The Instigator
kirash
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
patsox834
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

People are too dependant on computers now a days

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
patsox834
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/13/2009 Category: Technology
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 19,052 times Debate No: 8256
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

kirash

Pro

I feel that people have become way to dependant on computers in the world today. Every where you look there is a computer located, you go to the doctors and there is a computer sitting in his/her office, you go to school and have whole computer labs dedicated to time you spend learning about them. Then to top it off almost every house hold in America owns a computer in which you go home and "play" on everyday. Approximately 74% of the American and Canadian population has Internet access, which allows us to read books, articles, find cooking recipes, chat with friends and learn new facts and many millions of other things.

But what ever happened to the old school ways? Did books fade out for the use of the Internet and did pen and paper letters die and turn into instant messaging and writing on your face book wall?

The ways we were raised are starting to drift and the new generation of computers are merging into our world. Nothing can get done without a computer today and can you imagine what the future is going to look like with all this computer technology?

And what about all of us people out there who happen to be computer challenged? What will happen to us?
patsox834

Con

Firstly, I'd like to thank my opponent for starting a debate which actually touches on a topic which I find interesting. I'd also like to mention that, seeing as your profile says you're from Manitoba, we're both Canadian -- I'm just further east by a pretty decent margin.

And now on to the debate; best of luck to you.

The first thing I'd like to mention is that my opponent didn't really seem to provide much of an argument that computers are, indeed, more of a burden than a convenience, and that society is "too dependent" on them, which kind of puzzled me a bit.

...anyway, here's a quote from my opponent which interested me:

<"Approximately 74% of the American and Canadian population has Internet access, which allows us to read books, articles, find cooking recipes, chat with friends and learn new facts and many millions of other things.">

The above quote, if anything, seems to play into the hands of my side of the debate. Not only is an abundance of new information now available -- but it's all at our fingertips. The internet allows us to access and study things which interest us much easier than any previous method. I see that as a fantastic thing -- we're capable of educating ourselves much easier than we ever were.

Computers also make it easier to keep in touch with friends, family, and people you know who moved away. It even allows you to interact with people from different countries, cities, states, provinces, etc., which is exemplified by this site -- you get people from the UK, all over the USA, and even small Canadian provinces such as Newfoundland.

Anyway...my second point:

<"But what ever happened to the old school ways? Did books fade out for the use of the Internet and did pen and paper letters die and turn into instant messaging and writing on your face book wall?">

Thing is, just because these ways my opponent speaks of are "old school" doesn't necessarily make them better.

The "pen and paper" letters just aren't anywhere as convenient as taking 15 minutes, for example, to write up an e-mail, which will likely reach the sender in mere minutes, rather than the weeks it can take for a person to receive a hand-written letter sent by the regular ole method of mailing. E-mails are much more efficient.

I see instant messaging as a positive, as well. IM'ing makes it much more simple to keep in contact with people you're close to.

To summarize, while I can appreciate my opponents nostalgia, she doesn't seem to put forth an argument which would convince any readers that people depend too much on computers, and the complaints and criticisms which my opponent did bring up either played into the hands of my position in this debate, or were more of an appeal to nostalgia than anything else.

That's all for round one...

The following has no relevance to the topic whatsoever -- but I figured it wouldn't be an issue if I said it:

1: I'm used to the informal, mud-slinging type of debate, so this is a change of pace for me;
2: I think I read that people are tossing around the idea of a team debate tournament, or something along those lines; if so, then myself and someone I know would be interested.
Debate Round No. 1
kirash

Pro

Thank you for responding firstly to my debate about technology. I'm glad you find it interesting enough to respond in timely manner.

I realize that my first statement didn't cover to much information about why I think computers are "bad", so let me try again with some more input about my opinion and maybe people can realize where I am coming from when I say people are becoming way too dependant on computers and the programs they provide for us.

For example when you walk into your doctors office every person has a computer on their desk and that's how they check you in. but what happens if the computer crashes? what happens to all your personal information saved on the computer at the doctors office. It's just floating there in cyberspace waiting for a computer hacker to come and find it. Of course your going to say there is always fire walls or other programs that protect your computers but how long will those last? How do we know if people are still hacking into our computers without us knowing about it! These doctors offices rely on the computers to always be there for them.

so point number one is: Since we rely so heavily on computers for work, school, homework, and recreation what would happen if the Internet connection was lost in today's world. I don't think people would have the books and papers they could use instead. The world would simply come to a halt with no where for people to turn to "Google" and search what's wrong?

