BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Banking Concept of Education is Oppressive

The banking concept of education is a necessary concept, mainly because to have an advancing knowledge people must have the same equal and basic knowledge. As Hirsch says "the traditional form of literate culture are precisely the most effective instruments for political and social change." So for advancements in knowledge and culture and society as a whole the people must be literate and to be literate they need the banking concept of education. It is either that or lose basic concepts of our society and some history because in an age and classroom where students can question authority and lessons they'll reason that they don't need to learn the fundamentals or need to listen to someone who can teach them. The worst case scenario is a society that collapses and has no knowledge of its past, that would be a society not worth living in.
The Banking Concept of Education is Oppressive

As you put it, "A true democracy requires a shared knowledge, it requires the student has the same basic ideas." This was the case when those two Fascists attended school, before the infamy, before their decisions to be misguided. But these two men are just one example, some children go through the same schooling, are fed the same information and yet the thoughts will not stick in their head. These children cannot learn this way. They soon find themselves in a career that uses no knowledge of the things they were fed in grade school, but newly acquired skills learned in college or Vocational school. This is gained through an equal "student-teacher" relationship. The system does not work on all children, therefore the banking concept of education is oppressive.
The Banking Concept of Education is Oppressive

"You bring up "full of knowledge of his abilities and power Adolf Hitler continued his work", "men like Bundy and Manson walked the earth."" To my knowledge two of those men were or believed in fascist viewpoints and the fact that they were superior. Hirsch states, "shared information is a necessary background to true literacy" and further states, "literate culture is the most democratic culture in our land; it excludes no one; it cuts across generations and social groups and classes." A true democracy requires a shared knowledge of information, it requires everyone to have the same basic ideas how else is a student suppose to learn of society and life if they question everything and refuse to have equal knowledge. A teacher being a superior and wiser human has to impart this knowledge for it to be passed on.
Animal Testing

Before I proceed, it is necessary to define "animal testing." According to Wikipedia, animal testing is: "The use of non-human animals in experiments." [1]Con is under the impression that the goals of animal testing is solely to improve medicine and is solely in the best interests of humans. This is not true. C1. Benefits for Animals and Environment- Animal testing also helps animals. Animal testing is done not solely to improve medicine and health for humans, but for animals as well. I will give some examples:- Animal testing must be done for Veterinarians and Animal Hospitals to properly understand animals so that they can help sick and injured animals. - Pet food companies often perform animal testing by having pet animals eat a variety of pet foods to determine which are healthiest and tastiest, thus improving the quality of pet food, which is a benefit for both pet owners and their pets.- Animal testing is also necessary to help preserve endangered animals. To help preserve an endangered species, you must know what they eat, what living conditions are comfortable for them, their predators, their behavior, why they are endangered, etc. To determine these factors, the animals must be tested. These tests don't hurt the animals. It could be as harmless as having a monkey eating two different types of bananas to determine which are better for it.- In some cases, an endangered animal is a keystone species. A keystone species is a species of animal that plays a crucial role in its ecosystem. [2] If a keystone species goes extinct, the whole ecosystem collapses. For example, if a hummingbird goes extinct, the plants in its environment would not get pollinated, and after a few generations, all the plants in this environment dies out. Animal testing plays a crucial role in preserving endangered animals, which plays a crucial role in preserving the ecosystem and ultimately, the environment. Therefore, animal testing plays a crucial role in preserving the environment.C2. Probability of Success- One of Con's main arguments is that animal testing should be banned because there is a low probability of success. However, the probability of success is still there, and it won't hurt to keep trying. Thomas Edison tried thousands of times with a small probability for success, and made a scientific breakthrough in the end that brought huge benefits to the world. Conclusion:While animal testing has a low probability of making medical breakthroughs, the probability is still there, and is certainly worth the failures, like Edison's failures that resulted in the breakthrough of light bulbs and electricity, which is responsible for the invention of the very computer you are using right now.And aside from medical purposes, animal testing also plays a crucial role in helping animals which ultimately also helps the environment. Sources:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://education.nationalgeographic.com...
Animal Testing

People say that animal testing is okay because it helps us. But it doesn't really help us anymore. The inner workings of a rat and a human may be similar, but they are no means identical. When it comes to drug discovery and development, these limitations can jeopardize every segment of the pharmaceutical pipeline, from synthesis to prescription. Side effects are missed, and millions of dollars are wasted. Even if a new chemical entity is deemed safe at the animal stage, it still only has 8 percent chance of being approved form human use. Also, the ultimate crash test dummy has been invented by military scientists and will eventually replace live testing on animals such as pigs which are regularly blown up and dismembered in the search for more lethal mutations hundreds of scientists are making medicines from chemicals found in sea plants and animals. Once scientists find useful chemicals, they can often copy them in a lab without killing any animals. Plus,less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. Over 98% never affect animals. According to the former scientific executive of Huntington Life Sciences, animal tests and human results agree "5% of the time." Among the hundreds of techniques available instead of animal experiments, cell culture toxicology methods give accuracy rates of 80-85%
Iron man is better then Batman

