Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Scar

Science: a Threat to Society?

Recommended Posts

Scar

This Debate will be 1 v 1.

Science has shown itself capable both of killing and curing on balance, for which does it have more potential?

First two people who register their Interest will then move into their Opening Posts. I will flip a coin to see which side each debater will take.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or problems original.gif

Good Luck , May the best debater Win thumbsup.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
aquatus1

I admit this does sound interesting. I fear my luck will have me arguing against science, but nonetheless, I would like to have a go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dowdy

i'll have a go at this, just for fun...

what side you want?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scar

Great You guys thumbsup.gif

aquatus1 will be arguing Science is more capable of Curing than Killing

Dowdywill be arguing Science is more capable of Killing than Curing

Good luck thumbsup.gif , Remember if you have any problems let me know original.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

Opening Statement:

Throughout history, man has faced the same challenge time and time again.

Survival.

Death came in many forms. From sickness, predation, accidents, and even from fellow man.

In the frantic struggle to live just a little longer, man turned to many sources. Some prayed to the sky and hoped something would listen. Others treasured experience and passed it on only to their own. And a select, a very special few, recorded their experience, compared it to others, and decided that there had to be a method in which information could be grown and improved on.

Thus were the first seeds of science planted. But old habits are hard to break, and in the ensuing thousands of years, many tried to demonstrate the strength of their system through violence and force. Science, built of knowledge and minds, was fragile in a world of brutality and muscle. Indeed, it wasn't until a mere five hundred years ago, that science was given a chance to grow. During the Renaissance, the time finally came for science to leap beyond its childhood years into the powerful adolescent it is today. And it has done so with a vengeance.

I will show, in my series of posts, that the effect of science on the world has been ultimately beneficial, and that the evils of science so popular in works of fiction are not only exagerated, but occasionally misrepresented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dowdy

Opening Statement:

In the last 100 years man has advance more than our entire civilisation. Before our 'century of science' we were working together to, what would be considered today, as the most simpiliest of things. With the advancement of science our lives have been more independent (for better or worst), our social lives have suffered, we are now playing 'god' through cloning and other unnatural creations, we are slowly destroying our own planet through global warming and wars can now be fought with complete anonymity with the potential to kill millions in an instant.

Science has kill millions and if we don't learn from our mistakes (eg. 'the wonderful potential of TNT' tongue.gif ) it will become the dowfall of society. Remember, with new technology comes new problems. It's just a question of how big these problems will be....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

There are many non-scientific explanations as to what man really is. The great majority of them propose that man is, somehow, above the rest of the animals. Favored, in some way or another, and granted a certain lordship over the land and the creatures within. This unscientific justification of our importance has lead to very unfortunate consequences. The extinction of North America's megafauna, the spread of disease such as the Black Plague, even the wholesale destruction of the entire Rapanui civilization on Easter Island from overpopulation and abuse of natural resources.

Science, however, states that we are indeed simply another one of the many thousands of different species on this planet. And like all those other animals, we have to be wary of our effect on our environment, lest we run ourselves into extinction. It is thanks to science that we can judge the effect of our progress on the other species in our habitat, and thanks to science that we have avoided the wholesale slaughter of animals that we once would have destroyed for sheer sport if nothing else. It is because of science that we know not to cluster in one place, like rats, without taking certain medical precautions, and saving ourselves from knotting our tails together with our filth. And it is science that warns us to not charge blindly into construction in new territory, reminding us of its own personal tenet "It happened to others. I can happen to you."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dowdy

The industrial revolution saw man advance so much that we could hardly keep up but they kept on going and now we are paying for 100 years of pollution. The hole in the ozone layer made us wake up to how we are destroying the planet. Because of the hole in the ozone layer, cancer rates are higher than they have been. All of those people who have lost a friend or family member to cancer was mostly caused by the inventions of man. All that suffering is caused from what we have invented.

We are not just destroying ourselves, we are destroying the whole planet.

The greenhouse effect has made the Earth warm up. A warmer Earth may lead to changes in rainfall patterns, a rise in sea level, and a wide range of impacts on plants, wildlife, and humans.

Many species have gone extinct because of our selfishness and our inventions. Are we next to go. Extinct from our own inventions? And who will we take with us, a few animals, some fish or the whole planet....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dowdy

What is the time scale for posting to a debate ?

A. It is not necessary for a debate to happen 'live', participants will be allowed to take their time to formulate their next response and post it to the debate. If a participant fails to post anything in the debate for more than 7 days however, the debate may be automatically won by the remaining participant(s). If you plan on being away from a debate for an extended period of time, please let the debate organiser know beforehand.

does that mean i win, since he hasn't posted a reply for 10 days

That make me the winner by defult.

DE-FAULT, DE-FAULT. The two most sweetest words in the English language tongue.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saru

Not necessarily, i'll contact Aquatus and see whats happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

I have to apologize for my delay, and if my time is up then I will bow out and concede. I admit to having lost track of time.

In the event that the debate continues, I will post.

To attempt to judge the effects of our actions on the entire planet is speculative at best. Ice ages have been responsible for far more change and death than anything we have ever accomplished. Now, on the eve of our planets newest ice age, we suddenly find that our actions, however unintentional, are actually delaying this effect. In other words, the greenhouse effect is cancelling the ice age effect. Will there be changes? Of course there will. Will they be as dramatic, will they have as heavy a death toll as the other climactic changes our planet has experienced? No, thanks in large part to our actions, no they will not.

