People are too dependant on computers now a days

<"what happens to all your personal information saved on the computer at the doctors office."> While I'm sure my opponent has put plenty of rational thought into this, it seems to me that she has overlooked that doctors keep their patients' information on file, as well as stored on a computer. So if a computer were somehow to break down, crash, etc., they still have plenty of information to go on. <"Of course your going to say there is always fire walls or other programs that protect your computers but how long will those last? How do we know if people are still hacking into our computers without us knowing about it! These doctors offices rely on the computers to always be there for them."> Again, I think my opponent overlooked that doctors offices keep records on file, too. Not only that -- but the security programs used by places with personal and/or confidential information are top-notch, meaning the chances of someone hacking them are, very, *very* low. Such information *has* to be highly guarded. <"so point number one is: Since we rely so heavily on computers for work, school, homework, and recreation what would happen if the Internet connection was lost in today's world. I don't think people would have the books and papers they could use instead. The world would simply come to a halt with no where for people to turn to "Google" and search what's wrong?"> I think what my opponent has said would be true if we didn't have any of the previous "methods" that were around previous to computers -- but considering that we *do* still have the tools to make such a transition (writing materials, television, newspapers, libraries) still available to us, we would probably adjust; the world wouldn't cease functioning. <"There is always other ways of doing such things. Ways that don't involve the computer and like paper and pencil or an organized chart where you place a check mark when you arrive in the office. The newspaper is also an excellent way to find out what's happening each day in the city and internationally without it costing you a lot."> These "other ways" just aren't as efficient -- why should we, as a society, use less efficient methods when we have better one's readily available to us? <"I do believe that although letters can be received quicker they are much more sentimental than an email. Letters can contain pictures, stickers, and also small gifts from the heart where as a email just is black and white writing with small detail"> E-mails can also contain sentiment -- people find sentiment in different things. Just because my opponent feels that letters are more sentimental doesn't make it so; other people could quite possibly feel the opposite, seeing as what one finds to be sentimental is a purely subjective matter. <"I personally still have the letter my friend sent me from Africa four years ago, but I definitely don't have an email from a family member from more than a month ago."> It seems as if my opponent is attempting to appeal to the emotions of the voters, which is, indeed, a commonplace fallacy.* Having a stronger emotional association with object X doesn't necessarily make it superior to object Y. That concludes my side of the argument for this round. I would again like to thank my opponent for starting this debate, and for keeping it enjoyable. I look forward to her next retort. * = www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html