The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Children should start learning education from the internet now, not schools.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/20/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,075 times Debate No: 59207
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Children should start getting education from the internet since almost all information you want to know is contained in the internet. By learning from the internet you can save more money and other necessities required to go to school. You can save more time and greatly increase your knowledge because you can always test yourself or just click to review a page. It is true schools have social experience, but you can also have social experience from the internet, you are not going to sit all day, you go outside to exercise and encounter everyday people. Learning from the internet also reduces the bullying in schools because you do not see them. Learning form the internet might seem lonely but you can form a group together with friends and learn together. Therefore getting educated from the internet has way more benefits than going to school.


Children need to learn in an interactive environment, where they will be exposed to diversity and opinions. Fact checking is important, as is interacting with peers. If children are learning solely from the internet, there is no interaction with other children, and as such diversity is not taught, and the child is locked in an echo chamber of its own personal beliefs. The child can disregard information that it disagrees with by simply ignoring it, rather than discuss their opinion with teachers, other students and friends
Debate Round No. 1


Like I stated, children can meet friends just by walking outside and socially interacting, which child do you know that has NO friends at all? People have friends no matter what at some points of their life.

And these days, which do you think is more reliable, people or the internet? Sometimes you just believe what the teacher is telling you not caring if it is false fact. But using the internet you can find variety of information and combine it into one, forming the most accurate information that most people agree with.

If you think children are lonely, that is when SMS comes into action. We have Facebook and other social sites we can chat, call, and see their faces. People are putting way more effort to the internet than to schools.

And by health and safety risks, I believe using the internet is safer than going to school for the matters of gun shootings and bullying. The Internet has drastically changed the way that children interact with the world. They have access to in-depth knowledge, tools to express their creativity, and people from all over the world.

Simply put, you can do way more things when you are studying from the internet than sitting in the classroom and studying. There are distractions in classes like friends, and sometimes you do not even listen to your teacher. But when learning from the internet you are looking at one screen in front of you, fascinated and eager to do more things. Think of the possibilities the internet can give you information. for example, competitive education game, debates, and online award winnings.

You mentioned there is not interaction with other children, but like I said there are many ways you can. By SNS and forming study groups together. Also, statistics show that when children learn from the internet, it raises their concentration and achieve higher grades. Technologies are advancing fast, and we have to adapt to them for our benefits. The internet is created for this reason.

Children learning from the internet raises nearly all benefits than learning in schools.


I know absolutely no children who have no friends. I also know absolutely no children who have not been through some form of formal education. See the connection?

Surely you understand that the internet does not exist independently of humans. Wikipedia articles do not type themselves. To say that the internet (i.e people who we do not see nor interact with) is filled with only fact is a foolish assumption to make. The pacific tree octopus experiment is enough to prove that children and adults alike have the misconception that if it's on google it must be accurate. Children are more likely to question a teacher than the internet.

If there is a point where the internet is capable of simulating real human interaction, we are not at it yet. Just think, how many times have you typed "lol" or "haha" without even feeling your face twitch? When we reach the point that doing so is impossible, then this argument may be valid.

Simply put, schools are certainly not oblivious to that fact. We have reached the point where using the internet as a studying tool is not merely accepted, but encouraged. Schools are becoming more and more technologically advanced, to the point that they are removing physical text books, and using electronic forms of information sharing instead. You use the words "fascinated and eager" in your argument, but surely no amount of technology is going to make algebra interesting? Or are you stating that we can simply ignore boring but necessary knowledge and pretend it doesn't exist?

This brings me to the question of how are we to learn basics, such as language? Who will teach us to read, write and use grammar? Who will teach us to spell, and properly structure a paragraph? Who will teach us all of these things? Or are we simply supposed to figure it out for ourselves?

I will keep this brief: cyber bullying is a thing. People feel even more comfortable bullying people on the internet because they're faceless, and anonymous. Teen suicide rates have gone up because of this. There have been countless news articles, web pages and tributes dedicated to those who have taken their lives due to cyber bullying. It's funny how you never leaned that, despite your proficiency at self education on the internet.

I have to comment about your claim that "the internet was created for this reason". It was not created to replace school, it was created so that computing devices could share information to aid in scientific research. The internet and the World Wide Web are also different things. The World Wide Web is what you're actually referring to when you talk about information gathering. The World Wide Web was named such because of the structure of connectivity that each topic had, it all linked to another for ease of navigation.

