Does technology make our lives better.

For the second round I will first extend my framework that was not refuted and states "if the con can prove that on a scale technology does equal to or more damage as it does good in our lives then the con wins this debate." Then I will go on to attack the pro's points, and then support my own arguments. Before I start I also think that it would be best for us to put a time boundary on this debate. Since the resolution is in present tense, I believe it is fair for us to assume that the debate is on modern day technology in the status quo. Meaning that we must discuss recent technology because everything dating from the creation of the wheel could count as technology. Pro point I. Technology helps with weather predictions Not to say that weather predictions aren't useful, and demonstrates one of the good sides of technology, but my opponent makes it seem like weather prediction is the biggest thing since the creation of the cotton gin. In actuality, because there is such a broad range of technology, this argument is too narrow to be significant, and my opponent almost states the insignificance of his own first point with his opening statement. "Although disadvantages such as disappointment (addiction and so on..) and over-reliance on technology are real, technology can save us when it comes to weather prediction." He compares our society committing social suicide through our addiction and adaptation to technology, to how technology helps us with predicting the weather. Even though I find this point to be relatively insignificant to the inherent dangers of technology I will attack it anyway. "Hurricanes are extremely destructive, and can cause serious damages. We can not avoid having them, but we can get away from it." While technology is useful for weather predictions there is not much that can be done to prevent the serious damage that you talk about. For example it is costing us 81 billion to fix the damages caused by the Hurricane Katrina. And until you can site a source or in some way prove that there is a significant number of people that weather predictions have saved (relatively to how many people technology harms and kills) then I think that your point falls. And I would like to point out that with Hurricane Katrina it was technology that made the hurricane so disastrous. "According to new modeling and field observations by a team from Louisiana State University, the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO), a 200-meter (660 ft) wide canal designed to provide a shortcut from New Orleans to the Gulf of Mexico, helped provide a funnel for the storm surge, making it 20% higher and 100%-200% faster as it crashed into the city." http://en.wikipedia.org... If it weren't for this levee system, damage would have been less severe and lives would have been saved. Pro point II. Medical treatment I would like to start my rebuttal against this argument by stating this fact. Obesity caused by "a poor diet and physical inactivity, is the second leading cause of death in the U.S. right behind smoking. This can be largely attributed to our adaptation to technology. We hardly have to leave our houses anymore. People can even shop for groceries online now. Half the reason we need medical technology is because of what technology has caused us to become. Obesity is the perfect example. "Obesity is closing in on smoking as the number one cause of death in the US as Americans continue to pack on the pounds… But illnesses related to weight problems are catching up fast. A poor diet and physical inactivity accounted for 400,000 deaths in 2000, some 16.6% of the total. That figure was one-third higher than in 1990." http://www.buzzle.com... While medical advancements and technology does save lives it is a double edged sword just like with most technological advances. With the creation of life saving medicine comes the ability to abuse medicine and become addicted to it. For example, Anti-biodics can save someone's life but the more anti-biodics you take the less anti-bodies your body produces because it adapts to the anti-biodics your body is taking in. Then due to your lack of anti-bodies, you are more capable of becoming ill and needing more anti-biodics and the death spiral continues until you completely rely on the drugs to keep you alive. "Unintentional fatal drug overdoses nearly doubled from 1999 to 2004 and were the second leading cause of accidental death in the United States in 2004, behind only automobile crashes, according to the Centers for Disease Control." http://alcoholism.about.com... While cancer is the 3rd leading cause of death in America. My opponent says it himself when he says: "People, even when hospitals were not equipped with decent medical devices, were cured from some diseases, but they, nine times out of ten, died when cancer got in their way." My opponent stresses cancer for some reason but the fact is that technology can only save 9 out of 10 of these victims. Because medical technology is like a double edged sword it cannot outweigh the harms of technology that I will address later on. Pro point III. A=B We value convenience. B=C Technology gives us convenience. A=C Thus, technology is valuable. Yes convenience is valuable, but how can you miss something that you've never had? I'm sure people in the seventies weren't depressed because they couldn't have ipods, and therefore the quality of life for them was not effected by technology because the technology they were missing out on didn't exist. At this point I would like to cross-apply my second point "Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs." Or the things we need to live a happy and fulfilling life. Once again technology is not what makes the quality of our lives better. It is the fulfillment of physiological, safety, acceptance, esteem, and self-actualization needs that makes the quality of our lives better. If anything, technology harms our ability to fulfill these needs. I will start with safety. Nothing is safe anymore, "don't talk to strangers" never used to be a rule that parents gave to their children. Now parents have to be constantly concerned about online predators kidnapping and raping their children. Technology has magnified safety concerns. War used to be men marching with guns and face to face battles, now it consists of threats to blow full nations off the face of the earth, killing innocent civilians everywhere. The more technology that is created the easier it is to destroy a life. Next is acceptance, it's difficult to be accepted in a social setting if you never leave the house and learn social skills. Kids used to play outside, now obesity rates are souring, and people have more text and IM conversations than face to face or even over the phone conversations. Next is esteem, you cant have a strong self esteem if you don't feel accepted, and cant form normal relationships. Lastly self actualization is damaged by technology because we no longer need to do anything. Having the feeling of being born to accomplish something doesn't exist in the minds of people these days. It's all routine, we do everything over the computer and take whatever we can get while putting in the least amount of effort possible. I would attack my opponents fourth point "security is valued" but I already did when I defended the need of safety in my rebuttal to his third point. Now to briefly support my own points: I. an addiction to technology An addiction to anything is not good. In a world where obesity is the second biggest killer behind smoking, and when the world could end if our computers stop working, there is too much reliance on technology, and it has created more problems than it is able to fix. OUT OF ROOM