Well clearly the layout was ignored but none the less my response. Bruce Wayne is a noble fighter of crime yes, but he is also too cliched and moral. Batman is soo rightious and noble, in fact, that he took the blame for a criminals actions, granted it saved the city from a horde of criminals said criminal put away, but he's always got a way out of everything and ends up ontop of the world. Last he did lose his parents yes, and it is tramatic. That being said Tony Stark lost his parents AND watched Soldiers die from his own weapons, therefore his ideals are on a far bigger scale then Waynes, though also on the side of revenge. Plus Stark is a Genuis, Billionare, playboy, Philantropist as well (also I think Stark was the one who coined that in the Avengers movie). Stark also has a massive lab filled with gadgets and weapons he can BUILD into his armor to use. When Stark appeared in Tales of Suspense #39, much like Spider-man, he became a hit and grew into his own legend, and eventually became one of the first members of the Avengers, forming it with Captian America, Thor, Giant Man (Hank Pym), Wasp, Black Widow, And The Hulk. Plus Iron Man has fought with his addiction to Alcohol and lives everyday with a Glourified Pace-maker in his chest and the guilt of his weapons killing millions of young soldiers, so he deals with darker secrets then Wayne to be honest, and it's what drives him to fight and be the hero he is.
Iron man is better then Batman

Batman is Batman. Batman is the Chuck Norris of superheroes, he MADE DC off of one issue. Batman's appearance in Detective Comics #27 caused an entire comic company to change it's name. As for Batman himself, he fights for all that is just and fair, Granted it's for vengence. However, his choice to fight crime in response to a common criminal murdering his parents has changed the fate of Gotham, and the world, in a positive way. He shows people that not every man in a mask is evil and someone will stand up to injustice and tyranny,Bruce Wayne, his public self, is also a philantropist, playboy, and holds many degrees of education in a variety of fields. Through Wayne Enterprises, Batman is able to acquire a varitey of equipment, not just a suit. With said equipment he cleans the streets of gotham and aids the universe in times of need. He also funds men women and intelligent lifeforms across the universe realize their heroic potential through Batman Incorporated. Batman Inc. helps vigilantes defeat evil-doers in all corners of the universe. Not only did he start somewhat tribute society to himself but, he also established the Justice League with Superman, Hawkman, The Flash, Wonder Woman, and The Green Lantern(Hal Jordan).Now what's with Ironman? Did he cause a comic company to gain popularity? Is he a symbol of hope? Does he have a following of loyal crimefighters?
Iron man is better then Batman

And now to business:At this point we're arguing morals and personality. It'd be unfair and unsound for us to actually do that, we'd be placing one set of people superior to others. Making people who find the overly moral as sound people feel as though they are wrong, or right if we say those who refuse to share their crusades. Simply put we don't have an answer for who is better, we have opinions. Biased opinions, but good ones in the end. No matter which position are charachters are in we'll choose one over the other, it's just life. I'm gonna keep this short and rap it up with this. Batman is the Chuck Noris of Superheroes. Okay if Chuck Noris wasn't the Chuck Noris of Superheroes, Batman would be.
Iron man is better then Batman

