, especially in Europe, experiencing high levels of unemployment as well as an onset of riots and protests. Such a crisis impedes the progress of the world economy as well as the welfare of individuals in afflicted countries. Whether or not a crises hinders the progress of the modern world in the long run in fact depends on the nature of the crises and while wars and natural disasters showcase the tenacity of a united people and accelerate the growth of technology, other crises such as political and financial crises will in fact impede the progress of society.

2 points

Without being too narrow in scope, a crisis in general will likely refer to war and natural disasters, resulting in the destruction of precious infrastructure and the death of many as well as disruption in the economic activities of a region. While this may appear to be inimical to the development of the country or community, more often than not, the consequences of such crises, save complete annihilation, will form a catalyst for an accelerated development in technology that will not only strengthen the country in the long run, but allow the country to be even more resilient to similar crisis. Taking the 2004 tsunami as an example, while the disaster resulted in much destruction and loss of lives, the relief efforts united the regions involved the countries that contributed to the reconstruction. Furthermore, with the threat of such a disaster in the region now prominent, the governments involved installed advanced tsunami warning systems to reduce the impact of similar crises in the future. Hence, such crises actually result in a stronger and more resilient country in the long run.

MaxLiawjl has not yet created any debates.

About Me


I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!


Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here