Reading the rebuttals

http://www.economist.com/debate/overview/121


The style of the two rebuttals is quite interesting, Daniels seems to pick holes in Kozma's arguments (as does the moderator). Daniels gives an example of a 'nuanced' article from the Economist that he then attempts to discredit it's conclusions, then stating that this is similar to Kozma's argument - therefore equally discrediting that.


Kozma in turn seems to take a defensive stance giving empirical evidence to support his arguments, as he did in his opening statements.


Has my vote changed? I think the key word in the motion is most - ...adds little to the quality of most education.


If we are looking at the word most as meaning a quantitative return from new technologies then I am sticking with my against the motion vote. Globally I feel technologies have added quality to education.