is science or philosophy better at solving problems and improving society

I'll address arguments made by my opponent.Overview:The arguments for science are pragmatic. However, philosophy provides a framework and principles for which a person should live their lives. Philosophy gives people a sense of purpose and a construct for which we can understand the world. Science describes and creates things pragmatically, but doesn't provide a sense of purpose and morality. Improving society ought to be measured based off of it's citizens happiness and moral conviction, not based off of how many pragmatic items they have. Happiness is the most important for societal welfare, and this is something philosophy achieves better through giving people a purpose. Rebuttals:"My opponet made the case that philosophy can do what science cannot by making decisions that are moral, and that is what the problem is. Now before you jump to extemes let me explain that statement. Morals should be used for three things. Being able to live with other people, other peolple being able to live with you and you being able to live with yourself. Morals however should not be used for making decisions outside of ones personal life. Thats becasue when we all use our morals to try and solve todays large problems we don't all get the same answer." This is why we measure policies and ideas based off of philosophies that have criteria, such as Utilitarianism, Social Contracts, etc. They provide a fundamental building block to all things that would be considered moral. My opponents idea that we shouldn't consider morality in making a decision is just false. The different philosophies for right and wrong provide a marketplace of ideas that, according to John Stuart Mills, is crucial to determining the real truth. "My opponent used the example of Utilitarian philosophy. A government should make decisions that benifit the most people empiracaly; however that isn't happening. Not when there are one billion people in life threatning poverty, and every life support system one the planet is in decline. " He's bringing up arguments about global problems, but he refuses to look at the effects of philosophy on an individual scale. Throughout history they provided the foundation for legal systems that help us determine what can and cannot be accepted. For example, Why can you not steal? Because, according to Deontology, you shouldn't perform an action that can directly harm another person. It's why we enforce certain laws, and it's why we are able to protect people, science can't determine the morality of this. "What I see is that hyperpluralism prevents us from implenenting the methods of science into our society. there are two many groups and institutions that are trying to promot there morals and philosophy so they can achiieve there goals, and this prevents us from getting the right answers." I invite my opponent to give a specific example of philosophy preventing science from achieving goals. "Philosophy in many ways will collaps onto itself becasue when its implemented on a large scale it doesn't work." Using a combination of ideals and values in philosophy already is implemented. Of course, using one philosophy to measure all decisions is not recommended. " A quote from the great book 1984 illistrates this best "phillosophy can make 2+2=5, but when building a gun or a part for a plane it has to equal 4" Again, he is only addressing pragmatic concerns. "As i've stated I see philosphy as intellectual though that does not require evidence and so it is indeed an invention of humans. Science is something that is reletive to the highest advancment that exist and as it is used more that advancment increases causing exponential growth. " I absolutely agree with science increasing civilization's technology, but can my opponent prove this increases happiness? Suicide rates have skyrocketed since the 1960's in Western civilizations, even with a huge increase in technology. We should measure todays round based off of who gives people a purpose and promotes happiness. My opponent needs to prove science alone can bring more happiness than philosophy.