The Instigator
catastrophy
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Midnight1131
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

We are too dependent on computers

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 1 vote the winner is...
Midnight1131
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/9/2015 Category: Technology
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,593 times Debate No: 75036
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

catastrophy

Pro

Your argument is illogical in a number of ways. You say that we use computers in a variety of things such as airplanes, but doesn't that mean that we are dependent on them? Secondly, the question is not asking whether computers are beneficial for mankind, but rather if w are dependent on them or not.

Preceding with my argument, I believe that we are dependent on computers because ever since they have been invented, we are constantly relying on them for everyday use. Almost every teenager has some sort of computer whether it is a cellphone, laptop, or tablet. They do not know how to do schoolwork or fight their boredom without it. With Google, Microsoft word, and social media, people are constantly relying on computers and do not know how to fend without it. If a student was told to write an essay without a computer, they would discover that it is extremely difficult because of their dependency on google for research. With technology advancing, computers are evolving almost everywhere, and if suddenly that disappeared, all hell would break loose and nobody would know what to do.
Midnight1131

Con

First off, the BOP is on my opponent to prove that we are too dependent on computers. I'll start off with definitions.

Too - definitions from Oxford Dictionaries

to a higher degree than is desirable, permissible, or possible; excessively

We
used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people considered together:

Since my opponent has not specified, I will assume that "we" means the human race as a whole. Now, on to rebuttals.

Your argument is illogical in a number of ways. You say that we use computers in a variety of things such as airplanes, but doesn't that mean that we are dependent on them?

We are dependent on airplanes, but that is not too dependent, which is the point of the whole debate. It is perfectly reasonable, and not excessive at all, to be dependent on airplanes for international travel. As they are the most efficient option.

Secondly, the question is not asking whether computers are beneficial for mankind, but rather if w are dependent on them or not.
My opponent is making a reference to the opinion question, which is where I wrote my answer on. I will state that opinion question here.

We are becoming too depends on computer.
http://www.debate.org...

That was the exact same question on which this debate is based off of. So I will reply to what my opponent said, this question is not relating to "if we are dependent on computers," but rather "if we are dependent on them excessively."

Almost every teenager has some sort of computer whether it is a cellphone, laptop, or tablet. They do not know how to do schoolwork or fight their boredom without it. With Google, Microsoft word, and social media, people are constantly relying on computers and do not know how to fend without it. If a student was told to write an essay without a computer, they would discover that it is extremely difficult because of their dependency on google for research.

This argument is flawed in many ways. My opponent has not proven that teenagers cannot do their schoolwork or fight boredom without a computer. There are many teenagers across the world who do not have access to computers. 1.11 billion, that is the population of Africa, and in Africa, computers are not that easy to come by, that is already 1/7 of the world's population that can do schoolwork and fight boredom without computers. Not to mention, my opponent has not proven that even here in North America, kids can't do work without computers. In fact, out of the entire Earth's population, 61% do not use the internet [1], so therefore, it is proven that teenagers can do their work without using the Internet. I also ask my opponent to prove how relying on computers as storage for information is an excessive dependency.

With technology advancing, computers are evolving almost everywhere, and if suddenly that disappeared, all hell would break loose and nobody would know what to do.

This statement is null until my opponent gives facts as to whether or not this is a believable outcome. As I mentioned before, more than half of the world's population does not even use the internet, so they would get by just fine without it. But more importantly, this statement has nothing to do with the debate, the possibility does not exist that all computers can disappear. My opponent is simply trying to appeal to emotion, by proposing a completely impossible scenario. I now toss the ball back to my opponent, and await their arguments for the 2nd round.

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
catastrophy

Pro

I initially had not known that you said "too", but that has already been resolved. Continuing on with my argument:

definitions:
computer: an electronic device for storing and processing data, typically in binary form, according to instructions given to it in a variable program.

As a computer science student, there are 9 types of computers to my knowledge:
1. microcontrollers
2. PDAs
3. Tablets
4. Netbooks
5. Microcomputers
6. Mainframes
7. Server farms
8. server farms
9. Supercomputers

I am assuming that when you refer to computers, you are not only referring to devices which you can connect the internet on. When you said, "there are many teenagers across the world who do not have access to computers" are you essentially saying that they do not have access to hospitals? railway stations? ATMS? anywhere else where computers are used? If so, I am pretty sure this is false, as these places certainly do have at least one manifestation of computers.

Before computers were invented in the 1940s, people could get by just fine; they did not rely on them for homework, entertainment, etc. But NOW, as computers are increasingly making things more easier for us, naturally humans want to rely on them because it is in our nature to rely on other things/people to do things for us when we don't have to. In my previous argument when I said "almost all teenagers have some sort of computer", I was indirectly referring to developed countries, but it is my mistake for not making that clear as it was my very first argument on this website.

