Laziness or Liberation? The Real Cost of Our Tech-Driven Comfort! Students Battle it Out! ❤️

Debate : Is Technology Making our Lives Comfortable? or Uncomfortable ?

Report by Ms. Jothika and Ms. Preethi, I MA English

Timekeeper: Ebenezer Dhanaraj ( Limit set to 1 min for per person )

Photography: Arundhati

Date: 07-02-2026

Time: 8:35 am

Toss was won by the Team Comfortable and they started the debate.

David Vimalraj, the team leader of Comfortable side, began the debate by stating that everyone today uses mobile gadgets and without technology, none of us would be here or connected. 

Elizabeth Sharon Preethi, from Uncomfortable side began to point out that technology became the reason for the disappearance of genuine love within family and it also ribs connection between them.

Fenulah Hepzhi, from Comfortable side countered by saying that technology brings people together. She argued that the choice is ours—when we are far away, technology helps us stay connected with our families.

In response Sharon pointed out the fact of writing diminishing from us. She brought a fact that we lost touch with our emotions. Words don’t touch us anymore and the words are moreover not from the heart.

Rufus sir on that point, points out the example of using HBD instead of Happy birthday. We find it easier using three letters than two words.

Vishnupriya added to Fenulah’s argument that if we face trouble in an unfamiliar place, technology enables us to immediately contact our parents or the police. 

Rangineetha from the Uncomfortable side, pointed out the rubbing of connection with neighbours. She made an important point of loss of ‘Thinai’ in front of most of the houses early. That loss makes a problem. She stated in the end ‘ Let’s reach out to our neighbours’. 

Rufus Sir appreciated the evolving nature of students’ speech in the middle and class felt immense joy.

Fenulah further argued that writing itself is a form of technology. She gave examples such as Telegram to show how communication technologies connect people.

Swarna Rekha countered by saying that technology should not drift people away from human connections, because human relationships are important. She emphasized the supremacy of human interaction and argued that people sometimes lose direct connection with others.

Sharon responded, it doesn’t make sense connecting emotions because we connect it by keeping stories and status. And libraries become dead. She also pointed out the recent news of closure of British Council Library in Chennai. Technology made us lazy.

Swarna Rekha defended her argument and added that technology helps in the holistic development of a country. Socially, social media connects people and provides an open platform to share opinions. Medically, technology helps store medical data and patient histories. Economically, technology supports growth and development.

She further argued, using examples from traditional parenting practices, that hierarchical systems often suppressed children’s opinions and emotional intimacy. In contrast, technology has positively changed these practices by allowing children to express their viewpoints and be heard.

Mithun, criticised the topic and made a point of writing is a ritual and it’s good when it wauts without blue tick or double tick. 

Rangineetha, argued on supremacy by stating that supremacy is also in technology. It also brings gender, caste bias. Supremacy is human based and it’s not dependent on technology.

Aarthi added to Rangineetha’s point by stating supremacy isn’t in home but still we find solace in mobile than accompanying our siblings and parents after college.

Fenulah shared her personal experience with the Internet Archive, which played a vital role in helping her access research articles when physical access was impossible. She argued that technology provides the capability to invent and customize tools according to our convenience, and she reiterated that writing is an offshoot of technology. 

Jael added that accessing books through technology helps economically underdeveloped students who cannot afford physical books. She also stated that technology has made publication easier and more accessible. 

Rangineetha pointed out technology is not available and it’s not affordable to everyone. In the name of comfortability people lose patience. Even though sometimes the research topic we use isn’t new but still we don’t spend in searching it.

Rufus Sir, reminded students of a tamil song,

Thedal endra ondru ulla varai, Vazhvil suvai irukkum - meaning “As long as there is a quest, life will be interesting”. 

Rangineetha pointed out that, to print a subject, we first have to write. And overusing and complete dependency on technology doesn’t work. 

Aarthi opined that, plagiarism invention came up when the stealing of idea came into existence. And she pointed out human thinking isn’t real progress. 

Fenulah further argued that technology is a means of searching and attaining knowledge. She stated that even books are a form of technology because the printing press is a technological invention.

Vishnupriya added that human authentication itself relies on technology, for example, plagiarism-checking software that provides authenticity certificates. 

Mithun ended the debate by stating technology is a tool, not just AI or books comes within it, even a hammer is a product of technology. 

Rufus sir appreciated the point and the debate came to an end by appreciating the class for active participation and encouraging each other in every other way.