I'll give you that one my friend, basically we're arguing two parralel stories with slight differences but the same side of a coin, two genuiss have their world crash down around them in some way and in an act of guilt, duty, and morality, both used their intelect and will to rise above the darkness and become the heroes they are today. Also the four generations is a very strong counter, but it just goes to show how overly moral Batman is, fighting crime as the caped crusader as well as taking in four young kids, which if I do recall one of them ends up going crazy and betraying Batman and one dies, or it might be the same one i dont know. Stark only has Rhodes, a long-time friend, and Pepper Podds, his secretary, as well as Jarvis his Butler and Hogan his driver, and only one of them, acting on their own, become a superhero. Stark never took in anybody because he felt the burden of his mission was his and his alone, thus showing that sense of duty that he has, also it goes back to the fact that Stark doesn't know who he can trust so he keeps his mission to himself, even though it really wasn't him but his company, the point I'm making is Stark isn't acting on moral, he's purely acting on guilt and grief, which is emotional and makes him a deeper more emotional character then Wayne. Yes Waynes background is dark and gloomy, the lost of his parents and the downard spiral Gotham is in, one man takes up the call to be the Cities Dark Knight, it's very good and hits you close, but Stark, a billionaire who took over his dead fathers company and discovered that they were selling weapons to people who would use them to kill young men and women he invested in protecting as much as he could, get's captured and fights his way to freedome by building a suit from scratch, then redesignes the suit and, in a selfless act of duty, uses the suit to keep his weapons out of the wrong hands. To me, Iron Man has more of a tear-jerker story then Batman, I mean yes Batman's story is dark and sad, but it's understandable in the sense of its his parents who triggered his crusade, but Iron Man took on the mission because of people he was never close too, people he never knew personally, who died by his creations, which most genuises would consider collateral damage, but not him, he considered it a personal sin of his own doing, he made the weapons and watched them work flawlessly in the effort to kill young soldiers he wanted to help protect, sure he doesn't usually show that he cares but deep down under that playboy persona he thrives on not simply being a hero, but redeeming those who were wronged by his company, he isn't Iron Man for the glory, he's Iron Man as punishment in his eyes. So this is the final round of our debate, and I must say thank you for an interesting and testing debate, this is really my first debate myself and it was a fun one, now it's your turn to say your peice and we will let the voters choose.
Iron man is better then Batman

At this point I'm sitting here thinking "What are we arguing, who's morally better, who's got a bigger arsenal, who's better suited to fight our criminals? I'm pretty sure there is no absolute way to tell. Either Batman wins in hand-to-hand or Iron Man wins after suiting up. Both men are very intelligent, rich, and giving. Both have companies devouted to developing new technologies for peace or war. It pretty much comes down to Iron Man would Kill someone, and Batman won't.So there's no deciding who's better either someone dies or a criminal is locked away until the key is lost. Or we can look at the youth Bruce was taken in throughout the years, His wards. Dick Grayson, Jason Todd, Tim Drake, and Cassandra Cain, three young men and a young woman, whom he took off the streets gave an education and taught how to fight crime and protect the wolrd/multiverse from evil. Iron Man, Tony Stark might have been forced into the situation, might have helped create the Avengers, but Batman... He's helped generations with the four children he took in.
Iron man is better then Batman

I am aware of Batmans skills in hand to hand, but if we are going by assests, lets not forget Iron Man is a man in a super-advanced Robotic Suit, sure Batman is better trained but with the suit one punch from the Metal-head can take out even Bane. Also Batmans origins were the streets of Gotham, he worked his way up to the global scale, Iron Man was plunged into a Global fight, also with no training unlike Batman, and had to start from there. So thus he started on a bigger scale. As for the Baised point, it wasnt just the fact that he was involved in a war of beliefs, he was involved in watching good men and women die FIRST HAND by his own weapons, yes he know the risks of selling war, but when he saw not just soldiers, but good people taken out because of his company, he stopped selling for war and started selling for defense, smarter weapons and better protection. Yes his weapons still get leaked out but that's were Iron Man comes into play, he eliminates the weapons in the hands of people who would use them in the wrong ways. Stark was pushed into the hero-gig, but you have a point in that he could hire someone, but after the incident with his weapons he knew that he couldnt just trust anybody with this task, no it truely was his and his alone, plus the thought of another person dying becausing of him was not an option, sure money can buy alot of things but it wasn't about the money, it was about the risk.
Iron man is better then Batman

Stark can not take an enemy down faster than Batman. "So what martial arts does Batman know and utilize?Well, according to the comic books "he is a master of allfighting arts" (Detective Comics #411) who "spent yearsperfecting every known fighting discipline." (The UltimateGuide to the Justice League). The Ultimate Guide to Batman is even more specific, describing how "There are 127 major styles of combat. While abroad, Bruce learned them all, from Aikido to Yaw-Yan." And not only is Batman seemingly a master of every known martial art in the world, he is also apparently an expert in many esoteric fighting styles, the nature of which seem to be only known by the writers." The Bloody Elbow {1}It's been accepted by every DC writerr that Batman's expetise is in gadgetry and hand-to-hand combat. Bat-Gorilla is probably the better combatant versus Tony Stark.And scales of magnitude? Batman has helped The Green Lantern Corps save the universe at least twice, he's defeated Equinox from "balancing" the multiverses, traveled across space to fight alien threats on planets humanity's never heard of, and traveled through time to stop too many baddies to count. Batman Inc. has the world cut into sectors where Batmen patrol and protect, All because Batman is Batman.Your ending paragraph shows how Iron Man is a biased hero, whilst Iron Man fights to redeem the fallen heroes that were wronged by terrorists using his weapons. How are we to know that the "fallen heroes" are actually heroes, and not the evil-doers dressed as our allies? Or worse yet, those men are infact our allies performing heinous acts upon the men who just happened to buy a bigger stick, a stick built by Stark Industries. Batman can be called Biased as well, however his enemies tend to be psychopathic indivinduals bent on murder, unjustifiable thievery, and other universal crimes. He's not fighting people our beliefs disagree with. I'll give you a point, Iron Man/Tony Stark did get pushed, however we both know he has the money to hire someone else to do it! So your arguement saying he was "forced" is invalid, he chose to do it himself.{1} http://www.bloodyelbow.com...
Iron man is better then Batman

