We are too dependent on computers

I will restate the definition of TOO before I begin this round.to a higher degree than is desirable, permissible, or possible; excessivelyNow, moving on. In developing countries such as Africa where hospitals are rare, the leading causes of deaths were Aids, Lower respiratory tract infections, Diarrhea, Malaria, and stroke, as of 2012, simply because there were not enough hospitals to treat these; therefore, we can conclude that yes, having access to hospitals is an excessive dependency because people can die without them.This argument is not valid. When you say "having access to hospitals is an excessive dependency because people can die without them," you make no sense, because this does not correspond with the definition of excessive. more than is necessary, normal, or desirable; immoderate: Now, I ask you, how is it more than necessary or desirable to having access to healthcare to avoid death? Simple answer is, it's not. This is a completely reasonable dependency, and therefore this argument is invalid, because this entire debate is about proving whether or not humans are dependent on computers excessively, and the oxford dictionary definition is the best definition of the word to go by, as my opponent failed to provide any definition at the start of the debate. My opponent proposes the absurd claim that because people can die without access to hospitals, hospitals are an excessive dependency, and, going by the definition, is more than necessary. And it definately is not more than necessary.I did not say all schools. I was simply giving examples to prove my point; moreover, this is common knowledge. The opposing has also not given any evidence saying "there are many schools that don't require any of this." As my opponent is presenting a claim, the burden of proof was on them to provide evidence, simply saying "this is common knowledge" is not enough, this argument is invalid. I am not required to prove a negative, I am not required to prove that something is not there, as the proposer of a claim, it was my opponents obligation to provide proof to back up her claim, she did not, therefore this argument is invalid.Also, A PBS study states that 65% of teachers in the US reported that technology allows them to demonstrate something that they cannot show in any other wayAlright, the only thing this proves is that technology is benefiting us, and that is in no way an excessive need, as these benefits to education aren't unnecessary, and they are not too much. Your own personal experiences are irrelevant. Just because you have only used turnitin once and moodle zero times, one cannot conclude that all schools are like this because my opponent was only listing one school. My opponent has not provided any evidence of their absurd claim that most schools use turnitin.com or moodle, so one cannot conclude that using these services is the norm, because my opponent provided no evidence. I was simply giving person testimony, which is more than what my opponent provided.Virtually all schools use databases, simply due to the fact that it is extremely tedious to manually write every single student's data. Databases are also similarly used by police, the government, the NSA, and hospitals. Without databases, there would be no way for records of people to be stored in an efficient manner. For example, if the government had no way of keeping records of people's income tax payments, people would misuse this and potentially lie about how much tax they owe. Therefore, storage devices are an excessive dependency.Again, my opponent has not understood the definition of excessive. Thinking that the benefit of easily storing data is more than desirable, and more than necessary is absurd. My opponent contradicts themself when they talk about the disadvantages of not having databases, therfore proving that they are in fact necessary, and not an excessive dependency at all. It is tedious for the professor to mark every single test by hand, so scantron cards are used to make the job easier for purely multiple choice tests such as the ones for organic chemistry and calculus ii. If scantron cards did not exist, then exams such as the ACT, LSAT, SAT, and MCAT would also not exist as their entire test is based on a scantron card. Moreover, more than 200 000 schools in the US use scantron cards.The Scantron Corporation, which creates these scantron cards, was founded in 1972 [1.] Whereas the University of Oxford has been teaching students for more than 900 years [2,] this proves that Scantron cards are not required, and would not cripple teachers to the point of them being unable to do their job. Remember, many great minds such as Newton and Einstein were educated by their teachers just fine without the use of Scantron cards. But more to the point, my opponent states that SAT tests would not be around if Scantron cards did not exist, my opponent provides no evidence for this, and there is none, because the SAT tests have been around since 1926 [3,] almost 60 years before the Scantron corporation was even founded, therefore proving that Scantron cards are not required to mark standardized tests. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...