BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
US Education Requires Modernization

My opponent has used an argument that cites a hypothetical computer class, however, this very scenario proves the importance of linear instruction. Before any conceptual learning could be used, a foundation must be wrought. The students in my opponent's hypothetical class had to go through a step-by-step instruction on how to first use a computer, and it was only after the instructions were given that they could apply them conceptually. I believe that conceptual learning has its place, but so does the linear. I realize that there may be some who say that I am splitting hairs with my opponents hypothetical example. But what I stated regarding his example is true in all situations--for any learning, a basic foundation must be laid. My opponent stated his belief in teaching a conceptual history, one that would allow students to use history to make inferences for the future. I am all for that. However, for such a vision to become a reality, students must have the proper framework. It is not enough to teach them the why and how, but also the who, what, when, and where. For example, with no knowledge of the first half of American history, there can be no knowledge of why the Civil War happened, and no conceptual application. Linear learning is designed to provide the tools needed to perform necessary projects, which are the applications. Without tools, no project can be done--but with not project, the tools are useless. For this very reason, young children cannot be conceptual learners, they do not have the knowledge to make a conceptual application. The older they get, the more they learn (through linear schooling), the more they can apply what they learn linearly. For example, very few children start math by doing word problems, just simple arithmetic. These young children just do not have knowledge to comprehend what a word problem is asking, or be able to apply math, or other subjects, in real life. In addition to providing the necessary tools for application, linear learning, in many instances, provides social literacy. No one wants to be the guy on Jaywalking or Who's Smarter Than a 5th Grader that looks like he did not pass 4th grade. Knowing facts about people and places, being able to provide scientifically reasoned answers, speaking with good grammar and a wide vocabulary presents a good face to society. A person may be able to apply a whole bunch of concepts, but if they have never learned the rote material, they may be considered uneducated. Is it a fair judgment? No. But does it exist? Unfortunately, yes. Thus, it can be fairly said that the way education is organized now allows people to function in society.
US Education Requires Modernization

Quoting my opponent: "At a young age, children are less able to apply concepts, to see the 'big picture'; this ability grows with maturity." Rebuttal: One only needs to place a video game control into the hands of a four year old to prove this damaging outlook untrue. Young children are much more apt to be "conceptual learners" long before an adult who has never been taught concepts in any form, e.g., operating a computer. Point in case: Head a computer class; your two subjects are any 65-year-old person and any six-year-old child. Your mission is to teach them how to work their way around common applications such as word processors and spreadsheets. Both the potential conceptual learner as well as the likely linear learner will need to be taught that to open a file you must first drive your mouse cursor to the FILE command in the menu bar of the program. The next step, you teach, is to select OPEN from the drop-down menu. The next step - select your file, select OK, etcetera. What the child is much more likely to learn long before the adult is that these steps apply to most any application and before long, your young pupil is far ahead of the "rest of the class". That the older student is unlikely to catch on to the concept of computer applications is the product of that student's lifelong, traditional teaching - and limited learning - methods. The ideal that "children are less able to apply concepts" is the true hindrance of our societal expectations of public schooling in the US. This philosophy represents the first hurdle to widening our teaching and learning abilities. My opponent suggests, "Math, for example, must be taught in a linear way," which I do not refute. However, as we fail to include the concepts of math - its applications throughout the learning stages and throughout life - we fail to spark full interest in the subject for our students. Mors202 stresses this as well by adding, "It would make no sense to teach straight conceptual math without teaching the rote information first." Agreed. Mors202 contends that the subject of History is offered in a "more open-ended structure". I do not agree. This subject is taught in an especially linear manner to our youth, event by event, year by year. We can use this particular subject, however, as a viable example of this one class that I propose we dedicate to teach concepts to our youth. We could further enhance the subject of History by teaching the concept that history repeats itself if not learned. In the Concepts Class, perhaps, we can open an assignment that has our students author a probable near future. In this one exercise, we apply concepts of not just History, but English, Writing, Statistics. The applications of this "concepts class" can be designed to include numerous daily teachings to the single concept that is in focus - while giving the students (and teachers) liberties of their own to widen the lens in its presentation. My opponent states, "...the flaw [in our education] lies in the way the educational system has evolved over the years..." while I contend that we harbor the flaw heavily in that the system has not - evolved, that is.
US Education Requires Modernization

I understand where DocORock is coming from, however, I believe that the system we have in now, while in need of tweaking, is not all that bad. While it is true that the educational pattern we have now grew out of the ideas of the Enlightenment, it is a very good pattern. At a young age, students are taught in a linear pattern, with more open-ended class structures as the students grow up. This is logical. At a young age, children are less able to apply concepts, to see the "big picture"; this ability grows with maturity. It is right that education, for the most part, reflects this change. In addition, there are core concepts that almost defy what DocORock defines as "modern education". Math, for example, must be taught in a linear way--if a student does not know arithmetic, than the concepts of algebra are impossible. My teacher once put it this way, "Math is a foreign language, learn the terms, and you'll learn the concepts." It would make no sense to teach straight conceptual math without teaching the rote information first. While there are classes that lend themselves to a more open-ended structure, such as English or History, there are also some that need to move in a step-by-step form in order to actually educate the students. I would like to add that I understand that there are deficiencies in our educadtional system, and means of education. I also recognize that there are bad school districts. However, I believe that the flaw lies in the way the educational system has evolved over the years, and not the method of education.
US Education Requires Modernization