Touche my good friend, Touche Now to counter, Bruce Wayne might no have revealed his identity to the world but he as Wayne basks in his own light as well, difference is Stark is compencating for the guilt he feels from what his company does, and also he went after all his weapons and destroyed the ones in the wrong hands, since he wasnt truely responsible for his companies actions at the time, but he made sure less of his weapons were leaked out to enemies. And Stark doesn't need to go to his lab to grab new weapons, with his advanced technology he can have the weapons teleported to him VIA pods like batman. However his weapons are much more advanced compared to Batmans quick little toys, giving Batman is more moral and doesnt kill, I will give him that one, but Iron Man can subdue an enemy far quicker then batman can and without killing them. Iron man also fights on a bigger scale then Batman, Batman fights on the dark streets of gotham protecting the people of the city from criminals, whilst Iron Man fights to redeem the fallen heroes that were wronged by terrorists using his weapons, and fights to keep his weapons in the right hands and out of the wrong, Iron Man took responsibility for what has happened, even though he wasn't truely to blame, and has taken the guilt onto himself from what his company did. Though Batman is far more moral then Iron Man, the fact that gets me is Iron Man didn't choose to the hero really, he was forced into the situation. Batman CHOSE to become Gothams protector, Iron Man was pushed into action, with no way out.
Quantum physics: We are immortal.

1. Consciousness is not energy. There's no scientific consensus on what consciousness is, but a huge number of scientists, philosophers, and psychologists believe consciousness it not "energy," and even that it exists in a different ontological domain than the physical world 2. Even if consciousness is energy, it can still be destroyed. Consider: A tree is energy. You burn the tree. It becomes ash. The ash is energy. A tree is not ash. Just because something is energy doesn't mean it can't be destroyed. 3. There's no proof that there exist multiple universes with multiple versions of yourself. That can't be proven in either direction, so Pro fails that argument, since he has the burden of proof. But assuming there are multiple universes, that's still irrelevant towards proving immortality. 4. Quantum physics cannot be used to prove immortality. Pro doesn't even cite a single thing about quantum physics, so even assuming that he's proven immortality, he still hasn't shown that quantum physics is the basis of immortality.
Abortion

This will be a debate on when abortion should and should not be legal. My opponent can be for or against abortion, as my position could allow for contentions from both sides. *edit* My opponent must support another model for the legality of abortion.Resolution: Abortion should be legal until the fetus has brain activity (approximately 8 weeks gestation). Abortion would then be illegal after this point.There will be 4 rounds, 8000 character limit. First round acceptance only. I hope for a great debate!
We should get rid of the penny

If you check the link you literally just copy and pasted it...and also first round is acceptance. Sorry if this comes off as rude, but in all honesty I doubt you know much about this topic as you just copy and pasted it. Thanks for accepting my debate though! Also welcome to debate.org (oh and just to clarify by we I mean the US)I will state my arguments for keeping the penny.Argument 1- It costs more to make a penny then it is worth [1]It costs 2.41 cents to make one penny, and approx. 7.4 billion pennies are made each year [2], so do the math and we are wasting over 10360000000 pennies a year, or 103600000 (over 100 million), dollars a year on pennies alone. This is money that could be spent much more effectively, like on public schools! (Another source I found said pennies cost 1.7 cents to produce, which would still equal to over 50 million dollars lost)Argument 2- We already went along fine without something worth one cent [3] According to popular youtuber Hank Green "..in 1972 a penny was worth what a nickel is worth today, and yet in 1972 the economy managed to function just fine without a coin that was worth 1/5th of a penny." It has worked before, it will work again.Argument 3- They are uselessMoney could easily be rounded to the nearest fifth, and are simply not worth the time and effort to take out and fiddle with exact change[1]http://www.usmint.gov... (at the bottom of the page)[2]http://coins.about.com... [3]http://www.youtube.com...