Instigator / Pro
6
1469
rating
10
debates
40.0%
won
Topic
#3102

Overall, Which is better, Online or Face Learning

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...

Bones
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1763
rating
29
debates
98.28%
won
Description

E-Learning : learning conducted via electronic media, typically on the internet.
Face-to-face learning: is an instructional method where course content and learning material are taught in person to a group of students

Anyone's free to join, any queries about definitions and specifics are free to ask in the comments.

PRO: Face-To-Face
CON: E-Learning

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

This one's pretty straightforward. Pro's arguments largely lean on what I would call probable harms, i.e. these things could happen and there may even be logical reasons why they would happen, but none of Pro's arguments function based on actual harm done as a result of online teaching. And this problem pervades his argument, which relies on only anecdotal instances where some unknown individual's experience is presumably harmed, a circumstance that I as a judge can never verify or validate.

Meanwhile, Con's case is built on the actual benefits of online learning. Particularly his points about how this leads to better transitions to the working world via a greater degree of independence in learning and his points about better capacities for absorbing information stand out to me, especially as the latter was wholly dropped by Pro. Con also presents a lot of sources including studies, and while Pro does argue that these are too narrow, he offers no other studies that demonstrate broader effects that contrast with Con's sources. You can't beat Con's sources without offering both a competing narrative and compelling evidence that your narrative is correct.

This all leads me to vote Con. Much as I do think his sources were better, I'll abstain from awarding those points as well, since Pro did provide relevant sources, even if they were fewer and not very compelling (largely restricting his quotes to more elucidation on probable harms rather than actual harms).

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Sources: PRO hardly used sources as all, and when he did, it was not to back up any claim of his. On the other hand, CON's entire argument relied on facts, and he provided a lot of studies and articles to back it up. Therefore, CON wins this point.

Arguments: PRO's arguments were all connected to some form of personal experience or personal opinion. This showed throughout the debate, as he never provided any facts to back them up. Sure, attention problems and cheating might be issues, but he never showed to which extent or how much this matters. CON, on the other hand, argued that e-learning had some objective benefits. He showed why e-learning is a more effective form of learning, by providing evidence it was less time-consuming and taught one critical skill that would come in handy later in life, making it a more effective learning method overall.

I think PRO had access to a few harder-hitting arguments, such as social life being hindered by e-learning, or that e-learning prevents one from working in groups to develop teamwork skills --- both of these arguments could have an extensive impact since the effects of e-learning's isolation is not known to be safe. PRO did not use these stronger arguments, which meant his case was a lot weaker than it could have been. CON utilized the full force of arguments for e-learning, and I can't think of any major benefit of e-learning that wasn't brought up by him.