Science and technology Have made mans life happier

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- REBUTTALS ====================== 1. ) My opponent begins his argument by saying, "There are many types of technology like information technology, biotechnology, and medical technology. ", but I would like to point out that Pro fails to include evidence, or even a definition of technology. I hope this was just a error on his half, but I must point out that this statement is baseless unless you can source and show us proof, and use other terms of debating to convince us, as nobody knows whether you are lying, or you are just super smart and know the definition of 'technology' by heart. Also, to save Pro the trouble, I will help him present his arguments, by offering a definition from a commonly used dictionary website, known as dictionary. com. Also, it is a requirement that my opponent must post in his next argument, whether he accepts this source, [dictionary. com], or deems it invalid, and if it be that he deems that using dictionary. com is invalid, because of blah blah blah, then please include it in R3, otherwise if no response is posted then I will assume you accept the usage of this source in this argument. Link to source: . http://dictionary.reference.com... Definition: tech"nol"o"gy [tek-nol-uh-jee] noun 1. the branch of knowledge that deals with the creation and use of technical means and their interrelation with life, society, and the environment, drawing upon such subjects as industrial arts, engineering, applied science, and pure science. 2. the terminology of an art, science, etc. ; technical nomenclature. 3. a technological process, invention, method, or the like. 4. the sum of the ways in which social groups provide themselves with the material objects of their civilization Since my opponent has not defined his own definition, or what he means by the term 'technology', however this definition is the right version, (if you accept dictionary. com as a valid source,) and if you had thought otherwise then please apprehend such thinkings and etc. 2. ) Since the rest of the argument is only 'valid', on terms of how my opponent deems technology to mean, I cannot argue over this, as it might of been a mistake and I would only be wasting my time, and it wouldn't do much to argue over a minor mistake, as my opponent might have errored slightly. Until a response, I can not really get into depth with rebutting my opponents arguments, so please, quickly apprehend this and help me fix the definition of 'technology', as we need one universal, (at least for our debate,) definition of 'technology'. 3. ) However, when my opponent says "These individuals can now lead independent lives without any need for physical, emotional and financial support. " he again, forgets to add a source, and again I point out that this is baseless until you can put some sourced evidence, as I could do another example of what your doing and say, "The Earth is flat, and everyone is happy because the Earth is flat. " but as we all know the Earth is round, and this statement is baseless, as I have not included any backup source or evidence, therefore it holds no relevance on anything whatsoever. However, my opponent claims that because of, (technology, [which is still undefined therefore invalid] in the medical field has allowed individuals with chronic illness to have productive and healthier lives), these people will now have no troubles and have a perfect life because of medical technology. They will no longer have any troubles with their jobs, taxes, or anything, as my opponent claims that technology grants them this perfect quality, but does not prove this in any way. And again, I must point out that when my opponent says 'productive and healthier lives', that is subjective, as productive to one person might not be the same to another. Please define what you mean by 'productive', otherwise this point will remain invalid just like everything else, until technology and productive is defined. 4. ) The last chunk of my opponents arguments provides lots of copied statments, numbers, and percentages, but AGAIN FAILS TO SOURCE! What else can I say, BASELESS UNTIL SOURCED! !! If you don't include sources, (which you did not do, no sources were included AT ALL,) then everything is invalid, (which it is as you provided no sources,) and your arguments have very minimal relevance to the debate. Arguments ======== Since my opponent has taken the BOP on himself, I have no need to provide any arguments to win this debate; as my opponent MUST prove that {technology has made mans life happier} and all I have to do is rebutt all his points, and disprove everything he says; therefore I prove that nothing has been proven from my opponent, therefore my opponent has failed to meet the BOP, therefore losing the argument. Please provide all of the mistakes I mentioned earlier, as this argument heavily depends on factors of definitions, and sources-as your whole argument so far is invalid and baseless as you have not sourced anything, or defined anything-and therefore have failed to meet the BOP. Back to you, Con.