When you said, "it is proven that teenagers can do their work without using the Internet", I did not say they could not do their work without the internet, but could not do their work without computers. This argument is valid; schools require students to use computers for essays, assignments, powerpoint presentations, spreadsheets, etc. Schools even use computers for their grading systems, to access course material, use moodle for students in Canada, AND check for plagiarism for assignments submitted by students. Without computers, schools would be completely lost. I am not only talking about America but virtually every school in the globe; all use some sort of computer and rely on them. A study shows that teachers in economically disadvantaged schools(such as the schools in Africa) are as likely to report that their students use computers on a weekly basis as are teachers in more advantaged schools.

I would also like to claim that although "1/7 of the world's population that can do schoolwork and fight boredom without computers", if they were suddenly introduced to computers, then obviously they would rely on them. People 30 years ago could also do work without computers but ever since they were introduced to them, they became more and more dependent on them. In my argument, I was talking about people who are ALREADY introduced to computers and how they rely on them.

It is unclear what you are asking: " I also ask my opponent to prove how relying on computers as storage for information is an excessive dependency. "

Are you talking about physical RAM? or information from the internet?
I look forward to hearing your next argument.

WORKS CITED
http://www.brookings.edu...
https://www.princeton.edu...
Midnight1131

Con

I will start off with rebuttals, in this round.

When you said, "there are many teenagers across the world who do not have access to computers" are you essentially saying that they do not have access to hospitals?

Again, I said that they do not have access to the internet. The entire debate is about proving whether or not humans have become TOO dependent on computers. You will have to prove whether or not having access to hospitals is an excessive dependency.

If so, I am pretty sure this is false, as these places certainly do have at least one manifestation of computers.
Again, you have to prove how this is an excessive dependency, if it is simply a reasonable dependency, then it goes against what you are trying to argue, because being "TOO dependent on computers," means that the dependency would have to excessive, and unnecessary.

In my previous argument when I said "almost all teenagers have some sort of computer", I was indirectly referring to developed countries

eBut developing countries must be taken into account, because they make up the majority of the Earth's population.

My opponent states that schools require students to use computers for essays, assignments, powerpoint presentation, spreadsheet etc. You have not provided any evidence for this. There are many schools that don't require any of this. In fact, unless a school has a specified technology program in which having a laptop is a requirement, there is always an alternative to using a computer. While schools may use computers for grading certain tests, most schools do not use them to grade the majority of tests, and don't use them at all when grading exams. When you say that schools use computers to check for plaigarism, I'm assuming you are referring to turnitin.com, which again, requires the internet, and as I showed before, the majority of humans do not have access to the internet. In my entire life as a student, I have used turnitin.com and applications like it, a total of 1 time, and I have never in my life heard of an application called "moodle." So no, schools do not require the use of computers, and they do not use them regularily for grading assignments.

Without computers, schools would be completely lost. I am not only talking about America but virtually every school in the globe; all use some sort of computer and rely on them.

Again, this is an incorrect statement. My opponent provided the following source at the end of their argument,

http://www.brookings.edu...

the opening paragraph of this source states the following.

"The American education system has a remarkable resistance to innovation and the classroom experience has changed very little in the 100 years since Edison's prediction."

The source that my opponent provided shows that American education system has resisted innovation and has not changed very much over the years to accomodate technology, so it's true that the education system does not require technology.

A study shows that teachers in economically disadvantaged schools(such as the schools in Africa) are as likely to report that their students use computers on a weekly basis as are teachers in more advantaged schools.

The students are using the computers, but you don't show that the schools require them to use it. It would be an excessive dependency if the students were required to use them, and the curriculum depended on the use of computers, but you have not shown this, you've simply shown that they use computers.


if they were suddenly introduced to computers, then obviously they would rely on them. People 30 years ago could also do work without computers but ever since they were introduced to them, they became more and more dependent on them.

People are simply using the machines that they invented. This is not an excessive dependency, and this does not prove that people are TOO dependent on computers. It's a reasonable assumption that when machines come along that will make work easier, people will use those machines, because it is very reasonable to have a desire to make your work easier, and this is not an excessive dependency at all. You state that people became more dependent on computers once they were introduced, but this does not mean that they can't do work without them. It's given that people who have been trained with computers to use computers would not be able to do their work without them, but if for some reason all computers disappeared, it would not take long before the human race adjusted back to a time before computers were necessary.

It is unclear what you are asking: " I also ask my opponent to prove how relying on computers as storage for information is an excessive dependency. "

Are you talking about physical RAM? or information from the internet?

Both. Since the entire point of this debate is to prove that dependency that humans have on computers is TOO much, I ask my opponent to prove how using computers as storage for information is an excessive dependency.