As for your closing statement, answer this: Do you truly believe that schools still force students to comb through countless books and libraries to gather information? Do you truly believe that schools have failed to recognise what a great tool the internet is, when even small children understand it's value? Do you truly believe that young children will decide of their own free will to learn the most basic of mathematics, language, science and art? Do you truly believe, that after establishing what a great place the internet is, that children will still choose it journey outside and interact with one another, when even now we are struggling with youth being addicted to the internet and online gaming?
Debate Round No. 2


First of all, I want you to know that I have been stating various kinds of advantages that the internet has, but you oppose it with only few facts and statements.
I do not think you simply understand the topic of this argument, or you do not know how the internet teaches children. There are more reliable sites than you know. Over 100 countries have used the online course called Udemy and Udacity that makes students able to get their degree online without actually going to a university. Internet is developing more ways to teach students in a more effective way and some online sites are already developing an online university, And ask yourself this, if you could not understand something, did you ever go to Youtube and search it? Everyone once learned various types of things in Youtube. There are online professors who teaches you like any teachers, so you can always ask a person than asking to Google.

As for your cyber bullying note, students who goes to school also gets cyber bullied and plus bullied again in school. No matter you get education from school or internet it does not change the fact cyber bullying exists. It will also be there, so the fact you stated about Cyber bullying was not a good point to go against internet education.

You said no amount of technology is going to make algebra interesting, but actually you can make education interesting through the internet. Through games, competition, awards, etc. You can motivate a child to become eager to learn when they are young.

Everyone knows wikipedia is written by anyone so we do not visit that site often. You said how many times you have typed "lol or "haha" without even feeling your face twitch, but I ask you how many times have you laughed watching a video? Just how many possibilities you can do through the internet, imagine.

You asked how are we to learn basics, such as language, reading, writing, and use grammar? Once again by reading this I do not think you understand the topic of this argument. How many classes are there in the internet? How many teachers you can ask by video chatting. And how to write? Just get a pen and a notebook and write down what you are learning in the internet. When you are very young and do not know how to write, you can just look at a video or surely I know you learned some basic writings from your parents.

You did not go against all of my statements in the previous arguments, why is that? Did you not read carefully or you can not go against some of the facts?

I will answer your closing questions. I do not believe that schools force students to comb through countless books and libraries to gather info because, it is up to the students to decide if they want to learn what they learn in schools, most of them simply do not care, sometimes they even get picked on teachers. Teachers were once students remember that. I do not understand why you asked the question, "Do you truly believe that schools have failed to recognise what a great tool the internet is, when even small children understand it's value?" You even misspelled the word recognize, you see how the internet can simply detect the misspelled word but when you write, you can not? I can tell you are carelessly writing this argument without going over the grammar mistakes and spelling punctuation. Next question, I believe that young children will decide of their own free will to learn the basic mathematics and other subjects because it is so easy and simple. Once screen you are looking at and who can not handle that? It is sitting their and understanding the video in front of you while someone else older can just turn on a online course. You start school in either K4 or K5, but before that you get education from either your parents or videos. Children will still go outside after learning the great establishment of the internet even when addicted to online gaming and the internet because a person knows what is right and what is wrong. They have common sense, if they feel like they are overdoing something, they will stop. A person will eventually get tired of a game they do not do it for the rest of their lives.

I have stated more facts and advantages about the internet and went against your statements.


First of all, I want YOU to know, that I have used structured and coherent arguments to dismantle yours. Furthermore, as the instigator of this argument, it is your responsibility to make me understand the argument. Udemy and Udacity seem like great examples, their sole flaw being that they are teaching at a university level, and I've never heard of them before today. I'm sure that the five year olds will know about it and appreciate it all the same.

The internet is not developing more ways to teach people. I do believe you misunderstood my earlier statement regarding Wikipedia. Everything on the internet was put there by a person or company at one point or another. Websites do not magically appear with accurate information in them. A professional in that field put it there. People are developing more ways for others to learn online would be a far more accurate than what you did in fact write. If anything, I would say it is you who does not understand this argument, nor the basic foundations of the internet for that matter.

Youtube. A prime example of a distraction. You claim that a classroom has distractions? Well I can say with one hundred percent certainty that for every distraction that a classroom can fabricate, the internet has three more at the very least.

So rather than a building, a teacher and a group of other students, you suggest a dimly lit room, and two people talking over the internet. Where exactly is the vast number of teaching staff and apparatus (namely a decent computer for each of them) going to come from, that would be required to teach each student independently? How will these people be paid? Are you really suggesting that teaching become a free lance occupation, completely un-subsidised and open to scam artists and pedophiles to exploit?

Once again reading your statement about learning basics, I ask is it truly I who doesn't understand the argument? I'm sure I don't need to remind you that the internet is navigated by typing, reading links then clicking on them. I guess a young illiterate child is supposed to what? Figure that out by itself? Or is it up to parents now to not only work a full time job, hire a full time babysitter and still maintain a social life, now they are responsible for taking on a teaching role as well?

