1. SCIENCE IS A THREAT TO HUMANITY – GOVERNMENT (3rd)
Reaffirm case – Science brings more harm than good as we want to prevent humans from crossing the
morality boundary.
Thank you, Ms. Speaker. Ms. speaker of the House, the respected panel of judges, the ever-precise
timekeeper, my worthy opponents, ladies and gentlemen, members of the parliament, good morning to
all. The motion of the debate today is “Science is a threat to humanity”. We, the government, firmly
and whole-heartedly believe in today’s motion and we will prove to you beyond doubt on this issue.
We, the affirmative, support the resolution “science is a threat to humanity”.
First, I would like to rebut my opponent’s points.
The first speaker mentioned that (state 1st
point and brief elaboration)
and I totally disagree with his/her point. It may not, at first, seem relevant based on what you just said,
but as time passes you will see how science brings more harm than good.
Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to ask a simple question._____________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
All she state is __________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Now, I will question the sensibility of the third speaker. She believes _____________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
This is untrue because __________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Now, allow me to summarise the government’s points. The first speaker states that science introduces
harmful new relationships. This is true because the existence of science widens the gaps of our human
generation. How humans communicate then and now is absolutely different. We are now living in a
world where technologies solve all our problems, and this is where multiple problems arise. Technology
can be seductive because it provides an instant reward. Be it a text message from a friend, success in a
video game or stimulating news on a web site. Mental health experts say an addiction can form - just as
with gambling - when people keep seeking that intermittent, unpredictable reward. One addictive form
of technology is the Internet. The problem, however, comes when we find ourselves subtly substituting

2. electronic relationships for physical ones or mistaking our electronic relationships for physical ones. We
may feel we're connecting effectively with others via the Internet, but too much electronic-relating
paradoxically engenders a sense of social isolation. Besides, electronic media transmit emotion so poorly
compared to in-person interaction, many view it as the perfect way to send difficult messages: it blocks
us from registering the negative emotional responses such messages engender, which provides us the
illusion we're not really doing harm. Therefore, Technology is not necessary for a fulfilling life, as the
Amish people show by avoiding technology which damages the community and harms social relations.
Amish do not forgo technology from a belief that modern innovations are evil. The Amish are cautious
over what a given device can introduce into a community, however.
The invention of automobile is another example—when a family owns motor vehicles, mobility is made
much easier. Family members may spend extended periods away from home, affecting family ties. Easy
transportation can bring one to cities and other areas which Amish tend to view as place of worldly
temptation and sin.
Another point is science makes people lazy, which has led to brand new types of diseases that were
never heard before back in the early days of mankind. For example, H1N1, SARS and numerous types of
cancers. These diseases never exist back in those days.
The second speaker states two points. His first point is that “science manipulates life”. Science has
moved into new areas which violate the boundaries of morality. Research into cloning of persons and
animals is taking place, as well as work on genetic manipulation. Such work is reckless and involves
taking the position of God as an entity which decides what forms of life to create. Genetic testing
involves the abuse of animals, which are used merely as tools in studies to increase knowledge. Take the
animal testing for example. Ladies and gentlemen, should science be given the green light to just torture
animals just for the purpose of testing? If I am a lab rat, I don’t want to live on this planet anymore.
Animals were on this earth before humans and they have been here for millions and millions of years, so
shouldn’t they have more of a right to live than we do? Even though there are legislation’s to protect
the animals during testing, scientist are still not prevented from bringing harm to the animals and the
death of them should still count as cruelty. We kill animals to develop an aesthetics, so that we can feel
more comfortable when we go through hospital procedures so it seems ironic that we have to cause
pain to animals in order to relieve our own.
The second speaker also shed the light on “science enables much greater destruction”. The destruction
of the First and Second World Wars with their unprecedented number of deaths are solid proof that
humans are misusing the knowledge of science. According to Wikipedia.com, The number of casualties
are frightening. Military deaths spans over 16 million people, innocent civillians over 45 millions. To put
in another perspective, over 60 million people were killed, which was over 2.5% of the world
population.The death tolls resulted in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasakireach to a shocking
90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and another 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki. With so many innocent
souls taken, how much do we need to prove that the progression science is becoming out of control? Go
figure. Lastly, the environment be affected as well. As the second speaker stated, the pursuit of
industrialisation and the use of modern technology require the generating of enormous amounts of

3. energy. Such production creates severe damage to the environment via pollution. Renewable energy is
currently expensive and difficult to reliably produce. Humanity is treating itself as more important than
the billions of other life-forms on earth who have rights themselves. The damage to the environment
also threatens to leave the earth uninhabitable, which would also harm humanity’s interests. Science is
used to solve environmental problems these days, but the misuse science itself causes the problem.
Ladies and gentlemen, members of the parliament, the proof is in the pudding. And apparently, our
pudding is solid and real. Before I end my speech, I would like to reaffirm this case that this house
strongly believes that science brings more harm than good as we want to prevent humans from crossing
the morality boundary. With this, I rest my case.
Thank you.