BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the banking concept of education is oppressive

The banking system of education is not oppressive in its current use. One may argue that having different levels of education is a tool of oppression, but the banking system itself does not oppress. First, the term "opression" is defined in webster's dictionary as "unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power". If this is true, then the banking system cannot be oppressive since there is no real oppressor, that is, a group of people excercising power over another, because all of mankind uses it at least to some extent. The banking system is just another observable aspect of the way the world operates. For instance, if a tree fell onto a man's car preventing him from going to work, that tree would not be an oppressor, rather an aspect of the world we could only observe. However, the way we handle what we observe can be oppressive. An example of this would be having a law that made it illegal to park a car under a tree. With this in mind, the banking system is not oppressive, but the way we react to it as users can be.
the banking concept of education is oppressive

The banking concept of education is like a narration, the teacher is the narrator and the student is the listener. According to Freire the teacher is the subject while the student is the object. This teacher-student relationship has to be considered to be oppressive for the following reasons: the teacher teaches the students are taught, the teacher knows everything the students know nothing, the teacher thinks and the students are thought about, the teacher talks and the students listen-meekly, the teacher chooses the program content, and the students (who were not consulted) adapt to it. All these things make up the banking concept of education which resembles oppressive characteristics. The banking concept of education does not liberate instead it oppresses students. This type of education where the students are treated as objects and made to store as much information as possible allows ignorance and submission to occur because there is a power imbalance where the teacher has the power and the students are powerless.
A hockey player that can't be named, and my kidneys refuse to love each other.

Why is 6 afaird of 7? Because 7 is a six offender. Hahahahahhahahahahahahah5555. Get it? No worry tho cuz numbers cannot rape. Unless Platonism is true. Sh1t. That would suck your out in the woods and the all of the sudden the number 5 comes out of no where and rapes you! I think I found my new fetish.I wonder if that is such a fetish? I know some people who have a fetish for the ebolia virus. Like wtf? I injected myself with an STD to prove how tough I am but ebolia? No es beuno. Did you ever wonder why old people dont kill themselves? Lik relly your so old just end it. Old people are so crepy and they remind us of our deaths they gots no reason. Euthinsiha is a good idea really. It was so hard for me to beceom a christian because I had an uncle names Jesus who would also come into my room at night and make me accept him. But i got over it. I got jedi powers that way. Really sometime i use the force mind control to get womens to sleep with me and to get free stuff at the store. So fun. Feminism made the mistake of waking the sleeping giant. Gamer gate has upset the hordes of basement dwelling underachieving dormant men. Men who mentally are alphas due to their artificial military training in cyberland. These men have been insulated from the outside world because of their preoccupation with videogames. Suddenly feminist jumped into their world and we know the rest of the story. The funny thing is, if femist actually managed to get some regulatory authority to emasculate all future games that were released, a solid chunk of those dudes would quit playing video games and venture out into the real world. In other words feminism might actually save these dudes from their selves by making games unpalatable to their male egos. I listen to nyan cat all the time and watch the star wars christmas speical everyday. Its noit that bad tbh you jhave to watch it from an artists point of view.
A hockey player that can't be named, and my kidneys refuse to love each other.

Pepper sprayed Mr.Pib. This is deja vu. What is really real? Are my wubs that I listen to real? Well onto the topic. The Hockey player needs to remain sober long enough for my kidneys to be removed and donated. If the same force is pulled for armpit hair, does that same force of pulling of the other hair make me different then what might not be the hockey player of my dreams. The kidneys eat the hanmbarters and queve it. Put me in a sword, and cut me first. Can't spell weird without I before e except after c. Easy easy easy. No one will send prescon. You know what I want. Not that. All right, no? Read my words lowly as I am thinking hear..Slow it down. A calm voice should be used ok? I am calm. I readed you wrong I think. What does 0x mean? 0X bam ba bam ba bam ba bam ba ba bam Almost like fimpong but "bemp ooow" 0X YA YA..MA Oh here we go. Shots fired! Still pulling on that hair, cuz I'm a heathen. Drink bleach and take me! Its still not clever or my place.
A hockey player that can't be named, and my kidneys refuse to love each other.

