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

The educators must deposit knowledge into these students that know nothing. This reinforces lack of critical thinking and the students own knowledge which then leads to oppression. Students are just passive absorbers of information which dehumanizes them because like i said previously, what makes us human is our ability to think and use our brains, but the banking concept of education makes us lack that ability and forces us to just sit there and take in what is being presented to us which makes the students the oppressed and the teachers the authority.
Is the banking concept of education oppressive

I disagree with you i do not think the banking concept of education is in any way oppressive but much of the opposite. The banking concept of education will educate students on subjects that are main subjects in everyday life. People need to have common knowledge to communicate in America today and the banking concept will help educate students in the correct manner. "What she calls knowledge i call cultural literacy, namely, the network of information that all competent readers possess. it is the background information,stored in their minds, that enables them to take up a newspaper and read it with an adequate level of comprehension, getting the point, grasping the implications, relating what they read to the unstated context which alone gives meaning to what they read.(1.3) It will educate students on topics that they will need to know, background information on and fully understand it. You need to learn the information and history on topics before you can use the topics and information in a correct manner. You need to comprehend the things you are reading and have context of what is going on and fully understand the concept before you can do anything with it.
Is the banking concept of education oppressive

I disagree with the banking concept of education. What makes us human is our ability to think and use our brain. But what happens when our thinking ability is taken away from us and we are forced to accept whatever is presented to us and follow it. This is what is addressed in "Pedagogy of the Oppressed." The banking concept also takes away the power of students imagination. Students pay a whole lot of money to be educated, so they should have the right to speak up or ask the teacher questions whenever they feel like it. This way they can learn at a deeper level.
Is the banking concept of education oppressive

As my opponent stated "Communication is a big part of learning the proper way. Discussing ideas is what makes us human. This is the way that we can enact change in this world." Using this method of teaching will not hold back the students from communication in anyway it will just enhance the method of teaching. The subjects that will be discussed will be main subjects and they will not only bring new ideas to the table but this will broaden our youths mind of topics and information that should be provided to them. The student is not witheld from asking questions or communicating with the teacher in any way, shape, or form. Also, this method will leave no student uneducated. It will give them the education they need to further their lives. In America social classes reguard the area you live in and it will also affect the school system in town. No school no matter what class the town is will be left behind, all of the schools will be taught the same information in the same set of classes so all students are receiving the knowledge they deserve.By using this type of learning style, no child will be uneducated. Everyone will be taught the knowledge that will be useful in his or her life no matter where they are or come from in America and what social class they are. As Hirsch states, "Literate culture is the most democratic culture in our land; it exculdes nobody; it cuts across generations and social groups and classes; it is not usually one's first culture, but it should be everyone's second, existing as it does beyond the narrow spheres of family, neighborhood and region." Overall, this is the best way to educate our students today. No child will be left behind no matter what social class they are. All of the students in America will be learning important information that will only better their lives in the end.
Is the banking concept of education oppressive

Students are not being properly educated by just sitting in the classroom and absorbing all of this information at once. Most students have similar questions on the top of their minds once absorbing a bunch of information being presented or basically thrown at them. Without questions, there can be confusion or misinterpretation going on. Communication is a big part of learning the proper way. Discussing ideas is what makes us human. This is the way that we can enact change in this world. Therefore a liberating educational method should be used in the classroom. Education denies that man is abstract, isolated, independent, and unattached to the world. The banking concept of education maintains and stimulates the contradiction through attitudes and practices which mirror oppressive society as a whole. Freire states, "The teacher teaches and the students are taught, the teacher knows everything and the students know nothing"(1.8). This indicates that the teacher is the subject of the learning process, while the pupils are just mere objects. Freire also mentions, "Knowledge is a gift bestowed by those who consider themselves knowledgeable upon those whom consider to know nothing. Projecting an absolute ignorance onto others, a charateristic of the ideology of oppression, negates education and knowledge as a process of inquiry"(1.6). The concept of the banking theory involves too much power for one side being the teachers while at the same time neglecting the other side of the students.
Is the banking concept of education oppressive

