Should Computers replace Teachers
Debate Rounds (5)
I will explain why all of these difficulties can easily be overcome.
"This is because teachers are face to face explainers while the computer just tells you what to do."
Not necessarily, being face to face doesn't actually provide a greater explanatory power. And teachers also tell you what to do. Even if being face to face magically provided some special ability to aid comprehension, there is no reason why a computer could not do this.
"For example, if you are stuck on problem, the teacher can explain to you. Meanwhile computers ask you to press the hint button. if you still dont get it, you press for another hint. "
That's only true of very basic programs. In addition, most students who have trouble comprehending things often do so for the same reasons. A computer could anticipate the most common confusions about a topic and have prepared explanations. Or if your particular confusion is different, you could submit it to the programmers who could add an additional explanation.
"Also teachers explain things with real life problems. On computers you just read straight of."
This is blatantly false. There exist many programs that use real life examples, and even if there weren't it would be trivially to easy to make a program that does.
"Now suppose computers were the teachers after every hour or so, would the kid get a 30 min rest break."
There are already websites that do this. Here's a link to one:
"Also computer grading systems are only 85% correct when it comes to short paragraphs, five sentences, but way worse in complex essays"
That's not really "teaching" per se. Also, who says that a learning website can't hire people to grade the online essays?
"So all I have got to say is BURN!!!!!!"
More of a light sizzle than a burn, but whatever floats your boat.
Computers cannot visit students' homes to get to know their families and engage them in their progress.
Computers cannot raise money and organize college visits to show students who have never left their communities what they're working toward.
Technology is a tool, not a silver bullet. And like all tools, it can be helpful or harmful depending on how we use them.
Rocketship Education, a high-performing charter network that serves low-income students in California, uses technology to enhance -- not replace -- the work that teachers are doing. Students spend up to two hours a day in a computer learning lab mastering basic math and reading skills through exercises and puzzles, freeing up teachers to spend their time on advanced skills and concepts. The schools invest the money they save through computer learning back into teacher salaries and coaching. At Rocketship, technology strengthens the personal ties between students, parents and teachers that are the key to its success.
Children growing up in poverty need all the support and nurturing from adults that they can get. If we want a real revolution in education, we should make an all-out effort to attract and keep our best people in our schools. Technology can be a powerful force in that effort when guided by leaders who understand what students and teachers need to do their best.
You need to realize that technology is a tool not a person.
"Computers cannot create a culture of excellence and push students to meet high expectations."
That's an unsupported assertion.
"Computers cannot visit students' homes to get to know their families and engage them in their progress."
Visiting homes is not necessary to engagement. There are online courses that already exist which can be placed a college application. Just google "online courses for college credit". They'll come right up. If your immediate future is in the balance, you'll most definitely be engaged.
"Computers cannot raise money and organize college visits to show students who have never left their communities what they're working toward."
Crowdfunding websites already exist and so do college websites where you can arrange a visit. In fact, that's how most college visits are done nowadays.
"Technology is a tool, not a silver bullet. And like all tools, it can be helpful or harmful depending on how we use them."
That's true, but it isn't relevant to the discussion. Education is also a tool. So is a silver bullet, so your analogy doesn't exactly make sense.
"Rocketship Education, a high-performing charter network that serves low-income students in California, uses technology to enhance -- not replace -- the work that teachers are doing. Students spend up to two hours a day in a computer learning lab mastering basic math and reading skills through exercises and puzzles, freeing up teachers to spend their time on advanced skills and concepts. The schools invest the money they save through computer learning back into teacher salaries and coaching. At Rocketship, technology strengthens the personal ties between students, parents and teachers that are the key to its success."
Neat! Also, not germane to the discussion.
My opponent seems to base their view on an archaic understanding of learning in which only human interaction allows for learning. But that simply isn't the case. For example, suppose I read the following Computer Science Textbook:
And now I know how to program in Racket. All the complaints that you had about computer-based education are answered in this textbook. They provide real-world examples, intuitive and in-depth explanations, step-by-setp learning processes, and natural build-ups in curriculum. And this isn't even an advanced education program. It's just an online textbook.
The adaptability of computer programs is highly underestimated even now. There exist robots with artificial limbs that can imitate a human's exact action simply by watching.  There are robots who have learned to read emotions from faces and respond accordingly.  There are facial recognition programs who can recognize people from all sides with 97% accuracy. 
Teaching is a simple nut to crack, and we've already gone a long way. I've linked you to membean, a vocabulary learning site that uses known psychology tricks to teach people new words, AND can grasp your level of understanding from simple tests. I've explained to you existing techniques for categorizing and responding to frequent and common confusions in the learning process. The technology is here.
But you're just denying it.
StrongDebater forfeited this round.
My opponent has forfeited. Award conduct to me.
StrongDebater forfeited this round.
Extend all arguments. Vote for me because me opponent forfeited and did not respond to my arguments.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by YoshiBoy13 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro: Forfeit, BURN Arguments to Pro: Con didn't respond as well. Sources to Pro: He *used* some. Also, first vote :3
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.