Slowing opening my eyes, I feel the feeling of wake painfully surge through my body like electricity. I must have been asleep for years. The Scientists did not replace my bed nor did they did even replace me the hold time I was asleep. What they did replace, was themselfs. They were all square robots now. I did not look at them, instead I focused on checker and striped things of the black and white that painted the room. The first square robot asked one of the other square robots if it time for self pain. They all agreed and rolled out of the room one by one. The last square robot shut the door. I lay there. I had a helmet on, I notice. Lets hear some things first. The pitch increased with volume as expected and shut off. All colors off by 3 shades.Thats it... "Computer, activate reprograming" The computer starts to run the program, and the helmet squeezes my skull tightly. I wonder if I will turn out human again. If I don't awake, I will know. I want to die anyway. Reprograming complete. ~Unknown ~Unknown ~Unknown ~Unknown ........ 10 = 0 Its quite dark. I still have untouched consciousness...how strange. Strangely wake as well. A warmth is hitting me in the darkness but I can not tell from where it is coming from. Its has a sense of direction to it. I am a robot now. Why am I still alive? What tasks am I doing? AHH!!!! What was that? Oh, I know. I spoke. I somehow know that the bells and whistles I am saything as a robot is nowly code and vision. How do they work? Darkness, knowing, and pain is what I have to look forward to. I am not doing a good job. I know what that job is unfortunately. AH!!!AHH!! How stranger still, the pain is decreasing like a number repeating. The pain was 10, but now it was 0.9 and then 0.99. I do not feel anything. I have not feeling. My job is the mind, my job is to be awake for the robot. I need to see what I am made up of right now. Sounds. Very quiet sounds. I am made up of sounds waves. I... am unable to see anything, It is not because It is dark or I am inside the robot, it is because I am sightless and made of sound. I feel there are programs that I have to live by now. AHHH! 0.999. I now know, I do not speak, but it is my thoughts. They are also radio waves. How is that? I feel tired. AHH! 0.9999 Very tired. What is it doing now? AH! 0.99999 I am feeling a sense of impending restlessness and chaos. AHH 0.999999 What? The robots use pain? -0.1111111 AHH -0.11111111 I want to die anyway. Ah! -0.111111111 zZzZzZz
Brands are the Invention of Human Greed to Exploit Others

I thank Con for the inputs and I appreciate the effort to explain the concept. [4.1 Marketing/advertisements is the REAL REASON behind the high prices of branded products NOT THE BRAND per se. 4.2 The name/brand assigned to a product does not make it more expensive. The cost of MARKETING/ADVERTISEMENTS used to make the name/brand popular is the REAL REASON why a certain product is more expensive amidst its comparable quality with other products that are not branded or of less popular brands.] The above inference would have been great if the sentence had to be analyzed on linguistic grounds. The reason for me, putting this discussion in the SOCIETY category, is with reference to the social and economic impact of the promotion of brands. I agree with Con that increase in the cost of a product is due to the amount spend for its brand promotion, but the brand name builds its identity just on the basis of the promotional activity done towards establishing it in the market. I would conclude this with the following. 1.Brand promotion is targeted to imprint the brand name/product name in the consumers and thus it persuades a buyer's decision making. 2.As no brand owner has established themselves for social service, all the money spent for brand promotion reflects in the price of the product. 3.Certain brands (Apparel brands) exploitatively define their product as status symbol and thus mislead public. 4.A buyer persuaded by the advertisement of the product spends more money for something he can get in the market with equal or more quality. 5.Buying of branded products does no help to the buyer if it does not offer better quality than the generic product of the same kind. 6.Making higher quality product is secondary to making higher profit for most brand owners. 7.Whom would you recommend branded products? Only to those who can afford its price or all in the society? If Brands are not for all, they promote social hierarchism and segregation. With this discussion I would request the readers to withstand the persuasion of the multinational profit oriented brand owners. Quality matters, the Name never.
Brands are the Invention of Human Greed to Exploit Others

I thank srregua for taking up this debate. Let me elaborate this discussion. First of all I agree with my contender on the definition of 'BRAND' and 'EXPLOIT' and I would take my discussion ahead from there. Before that let me make it clear that I do not have any disagreement with case where BRAND is solely for naming a product and to distinguish it with similar other products. Our problem lies where competing brands exist in the market and the user pays the cost of all the brand promotion and brand competition made by the brand owners. I wish to take this discussion to the consumables and clothes where the competition is high and people have to buy more often. Technology products Off-Course is an exemption as they are no primary requirements. Let me take few examples. [As I am from India, please don't mind if the examples sounds to be in Indian context.] •In the case of clothes, most of the brand owners outsource their stitching and buy their raw materials from common or similar source. ( In India Arvind Mills does the job for many of the cloth brand owners) After stitching and going through the same process of refining, dying and stitching the cost of the product is what is determined by the brand owner on the basis of what extra they send for promotion. •All the top brands are promoted by leading celebrities and they earn millions of dollars for each Advertisement they perform (Ex. Levis, Lee, Arrow, Van Heusen, Louis Philippe, Reebok, Adidas, Puma, etc. etc. etc) – Who pays for it? •Fresh Lemon juice in a local juice center costs 4 Rs/ 400ml. (0.089 $) and branded lemon flavored juice costs 12 Rs/250 ml (0.29$). – What makes you pay more amounts for comparative inferior product? •The production cost of Coca Cola per 250 ml for Example is 0.83 Paisa (0.185 $) in India and the selling cost is 12 RS (0.29 $). Similar will be the case in all the countries proportional to their money value. Will you buy a non branded/locally made product at this price? If to list, this will go long, but similar is the case with most of the Brands. Now let me take the second definition ‘EXPLOIT'. My contender is right taking the definition i.e. "To take selfish or unfair advantage of a person or situation, usually for personal gain" Media has a lot of influence in our day to day decision making. This is route of propaganda that the major Brand Owners use to reach the minds of people and influence their thinking in such a way to make the society feel that these Brands are the Status symbol. I am not against Brands as whole but the exploitation and unreasonable profit being made using the Brand Name. I myself have worked for some multinational leading Brands and this realization I have got only after closer view of that. I agree that Individual opinions differ. It is you to decide what you want, based on your need, not the influence of any seller who directly or indirectly is in a constant attempt to brainwash you linking his product with something/someone you like.
Brands are the Invention of Human Greed to Exploit Others

