Computers can replace human teachers

"It is pretty obvious that when I talk about teachers better than computers I certainly mean that "good" teachers can't be replaced by a computer." No such thing is obvious at all. In round 1 you gave no definition of 'teacher' that defined it as the best example of a teacher. In fact the only thing in Round one to be found that addresses what kind of teacher you were talking about is in the resolution 'Human teachers' So the resolution say's we are only concerned with 'Human teachers' now you can Google that if you want to see if theirs any room to write off the bad ones from being concerned with in this debate and that it only applies for the good but I can tell you right now it wont be the case. "human" generally isn't taken to cover both the good and the bad. In the few occasions the term 'human' is used to being 'good' or 'bad' at all its always referring to 'bad'. a evangelist challenges a person on the street saying 'if you tell lies what does that make you?' and the street person says 'human' or 'un-perfect' instead of 'lier'. So it's pretty obvious that from the round 1 definitions (or lack of them) we are talking about the bad teachers too. In fact, the bad ones really are the only ones we should be considering because the 'good' ones are so rare and few that they are only a statistical anomaly that you would never consider them to logistically exist. Their has to be significant amount before you consider them. So my opponent had a 'good' teacher. So what; I have a friend that won the lottery, but it's still most correct to say that buying into lottery tickets will never make you any money. http://www.youtube.com... How can one have any security in sending their kids to schools whose teachers are not robots? How do I know my child is in safe hands and not in the hands of a teacher like the one in the video who nearly killed her student? How could that school have known that she would be like that? after all that teacher was just being 'human' full of unpredictable flaws that can range from harmless ones to lethal ones. All of the videos show teachers being a little too 'human' for me to ever feel safe knowing my child could be taught by one of these. that one of these teachers could be in the position of role model for my kid and then abuse that fact to get what he/she wants with my kid. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... "Wouldn't you prefer teachers who are capable of covering ALL the necessary aspects..." well if these extra aspects are not part of the bare minimum ones then they are luxuries, not necessary aspects witch was my point. And my opponent has still failed to show how I could count on my child's teacher likely being one who would even provide those 'luxuries'. Maybe the optimum situation would be my kid having the greatest teacher ever who does all my opponent say's and more so I would prefer that but concerning the resolution with replacing human teachers, we cant act as if the perfect teacher actually exist. "To this I would only like to say that a teacher is one of the strongest pillar in shaping a child's future. I am sure that everyone has either met or heard of a teacher who have changed their life or the lives of others." This is not a refutation; in fact it acknowledges what I said that teacher are taking such a role, a role witch as a parent you would optimally want only for yourself to affect the child in such a way. plus when so many teachers out their who are in this role model position are selling pot to their students, you should only expect negative effects on your child development even if you could get over the pride factor and be willing to share the honor of raising your kid with the teacher. "I certainly do feel that there is a difference between parents and friends. However teachers are our those friends who act as our second parents. I think the only person one would ever like to look unto for advice after ones' parents are his teachers." That's the problem though Con; because when the teacher is the bad guy that put's them in the prime position to get their perverted way with your kid. And that's the scenario that brought up my argument about 'awkward to think about talking to your parents" about a bad kinda teacher. And hear your saying that if they cant go to their parents they should go to their bad teacher? That makes no sense Con. "Not all the countries can afford..." Who cares? What other countries can afford is not relevant to the scope of this debate unless the only kind of 'replacement' you think the resolution refers is one that must be done in a day, or a year even. And if you read round one again it is not defined like that. And how could it be? such a definition would be the most incorrect view of 'replacement' I have ever seen. If teachers are to be replaced by robots it of course will start with rich countries in rich schools. then as technology advances the robots are easier to produce cost effectively and the price goes down and more can afford robots. the older models go for sell on eBay at discount price when they are replaced and even the poorer of places can manage to get a robot teacher. So theirs poverty in the world, some people are better off than others, but unless you can prove that addition of robot teachers in particular to the already high list of things that make countries 'unequal' to each other would increase unrest to a level of bloodshed you point about unrest is irrelevant. some countries don't have computers should you and I destroy the ones we are on right now until they can afford them too? No. "If this is the case then I think my opponent should revise his definition for replacement" well seeing as their has been no given definition in this debate for 'replacement' I might as well make the official one then shouldn't I? Replacement: can be used in place of something and do what that somethings primary task was. Replacement is a term almost never taken so strictly to mean 'does every thing the last thing did and in the same manner' to say something has been replace it can do its job a little differently and even in different degree of effectiveness than the the thing it replaced. "This is the case of just one country. I don't think that ALL the countries will be able to take up such an action. This will lead to the development conflict among the countries.I have already mentioned this before." Again; So what? Also defend your reasons for why in this particular case other countries cant follow the suit, for here we are not talking about the addition of equipment but rather a country that teaches in simpler manner with less required of the teacher. all countries may not be able to take a step forward at the same time but they can take a step back at any time they want. And as we can see from Japans case that particular step back has only proven good for the students. As for Con's 'new' arguments, I fail to see anything new about it. Just another attempt to arouse the audiences sentimentality towards the handful of good teachers out their. But I already addressed that, and I also already argued about how the risk weighs with bad 'human' teachers over having controlled robots that cant be everything the 'good' teacher can be. You just cant ignore those logistics, if all teachers where replaced by robots it would be an upgrade in teaching quality. And when only about 27 classrooms out their can have a right to say differently, how can we care about those 27 over the hundreds of others that would be improved. now am I saying their are hundreds of teachers out their so bad they sell pot to their students and sleep with them or try to strangle them? No of course not but I do say that hundreds of them don't measure up to the ideal teacher my opponent has been referring to.