Debate: Technology brings more advantages than disadvantages to society. Do you agree?
Side: Yes, I agree.

That's pinpointing. Medicine isn't intended to give us all eternal life but it has increased our lifespans. Furthermore, you state that medicine does save the `odd life'? Whereas 100 Americans die every day because of a medicine overdose? Really? I think not. Take away medicine and yes, you save 100 more people a day, but thousands more will die. It's quite a claim you're making there. A very interesting argument here regarding wars. Regarding human nature, even if technology didn't exist, we WOULD go to war in the masses with just our fists. And your statement that `Technology of some form will have been used to take lives in these wars, and therefore it can safely be said that technology has taken billions of lives in the past'. That's a slippery slope. It's hardly logical. It once again begs the question, despite having taken much lives, ; Has it taken MORE lives than it has saved?' I do not mean saved directly, but also indirectly (e.g If doctors didn't learn how to treat the pneumonia that came with the spanish flu. Mankind might be endangered now. So it can count as having saved the billions of people that exist now, the saving of one generation subsequently means saving the next generation and so on)  If anything, medicine has prevented billions of lives lost through disease (see spanish flu and black death). In the absence of which, mankind may actually near extinction.`Logically, it appears more life has been lost due to technology'. Through my argument above, no. Your only point was that `technology has been used to take lives' therefore `it can safely be said that technology has taken billions of lives in the past', which I have pointed out, is a fallacy and therefore not valid. `Cars crash, trains crash, and boats sink, taking tens of thousands of lives' Yes, but what about the other things it has done? A catalyst to globalisation: Technology. In a straight lives saved VS lives taken debate, the kill count for accidents may very well outweigh the number of lives DIRECTLY saved. But what about globlalisation? The progress of society? (Not through the deaths of these innocents but simply through progression of technology) Furthermore, cars crash, trains crash and boats sink not because of the existence of these technology, but human error. It is quite fatalistic to say that more technology simply means more ways to die. Technology on it's own does neither good nor bad. It is how it is harnessed, used, and what it means to people when it is harnessed that defines how 'good' it is. Someone cannot die because of technology alone; technology is mostly inanimate. Someone can also not be saved by it. Well , precisely. But technology has brought mankind to the forefront of research, where we are now on the brink of breaching the final frontier, and the achievement of many dreams actually in sight (marred by capitalism in my opinion but that is another debate). The potential of current technology is to eradicate hunger and overcome scarcity. The same can of course be said of its potential to cause Armageddon. But it is my belief that technology now has brought us more advantages than disadvantages and we are in a much better position with technology than without (While you may point out that this is not the crux of the argument, assuming that advantage<disadvantages, then we should be better without technology, hence linking this to the statement)