And it is important, also, to note that it is thanks to science that we have discovered this problem, and are on our way to a solution. Agriculture and terraforming have been staples of human existence since man first settled down in an area and began picking fruit. We cannot blame science for creating the vast herds of livestock that produce a significant amount of the methane which destroys our environment; with or without science, we still need to eat. We can, however, give science the credit for warning us that our actions are detrimental, and that we need to change our unscientific ways if we are to survive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dowdy

wow time does go quick...

anyways....

In the past century wars have been on a scale like no other in the entire history of man. We now have to ability to transport thousands of troops within days to the battlefield to replace fallen ones which in turn has made wars more bloodier. Wars are no longer fought with swords up close in which it took a hard heart and alot of muscles to chop up and kill a man on the battlefield, only the strongest men had back then. With our long range weapons we have today, you don't even have to look the person in the eyes to kill him, women are now in the army killing enemies. Hell, even i'm planning on joining the army soon and i hardly have any muscles on me tongue.gif . The fact that we have these weapons and all the new technology of the army has made it able for anyone to join, this has made our countries armies bigger than they ever were and our wars bigger than they have ever been. Due to this casualties have been phenomenal in our major wars

Science has created the worst weapon in the history of man - the A bomb. Only used once, been 'tested' hundreds of times, it has the potential to wipe out our entire civilisation. In the times we live in now, with terrorism and all, terrorists will try to obtain the most destructive weapon and when they do - It's going to be a threat to society, alright!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
aquatus1

Quite the contrary, I would argue. Technology has given our wars a humane edge that has never been present before.

As an example, let me reference the footage that no doubt many of you have seen or heard, that of a predator drone targeting a munitions dump, only to capture on film an Iraqi soldier walking out and waving a white flag to the small black dot in the sky.

This is quite possibly the very first instance of a human surrendering to a machine. In more primitive times, a munitions dump would have required a sizeable offensive force and would have been defended by its keepers. Even in the event that they had chosen to surrender, they would have had to risk exposing themselves to a force bent on their destruction.

But no, instead, the battle played out in nothing more than theoretical style, like a massive chess game. A machine who's sole purpose was to look was spotted by the enemy force. The logical path was drawn: A Predator flying overhead means that, shortly, the metal rain will be descending upon our heads. Therefore, we surrender now, when the chances of being killed are non-existant, or we wait and die later.

Would that all battles could be fought this way, with a simple analysis of who is the least likely to survive. It would save a lot of bloodshed. Compare our current war, to the American Civil War. You will be hard pressed to make matches of the savagery, the body count, the suffering inflicted on soldier, to say nothing of the suffering inflicted on civilians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dowdy

that may be true, but that is just one case out of thousands.

Thousands os civillians have died in Iraq. Let's look at the start of the war - the civillians that were killed by America's superior technology. America seems to have a basic strategy. Bomb the sh** out the place and then go in with the infantry. Although the bomb may have great scientific technology, 'smart' bomb with laser guided systems. They may be extremely accurate but they are not perfect and when they are not perfect they kill cillivians. The missiles' imperfections have causes thousands of civillian deaths. It may have won the war in a few months but nothing will win the respect of a mother whos' son or daughter you have just killed.

Wait a minute, let's go a bit furthur back to what started it all.

SETEMBER 11...

setember 11 is a good example of how technology can be used against you if in the wrong hands.

There was no terrorists in the 18th and 19th century. The word probably didn't even exists back then!...because there was no technology back then to cause mass terror on people. In the 21st century terrorism happens everywhere - Spain, Australia (actually Bali) and of course the USofA. There is a legion of terrorists out there who want to kill every westerner and they are using the technology that we (westerners) invented against us. Planes, TNT, GUNS....

Although there are countries with spy agencies with extremely powerful technology, it means nothing if they weren't able to stop all this. Another example of how science has failed us....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

I regret that, due to time constraints, I will be unable to give this debate the attention my opponent deserves. I apologize to all concerned, and yield victory to Dowdy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BurnSide

Okay, well thank you very much for taking part.

Much to Dowdy's unrest i think, i've decided what has been debated here should be judged since there is some good debatin going on here and it would be a shame to waste it.

However aquatus, you may be deducted a little for not finishing. We'll see what the judges have to say.

Again, thanks for taking part, both of you.

Over to the Judges!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AztecInca

Debater 1: aquatus1

Relevancy:8

Countering:7

Style:7

Persuasiveness:6

TOTAL:28

If you had finished teh debate aquatus your score would have been much higher because you were doing really well, but not finishing/concluding leaves a big gap in you argument and marks have to be taken off but otherwise well done. thumbsup.gif

Debater 2: Dowdy

Relevancy:8

Countering:9

Style:7

Persuasiveness:8

TOTAL:32

Good job Dowdy! thumbsup.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny

Thank you for your time and effort guys. thumbsup.gif

Debater 1: aquatus1

Relevancy: 6

Countering: 2 (you stopped countering...)

Style: 5

Persuasiveness: 4

TOTAL: 17

Debater 2: Dowdy

Relevancy: 6

Countering: 7

Style: 6

Persuasiveness: 7

TOTAL: 26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lottie

Thanks for a great little debate.

Debater/ aquatus1

Relevancy: 7

Countering: 4

Style: 6

Persuasiveness: 4

TOTAL: 21

Debater/ Dowdy

Relevancy: 7

Countering: 5

Style: 6

Persuasiveness: 7

TOTAL: 25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BurnSide

Fantastic, thank you very much.

And the results are in!

Aquatus1 has earned a yum-yum score of 22.

Dowdy got himself a delicious score of 28!

Congratulations to both our debaters for a great round! Thank you both! thumbsup.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.