BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hirsch's theory of pedagogy trumps Freire's

"you said 'there is in fact no communication between both the person who is provides the information and the person who just receives the information'" why would you want the person learning to be giving information? the person teaching is teaching because he has been trained to teach. for there to be communication there must first be mutual understanding, you must understand a concept before being able to think critically about it. how can we communicate if we don't understand what we are saying and what we are discussing. there must first be a minimal level of understanding and this understanding is brought about by the teacher handing down the knowledge that he/she possess. Hirsch says "Our children can learn this information only by being taught it"
Hirsch's theory of pedagogy trumps Freire's

Althought Hirch's theory of pedagogy seems reasonable because it's the idea that a teacher has to pass down information to a student does not mean that it is efficient. The idea of the banking concept of education is in fact oppressive due to the fact that the students are just receiving the information. There is no criticial thinking involved for a student. In Hirsh's theory, "banking education resists dialogue..." This means that the students are not allowed to provide any further imput because they are just receiving information. It's a one way street and they can't provide any cognitive thinking. There is in fact no communication between both the person who provides information and the person who just receives the information.
Hirsch's theory of pedagogy trumps Freire's

Hirsch's theory of pedagogy trumps Freire's because knowledge needs to be passed down the ages to the youth through a teacher who is well versed in the subject matter. it is the teachers duty to present the children with the information and it is their duty to absorb the information so that it can be readily available for daily use. Hirsch bases his theory on the rising lack of cultural literacy that has been growing and he says the way to combat this is by passing down the information to the children in a standardized form so that they can communicate efficiently.
Hirsch's theory of pedagogy trumps Freire's

you said "if students don't have the information needed to comprehend the basic information of any text they will be unable to pass that information on to anyone." The first person who ever learned something didn't learn by listen to an educator teach them. They had to experience it. One person's answer is not always the correct answer to something and it all depends on one's perception. More importantly, Freire states "any situation in which some men prevent others from engaging in the process of inquiry is one of violence. The means used are not importnat; to alienate men from their own decision-making is to change them into objects." Every person should be able to make their own choices about learning something. Just because a teacher teaches something does not always mean that the student will fully grasp the idea as to how it came to be, or how it works. In this sense, the students should not just be objects to receive information. Their views and perception of things should allow them to be open-minded, not close-minded about a subject. Everyone has their views on certain things and ways to go about getting to the answers. Some answers are straight-forward but the teacher may not always put it in a way that can be comprehended for a student, yet they have to receive that information and stay silent about all of it. Thus, Hirsch's theory is completely invalid because the student should be able to perceive certain things in their own way and they can teach themselves, giving no need for an educator to educate them on something that they can read in a book.
Hirsch's theory of pedagogy trumps Freire's

"you said' their ideas may be brilliant enough to be taught to others so that others can also think cognitively.'" students cannot have an idea about the subject without having understanding of the matter which can only be had through a teacher. it is a teacher's responsibility to stay up to date and inform students of recent discoveries and such that occur within the field that the teacher specializes in. uneducated students would not be capable of understanding or absorbing the information in a manner that they can communicate efficiently and teach anyone anything. it is the teacher's responsibility to give the students the information that is required for them to be able to communicate efficiently. from efficient communication the doors to the world are opened. Hirsch said "Many young people strikingly lack the information that writers of American books and newspapers have traditionally taken for granted among their readers from all generations. For reasons explained in this book, our children's lack of intergenerational information is a serious problem for the nation. The decline of literacy and the decline of shared knowledge are closely related, interdependent facts." if students don't have the information needed to comprehend the basic information of any text they will be unable to pass that information on to anyone.
Hirsch's theory of pedagogy trumps Freire's

Whereas it it true that there are certain things that the teacher will know due to certain pieces of knowledge being passed down. However, every day there is something new that is being developed by different people. Freire says, " men know themselves to be unfinished; they are aware of their incompletion. In this incompletion and this awareness lie the very roots of education as an exclusively human manifestation. The unfinished character of men and the transformational character of reality necessitate that education be an ongoing activity." Just because there was previous knowledge that had been learned that the teacher must teach to the students, does not mean that it should just be handed down. Many of historical figures have learned things from their previous educators, but it should never stop them from trying to provide something new. Freire simply points out that a student should never have to feel oppressed, or intimidated by a teacher because what they say is always right and what they say is always wrong. They become almost zombie-like because it is constant repetition from something they heard. The students should never have to feel like what they say is wrong, but have a chance to speak out their opinions of certain ideas because one day, their ideas may be brilliant enough to be taught to others so that others can also think cognitively.
Windows 8 is better than OSX Mountain Lion

