We are too dependent on computers

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 Dictionariesto a higher degree than is desirable, permissible, or possible; excessivelyWeused 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. http://en.wikipedia.org...