Throughout this entire debate so far, my opponent has not proven how any of these dependencies on computers are TOO MUCH. I'd like to remind my opponent that the entire point of this debate is not to prove that humans are dependent on computers, it is too prove that they are TOO ependent on computers. The difference is, that being too dependent on computers means that we are dependent on them excessively, and above a reasonable amount. I'd like to remind voters that the burden of proof is on my opponent to prove this, and so far they have not.
Debate Round No. 2
catastrophy

Pro

"Again, I said that they do not have access to the internet. The entire debate is about proving whether or not humans have become TOO dependent on computers. You will have to prove whether or not having access to hospitals is an excessive dependency."

You did not say that they do not have access to the internet; you may have implied it, but one cannot assume that all students must use the internet to do their school work. I am not required to prove whether or not having access to hospitals is an excessive dependency because I was simply rebutting your argument of "there are many teenagers who do not have access to computers"; I had also mentioned railway stations and ATMS. The entire point of this debate was proving whether having access to computers in an excessive dependency, not hospitals. However, although having access to hospitals is in fact an excessive dependency due to common sense, I will list some basic points on why they in fact are:

1. To cure/treat patients from life-threatening illnesses.
2. To give vaccines to people that can make them immune to life-threatening diseases
3. To deliver babies
4. To conduct research about diseases/illnesses and find potential cures

In developing countries such as Africa where hospitals are rare, the leading causes of deaths were Aids, Lower respiratory tract infections, Diarrhea, Malaria, and stroke, as of 2012, simply because there were not enough hospitals to treat these; therefore, we can conclude that yes, having access to hospitals is an excessive dependency because people can die without them.

"My opponent states that schools require students to use computers for essays, assignments, powerpoint presentation, spreadsheet etc. You have not provided any evidence for this. There are many schools that don't require any of this."

I did not say all schools. I was simply giving examples to prove my point; moreover, this is common knowledge. The opposing has also not given any evidence saying "there are many schools that don't require any of this."

Also, A PBS study states that 65% of teachers in the US reported that technology allows them to demonstrate something that they cannot show in any other way, which is, without technology or computers; therefore, this shows that teachers are too dependent on them because they would not be able to "demonstrate something" without the use of any form of technology, including computers.

" In my entire life as a student, I have used turnitin.com and applications like it, a total of 1 time, and I have never in my life heard of an application called "moodle."

Your own personal experiences are irrelevant. Just because you have only used turnitin once and moodle zero times, one cannot conclude that all schools are like this because my opponent was only listing one school.

"Since the entire point of this debate is to prove that dependency that humans have on computers is TOO much, I ask my opponent to prove how using computers as storage for information is an excessive dependency."

Okay. Databases are a type of storage for information and is used in schools to store information about their students, such as grades, address, name, etc. Virtually all schools use databases, simply due to the fact that it is extremely tedious to manually write every single student's data. Databases are also similarly used by police, the government, the NSA, and hospitals. Without databases, there would be no way for records of people to be stored in an efficient manner. For example, if the government had no way of keeping records of people's income tax payments, people would misuse this and potentially lie about how much tax they owe. Therefore, storage devices are an excessive dependency.

" While schools may use computers for grading certain tests, most schools do not use them to grade the majority of tests, and don't use them at all when grading exams."

Really? Have you not used a scantron card before? Scantron cards are put into test scoring machines which uses a computer to scan and mark answers; they are a type of Optical Mark Recognition and this technique has been used since the 19th century. Universities all around the world rely excessively on scantron cards because they have lecture halls holding around 200 students or more. It is tedious for the professor to mark every single test by hand, so scantron cards are used to make the job easier for purely multiple choice tests such as the ones for organic chemistry and calculus ii. If scantron cards did not exist, then exams such as the ACT, LSAT, SAT, and MCAT would also not exist as their entire test is based on a scantron card. Moreover, more than 200 000 schools in the US use scantron cards.

Also, according to the statistics, scantron cards are used in 98% of the top US school districts, 56 countries, 48 ministries of Education, and 94 of the top US universities. Keep in mind that scantron is just a brand and it does not also account for all of the other "bubble sheets"; therefore, I have just proven that schools excessively rely on computers, such as the one used to mark scantron cards.

WORKS CITED
http://www.pbs.org...

http://io9.com...

http://africacheck.org...

http://www.bbc.co.uk...
Midnight1131

Con

I will restate the definition of TOO before I begin this round.

to a higher degree than is desirable, permissible, or possible; excessively

Now, moving on.


In developing countries such as Africa where hospitals are rare, the leading causes of deaths were Aids, Lower respiratory tract infections, Diarrhea, Malaria, and stroke, as of 2012, simply because there were not enough hospitals to treat these; therefore, we can conclude that yes, having access to hospitals is an excessive dependency because people can die without them.