I believe that there are some good aspects to Windows 8, but the bad far outweighs the good when compared to Mountain Lion or even Windows 7.First of all, Microsoft's removal of the start menu and forcing people to use the Metro Interface was a huge mistake. The Metro Interface doesn't even remotely work well unless you have a touchscreen computer, and tochscreen computers aren't comfortable to use at all unless they're tablets (plenty of people are still using desktops) or kiosks (which are almost always using software that goes completely over the OS interface and are therefore irrelevant to this argument).The Metro Interface also shows signs of being poorly thought out in many regards. For instance, you have to click at least twice as much as you have to on Windows 7 or Mountain Lion to accomplish many tasks on Windows 8, which means that many simple tasks take at least twice as long. This kills any productivity that you have with the interface, and this is even true with the touchscreens that it's designed for!Yes, I am targeting the Metro interface in this, but this is because they take away the Start Menu- one of the most important aspects of the Windows non-Metro interface- and therefore make it difficult to use anything but Metro. They took away something that worked, and they replaced it with something that doesn't work at all for a desktop machine (desktop users are still the majority here). I think that interface is one of the most important aspects of an operating system, and Windows 8 gets an F for interface.I think that it largely comes down to preference between Windows 7 and Mountain Lion, but Windows 8 is so clearly inferior to Windows 7 for the vast majority of users. Therefore, Mountain Lion can be reasonably considered a superior operating system.
Resolved: Capital Punishment shouldn't be legalized

I humbly ask for my opponent's apology and the reader's as well for my failure to state rebuttals as expected on R3 and my forfeit in R4. I have been extremely busy over the weekend and on the first days of the week. If not for these, I could have made sure to override his arguments. I look forward to debate with him again regarding the resolution in the near future. I think it is too late to get back on track, with this, I hereby concede.
Resolved: Capital Punishment shouldn't be legalized

I thank Kdub for accepting to negate the above topic. Definition of Key Terms:1.) Capital Punishment - the punishment of a death for a crime; death penalty [1]2.) Crime - an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited. [2]Degrees of Crime:While most countries has their own different 'criteria' for a level/seriousness of a crime, let us both agree on the greatest or worst possible crime that is requires a 'death penalty' on countries legalizing the subject.Ok, let us head on to my arguments.RIGHT TO LIFEEveryone of us, in any country, has the right to live. A right that protects anyone who is being abused physically,mentally and emotionally. For the people who were sentenced to 'death penalty", can this 'right' still be applied? The answer is a resoundig, yes. Irregardless of what the person did, he/she should be no excuse of this 'right'. Flaws of the Court TrialsSometimes, decisions made in court trials can be false. False, in way that unwanted data,unseen, is going with the flow of the court trial process thus resulting to bitter end. The decisionof the presiding judge is most of the time if not 'aways' final. Imagine a very innocent victim, executed for a crime he solely did not do. A crime that was set up. Immediate termination of Punishment'Say, the court trials went in an orderly good outcome. The person then was sentenced for 'death penalty' and most penalties are by way of euthansia then boom! the person, is dead. He can't even feel any suffering other than the needle of the injection. Then, he would die in peace as simple as that. In my case, I think his/her punishment must be made longer. Make the person feel waking up in a rotten and smelly cell. Inmates always picking up on him/her. Food, that isn't even worthy called 'food'. The labour in cleaning the offices,cells,bathrooms etc. Imagine if this were in 'life sentence' Harsh but better, is it not? Increase in Murder Rate"Statistics show that the death penalty leads to a brutalisation of society and an increase in murder rate. In the USA, more murders take place in states where capital punishment is allowed. In 2010, the murder rate in states where the death penalty has been abolished was 4.01 per cent per 100,000 people. In states where the death penalty is used, the figure was 5.00 per cent. These calculations are based on figures from the FBI. The gap between death penalty states and non-death penalty states rose considerably from 4 per cent difference in 1990 to 25 per cent in 2010."[3] Chance to Reform For those sentenced for 'death penalty' they can never have the chance to 'change'. Atleast, if they were sentenced to 20-40 yrs in prison or even life sentence, they might change for the better. Reflecting on the crimes they had done, meditating and etc. This gives the person to rewrite the contents inside his book. Sources:[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...[3] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...I await your arguments. =)
The Bible Is Repulsive

