The topic for this debate is "Throughout history, Science has proven that it has the potential to do more evil than good.”

"schrodingers dog" will be arguing the "Pro" position and begin the debate.
"americandingbat" will be arguing the "Con" position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit per post.

Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.

Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references. Video and audio files are NOT allowed.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources. Be cognizant of what you quote as excess sentences will be removed prior to judging.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy:

Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

If a participant misses 2 posts in a debate, it will be then declared a forfeiture. In the event where the debate continues, once a debate forum staff member is able to respond, the debate will be closed and awarded to the winning participant.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

In the Tournament, winners will be awarded 2 points for each debate they win.

All AboveTopSecret.com Terms and Conditions Apply at all times in all debate formats.

My earnest apology for having to claim my 24hr extension at this early stage of the debate which the combination of RL considerations and penchant for procrastination has necessitated. Fear not, ducks are being acquired and organized in rows, and we will begin our game on the morrow!

I will take my 24-hour extension.

My thanks to chissler for running this tournament, and to our judges and readers. I am looking forward to finally confronting my friend schrodingers dog in debate.

---

We have been assigned the topic, "Throughout history, Science has proven that it has the potential to do more evil than good,” and I will be arguing the con side.

Let me begin by addressing my opponent’s Socratic Questions before moving on to frame my argument.

Socratic Question 1:

Could you please point to any current science or technology that has the potential to provide a measurably greater "good" to mankind than the converse "evil/harmful" potential of total nuclear annihilation?

Socratic Question 2:

What are the measurable benefits of science and all it's potential "good" if we're all dead?

Answer 1:

I cannot point to any single current technology that could effect a measurably greater single “good” than total nuclear annihilation would be “bad”. I can however imagine a potential scenario in which scientific advances allowing humanity to survive off Earth would save the human race from being wiped out by a disaster that renders the planet unliveable – and if these things can be measured at all, I would say that saving the human race from extinction would be as “good” as destroying it would be “bad”.

Answer 2:

We are not all dead. But even our deaths would not erase the good already done by science. I do not believe that the past becomes meaningless just by virtue of its passing, nor that human effort is worthless if it becomes lost.

---

Like schrodingers dog, I hope to avoid having this debate degenerate into a listing of the benefits and drawbacks of technological advances through history in some sort of attempt to quantify good vs evil effects and calculate a winner that way.

Yet I note that in his very first Socratic Question he asked me to do more or less that very thing: come up with a single “good” that was “measurably greater” than the “evil” of nuclear annihilation. I did my best to answer his question directly and to participate in the exercise of comparitive and quantitative morality implied, but I do hope we don’t have to continue too far down that path. Not because I think that my assigned position in this debate would not eventually prevail – particularly in a world of potentialities I think that for every problem that technology raises a matching technological solution can be posited. But I think such an exercise would avoid the more interesting angles of the topic.

The evolution of the human species has been directly and causally aligned with it's scientific and technological understanding and discovery.

On this schrodingers dog and I are in complete agreement. From the very beginning of humanity’s development, science – the search for knowledge about and understanding of the universe – has been a fundamental part of that development.

And this is why the debate topic as stated is false: unless we are willing to insist with the Primitivists that human development has been a long slide into evil we must recognize that science is at the base of what it is to be human – that any potential harmful application of scientific knowledge cannot negate its role in who we are.

It is my contention in this debate that while we can point to both “good” and “evil” technological developments – to the extent that as my opponent suggested, if the topic demanded such listing exercises of us the outcome would be a tossup – the most important contribution to the human spirit and the human race of science has been science itself.

To seek to know our selves and our world is an integral part of being human. Throughout history science has been one of the principle ways in which this drive is expressed and realized. This good cannot be outweighed by any single potential development, total nuclear annihilation included.

Socratic Questions

To the first socratic question:

Could you please point to any current science or technology that has the potential to provide a measurably greater "good" to mankind than the converse "evil/harmful" potential of total nuclear annihilation?

americandingbat responded:

I cannot point to any single current technology that could effect a measurably greater single “good” than total nuclear annihilation would be “bad”.

