The Instigator
Stripyfrog8
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
PowerPikachu21
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should computers replace teachers?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/20/2016 Category: Education
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 401 times Debate No: 95513
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

Stripyfrog8

Con

Should computers replace teachers?
I am taking the against side for this debate.

The safety of the children. Children are not safe in the hands of a computer, when there is a natural disaster. If an earthquake strikes, it is more that 67% likely that the power will go out, shutting down the computers. With no computers, the children will not know what to do. Also, if the computers stay on, then they would not be aware of the earthquake that is happening. If there is a fire, then the computer would not know, and if it did for whatever reason, it still cannot guide the children out of the classroom, because it can't walk. If there is a blackout, the children would not know what to do, the same as if their computer was frozen.
PowerPikachu21

Pro

I am interested in debating this topic, mainly because I'm a geek. Since his debate is only 2 rounds, I'll use round 1 for both constructing my case, and refuting my opponent's.

Rebuttal:

"If an earthquake strikes, it is more that 67% likely that the power will go out, shutting down the computers. With no computers, the children will not know what to do."

In which case humans will help children get out of the building. Now, these humans won't necessarily be "teachers", per se. More like "security staff", would be the better title.

"Also, if the computers stay on, then they would not be aware of the earthquake that is happening. If there is a fire, then the computer would not know, and if it did for whatever reason, it still cannot guide the children out of the classroom, because it can't walk. If there is a blackout, the children would not know what to do, the same as if their computer was frozen."

Again, human staff. We aren't debating that computers replace all school staff, just that they replace the teachers. Also, we could connect computers to smoke detectors if needed.

Argument:

Point 1; Easy learning.

Not everybody prefers a teacher talking to them, and would rather read a textbook, since it's easier to follow. A computer software is perfect for this. And if we encounter words we don't know the meaning of, dictionary.com is right there. Need to delete a typing mistake? We've got a backspace button, versus an eraser that only lasts a few months. Need to draw? That's what Photoshop is for.

Point 2; Saving resources.

Instead of needing paper all of the time, we can save many trees that are cut down and turned into paper, as well as pencils. And, as said before, we could save rubber used for erasers. This is possible with the use of spreadsheets and Microsoft: Word.
Debate Round No. 1
Stripyfrog8

Con

Rebuttal: You say that it has easy learning, however, it is not teaching us spelling or grammar, instead doing it for us. Most documents have an auto spell check, so there is no need for spelling. So no spelling is being used. Later in life, you will need to use spelling in your career, so this is a major difficulty.

My next point is that computers have no emotions. If the children are being bullied, then the computer cannot talk to them, or the bullies. There is already a huge number of bullying in the world today, but with no teachers to stop it, it will grow into an even bigger problem. On this topic, since computers have no feelings they cannot understand their students as much as teachers do.
PowerPikachu21

Pro

Again, we're debate whether or not computers should replace teachers, not all employees.

Defense:

Easy Learning:

"You say that it has easy learning, however, it is not teaching us spelling or grammar, instead doing it for us." Easy; make a learning program for spelling and grammar. Just have the computer go through lessons about "Steve and Me" not being correct, and "Steve and I" is correct. Also, when doing a test, the page can be without spellcheck, and the students have to judge their own spelling and grammar. This is definitely a possible action.

"Most documents have an auto spell check, so there is no need for spelling. So no spelling is being used. Later in life, you will need to use spelling in your career, so this is a major difficulty." Not if the computer's teaching you S&G.

Saving Resources:

My point on resources being saved has been dropped.

Rebuttal:

My opponent conceded on human security being viable, or at least dropped the point.

"If the children are being bullied, then the computer cannot talk to them, or the bullies. There is already a huge number of bullying in the world today, but with no teachers to stop it, it will grow into an even bigger problem." While I don't know exactly how useful computers are against bullying, I still think AI can give discipline.

If the computers aren't enough, there's always the option for humans to take care of bullies.

"On this topic, since computers have no feelings they cannot understand their students as much as teachers do." Sympathy isn't always necessary. The computers could do something like "Okay. The kid's using words classified as 'mean'. I can see this is considered bullying, since the other kid appears distressed. I need to do something about this." Even so, the option of a human helping stop bullying is still an option, since they won't be "teachers", and more like "anti-bully staff", or security staff, if you want.
Debate Round No. 2
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Stripyfrog8 2 months ago
Stripyfrog8
Thank you, Whiteflame for justifying that vote. Glad you enjoyed our debate ;) .
Posted by whiteflame 2 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Lyksina// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Conduct, S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro aka Power Pikatchu and Con Stripyfrog 8, I must say this debate was amazing. It was very close in my eyes but PowerPikatchu had more conviving arguments in my eyes. However, good job to the both of you.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain conduct or S&G. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to explain the decision, referencing specific arguments from both sides. That requires more than just restating the point allocation.
************************************************************************
Posted by PowerPikachu21 2 months ago
PowerPikachu21
Lyksina, thanks for the vote, but it's not sufficient.

Conduct isn't justified. And in my opinion, we both had good conduct.

Spelling and Grammar is not justified. And none of us had substantial spelling or grammar errors that I know of.

And finally, arguments isn't justified. What arguments were convincing? You need to specify what points I made better than my opponent, and in what way. Just stating "Pro had better arguments" isn't enough.
Posted by psif 2 months ago
psif
Many reasons why debate exists lies in the semantics of the question asked. The answer is quite easy to answer, "Computer should not replace teachers." However, that answer is only satisfied if and only if it has such an opposite.

Deduction to reach a scientifically "Well-posed problem" is required. A (possibly) better question would / could be: "Should computers replace textbooks?" (Object for Object) (due to textbooks using paper, etcetera (however, the "Well-posed Problem" does not end with etcetera).

This question can easily flow down to (and is somewhat analogous to) "Should computers replace workers?" (which could lead to many other issues in society) or perhaps - "Should computers accompany teachers and students in the classroom?". One could go on to state that "Should students attend school?" A computer is a tool. A wrench cannot replace a mechanic. If every person is eventually replaced by computers (and androids), what becomes of people? What becomes of the teacher. It's all pretty to ask and (maybe even) should society get rid / replace teachers, however, an equally adequate solution must be presented to address the issue that millions of teachers need to work.

This is fine in a society without currency / money. This question is impossible to answer from lack of specificity. It begs far too many other "issues" that would spawn from the original question. Again, "Well-posed Problem".
Posted by PowerPikachu21 2 months ago
PowerPikachu21
I was going to type out a concluding paragraph, but there's a 2,000 character limit, it seems. Good luck on your rebuttal to my case, Stripyfrog8.
No votes have been placed for this debate.