Debate on "Should Computers Replace Teachers"
This is the first argument that I would like to give against the motion.
I agree that some aspects of the educational system are already provided by the computer and yes, it is definitely true that you don't need a person to learn everything - education is a largely personal matter. However, if we eliminate the teacher-student interaction completely, a part of the educational experience will be lost. It's not just the act of standing before a class that makes a teacher a teacher, there's the whole social experience of learning - the working together, bouncing ideas off of one another, etc. People are always complaining about the loss of social contact that has come with the age of technology I fail to imagine what they'd be saying if the computer became the new teacher.
Report this Argument Pro
I first thank my opponent for starting this debate and now I shall begin.
I know most members of this website find semantics annoying and cheap but since I'm arguing for the PRO side of this resolution I still feel a need to point out an important semantic flaw. The Resolution is 'Computers CAN replace...' and even from reading Con's first argument you can see he has already admitted that it 'CAN' be done though he say's it would lose an important quality desired in a teaching environment. So by Con's own admission the Resolution has been affirmed PRO; that Computers CAN indeed replace human teachers.
For that reason alone Pro already wins this debate; but lets pretend I don't for the sake of making this debate longer and more entertaining. My following arguments will apply as if the Resolution were 'Robots will...' or 'Robots should...' replace human teachers. Well I suppose it would be more accurate had I put 'Computers' rather than Robots, but you cant talk about this subject without getting into robots. http://www.msnbc.msn.com... and the truth of the matter is (if you click on the link I just gave) Robots (a kind of computer) have ALREADY started to replace
I agree that some aspects of the educational system are already provided by the computer and yes, it is definitely true that you don't need a person to learn everything - education is a largely personal matter. However, if we eliminate the teacher-student interaction completely, a part of the educational experience will be lost. It's not just the act of standing before a class that makes a teacher a teacher, there's the whole social experience of learning - the working together, bouncing ideas off of one another, etc. People are always complaining about the loss of social contact that has come with the age of technology I fail to imagine what they'd be saying if the computer became the new teacher.
Report this Argument Pro
I first thank my opponent for starting this debate and now I shall begin.
I know most members of this website find semantics annoying and cheap but since I'm arguing for the PRO side of this resolution I still feel a need to point out an important semantic flaw. The Resolution is 'Computers CAN replace...' and even from reading Con's first argument you can see he has already admitted that it 'CAN' be done though he say's it would lose an important quality desired in a teaching environment. So by Con's own admission the Resolution has been affirmed PRO; that Computers CAN indeed replace human teachers.
For that reason alone Pro already wins this debate; but lets pretend I don't for the sake of making this debate longer and more entertaining. My following arguments will apply as if the Resolution were 'Robots will...' or 'Robots should...' replace human teachers. Well I suppose it would be more accurate had I put 'Computers' rather than Robots, but you cant talk about this subject without getting into robots. http://www.msnbc.msn.com... and the truth of the matter is (if you click on the link I just gave) Robots (a kind of computer) have ALREADY started to replace