HOWEVER, the claims presented are just mere assertions without any necessary supporting premises and facts. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I beg to disagree and stand firm to be in the con side. I. ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED 1.1 The issue is clear and simple: Whether or not 'All the brands we use now are the invention of human intellect to exploit others. ' II. DEFINITION OF TERMS For the sake of clarity, the definition/s of the following terms are hereunder provided as follows, to wit: 2.1 BRAND - a name, usually a trademark, of a product or manufacturer, or the product identified by this name Microsoftï¿½ Encartaï¿½ 2009. ï¿½ 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. 2.2 EXPLOIT - to take selfish or unfair advantage of a person or situation, usually for personal gain Microsoftï¿½ Encartaï¿½ 2009. ï¿½ 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. III. DISCUSSION 3.1 The term 'brand' is a neutral word. It does not have any negative connotation. It merely refers to a name, or more commonly referred to as a trademark, of a commodity or an institution, etc. 3.2 Brand works the same, more or less, with the names given to us when we were born or baptized. Our names are given to us to serve as our identity; the same way as brands do with commodities or institutions, etc. 3.3 The main purpose of inventing or assigning a brand is to serve as identity to products, and to make it easier for the consumers to identify the same. It is like assigning a name to someone. 3.4 If that is so, brand is harmless. It is not meant to exploit others. The invention of brand is not a direct source of exploitation. Assuming that brand is invented to exploit others is like saying that your name is given to you to serve as something bad. IV. CONCLUSION 4.1 It is not about the name or the brand, it is about the one who wears that name or brand. 4.2 Brand is neutral. Though, the marketing of which can make the difference; but it is the marketing not the brand per se. V. PRAYER WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of the would-be readers to: 5.1 Declare this round in favor of the con for the following grounds: a) Failure of the pro to present proofs; b)Failure of the pro to establish the parameters; and, c) Failure of the pro to present premises to support the claim.
The Hunger Games is too overrated

"I find the Hunger Games overrated"That's your opinion. "The Plot is almost that of Battle Royale..."I don't really think I need to post my Round 1 argument again... "The characters can be found in any other movie."Oh! So I suppose I'll see Katniss in Despicable Me? Frozen? Finding Nemo? Well you really didn't clarify the Genre."It's only famous because of its 12-year old fanbase"Again, that's an opinion."A hero "that fights back", two lovers, an evil "mastermind"?"Isn't that the plot line of most Action/Adventure Movie/Books?
Obama over Clinton as the Democratic party's nomination

This is the second time I have posted this argument and the one who takes the debate makes one weak argument and then forfeits the next round. I am so annoyed. I wonder if all of Clinton's supporters have such tacit support for her. If you are going to take a debate, please take it seriously and finish it even if you are losing. I will repost this debate (for the third time) in hopes of getting a real conclusion and maybe a true answer to why Hillary Clinto should be our next president.
Obama over Clinton as the Democratic party's nomination