I should note that pro has done NOTHING to answer my two contentions: that his conclusion does not follow from the premise, and that he is misrepresenting what the bible says. Throughout all of his verses, in this past round and the first one, pro has continued to show various punishments the bible calls for - but he doesn't understand who these verses are speaking to, even when I gave clear, biblical evidence from multiple sources to refute that claim. He explains that intelligent people should simply "acknowledge this simple fact and act on it," but then refuses to engage with any of my rebuttal, as if to show his position wasn't intelligent enough to answer it. This goes for non-death punishments like slavery too - only God can judge, thus only God can deliver these punishments. He also still fails to logically justify his position, in light of my analysis showing it to be both wrong and absurd. Indeed, he fails completely to even adknowlege that I made an argument. That's disrespect. I need not criticise my opponent any further. All the things my opponent has just said, I have ALREADY rebutted. Pro has not disagreed that my arguments are true. I encourage all voters to therefore accept the arguments and leave it at that. Pro has done nothing except restate his case with more and more examples, except that those examples have been continuously misrepresented, out of Biblical context, and logically unjustifiable. The motion falls.
should you be able to marry at the age of 13 - 15

I accept. Resolved: Should you be able to marry at the age of 13-15? This is a normative resolution, meaning that the burden of proof is evenly split. CON states, "This is out of order it is a types of abuse and is not acceptable. " He claims this is "out of order" but doesn't tell us why, or even why it isn't acceptable. He doesn't provide us why this is abusive, why it isn't acceptable, or what optimal moral framework within which we ought to evaluate this. Abuse is defined as "improper or excessive use or treatment" [. http://www.merriam-webster.com...]. He doesn't tell us how giving teenagers the *choice*--not compelling them, but giving them a choice--to get marriedis abusive. C1) This is a choice, not a compulsion PRO is restricting freedom of expression and of free movement by preventing teenagers from making the choice, in consultation with people whom they trust, to opt to get married at this young age. Irrespective of whether he agrees with it or not, he hasn't the right to impose his worldview on other people. Morality is inherently subjective, and despite what his religion may have to say about it, there is no warrant--legally or ethically--for imposing upon someone else our own views. C2) Benefits of marriage There are a number of benefits invovled with getting married, including the ability to start a family, more stable footing and motivation to pursue school or work, and a multitude of tax benefits. Furthermore, a wedding is actually a boon to the economy because it involves a great deal of spending, so CON is not only restricting teenagers from freely exercising their rights--but he's also restricting the economy.
Abortion Should Be Illegal

To begin, thank you for allowing me to take part in this debate. I definitely appreciate the opportunity to discuss perhaps one of the most controversial topics in our current society with you. To begin any argument one must adequately define their terms, so first let's define abortion. According to a simple Google search, one can see that abortion is defined as a "deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy." Due to my opponent's previous statement(life starts at conception), we will be restricting this to abortions that occur during the 24-72 hours after conception. Now during this time, the fetus lacks a heart, lungs, pain receptors, a brain, or any other defining characteristics that would characterize the fetus as sentient. Sentience is simply the ability to experience, feel, or perceive reality.(A google search reveals that too.) Our laws are based upon the concept of sentience which is why some rights extend to animals such as house pets and humans! So the pro is asserting that we should extend the rights to beings that are not sentient as well. I am assuming that the reasoning for this rejection of abortion is because of the idea that abortion is equivalent to murder. This is what I want to flesh out next. Murder would be the unlawful killing of another human being. So if fetuses are human and the killing is unlawful, then abortion must necessarily be murder. This would apply if fetuses had the same rights that every other human holds by birth. I'm certain that you would agree that laws applied to a society should be applied to all members of the society. Also, there should be no members in the society that have a greater degree or lower degree of rights without the existence of extenuating circumstances. This is what my case hinges on. The fetus relies on the woman for its survival and that is permissible when the women consents, but if the woman rejects this relationship, then it would be a violation of the woman's bodily autonomy. There is no individual human who has the right/legal authority to force another person to keep them alive. There is also not a single human who has the right to use another human's body for its own survival. If a law was passed to prohibit abortion, then it would punish women for their own biology and violate their right to choose what happens to their bodies. Furthermore, this law will give rights (without proper reason) to fetuses that other humans lack. So, in your rebuttal, I implore you to develop your reasoning behind giving fetuses privileges that born humans lack. I also implore you to restrict your reasoning to the short period after conception due to this being key to your initial statement. Finally, develop the reasoning behind the idea of why rights should be given to non-sentient beings as well as giving these non-sentient beings special rights that sentient humans lack. Thank you for your time.
Abortion Should Be Illegal