This argument is not valid. When you say "having access to hospitals is an excessive dependency because people can die without them," you make no sense, because this does not correspond with the definition of excessive.

more than is necessary, normal, or desirable; immoderate:

Now, I ask you, how is it more than necessary or desirable to having access to healthcare to avoid death? Simple answer is, it's not. This is a completely reasonable dependency, and therefore this argument is invalid, because this entire debate is about proving whether or not humans are dependent on computers excessively, and the oxford dictionary definition is the best definition of the word to go by, as my opponent failed to provide any definition at the start of the debate. My opponent proposes the absurd claim that because people can die without access to hospitals, hospitals are an excessive dependency, and, going by the definition, is more than necessary. And it definately is not more than necessary.

I did not say all schools. I was simply giving examples to prove my point; moreover, this is common knowledge. The opposing has also not given any evidence saying "there are many schools that don't require any of this."

As my opponent is presenting a claim, the burden of proof was on them to provide evidence, simply saying "this is common knowledge" is not enough, this argument is invalid. I am not required to prove a negative, I am not required to prove that something is not there, as the proposer of a claim, it was my opponents obligation to provide proof to back up her claim, she did not, therefore this argument is invalid.

Also, A PBS study states that 65% of teachers in the US reported that technology allows them to demonstrate something that they cannot show in any other way


Alright, the only thing this proves is that technology is benefiting us, and that is in no way an excessive need, as these benefits to education aren't unnecessary, and they are not too much.

Your own personal experiences are irrelevant. Just because you have only used turnitin once and moodle zero times, one cannot conclude that all schools are like this because my opponent was only listing one school.

My opponent has not provided any evidence of their absurd claim that most schools use turnitin.com or moodle, so one cannot conclude that using these services is the norm, because my opponent provided no evidence. I was simply giving person testimony, which is more than what my opponent provided.

Virtually all schools use databases, simply due to the fact that it is extremely tedious to manually write every single student's data. Databases are also similarly used by police, the government, the NSA, and hospitals. Without databases, there would be no way for records of people to be stored in an efficient manner. For example, if the government had no way of keeping records of people's income tax payments, people would misuse this and potentially lie about how much tax they owe. Therefore, storage devices are an excessive dependency.

Again, my opponent has not understood the definition of excessive. Thinking that the benefit of easily storing data is more than desirable, and more than necessary is absurd. My opponent contradicts themself when they talk about the disadvantages of not having databases, therfore proving that they are in fact necessary, and not an excessive dependency at all.

It is tedious for the professor to mark every single test by hand, so scantron cards are used to make the job easier for purely multiple choice tests such as the ones for organic chemistry and calculus ii. If scantron cards did not exist, then exams such as the ACT, LSAT, SAT, and MCAT would also not exist as their entire test is based on a scantron card. Moreover, more than 200 000 schools in the US use scantron cards.

The Scantron Corporation, which creates these scantron cards, was founded in 1972 [1.] Whereas the University of Oxford has been teaching students for more than 900 years [2,] this proves that Scantron cards are not required, and would not cripple teachers to the point of them being unable to do their job. Remember, many great minds such as Newton and Einstein were educated by their teachers just fine without the use of Scantron cards. But more to the point, my opponent states that SAT tests would not be around if Scantron cards did not exist, my opponent provides no evidence for this, and there is none, because the SAT tests have been around since 1926 [3,] almost 60 years before the Scantron corporation was even founded, therefore proving that Scantron cards are not required to mark standardized tests.
  1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by cathaystewie 1 year ago
cathaystewie
I cannot cast a vote for the time being because I am using a new account, so I will deliver my comments here.

PRO failed to interpret the motion they put forward. The ubiquity of computers does not equate to humans being overdependent on computers, and a correlation has never been established down the bench explaining the connection between these two notions. As the PRO side, she failed to fulfill her BOP of laying down the criteria for the term 'overdependent'.. CON addressed all these points and clarified the debate by distinguishing between dependent and over-dependent.

Therefore, I cast my vote in favour of the CON side.

Please feel free to comment if either party disagrees with this decision or my reasoning. Have a great day :)
Posted by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
I forgot that was the last round.

I thank my opponent for this debate.
Posted by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
I can't accept this debate, the original opinion topic I replied to stated "We are TOO dependent on Computers," whereas this debate only states "we are dependent on computers." Change the title to the original, then I would consider this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
catastrophyMidnight1131Tied
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: I have to give arguments to Con, because he argued on why humans aren't "too" dependent, whereas Pro continued to provide examples of people being dependent. An example would be the hospital one. Pro argued that humans are dependent on computers, but didnt say why that would be considered too dependent, which Con pointed out. Since "too" is subjective, computers in hospitals maybe considered too depended on, but Pro failed to prove that. Everything else was a tie, because both provided sources, and had decent grammar. If Pro needs me to clarify more, please send me a PM.