The banking concept in no way is putting any students at harm with critical thinking. This way of learning will expand the minds of the children in America to sujects that they should know about and be fimilar with growing up to better their lives in the future. Children go to school to learn information from teachers, they are there because they want to be educated by the person who has studied to perform this task in the correct way. In every school, they teach the same class but different information is taught varying from school to school. All schools should go by the same guideline so everyone is learning the most important information and has common knowledge of important topics. The banking concept will help this get done. As Hirsch states, "Those who graduate from the same school have often studied different subjects, and those who graduate from different schools have often studied different material even when their courses have carried the same titles."(8.1) This method of teaching will relive us of this problem and will present the same material throughout education so everyone is learning correctly and the correct information that should be presented to help the student be at their best when they graduate. This is best for the students in America, they need to be educated on certain topics for their everyday life and to further their education.
I deserve to burn in Hell

My opponent has conceded, stating so in her opening statement in this argument as well as in her closing statement of this argument. "Okay. Now you have proved that you deserve to burn in hell, but you have no proof that I should burn in hell as well."This is the position I took in the debate, I deserve to burn in Hell. The debate was not to prove my opponent deserves to burn in Hell. My opponent has conceded that I do deserve to burn in Hell. Most people will not believe they deserve to burn in Hell, I am aware of that. The fact remains that I deserve to burn in Hell and I know it and my opponent has not only agreed with me, she has asked the voters to agree with me."Voters, PLEASE VOTE FOR PRO, HE REALLY DOES DESERVE TO BURN IN HELL."Again, my opponent displays poor conduct in excusing her childish laughter, which easily could be interpreted as the result of smoking marijuana, by saying the debate is really stupid. If my opponent thinks the debate is really stupid, she could have said so in a mature manner without using the thoughtless phrase "really stupid" and putting on a display of childish laughter.My opponent might want to read the ten commandments and think about how many times she has broken God's law. Her assertion of innocence does not remove her guilt. Maybe she took this debate and acted so childish because she knows she is guilty and deserves to die and burn in Hell the same as me, but is in denial and trying to keep herself fooled.Again, the point of the debate was not to prove that my opponent deserves to burn in Hell the same as me (though she does), the point of the debate was to prove that I deserve to burn in Hell. My arguments so surpassed my opponents arguments that she fully conceded that I deserve to burn in Hell and she asked the voters to award the win to me. How many debates do you see where one of the parties fully concedes victory to their opponent. Thank you for being honest, Con.
I deserve to burn in Hell

My opponent's "belief" " I believe nobody deserves to burn in hell because of religion, that is a stupid reason for you to want to burn in hell"I'm not sure what is meant by this. My opponent believes nobody deserves to burn in hell because of religion? Does that mean she knows of an infallible religion that teaches that nobody goes to hell? Does that mean religion is to blame if people burn in Hell? Does that mean religion keeps everybody or anybody out of Hell? I have to ask my opponent to clarify this statement of her belief. She says she has no religion, so I have to ask if she is an animal who lives only by instinct and cannot speak of God?In my opponent's statement of her belief, she says something is a stupid reason for you to want to burn in hell. I'm not sure what she means by this. Who wants to burn in Hell? Does religion make people want to burn in Hell? Does my opponent think I want to burn in Hell? My opponent seems to be confused and not focused on the debate. Combined with all of the giggling she is displaying, I have to wonder if she is smoking marijuana. She obviously is not qualified to handle this debate in a mature manner. If marijuana is involved here, that explains her behaviour. If it's simply childish poor conduct, I hope she grows up some before this debate is over.I know without a doubt that I deserve to burn in Hell. I am unholy like the devil. I do not deserve to kick up dust on God's earth, and I do not deserve to be spared from the devil's Hell fire. I have broken every one of God's commandments except for murder. I stopped short of murdering a man because I knew I would get in trouble if I finished him off, so I let him go. I know my heart is full of evil and prone to self-satisfaction. I have broke a lot of hearts and done a lot of damage and caused a lot of pain in the world. I know I deserve to burn in Hell...and I know my opponent deserves to burn in Hell also because I know she has broken God's law.
I deserve to burn in Hell

This is quite possibly one of the funniest debates I have ever seen. I believe nobody deserves to burn in hell because of religion, that is a stupid reason for you to want to burn in hell. I have no religion therefore it will not be easy for you to offend me. I accept your challenge, I am Con. This is hilarious. Lol. Rofl. Lolshicomtmsfo. (Laughing Out Loud So Hard I Choked On My Taco and My Sombrero Fell Off.) XD
I deserve to burn in Hell