Although, the Internet does allow us to rapidly get information and check in patients at the doctors office. There is always other ways of doing such things. Ways that don't involve the computer and like paper and pencil or an organized chart where you place a check mark when you arrive in the office. The newspaper is also an excellent way to find out what's happening each day in the city and internationally without it costing you a lot. The information comes out daily and can also be delivered right to your door step.

Which brings me to point number two: You said that that emails and IM'ing is quicker and you can receive them within minutes from sending them. I do believe that although letters can be received quicker they are much more sentimental than an email. Letters can contain pictures, stickers, and also small gifts from the heart where as a email just is black and white writing with small detail. It takes you along time to write the email that is true, but it doesn't always have the same feeling because spell check can rephrase paragraphs and fix grammar where as a letter just presents it how you wrote it.

I personally still have the letter my friend sent me from Africa four years ago, but I definitely don't have an email from a family member from more than a month ago. Email accounts get full and who really saves emails on to CD ROMS.

Hopefully this is more helpful in the way of proving my point to you and the readers.

and just a random comment before I sign off this while I was typing this paragraph the computer screen turned blue and then decided to shut down at it's own pleasure. Just saying if we were writing this through a letter I wouldn't have had to retype this comment a second time, because the computer crashed. (but I'm just saying...)
patsox834

Con

<"what happens to all your personal information saved on the computer at the doctors office.">

While I'm sure my opponent has put plenty of rational thought into this, it seems to me that she has overlooked that doctors keep their patients' information on file, as well as stored on a computer. So if a computer were somehow to break down, crash, etc., they still have plenty of information to go on.

<"Of course your going to say there is always fire walls or other programs that protect your computers but how long will those last? How do we know if people are still hacking into our computers without us knowing about it! These doctors offices rely on the computers to always be there for them.">

Again, I think my opponent overlooked that doctors offices keep records on file, too. Not only that -- but the security programs used by places with personal and/or confidential information are top-notch, meaning the chances of someone hacking them are, very, *very* low. Such information *has* to be highly guarded.

<"so point number one is: Since we rely so heavily on computers for work, school, homework, and recreation what would happen if the Internet connection was lost in today's world. I don't think people would have the books and papers they could use instead. The world would simply come to a halt with no where for people to turn to "Google" and search what's wrong?">

I think what my opponent has said would be true if we didn't have any of the previous "methods" that were around previous to computers -- but considering that we *do* still have the tools to make such a transition (writing materials, television, newspapers, libraries) still available to us, we would probably adjust; the world wouldn't cease functioning.

<"There is always other ways of doing such things. Ways that don't involve the computer and like paper and pencil or an organized chart where you place a check mark when you arrive in the office. The newspaper is also an excellent way to find out what's happening each day in the city and internationally without it costing you a lot.">

These "other ways" just aren't as efficient -- why should we, as a society, use less efficient methods when we have better one's readily available to us?

<"I do believe that although letters can be received quicker they are much more sentimental than an email. Letters can contain pictures, stickers, and also small gifts from the heart where as a email just is black and white writing with small detail">

E-mails can also contain sentiment -- people find sentiment in different things. Just because my opponent feels that letters are more sentimental doesn't make it so; other people could quite possibly feel the opposite, seeing as what one finds to be sentimental is a purely subjective matter.

<"I personally still have the letter my friend sent me from Africa four years ago, but I definitely don't have an email from a family member from more than a month ago.">

It seems as if my opponent is attempting to appeal to the emotions of the voters, which is, indeed, a commonplace fallacy.* Having a stronger emotional association with object X doesn't necessarily make it superior to object Y.

That concludes my side of the argument for this round. I would again like to thank my opponent for starting this debate, and for keeping it enjoyable. I look forward to her next retort.

* = www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html
Debate Round No. 2
kirash

Pro

kirash forfeited this round.
patsox834

Con

*Insert comment about how my argument stands and whatnot here.*

So yeah, vote con.

On a side note, this video is highly amusing.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by TheSkeptic 5 years ago
TheSkeptic
C: TIE. Both sides were courteous.
S&G: TIE. Both sides were well spoken.
A: Pro not only forfeited, but she never really showed why having computers being abudant is necessarily bad.
S: TIE. Neither side used sources of importance.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 5 years ago
I-am-a-panda
PRO doesn't actually mention any negative effects of computers. If anything, she just states statistics (without sources) and actually works for CON.
Posted by kirash 5 years ago
kirash
alright... 3 rounds it is!
Posted by patsox834 5 years ago
patsox834
Hmmm...I might be inclined to take this debate if it were, say, three rounds, rather than five.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 5 years ago
Lexicaholic
kirashpatsox834Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 5 years ago
s0m31john
kirashpatsox834Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 5 years ago
TheSkeptic
kirashpatsox834Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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