I believe that abortion is wrong and should be illegal. Life starts at conception. The only reason I believe this is because it is the only constant point to measure from and it is at the exact point of when a new life is made. It is now open to anyone to argue that it should be legal and I am open to having my mind changed, if there is good evidence and reasoning. If you have come to just be hateful I ask that you keep scrolling for another topic. -Thank you
On balance, children should be vaccinated.

PrefaceI have worked in healthcare for a decade now and find that the anti-vaccination crowd has become a small but booming voice in the industry. I am genuinley interested in a cultered debate on the issue and would love an engaging and academic contest.There is a 48 hour response time on this debate. Please consider before accepting.Full TopicOn balance, children should be vaccinated.TermsOn balance - means in general and after weighing all the available evidence.Vaccine - a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and humane atmosphere5. No trolling or semantics6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions7. The BOP is shared8. Pro must go first and must waive in the final round9. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. AcceptanceR2. Constructive CasesR3. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's CaseR4. Pro defends Pro's Case, Con defends Con's Case Thank you for your consideration
The prohibition of the death penalty.

I unfortunatley have had a lot come up in these past few days. I will be conceding this rebuttal round due to big assignments for finals. I know his may result in loss of the debate. I would plea to my opponent to cut the debate off last round, but that wouldn't be fair to him. I would be happy to debate this at a later date, preferably later in the week. I would suggest copy and pasting arguments from this debate and just finishing up the rebuttals. Thank you for a great debate up until this point CiRrK.
The prohibition of the death penalty.

Resolved: The USA should ban the death penalty within its states. Definitions: 1. The —used as a function word before a proper name2. USA —United States of America(not limited to just the conjoined 48 states)3. should —used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency 4. ban —to prohibit especially by legal means 5. death penalty —the penalty of death for the commission of a crime6. within —inside the range of (an area or boundary)7. its —belonging to or associated with a thing previously mentioned or easily identified8. state —a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government All defintions presented above are final, and cannot change within the debate.
America won world war 2(The only reason the allies won was because of America was on their side)

Are wars ever won? You make them sound like a game. I think the reality is, that the Nazi war machine eventually exhausted itself and ground to a halt. Overstretched and denuded of resources, such as food, fuel, military equipment and personnel and faced by overwhelming opposition on all fronts. The outcome of this war was probably always going to be the same. Undoubtedly the United States intervention, greatly helped to secure a swifter conclusion. But your assertion is somewhat pompous. It was the efforts of all the Allies that secured the final outcome of WW11.
Sonic Forces is good.

Spoilers below! Watch out! Now, don't get me wrong. Sonic forces does have its flaws. It's short, and if you're good at Sonic games, it won't take long to beat the main game. (It took me under 2 days.) Plus, much of the plot twists aren't made so much for as is to extend the game. I mean, honestly, Eggman keeping a backup reactor UNDER METROPOLIS? Really? As I directly quote Sonic, "Can't we ever just win and have that be the end of it?" BUT, Forces' perks greatly outweigh its flaws. It's fast like it should be, it's full of detail down to grass blades being kicked up and beyond, it's full of separate routes for the player to take, takes a major twist on the standard Sonic plot, contains plenty of downright amusing glitches and skips, and the music follows Sonic tradition of being incredible. Plus a custom character. It's worth the money.
It's Okay to Fat Shame Women

I am not a fat shamer. I have created this debate because I seek someone to challenge my view, that it is acceptable to fat shame women. I am aware that most people do not approve of fat shaming, however my opponent must show why it isn't okay to fat shame womenStructure:R1 = Acceptance only! R2 - R4 = Arguments and counter argumentsR5 = Conclusion RulesNo forfeitingAlso Burden of proof is sharedGood Luck Con!