My good sir, all you have done is avoid my arguments and ignore my evidence. You persist on presenting nearly identical evidence each time.

I had chosen to ignore your poor handle on the English language, but it seems you were not content to simply analyse the facts. Below are a series of grammatical errors that I picked up on, and decided would serve to illustrate my point. My point being, if you're going to play with fire, be ready to have your fingers burned

almost all information you want to know is contained in the internet.
you can also have social experience from the internet

Learning from the internet also reduces the bullying in schools because you do not see them

People have friends no matter what at some points of their life.

Sometimes you just believe what the teacher is telling you not caring if it is false fact.

But using the internet you can find variety of information and combine it into one, forming the most accurate information that most people agree with.

People are putting way more effort to the internet than to schools.

Think of the possibilities the internet can give you information.

By SNS and forming study groups together.

Also, statistics show that when children learn from the internet, it raises their concentration and achieve higher grades
Debate Round No. 3


As for this argument, you have flaws in your facts because I do not think you are reconsidering what you are saying. You said the internet is not developing more ways yo teach people, then could you please tell me what the internet is developing more of? Also, allow me to ask you, have you ever built an website before? You said websites do not magically appear with accurate information on them. And as i stated in my previous arguments it is up to you to gather the information from different sites and put them into one.

You asked how the people who teaches you personally online get paid, you do know this is a simple answer but I guess you do not care to research about your own questions. They get paid like teachers do, but through the internet. It is a class in the internet taught by teachers, basically like schools but avoiding bullying, gun fires, and other dangerous possibilities.

You asked if an illiterate child is supposed to do what through clicking, reading, and typing. But imagine the video teaching alphabets by a teacher writing them on a board, and there is a pencil and a paper in front of the child. The basic fundamentals of a human brain stimulates the brain to copy what the person in the video is writing. Then you might ask, how would kid learn how to write? Do you remember how you started writing for the first time? For sure it was by your parents.

I notice nearly half of your argument states my grammatical mistake. That allows the reader to think that you are sentimental. You have shown your anger toward my arguments and attacks, basically you are losing from acting by thinking. You are acting by feeling.

What I am talking about from this topic is that you do not need to actually visit/go to school, sit down and learn from the teacher in front of you. Learning from the internet is just like learning from school what don't you get? Why are you persistently stating how a child will be able to write or spell. Once again, it is just like having classes in Kindergarten, but by the internet.

You say Youtube is a prime a distraction. Ask the people around if they think like that. Clearly you are putting sources that actually help us and say it is a distraction. Just how many things have people learned from Youtube. I forgot to mention that one of your facts are wrong. You said cyber bullying is now increasingly raising the suicide rate of students, but you are wrong. It is by bullying and the stress that the school gives. As a reminder please review your facts before stating them.

It is funny you say that I persist on presenting nearly identical evidence each time, do you really not know why? It is because I have to state my facts over and over again by your same questions that I have already answered, I have to remind you again and again each argument. This again shows that you do not read and carefully of other people's ideas.

As connection speeds increase and the ubiquity of the Internet pervades, digital content reigns. And in this era, free education has never been so accessible. The Web gives lifelong learners the tools to become autodidacts, eschewing exorbitant tuition and joining the ranks of other self-taught great thinkers in history such as Albert Einstein, Alexander Graham Bell, Paul Allen and Ernest Hemingway.

"Learning is not a product of schooling but the lifelong attempt to acquire it." -Albert Einstein

In April 2001, Charles M. Vest, the MIT President at the time, announced that the university would make its materials for all its courses freely available on the Internet. This initiative, found at OpenCourseWare, has enabled other teachers and lifelong learners around the world to listen and read what is being taught at MIT. 5 years later, in April 2006, UC Berkeley announced its plan to put complete academic courses on Apple"s iTunes U, beginning what is now one of the biggest collections of recorded classroom lectures in the world. One year later, in October 2007, the school launched UC Berkeley on YouTube. According to Benjamin Hubbard the Manager of Webcast at UC Berkeley, the school has had well over 120 million downloads since first sharing videos online, which they began doing in 2001.

He says, "I think there"s a wide array of reasons why faculty should be engaged in recording and publishing lectures online. The first is wanting students to have access to materials. The second is for cultivating a really great affinity for a public university that"s providing research and community service. The third is closely aligned with this opportunity to provide educational resources all over the world to those from all walks of life, despite what disadvantages they have faced. It"s so important that we recognize as a public institution that this is something people value greatly and has great value for us too."

