People have become overdependent on technology

I wish to start with the fact that since my opponent has chosen not to respond to my second refutation, I can only assume that he agrees with it and concedes the point that in the field of communication, we have not become over dependent on technology. I then wish to contest his first point - "We have, as a society, become overdependent on technology. Most of the economic structure of the world is electronic. We read books on iPads, Kindles, Nooks, etc., we write emails in lieu of most paper mail, and rely on telephones/cell phones to communicate with people. If all of this went away, we wouldn't be sent back tens of years -- it'd be hundreds of years." This statement in no way proves the fact that we are becoming over dependent on technology. If we were to be over dependent on it, it would mean that we could not live without it. However, contrary to what my opponent seems to believe, I still see books in circulation, mailboxes on front lawns, and people meeting face to face..... The only point that Pro has made in this statement is that people prefer the use of technology to using the older methods. This is obvious, as for the generation who has been brought up using technology, emails are easier to send than letters, and books are easier to read on tablets... This brings me to Pro's second point - "Kids from a minimal age are exposed to an extremely high level of technology. I am not alone in the observation of kids under 10 using various media outlets more and more." In this statement, my opponent seems to be saying that kids should have very minimum exposure to high level technologies like touch phones, laptops and tablets. I wish to contest this. Since the beginning of time, mankind's mission has been to be more technologically advanced than the previous one. Today's kids being familiar with our current generation's technologies in no way shows us becoming over dependent on technology. Also,according to my opponent, and I quote, "This is a debate about whether we as a society have become over dependent on technology, not on whether the use of it in the first place is negative." However it seems to me that he is the one taking refuge in the negativities of technologies and their effects on kids... My opponent then says, and once again, I quote - "Firstly, all of us are definitely dependent on technology, but not to such a degree that it becomes 'over dependent'...Think about it - what would you if there was NO technology for a day ? No television, no computer, no phone..........it's practically the end of our civilisation!!" It appears that between these two phrases, Con has seemingly switched sides -- or perhaps conceded that we are becoming overdependent on technology. By removing the context between these two statements, Pro has made a strong argument. However, contrary to what he/she believes, the point that was trying to be made is that we HAVE to be dependent on technology to a certain extent in order to survive in today's world. This does not mean that we are OVER dependent on them. My third point to why we are not dependent on technology is that as we have created the different technologies of today, we have learned why we need these new technologies. For example, our memories are not reliable, so therefore we need computers to store information that we can rewrite if we choose to, and view it at any time. This is one of the reasons that justify why we need it, and so we use our computers. We need to communicate with others, but are not always able to meet them, so we invented the telephone. There is a reason that people invent these new technologies, but the people can still survive without these technologies, which shows that we are not OVER dependent on technology, but merely prefer to use these methods as they are easier for us.