Should robots replace teachers?
Debate Rounds (3)
Round 1: Acceptance only
Round 2/3: Arguments
It's simple, really!
Let's have fun with this debate. I wish you luck.
Second, my argument:
I completely understand that having robots in our world (and to a much lesser extent, schools) would not only be totally cool, but also an advance in human technology. But the thing is, it would also put a lot of people out of work (in this case teachers).
Not only that, but there is the possible chance that the robots will become smart enough to realise that they can enslave us humans and rule the world :)
I would like to summarize your main points.
1. Robots would put teachers out of work.
2. They will enslave the world.
Now onto my rebuttals:
1. Having robots teach instead of teachers will not only allow society to use more people for some other works that only humans can do (jobs that require emotions), it will also be able to provide better, more accurate, and up-to-date education to the students. A robot is like a storage of information gathered all around the world within the past up to the current time. This would make the students smarter and a they would have perfect teachers (robots) that will never forget anything. In case when students ask some questions, the robots would be able to reply. If the memory data doesn't have the answer, then they could search the internet and instantly give the answers to the students. However, teachers don't know everything and don't remember everything, let alone remembering the correct things. Furthermore, teachers are humans. They have greeds, laziness, and feelings that could interfere with the work.
2. Now that you say so, it is very interesting. However, it is currently not possible for robots to enslave humans and rule the world. Robots are so intelligent that some had beaten the world chess champion or beat human at quizes on gameshows. Nevertheless, their dexterity could not even match a five-years-old, let alone being concious enough to gather up and fight humans.
Now, I would like to fall back on what my opponent said, "Having robots teach instead of teachers will not only allow society to use more people for some other works that only humans can do (jobs that require emotions)"
The problem with that is, when you think about it, there are a lot of teachers in the world, and I don't think there are enough jobs to fulfil everyone's requirements. In fact, unemployment is bad enough already, and replacing teachers with robots won't help it shrink. Unemployment rose in 2008/2009, and although it has shrunk, it hasn't by that much.
Also, there is the risk of another recession, and if that happens, unemployment will continue to rise. Please consider my argument, and I hope I have given you something to rebut on.
There is always enough jobs for everyone in the world. However, most people without jobs are just being picky with their works or that they aren't being offered the appropriate jobs for them. Companies and businesses want good and smart people to work. Less fortunate people who has no education does not have the ability to fulfil some of the requirements. If only humans care less about work and more about other people, then the world would become a better place.
A recession doesn't always guarantee the rise of the umemployment rate. Looking back at 2000/2001, there was also another recession. However, the unemployment rate hadn't been going up during the time. Also, even though there is a risk of another recession, the risk is very low. Looking at it from another perspective, there is a "chance" there won't be anymore recessions.
I would like to add that replacing teachers with robots will be more beneficial to mankind had its negative effects. Education for the younger generations is very important to the future of mankind. They are the ones who will run and rule the world in the near future.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 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:||2||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Torn on argument mostly due to the conceded point about robots taking over the world (silly or not, once included it should have been defended at least a little). However sources clearly favor con, as pro used a broken link, and a copy/pasted one from con (trying to pull that fast one, is what tipped out... one lone source in con's favor would not have).
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.