If you don't agree with me that I deserve to burn in Hell, I can probably annoy you enough that you will tell me where to go, and it won't be heaven. Just read the comments of the people who hate God and are annoyed by me already. You can see enough truth in their accusations against me that we must conclude that I deserve to burn in Hell. Anybody like me who tells everybody they deserve to burn in Hell and God will let them go there and burn if they won't believe the gospel (the good news of the death for mankind's sin, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ) and receive Jesus as their Saviour to be saved from Hell, surely deserves to burn in Hell. I sure an glad I'm forgiven and going to heaven, because I know ()even without all the hate groupies on here who follow me around) I deserve to burn in Hell. (And by the way, you deserve to burn in Hell too, but that is not the topic of this debate. This debate is about me. I deserve to burn in Hell)
Basic Life Knowledge Should Be Taught In School (Taxes, Rent, Loans, etc...)

Great argument! Sorry I haven't posted sooner, I had some other work to do and totally forgot about our debate. You're argument is very valid and a good point to bring up, but your example is one derived only from personal experience. Also, since you come from a wealthier neighborhood, parents are usually more knowing of these life skills and more willing to teach their children of these. Though it is a great argument, it only applies to a small percentage of students and families. These classes wouldn't have to be offered only after school. In most high and middle schools, there is at least one study hall or period a week. Students could either attend then, or the teachers could integrate skills in relation to their subject into their agenda. This would allow students to all be on the same playing field when they enter the real world. You bring up the point of with today's growing and highly diverse technologies, it would be hard to teach all of them. Changing a tire on a car is almost always similar, and taxes are also the same case. College applications and bank loans can usually be found highly similar for most colleges and banks. Also, if a student where to have more questions after the class on their personnel examples such as their car happens to be highly different, they could talk to the teacher themselves and ask questions according to their situation. If the teacher doesn't know the answer, they can direct the student towards someone who does. Even if the teacher points the entire class towards a website or program that elaborates on the lessons taught in class, it would still be incredibly useful to have a teacher there to answer and clarify and questions a student may have. Politics are a great example of something that can be taught in class and with the upcoming presidential election are often talked about within a classroom setting. But if teachers where to go deeper into the topic and teach about the United States government in particular such as what the different parties are and what each branch of the government does, it would help kids understand what, politically, is happening in the world around them. Overall, the classes might be simple and not account for all needs of the students, but the give the students a basic idea of what is happening. When you have that basic knowledge, it helps you gather more information by yourself on specific questions or problems they may have. It clarifies what is going on in the world around them and opens up many more possibilities for success, which is what I think everyone wants for today's students. Thank you and have a lovely Thanksgiving!
Basic Life Knowledge Should Be Taught In School (Taxes, Rent, Loans, etc...)

Thank you very much for posting this! It is an interesting topic that many can talk about. The examples that I gave were very limited so let me explain a little more. As I am from a very rich portion of the state and county that I am from, we are given this opportunity to take classes that teach life skills but very few kids take them. For example, one of the classes in this conglomeration is a course named "Dollars and Sense", with the primary attempt to give students the mindset that we should be wise with the money that we have later in our adult lives. There are so many classes that are not taken by enough students to form a single class that it would not only be a waste of time but a waste of money for the school district and the teacher because supplies are needed and the teacher must be paid for a class that has a bare amount of students. This shows that there is no need for these classes because no student is going to willingly go to a class about finances, loans, rent, or any other ideas as they may be seen as boring and useless as of now. Along with this, if there is no willing teacher and no willing student, then what is there to do? In my district, we are given eight classes a year to take, four core courses (mathematics, science, history, and English) and four "elective" courses which allow students to be given the ability to chose classes based off of experiences and personal interest. Now, what the schools do in my district is they already require many classes that take up some of our four electives. If there are more required classes added to the already extensive amount needed to graduate and many kids just simply don't want to take it, more kids are going to see it as a worthless class. Next, there is the problem of the variety and diversity of today's technology and how it is ever-changing. If we look at the facts, there are fart too many cars, computers, apartments, houses, policies, ideas, and politics in many of today's ideas to be presented to a teacher and have them understand. If a student within a class were to move to another country, then what do we do? There are too many different processes and ideas that there is simply no way that one person or even multiple people could understand all of them. Finally, I understand your ideas on adulthood and parenting but I believe that the parent should be the one to teach some life skills but we must also realize that there is a difference within the idea of being told something and that actually happening. For example, we can tell someone that they will run out of money but until that person does, they will never be open to that idea. In another example, we may tell a person the way to change a tire but until a flat tire happens, what is the need for it? That 17 year old may never need that until they are 23 and will not remember how to do it step-by-step. Thank you :)
Basic Life Knowledge Should Be Taught In School (Taxes, Rent, Loans, etc...)