I have given you reasons why I think political experience isn't everything. Abraham Lincoln was inexperienced politically when he was elected. Most people would consider him one of our greatest presidents. So to not for Barack Obama because he is less experienced than Hilary, should not be the ultimate test to her candidacy. To quote myself: "3. Uses the matter of her experience as the ultimate litmus test for a president. ALL the time. Years and years of political experiences by Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, their dullard puppet, ol' GW himself, and the rest, have helped put us where this country is today. It doesn't sell me enough." Shouldn't elect-ability play a VERY high road in this election? We certainly can't afford to have another republican in the White House again. You haven't discussed or refute that argument either. Please don't agree to a debate if you not even going to think about your arguments. I would like a reason why Clinton is better. In other words, imagine you are trying to convince me to vote for Clinton. Think of me as someone that won't vote on election day because Clinton is the nominee, I don't like the other guy, and I can't bring myself to cast a vote for her. No candidate brings more enthusiasm from his supporters than Barack Obama. Former Clinton supporters will not hate voting for Barack. Barack supporters will be less inclined to vote for Clinton because of Obama's broad ranging support. His republican and independent support will go to McCain or Romney, especially McCain. He would have the best chance of beating Clinton, in fact that theoretical contest polls with McCain in the lead.
Obama over Clinton as the Democratic party's nomination

Let me start off by saying I like obama I really do. But he is simply not tried and tested like clinton was. and whether people count it or not her years as first lady do count as political experiance. Obama on the other hand can win by losing. He's still young, and he has alot to give. but I think he needs to season more. He is idealistic. Obama took Clitons experiance in office and baisicly hung it around her neck like a chain saying that she can not bring change while being tied to the political game. However people forget, politics is a game. and it's one that needs to be played, and played well. Obama does not yet know, or simply refuses to learn how to play it. Clinton knows how to play,she knows the rules and also knows how to work it to the advantage fo the country. These are trying times, and change is needed, but also realism is needed, we need a good political player. Clinton is it.
Should private schools be abolished

Kids who are in different programs rarely interact with mainstream students(except for electives). It essentially is like a small private school within the public school."this is because less intimation of students who don't want to be in school". Kids in those programs do not have that problem because they have no reason to be intimidated. These programs have set standards for which kids are allowed to attend and which are not. In private schools, you could easily enroll by paying fees. Most private schools rarely look at the academic accomplishments of other students. "This could be the case but private schools are better than public schools so public schools are more likely to have an untrained teacher because private schools have more graduates". It is impossible that a public school has an untrained teacher. Why? because the law has certain requirements in which the individual much have, in order to apply for a job at the school in the first place.
Should private schools be abolished

You said that public schools already offer various different programs, so it unnecessary for parents to send their children to private schools, you fail to see the advantages for a private school pupils who attend a private school their graduates are more likely than their peers from public schools to have completed advanced-level courses in three academic subject areas (see table), this is because less intimation of students who don't want to be in school. Better education cannot always come from programs, parents shouldn't be dependent on these things, when you can get the "full package" from private schools.You also made another point: "Private schools also have no law that stops an untrained individual from being a teacher. You aren't guaranteed to have a qualified teacher in a classroom." This could be the case but private schools are better than public schools so public schools are more likely to have an untrained teacher because private schools have more graduates.
Should private schools be abolished

Like I said before, public schools already offer various different programs. It is unnecessary for parents to send their kids to private school. If parents want their child to have a better education, they can pay for it from the different programs available. In argument 1, you said, "State schools are funded by the government. So children can easily get applied there, even children who do not want to be there." Well, putting them in a private school would prove to have even more negative effects. The child might easily be intimidated by other children, because private schools set a higher standard than public schools. Public schools do have specialized programs that are designed for children who are misbehaving. Teachers in private schools are more likely to ignore the troubles that other kids have, compared to their counterparts. Private schools also have no law that stops an untrained individual from being a teacher. You aren't guaranteed to have a qualified teacher in a classroom.
Should private schools be abolished

Thank You for this debate, I disagree with your statement. Just because 1 student doesn't show the interest in learning it does not mean it effects the entire classroom. Teachers usually will have accommodations for those who are excelling in class, and for those who are struggling. I also would like the brief that Private schools charge parents heavily on tutiton . Most parents are hit with numerous fees that only a high class family can afford. Why? because private schools must generate their own funding, which typically comes from a variety of sources: tuition; private grants; and fundraising from parents, alumni, and other community members. Most public schools have programs these days like International Baccalaureate, which are designed for academically gifted schools. So parents don't have to send their kids to Private schools, because public schools already offer many different programs.
Should private schools be abolished

Hello I am Fatmata. I expose the theory of not abolishing private schools. My main points that I am going to be expanding are: - Private schools allow children to actually learn, something you cannot always do in state schools due to the fact that private schools aren't for children that don't want to learn. Parents actually pay so that children can learn. -Private schools save the government taxes. Private schools fund them selves by the parents paying for them. Private schools are schools that parents pay for so that their child can learn. Private schools have not a lot of children in their class so the less children in the class the more each child gets to learn. State schools are funded by the government. So children can easily get applied there, even children who do not want to be there. Private schools allow parents to pay for good education.