(emphasis mine)

Given that the debate topic is: "Throughout history, Science has proven that it has the potential to do more evil than good,” and that it is my opponents position to demonstrate that it hasn't, I consider this following statement to be a de facto concession of the debate. I shall henceforth include the above statement at the end of every one of my posts for emphasis.

To the second socratic question:

What are the measurable benefits of science and all it's potential "good" if we're all dead?

americandingbat responded:

We are not all dead. But even our deaths would not erase the good already done by science. I do not believe that the past becomes meaningless just by virtue of its passing, nor that human effort is worthless if it becomes lost.

Agreed, but hardly relevant to the crux of the debate topic as the emphasis is on potentiality. As I conceded in my opening post, no doubt man's natural curiosity, exploration, and discovery through science and technology have defined humanity's history and has provided the extraordinary … however, as has now been conceded, none of the existing and potential benefits (good) can surpass the existing and potential harm (evil).

Rebuttal

To my opponent's statement:

Yet I note that in his very first Socratic Question he asked me to do more or less that very thing: come up with a single “good” that was “measurably greater” than the “evil” of nuclear annihilation. I did my best to answer his question directly and to participate in the exercise of comparitive and quantitative morality implied, but I do hope we don’t have to continue too far down that path. Not because I think that my assigned position in this debate would not eventually prevail – particularly in a world of potentialities I think that for every problem that technology raises a matching technological solution can be posited. But I think such an exercise would avoid the more interesting angles of the topic.

Heh, my question was not an effort to engage in a list of "good vs evil" enumeration, rather the opposite … by asking thee to point to a singular "good" scientific discovery to outweigh the potential of total nuclear annihilation (which was not provided), we have in fact avoided the tedious above mentioned listing. As such, my question was consistent with our mutual ambition to avoid said tediousness.

Furthermore, I'm am moved for my opponent's desire to engage in an "interesting" debate, and I empathize with her wish that the debate topic were framed differently, for as we have already discovered there is no valid argument to refute my position. I am sure our esteemed moderator and judges will be thrilled to hear my opponent's declaration that

… the debate topic as stated is false.

I for my part will do my best to keep stuff "interesting" though I favor staying on topic to achieve such lofty expectations.

With that in mind, I will finish my rebuttal by addressing this last observation:

.. the most important contribution to the human spirit and the human race of science has been science itself.

What a beautifully worded sentiment, and an accurate one at that … never mind that I already conceded this point, and that it is peripheral to the topic at best, but sure why not?

It has been said that "the hook goes in deeper if one struggles" … perhaps not only an apt reminder of the pitfalls of technology but likely sound metaphorical advice for the debating and stuff.

1st Post

As we continue deeper into this debate, I would like to reiterate that my position is neither one of a primitivist or a technophobe. As I have already noted, I will not at any juncture suggest that man's pursuit of scientific discovery hasn't provided immense benefit to humanity and conversely, on many occasions, tremendous harm. In fact, again as I stated in my opening post, one cannot fathom humanity sans science or even attempt to separate one from the other. As my opponent so eloquently expressed, scientific exploration defines much of what it is to be human and more often than not, is born of noble and virtuous intent.

Thus this isn't really a debate about choices … it isn't my position to do away with science for that would be counterintuitive to human nature and a rather silly proposition. Heck, even if it were a matter of choice and we could turn off the "science gene" in us should one exist, I still would not argue for such a course of action.

I am comfortable expressing this because it simply isn't the topic of the debate. My opponent and I may well agree on our personal opinion that the risk of potential harm of existing science/technology may be worth the potential benefits, but that doesn't negate the fact that the existing potential harm quantifiably outweighs the existing potential benefit. As stated, the fact that many including americandingbat and myself may feel at comfort with this 'gamble' is a personal opinion and stance, and in no way negates the conceded 'gamble.'

If the above disarms my opponent's last bastion of argumentative refuge, I assure your it is intentional.

For fundamentally, after all is said and done, that's all it really is ... a gamble! We plod along enjoying all the existing benefits of science and technology and hope that no one will unleash nuclear/biological/etc technology scorching the earth and all its inhabitants. We hope that we and our wonderful technology will not deplete the earth of all its resources, heat it or cool it beyond habitability. We hope that when in the future we are faced with problems brought upon ourselves via our use of science and technology we will be able address them with yet undiscovered new and improved technologies, essentially feeding a cycle upon new science and technology must be available just to mitigate the causal consequences of existing ones. And yes, it is a calculated 'gamble' to a certain extent, but still one that is mindful of the inescapable fact that the potential harm outweighs any existing benefit.


