"why technology is prudent despite the effect on enviroment"

ok lets begin SCHOOLS first off My opponent - "Equipment may not be placed in easily accessible locations. Hardware and software often pose problems for teachers in the classroom, and just-in-time technical support may be unavailable. Teachers may lack the time and the motivation to learn technology skills." Acessing equipment in this case is not of problem. in this technology provides, ways to easily transport equipment. And as far as teacher's knowing the stuff, they pose classes where the teachers learn this. And as far as time and motivation go, I am sure their next paycheck, would be plenty of motivation, don't you? I'ts part of their job. Dealing with technology is not all that hard anyway. it is made to be easy and make your life easier. As far as schooling goes, problems are a minor issue. In my opponents second paragraph, she tells me how technology is beneficial in schools, but is not used to its full extent. The rest of the paragraph supports this. But i fail to see the the arguing factor here. Just because it is not used nearly enough (according to my opponent) means it shouldn't be used? To argue that however, schools everywhere, do use conmputer technology often. More than 33% teachers use internet access despite what my opponent has said. Could you please state the source in which you got this information? However, again despite stastistics, i do not see how students not using technology at full extent hurts anything. MY OPPONENT- "What my opponet dosent know is that there is also bad that tecnology dose on the enviroment.did you know that there's been a lot of hand-wringing lately about how much air traffic contributes to global warming. But another damaging culprit has recently been found: the Internet. Computer centers consume massive amounts of energy, and their use is growing astronomically." Um, no offence, but again global warming=theory. Unless you can prove that Al Gore wasn't scamming the public for money, (He made Billions of dollars btw) and into being afraid of something that no one can get rid of, even without technology, please do so. If you can do so, then your the only person in the world who can. If you can do that i will instantly give up this debate right now and praise you forever. But alas, not possible. Global warming cannot provide these answers. true, are atmosphere is slowly decreasing, but if you have learned in this spot on earth history, you would know that this has happened many time before. The atmoshpere Goes down, the polar ice caps go off balance, then re-build on either sides of the earth. Even as we speak, our polar ice caps our melting. Of course i will be billions of years before the big melt down, but still, it has happened in the past. And Did you ever hear of teh global freezing theory? It was a big deal in the 1930's. But that whole thing was proved wrong. Theory's don't get us anywhere. I appolagize it seems we have gotten off hand into a global warming debate instead of a technolgy v.s. enviroment one. just out of curiosity this stuff looks like it is copy/pasted? just wondering... my opponents last paragraph, says that internet takes up alot of energy. i understand that. i have from the beginning. but i thought the point of this debate was for you to tell me how the enviroment was more important than technology, and why this technology is less prudent than the enviroment. a few more things i would like to point out for my own entertainment, as well as any others who may be reading this. my opponent recently in a text conversation, informed me that she herself attends a technology schools. I find this pretty interesting. If technology in schools is worse than it is better, that would imply that my opponent is of a lesser education. would you not agree? no offence intended of course, just pointing out a few stray un-answered details. thankyou for all your participation in this debate farewell for now fo-shizzle