Robots can replace high school teachers

The Pro stated that my previous arguments regarding the fact that teachers are here not only to teach, but to "mentor to the students, provide counseling, and be a role model" do not apply. He said only therapists should be counselors, and a person can only become a role model regarding the position they are in. These statements are full of fallacies. People can be a role models not only for their positions but also for morals, values, and qualities as well. Also, counseling is not restricted only to therapists. While that is a therapists' main job, it is also the job of a teacher to help, guide, and counsel students as well(check my sources for more information regarding this topic). Robots can detect and possibly even score organized games, but, as is the case in quite a few P.E. games, the games are not organized nor are known to the general public. Robots can glitch, and even a simple robot glitch could wreak havoc on the grading system or devices of the machine. Humans, on the other hand, can make mistakes, but can't have "glitches" that cause a myriad of things to go wrong. I will gladly refute your argument that principals prefer robots as teachers because they won't complain. No test has ever been conducted regarding this and, thus, there is absolutely no way to know whether your statement is true or false. Also, while robots may not complain, many things can go wrong with them(they can glitch, fall apart, go insane because of a simple coding error, etc.). I am fully aware that the Pro asked me not to refute any of his counterarguments, but he made two false statements regarding things that I previously said, which I need to clear up. I did not say that just because someone hasn't made a robot that can measure angles doesn't mean it isn't possible. In fact, I stated in Round 4, and I quote, " robots may be able to do simple things like measure angles and use a stopwatch." I was stating that no robot has ever been created nor could be that could sufficiently "grade" students on performance in most P.E. games. The Con also stated that robots can grade homework that has already been implemented. I never disagreed with this. Sure, Baxter can grade previously implemented homework, but that is most definitely not always the case in schools. In fact, a lot of the time teachers will come up with completely new questions in order to challenge the students, something that Baxter is incapable of doing. The Pro's contentions have been based off of many assumptions and non-existent "truths" throughout the entirety of this debate. Case in point: his argument that principals prefer robots over teachers with absolutely no evidence. Teachers are more capable than robots at performing many tasks. While some people, like the Pro, cannot comprehend this, these facts remain facts. Robots won't take over the place of our teachers. We need trustworthy, qualified people to be able to accurately teach the next generation, not robots. I would like to thank the Pro for participating in this debate with me and, with this, I submit my closing statements and final counterarguments. Sources: http://www.businessinsider.com... http://www.ascd.org... https://www.thoughtco.com... https://www.recode.net...