The advancement of technology only leads to the harm of our habitat

Before I begin since no definitions are given I will be providing definitions Advancement: A forward step; an improvement. Technology: The application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes Only: And no one or nothing more besides; solely or exclusively: Our: Belonging to or associated with the speaker and one or more other people previously mentioned or easily identified. (Since no people were mentioned I will assume the human race) Habitat: A particular type of environment regarded as a home for organisms Lead: To tend toward a certain goal or result With these definitions the Affirmative statement stands as The (Improvement) of (the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes) (Exclusively) (Tends toward the certain goal) to the harm of (the human races') (Environment regarded as home for organisms). Contention 1With this Affirmative statement Pro is trying to Prove an absolute so therefore I will only have to prove an exception. I would also argue that Pros statement "The Con must give one example that does not harm the habitat in anyway. " is in conflict with the Affirmative statement. The argument is not about how technology currently effects Habitats but where it leads or finally ends or the final result for example building green energy and technologies will lead to the eventually ending of harm on the habitat, not the ultimate ending of harm. Contention 2I would also like to point out that the word habitat in the affirmative statement does not read as environment, an environment is what surrounds where a plant or animal lives, but is instead a subjective term A Particular type of environment as a home for organisms. So the environment of humans would be cities, industrial centers villages, etc. ArgumentsFirstly Technology is not always a physical product as Pro will try to conclude technology is only the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes. [1] For example the technique of breeding plants to increase plant yield benefits the habitat[2]. As the plant yields more food or fruit it can be used to feed not only humans but insects, deer, and other wild animals. The breeding of these plants would require no physical tools and therefore not cause any harm to the environments. Pro has to declare how breeding greater yielding plants negatively impacts a habitat or species therein. My Second argument would be that eventually the advancement of technology will lead away from harm of habitats by physical technologies. Yes we are truly in a world where most, certainly not all technologies can lead to harm, but that is failing to address the future which is clearly hinted at by the word he used in his Affirmative statement "Leads". I assert that as technology advances we will eventually be able to Harvest Metals, and resources from other planets. Due to current knowledge, other planets in our solar system are filled with precious metals. Mars is one example of a planet that has Ore resources that can be used to manufacture green safe technologies here on earth[3]. Due to the fact Mars is uninhabitable we would destroy no habitats and technology would lead to the betterment of our habitats here on earth. Also I urge the audience to think of the advancement of technology that we have todayAlternative ArgumentsIf I failed to read the Statement correctly I will provide arguments for potential meanings For example. If the Statement was meant to be read The advancement of technology (Exclusively) leads to the Harm of (Human) Habitats. I would argue that currently Technologies not only affect Humans but other animal habitats as well. Also, if the statement read like this I would argue that technology does not Exclusively harm our habitat therefore it would positively effect it. Technology helps us because a habitat is what is regarded as a home for a species which is entirely subjective, and our Home has changed from being nomadic in forests into living in cities, villages, and towns, this is our Optimal habitat and technology only helps us in this habitat by providing abundances of food and shelter. Due to the fact humans now live in a technologically dependant era it would harm the habitat by taking technology away. Due to the theoretical and philosophical nature of this argument my links will be few but Wikipedia. org is more accurate than encyclopedia Britannica [4]. http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://news.cnet.com...