Both Yale and Stanford have followed suit, and even Harvard has jumped on board in the last two years. Open Yale features free and open access to a selection of introductory courses taught by distinguished teachers and scholars, supported by funding from the William and Flora Hewlitt Foundation. Outside of the U.S., some of the most selective universities in India have created a vast body of online content in order to reach more of the country"s exploding student population. At Stanford, you can freely "attend" The Stanford Mini Med School featuring 3 year long series of courses by more than thirty distinguished faculty, scientists and physicians.

The world"s encyclopedia is as weightless, free and instantly accessible as Wikipedia, which is quickly gaining legitimacy in the education sphere. Using the Internet, you can learn a new language or delve into the depths of metaphysics with just a click of a mouse. The Web has unlocked the keys to a worldwide virtual school, potentially leveling the playing field for students around the world.

Excuse me, but please try learning from the internet for once in your life and then argue against this topic.


You say I do not read through the arguments properly. I am stating that the internet is incapable of creation without human input, otherwise referred to as "content creators". These content creators are not young kids who are compiling the information and "putting them into one" place. I have built a website actually, because my school made me do it as a learning experience. I now have a deeper understanding of the internet than I would otherwise have been afforded. I learned not to take everything at face value, because if I can do it, so can any troll that decides it would be funny to make someone think a tsunami is a type of fish.

The teachers get paid online via credit card or eftpos I presume is what you are suggesting, because there is no way that the government could possibly fund all those teachers, and someone has to pay them. So it would be parents, and they're paying via credit or savings? I was hoping you'd suggest something that wasn't open to internet hackers and con artists.

You dismiss cyber bullying like its nothing? Let me tell you buddy, cyber bullying is a real and relevant threat to the mental stability of our youths. I notice your lack of a source that disproves my claim, I am going to go out on a limb and say it's probably because there was no source, and you wrote that because you simply disagree with it. Why don't you provide a source before you dismiss facts like that?

I ask how an illiterate child is supposed to navigate their way to this revolutionary video you are suggesting. How is a child going to search for and find the appropriate video for their learning phase and skill level? Perhaps that too will fall to the parent. How many parents are going to want to sit through half a dozen videos on basic alphabet until they find one that caters to their child? How many parents are going to want to want to pay someone to look after the child and ensure that it remains focused? Like it or not, children owl get distracted. It's a fact of life.

I didn't want it to come to this but it seems necessary. I can tell you that no, I didn't start learning to read and write from my parents, because like more than fifty percent of standard American households as of 2010, I live in an untraditional family arrangement. If you take that scale an apply it to a country the size of Australia, which is where I live, it is not uncommon for a child to be living with a single parent, a grandparent, Aunt, uncle or even in foster care. Not everyone fits into your little scheme of "perfect traditional families" you know. Don't presume that you know me.

I was simply answering your statement "you even misspelled recognize" well guess what buddy boy, your spelling and grammar isn't that great either. Are you aware that there are different versions if English, and applying whatever bastardisation of traditional your country has as it's standard to my own country's bastardisation of traditional English just goes to show how truly ignorant you are to other cultures.

What don't you get... Let's see, why don't I start with human interaction outside of a fifty centimetre box? Physical contact? Exposure to viruses and disease essential for the building of a healthy immune system? The idea of a shared workspace? It's not even about the curriculum, it's about all the things you learn at school that aren't the direct result of the teachers, but rather the result of sharing an interactive environment with other equally curios children

I did in fact ask around, and people share my opinion. this is a link to the top 100 most subscribed to channels on youtube. I count one educational channel among their ranks, that channel being Vsause. Are you suggesting that children won't find the other 99 the least bit enticing? Not even with all that advertising for PewDiePie and his cohort of gaming commentators?

Yeah, I like the mention of "lifelong learners". I happen to be one myself, but you cannot say that all children are interested in learning. Some choose to work as labourers, which after the set curriculum for that, no extra learning is needed. Others choose to sit around smoking bongs. You know what they'll learn form youtube? They'll learn how to make a bong out of anything you can find around the house and how to pass sobriety tests. What a great tool the internet truly is. Flawless.

Why don't you try looking at things with a little cold, hard logic before arguing this topic?
Debate Round No. 4


paulheo forfeited this round.


EpicLX forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by a.paxton 2 years ago
I think negative side has more advantage. Get example from us. Do we really learn better on Internet?.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Fundamentally, I think Pro's case was flawed for resting on the notion of "the internet" teaching kids. I think he would have done better had he focused on a similar, but substantively different, resolution of computer-based learning with some measure of structure. "The Internet" is not, in and of itself, a teaching device. Without some measure of structure, I don't think Pro made his case. Arguments to Con. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.