Does technology make our lives better.

First i would like to extend my framework that was not refuted throughout this debate. (as a reminder) it stated "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. " Because the majority of my opponents last round was copy and pasted from wikipedia i will briefly touch on a few of his closing arguments, and then use the rest of my round to support my own arguments. Back onto his first point he persists with his argument basically saying that weather satellites outweigh the inherent harms of technology (since according to my framework we are putting everything on a scale). Yes, all of the wikipedia articles that were provided by my opponent make these satellites sound pretty cool, and i'm sure that they are useful in the many ways the articles stated, but that is just one aspect of one area of the large world of technology. We could pick little cool technological advances from anywhere and debate the pro's and con's of each one, but that doesn't make sense. My opponent provided a broad resolution so i assumed we were discussing technology as a whole, and these satellites compared to the rest of the huge world of technology does make them relatively insignificant. In his second point he talks about medical technology, but the fact is that much of the things we use medical technology for are caused by technology. Cancer is even caused by technology. Cancer can be caused by Ionizing Radiation, and Chemical Carcinogens. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) Obesity is largely due to our adaptation to technology, we don't even need to leave our house anymore if we dont want to. "Technology is like a pencil. The pencil is there for you, but it is you that have to take it, and it is also you that have to decide what to do with it. You could just throw it away, or use it properly. " But people arent using it properly, and the resolution states "technology makes our lives better. " not "technology could make our lives better if we choose to use it properly. " There are always people who are going to use it incorrectly and it will impact us all as a whole. "When I talked about ipods, I was giving it as a general example, covering all the discomforts came from listening to the old-fashioned radio. " I was giving a general example as well. i was in no way referring to your example. At the time nobody was dealing with discomforts from listening to the old-fashioned radio. Nobody knew that there was any better, and that is why the quality of the life you live can't be impacted by technology you dont yet have. My opponent closed with a definition of quality of life that states that there are two aspects to quality of life, physical and psychological. It is for this reason that i find Abraham Maslows Hierarchy of Needs a good basis for us to debate upon, but i will get to that later. My opponent went on to describe how technology helps give us a better quality of life. "1. -Pills that are made with modern technology can help us in getting back appetite and having a balanced diet. 2. -surgeries with better devices based on modern technology keeps us healthy. 3. -technology used in security reasons such as door locks and such can save us from both physical and mental pain. Your close friends or relatives might be attacked from invaders and robbers, causing you a mental pain, and your friend a physical/mental pain if we did not have modern technology to keep us safe. 4. -Again, surgeries and pills can cure diseases. " My opponent stated no sources but i will go off of his arguments anyway. first pills made with modern technology to help us diet are only necessary because of our rising obesity issue that is directly linked to technology. Furthermore, these pills are an example of a short cut that technology has made for us. No need to lose weight by actual dieting and getting exercise, we have pills that can do it for us. second, he talks about surgeries, but once again many surgeries that we have are given only because technology exists. third he talks about security with locks and everything, but technology has also created a way to pick those locks four was basically the same as one and two. On to my case I. Addiction to technology We have become addicted to technology, and can no longer live without it. My opponent never refuted this fact and accepted it as an inherent danger to our society. extend my first point II. Maslows Hierarchy of Needs. My opponent never refuted this either. However, just to reiterate my argument. Maslow gave us 5 needs for the quality of our lives to be good. he covers both physical and mental aspects that my opponent used for his definition of the quality of life in his third round. Technology does support or fulfill, any of the 5 needs, and actually harms some of them. extend my second point. III. The Inherent Harms of Technology I gave several good examples, such as cyber terrorism, nuclear warfare, obesity, online predators, and technology adaptation throughout this round as harms of technology, but i have one more specific example of technology gone wrong. I dont know how many people have heard about the Chernobyl disaster, and it would be difficult to summarize it in a debate. Basically in the Soviet Union they buried a bunch of their nuclear weapons equipment and such in a big hole with a concrete shelter, the shelter cracked and there is an underground lake below where they buried it and "if the wall of the reactor building or the roof of the shelter were to collapse, then large amounts of radioactive dust and particles would be released directly into the atmosphere, resulting in a large new release of radioactivity into the environment. " which could kill us all. . http://en.wikipedia.org... and that is only part of the problem with Chernobyl, but it proves that technology is a double edged sword that can do a lot of harm even though it provides convenience. In conclusion, technology is not what improves our quality of life or in other words makes it better, and even if it were, the bad that comes with technology is at the least equal if not outweighs the good technology provides.