Science is a major threat to human existence

Framework It's important to know what this debate is about. The debate is about determining whether or not the existence of mankind is threatened by science. We can see this is what the debate is about by taking a look at the title of the debate, and my opponent clarifies this is the case in R1. Here is a quote from her; "I will be arguing that humanity's existence is directly and indirectly threatened by science" (spelling corrections mine) It's important to take not of this because my opponent has veered off topic a little. Cloning This is the first argument my opponent makes, and we can see that it is not applicable to the resolution. As unethical as my opponent claims cloning is, it was not established to be a threat to man's existence. My opponent merely claims that it is unethical. The argument is off topic, and I urge the judge's to ignore it. Cell phones My opponent brings up another irrelevant argument, about technology hurting the family unit and extending it to saying that harm to the family unit can topple nations, however no argument has been made that would show, any of it will eliminate mankind. Atomic Bombs The only relevant argument my opponent brought up was about atomic bombs, but we'll shortly see why that falls short of satisfying the resolution. There are two big reasons why nuclear war is very unlikely to occur. The first major reason is that countries who have nuclear capabilities all have a mutually assured destruction policy, even if it's a silent one. Any planet that launches a nuke will be destroyed, right along with the country they targeted. Since these MADD policies have been in place, no two countries with nuclear capabilities have been involved in anything other than proxy wars. War is becoming a more rare event, despite what the media would tell you. The number of deaths by war has steadily declined since World War Two. The world is becoming more interconnected. Countries find that they gain more through peace than war with all the trading. Countries are starting to become more Democratic, and history has shown us that Democracies are unlikely to go to war with each other. http://theweek.com... Nuclear war has close to a zero percent chance of happening. Science Will Save the World Science as opposed to being the death of mankind is the savior. A meteor could crash into the Earth and create another mass extinction, but science will allow us opportunity to blast the meteor out of the sky. Mankind is condemned to death, but every new scientific discovery brings us closer to a cure, for aging. We once looked at polio and leprosy as just a natural part of life, and now kids don't even know what those things are, just as science has all but eradicated those things, it may also eradicate aging and thus save mankind. A plague could come and wipe out mankind, but science has helped us create the technology to quarantine people, track a virus and still it in it's tracks. Science is not a threat, no more than a doctor performing life saving surgery is a threat. If you die in a surgery meant to save you, but with only a 10% success rate and you die during the course of it, it would be nonsensical to blame the tool attempting to save you, instead of the disease. At best my opponent's arguments, rest on blaming the tool, but more realistically they fail. Two arguments have nothing to do with the resolution and one argument, has proven to be something very unlikely to transpire.