I am excited to get to engage with you on this topic. Let's say that you, a newly licensed individual are driving to work. You are driving down a hill on your way to work and happen to hit a curb and pop your tire. Now if you have a AAA card, then you can call them and have them help you with your situation, but this wait could be hours. If you had known how to change a tire, you could change it and be on your way. But if you don't? You could be in some big trouble especially if you're on a main road. A simple 30 minute course on how to change a tire and who to call if you pop one and don't have AAA could make a huge difference. Having a local mechanic come in for a low cost and educate our soon to be drivers on road safety and what to do in case of an emergency could change and save the lives of many. (Source 1) You argue that it will be inconvenient and pain for already overloaded teachers is a completely valid argument and a good point to bring up. Topics such as taxes, loans, rent, how to manage a checking account, and many other life skills similar to these can be taught over a few classes by a willing math teacher. Even if a few teachers where to volunteer their time to educate these kids after school hours on these necessary life skills, I would be willing to bet there would be a large turnout. Parents, in my eyes, are a child's primary educator. But they can only teach so much and in a way that may be unfamiliar, and there is no guarantee that all kids will have parents willing to teach these life lessons and there is no guarantee that all parents know these life skills themselves. If these skills where to be taught in a classroom environment, all students would be given the same knowledge to help them jump start their lives in the real world. Source 1- . http://www.wsj.com...
Basic Life Knowledge Should Be Taught In School (Taxes, Rent, Loans, etc...)

I believe as a high school student that it should not be taught because it is not necessary for the teachers to be our parents. Yes it is great to know how to change a flat tire, pay bills, etc., but why should teachers be given another responsibility on top of their current objectives, most of which is to teach a kid their specific, assigned subject. It is unfair to the teacher to have to teach another class that parents should be teaching anyways.
Heaven and hell for controlling the masses

Despite this being a looser debate, I challenge Pro to editorialize less. Otherwise this discussion might as well be moved to the forum section. Pro claimed I contradicted myself. But I didn't, and I don't know how he thinks I did. People can figure out what a moral action is. But for example, radical Muslim terrorists have used the motivation of heaven to against their moral conscience. Maybe that is part of Pro's point. My opponent must understand that our view the future is crucial to how we must act today. If there is nothing beyond this life, then we should be seeking pleasure. If there is heaven, then we should be looking for heavenly awards rather than earthly pleasure. This brings up the question - shouldn't we be looking out for our own well being over others if there is no punishment for evil? Pro believes we should eliminate hell and make moral decisions based on our own moral sense - that is his resolution. This way we wouldn't live in the fear of hell. But neither would we live in the hope of heaven. In the end his view is only correct if... 1. Heaven and hell are indeed fake, man-made concepts. 2. Humans actually have a moral conscience (which I believe they do, but still, this must be certain). My opponent confuses me when he suggests humans need no moral guidance but then admits that we need guidance from a parental standpoint. 3. Heaven and hell are adversely controlling people. The Christian view just wouldn't work with Pro's concept because it isn't dependent upon how good or bad a person is. Isn't Pro being just as much brainwashed as anyone else? If not how so? Pro almost seems to think there is no relation between a person's beliefs and a person's religion, even though they are one and the same. If someone picks up Mormonism for the sake of a moral code or moral motivation, does it really make them a Mormon? Not if he doesn't actually believe what Mormons believe. It's not as if people are holding on to some religion that they think someone made up for them. They genuinely believe it, that is why they live their religion. And they live their religion just as much as CyberS lives his own religion. CyberS's religion is that we should believe whatever the hell we want as long as it is tailored to God's morality that is instilled within each of us. If we live according to this morality then we will be happy and content. Then we will die and consequently cease to exist. Please, correct me where I am wrong.