Computers can replace human teachers

"First of all I'd like to clarify that I had suggested in my previous argument that SOME aspects of the educational system are provided by the computer and not all the aspects are covered up by it. On the contrary,a teacher covers all the aspects of educational system" Oh, well good then, now I shall have to work to have the resolution affirmed. To put what Con contended here in more mundane terms ‘since computers cant do everything humans can, they cant replace them.' They cant cover all the aspects of the educational system. But you see; to be able to replace our teachers; they don't have to. They just have to cover the bare minimum necessary aspect of our educational system. I will get more into what the bare minimum things you must have to have a working teacher in minute; but first to address a few objections. I wont quote too much to save room so I am relying on you the readers to pay attainment enough to know witch objections I'm addressing. If my opponent feels in doing this I misrepresent exactly what he said please point it out and I will either defend myself for my mistake or apologize. First off; of course the developers are going to say they are not about to replace human instructors. If they were to come out and say that their project would meet so much political resistance from more than just the teacher Unions for sure. Plus this kind of statement when dealing with technology is always meant in the sense that 'it's not going to do.... any time SOON' It advances every day. we have robotics so advance that a monkey can have its brain plugged into it and eat food using only it. the importance of the robot-teacher in the link is that we know for sure that advances have gone so far that we can already make them do those six emotions. not just any 6 emotions, but the pivotal ones that you bare minimum must have if your going to replace the human teacher. Concerning 'computers cant replace good teachers', if we are allowed to add to the resolution in round 2 like that then I add to it that by computers it means 'androids that would put Data from Star Trek to shame'. Since its added to the resolution we get to debate as if those androids were real today. Of course neither of us are allowed to do this in a debate now that its begun; and the risk created by employing human teachers that this could happen matters. As my opponent like to push in this debate 'their just tools' so a robot wont endanger our kids in this way on its own. We control it and thus protect our kids. Continuing to employ humans means your going to employ some that are by our desired standards 'bad' and you wont discover they are until its too late. Con thinks the solution would be as simple as 'making parents and students aware', but come on, . If your teacher throws a pass at you would you have told your parents. Its awkward just to think about having that conversation. Unless you have very good parents, you probably will just keep this to yourself and try handling it on your own. And the truth is a lot of parents just don't meet up to that par. This isn't to say most are not trying their best; maybe they aren't being that much of a dad because they didn't really have one growing up to show them how its done. Maybe this is their first child. Becoming that kind of parent whose son or daughter will come to about this is tough. If you have parents like that then praise God for you have truly been blessed. never take it for granted. My opponent says students have a right to 'think' and make their own choice knowing both sides of all issues, and he's right. But not on my Taxpaying dollars. Society can only benefit from making sure the only students that know both sides are the ones that learned to get off there lazy butts and look it up themselves. Why do I think it will save money; Because I know how long term investments are cost efficient. Paying for a wind turbine will mean on electricity you will have paid more than you would have not buying it for the first few years. But after even more years go by the saving from what your not paying the power company will have added up enough to pay of the equipment. If you listen to any financial guru out their you'll find they advise making long term investments if you want to get out of debt, or even get rich. How can my opponent think this equipment will be 'billions of dollars'? Cause its a Robot? They are college students that get the funds easy to make a robots for ‘kicks' (pun intended) every year. Their not billion dollar equipment. http://www.me.vt.edu... Another point; schools are finding a way to put unreasonably expensive stuff in every room this very day. It used to a school district was lucky to have 1 smart board, in my last year in high school I rarely had a class were their wasn't one. Radio stations donate them, Ruritan clubs raise funds just for getting the school one… the community pulls together to equip its schools with the best tech all the time. "Secondly, my opponent pointed out that teachers work primarily because of money " I pointed no such thing out. I only pointed out that their union is strong. So we are not about to successfully cut their already low pay without a uphill battle with that Union. Now on to Con's case: Con argues over things like how our creations cant outwit there creators, but this is not relevant because for the computer to replace the working human teachers it does not need too. We are not looking to make things greater than us that could revolt against us to fulfill the resolution. only something that can baby sit a class of students and guide them through the learning process equipped with all the bare minimum functions needed to do that. what are those things then? Its said that in order to learn something you need to repeat the material 4 times. can a Robot be programmed to direct the class to 'read' material before and after class, have them copy it in class and and play recorded voice tape that comes with the book to read it to the class during? Yes! In japan teachers play much less of a role than what my opponent says they do and look how their students turn out. they are stereotyped as smarter than us and their is a reason for this. reducing the teaching process to that which a computer is only capable of will force the students to think on their own rather than have a teacher think of some way to dumb down the material for them to think less and still get it. Who do these human teachers think they are anyway trying to take the position of 'role model' for our kids? That right belongs to the parents alone. Any parents out their reading this tell me if you ever find it annoying when your kid starts quoting their teacher to argue with your view as if he/she knows better than you their Dad/Mom? Your trying to raise your kids to hold at least a certain extent of your values so you don't have to worry about them once your dead and their totally on their own. This is your right and one of the reasons people have kids to pass on part of themselves in their child's character. Who does the teacher think he/she is to take that away from you? They are in your way (the parent) in raising your kids. Theirs enough 'social' structure in the class provided by all the human students having to work together. We do not need to keep the human element in the teacher. She/He is the most dangerous one of all to leave it in. You know they complained at first about taking the REAL sugar out of sodas when they switched to corn syrup. but after time passed by we can see its one of those changes that we are better off without. The same will go with teachers.