The 3 necessary qualities for a 'good' teacher.

To begin round 2. I will first admit my following statements will probably be poorly suited for a 'debate' though I prefer simple honesty. Thus, in posting this debate I hoped to have my paradigm challenged respectfully, and to be enlightened as to possible points of view that I myself had failed to recognize. I can honestly, and gladly say my opponent has offered me just what I so desperately sought in this debate. So, I offer you my sincerest gratitude for a wonderful first round! Also, as I believe you've already perceived, when I refer to 'teacher' I use it in this debate as an all-encompassing word for anyone that is involved in helping someone to improve their skills in a particular field. Now, onto my rebuttal. As for the argument to my first point. I disagree, what sort of person can grow without self-evaluation, and what sort of teacher can perform well without growth? Have we not all witnessed the older generation's handicap of not being able to properly utilize modern technology. We see many among the older generation quite capable of utilizing technology for wonderful benefits to mankind, while others are completely illiterate in the subject. I attribute this primarily to failure to evaluate, to evaluate both the environment, and the self. Those older ones whom are skilled in technology obviously evaluated it's increasing usefulness in society, and their own uses for it. This required evaluation of environment, and self. A teacher likewise must evaluate the environment, to see what new problems their students are facing, and what new materials are available to teach, and to teach with. Then to evaluate themselves to see if they have within themselves the necessary knowledge to properly guide others with these materials, or if they themselves need to grow. Can a history teacher help their student with a history question from a newly updated text book, if the teacher themself is still relying on knowledge from an outdated twenty year-old text book? No, of course not, they must evaluate themselves, to see that they are not familiar with the knowledge contained in the new text book, and then grow by studying and gaining that knowledge. So that they can answer their student's questions aptly. Leading back to the case of the Drama teacher in the Astro-Physics class. If a student points out a particular paragraph of the text book and asks the teacher to explain it, how will this teacher untrained in Astro-Physics, and never before looking upon that text book be able to explain the paragraph? Thus, this teacher, while being able to 'act' like they know the material, truly does not know it, and cannot help the students in their quest to learn it. Truly one cannot teach, what one does not know. As to point number two, fine points for the con side of this debate! Though, I must point out that these points in fact validate my original one. Let's use the "Freedom Writers" example: what good would teaching them to interpret, and formulate beautiful works of written word do, if the students did not know their 'ABCs', or how to write at all? Obviously, they would need to learn those things first, then, learn the art of formulating beautiful writings. Could Shakespeare have become such a famous play write, had no one ever taught him how to read and write at all? Thus, if a teacher attempts to teach what they believe a student 'should' know regardless of the student's ability to actually learn it, then they are not only failing the student, but insulting the student by making them feel inferior. Yes, a teacher should challenge their students, but challenge them at their own level. Using martial arts as an example. It is fine to teach someone to perform an amazing flying kick, but if you have failed to teach them how to, along with the importance of stretching first, then your student will snap a ham string, and you have, in turn failed the student. Concluding this round, I will offer this: while a teacher's quality is indeed more than mere numbers and words can measure, it is universally true that certain qualities simply must be adhered to, should a teacher actually teach someone. These qualities include the ability to know what they already know, and therefore can teach, and to know what subjects they are ignorant of, and therefore what they cannot teach the student. To be willing to meet the student at their level, to help the student overcome any current weaknesses, through careful instruction, considerate observation, and compelling challenges, to help the student see, and be their best. Concluding with the quality of remembering why they are there, as the con has stated, to help the younger, less knowledgeable to grow, and become better. I will now return this debate to you, my very worthy opponent.