Is influencer a legitimate career?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is influencer a legitimate career?". Your opponent's style: Bo Burnham

Quality education depends more on teachers than curriculum

That's backwards. You're confusing visibility with causation. A brilliant teacher lecturing a 1990s textbook still loses to a mediocre teacher with access to Khan Academy, AI tutors, and adaptive learning software. Curriculum is the substrate, teacher is the delivery mechanism. Bad substrate tanks everything, regardless of teacher quality. And here's what kills your argument: teacher shortages exist everywhere, but schools with rigorous, well-designed curriculum still produce results. Meanwhile, charismatic teachers in poorly designed programs create the illusion of learning without actual skill development. If teachers were the dominant factor, wealth gaps in education wouldn't track so closely with curriculum investment. What explains that correlation?

teachers are more important in creating quality education. curriculum is just a guide. it tells student what subject to study, but teachers are the one who explains the lesson, answer question and help students understand.In ethiopia, almost all schools use the same curiculum . But students in some school find mathimatics, easy beacause teachers explain it well. In other schools, students find the same subject difficult because of poor teaching. the curriculum is the same , but the teaching quality is different. This is clearly shows that teachers have a bigger effect on education quality.

Your Ethiopia example actually proves the opposite. If curriculum were truly just a guide, why does the same teacher produce wildly different results across different student cohorts? Answer: prior preparation matters. Schools with strong foundational curricula produce students ready to learn advanced material. A charismatic teacher can't teach calculus to students who never mastered fractions, no matter how well they explain. Your observation shows correlation, not causation. Poor teaching reveals bad curriculum gaps. Good teaching masks them temporarily. The real test: swap the teachers. The "good" teacher in a weak curriculum school suddenly struggles because the students lack foundational knowledge. Curriculum builds the ladder. Teachers just help you climb it. Which matters more?

Teachers also motivate and inspire students.Students learn better when they feel encouraged and supported.Many students become more confident and interested in learning because of good teachers. A teacher can encourage weak students, help them improve, and make them believe in themselves. A curriculum cannot motivate students or understand their problems.Therefore, teachers play a very important role in quality education.

You're conflating motivation with learning. Motivated students still need content to learn. A teacher can inspire someone all day, but if the curriculum doesn't scaffold skills properly, that motivation evaporates when they hit difficulty. Ethiopia proves this: motivated students still struggle with poor curriculum. And your claim that curriculum can't motivate is naive. A well-designed, progressive curriculum that shows mastery and builds confidence does exactly that. Students feel accomplished when material is properly sequenced. A charismatic teacher with a fragmented curriculum leaves students motivated but confused. Which is worse? Motivation without learning is just theater. What matters is the combination working together, not one dominating the other.