In closing this first post, and mindful of the fact that americandingbat and myself have mutually agreed to forgo a point by point historical renumeration and merit based discussion of every single scientific breakthrough/discovery, as per the debate topic, it is still my task to point to any and all said breakthroughs/discoveries whose potential harm (evil) there are NO commensurate potential benefits (good). I shall make it the point of my next post to outline the above … but for now , risking divulging the big secret of an example of all that we create that has the potential to destroy us, I will leave a foreshadowing visual hint:



I will leave it here for now. The topic of the debate and my respective position is: "Throughout history, Science has proven that it has the potential to do more evil than good,” my opponent has stated 'I cannot point to any single current technology that could effect a measurably greater single “good” than total nuclear annihilation would be “bad.”'

Motions will be gone through, rhetoric exchanged, but there is no getting around the above statement for it is a fundamental and outright concession of this debate!

In fact, again as I stated in my opening post, one cannot fathom humanity sans science or even attempt to separate one from the other. As my opponent so eloquently expressed, scientific exploration defines much of what it is to be human and more often than not, is born of noble and virtuous intent.

Indeed we seem to agree on this. And this, though my opponent would misdirect us into a squabble over single technologies, is the crux of this debate.

Furthermore, I'm am moved for my opponent's desire to engage in an "interesting" debate, and I empathize with her wish that the debate topic were framed differently,

Strange, but I don’t recall saying I wish the topic were framed differently – I recall saying that I’d like to address the more interesting aspects of the topic we were given. While I appreciate my opponent’s need to reframe the debate in terms of a comparison of good vs bad individual technologies, I would thank him not to misrepresent my words.

I cannot imagine that the debate moderator will be upset that in arguing the con side of a debate I have said that the statement in the debate topic is false – that is the how a debate works. We are given a statement (in this case, “Throughout history, Science has proven that it has the potential to do more evil than good.” The debater representing the “pro” side then argues that it is true, and the debater representing the “con” side argues it is false.

To try to paint my description of the topic as false as in some way an attack on the framers of the topic is the most basic sort of misdirection by schrodingers dog. To interpret it as an attempt to avoid the topic is absurd.

As for his contention that my agreement that no single, current technology has a potential for good greater than nuclear annihilation is bad is a concession of the debate – again, absurd.

My opponent claims that in singling out one technology that can be considered ultimately “bad” and challenging me to match it with one single “good” he is avoiding a listing exercise. I am asking that instead of narrowing our view to pick out one issue to represent our side, we look at the full potential that science has demonstrated throughout history, just as the debate topic states.

If anyone has conceded this debate, it is schrodingers dog in acknowledging that “scientific exploration defines much of what it is to be human.”

This, I am arguing, is the positive potential of science that no single “evil” technology can outweigh. Unless he should choose to argue that a humanity without science would be less “evil” than humanity as it is, or perhaps that while throughout history the potential for growth through scientific exploration has brought us to where we are, but that potential is no longer there, he has lost.

We seem to be in agreement that the human drive to explore and understand reality that lies behind scientific enterprise is a good thing, that scientific exploration is intrinsically beneficial to both the individual and society.

If pursuit of science is a bet, as he would have it, then we continually make that bet because of what we are – seekers of knowledge. To cut ourselves off from that key part of our being by refusing the bet would be a much greater “evil” than any “evil” that has yet been done by technology.

Yes, even nuclear annihilation is not a greater potential risk than the potential good of continued humanity – and as schrodingers dog has agreed, that naturally includes continued scientific curiosity and exploration.

My profound regrets, but I am going to have to concede this round to schrodingers dog. If he is interested, I'd like to perhaps continue the debate after the tournament as a challenge match. Unfortunately there are a few things going on right now that are making it impossible for me to focus on this.

Best of luck to SDog in the finals!

schrodingers dog moves to the finals.