Debatable point: At least one class per day, per student must be dedicated to promote non-traditional "out-of-the-box" thinking over each standardized subject. US education must be broken out of its conventional box and teaching must be taken outside of the regiment reading, writing and arithmetic structure. We should require modernizing our teaching methods in such a way that teaching compliments learning back from our students - we should teach, straightforward, that learning methods, as well, are learnable. Opening Argument: In the United States, our modern teaching methods are void of "modern". While our society maintains a foothold on the edge of technologies and consistently reshaping its product markets to keep up with the very latest trends, we have made little advancement in the teaching methods that are utilized in our public schools. A child of the US is apt to have access to the newest exciting video game only moments after its public release. In the same era, that same child is attending classes in a public school for which the standard teaching methods were designed in the seventeenth century or earlier. By societal design, we are what I label "linear learners", meaning we learn in a step-to-very-next-step structure. As we grow older, we are able to become "conceptual learners", which suggests that we gain the ability to apply one bit of knowledge to the concept of another "untaught" piece of information. However, this powerful ability is not cultivated, nor does it come by way of any credit to our public school systems. My belief is that we can learn to learn better, and our teaching methods should be redesigned to accommodate this empowering skill. Education itself in the US (not the education system) needs revamping. We need to teach our teachers the many uses that can stem from the difference in "linear" to "conceptual" learning.
should we be allowing children to watch movies with social commentary and/or harder themes

I don't mean violent like people getting stabbed and people praising them for it but something to add suspense. I do understand that children will absorb everything but you can use that fact to help teach them. movies can shape people, change the way they think or make them fell thing in a way that parents or teachers can't. take the lego movie, for example, it has violence but that just makes the main characters job even more important (to save the city) because you know that it is a possibility that characters could die, making you care about his goals and everyone else. your other point was that it's not the writer's job to teach kids about the world but to entertain the kids and give them a fantasy world. movies should be entertaining, that's there the whole point. you can have a movie that makes you think but has some dumb fun. But you can't have a good movie where nothing important happens to the characters to change them or their world. if that's the case then what's the point of the movie! take the minion movie, for example, no characters change, nothing happens, leading the kid or anyone who's watching it to just not care about them. nothing it taught to the child and it just becomes boring. children's movies give the child a chance to really feel for a character and have emotions they would otherwise not feel before they become desensitized to the world. it teaches them to think about the world they live in. I'm going to use the lego movie for example again, in the opening, it shows Emmet spending 10$ on a cup of coffee, it could give a kid the possibility to think "why would anyone do that?", the scene when the cop straight up freezes his parents to keep his job, that can teach kids about the world and make them realise that this is wrong. when the main group of characters decides to fight back against the people in power since they see they are being treated wrongly and it teaches kids they can stand up or make some sort of an impact on society.
should we be allowing children to watch movies with social commentary and/or harder themes

Sure kids should be able to watch these movies to learn about the world and not ignore the fact that some things in movies actually happen but at the same time kids are like sponges and absorb everything they see. Letting them watch such violent movies and such makes them think it is ok what is going on in the movie. Kids won't be "dumb" if they don't watch movies like that. They have parents for a reason. It is not a movie writer"s responsibility to teach kids the way of the world through movies. It is the parents. A movie writer's job is to entertain the kids and give them a fantasy movie to be able to laugh at.
should we be allowing children to watch movies with social commentary and/or harder themes

People with the philosophy that children's minds are too feeble and innocent to experience movies with violent images and can't have movies with clever commentary are the reason the quality of children's movies have gone down immensely. I have noticed that whenever a children's movie with violence, social commentary and parts that make you feel scared or sad parents tend to want to discourage kids from watching them. when you take those things away from the movie it essentially ruins it because the characters don't change, no one learned anything and the children end up not caring about what happens because they know nothing will happen to the characters to effect them.children need to experience these things before they grow up desensitized to the world. and because of these things this basically making children dumber and lowering the quality of children's movies.
Team debates on debate.org could work on version 3.

I too will type this round because 1) I'm sick and 2) At school w/o video capabilities Off of your first paragraph: It really doesn't matter which is more ‘suspicious' because (as I said before) cheaters will cheat no matter what. Certainly there are measures that can be taken (such as the new cell phone confirmations) but cheaters will (sadly) still exist. HOWEVER, with the team debates, there is a check and balance system, because two people would have access to the account so TWO people would be able to see whom is voting for whom. Off of your second paragraph: Certainly passwords could be changed, but if you're playing the ‘suspicious' game that would be the first on the list (while the one you put on me is practically irrelevant). If someone changed the password, the partner that got locked out would inevitably tell everyone else on debate.org and the word would get out. In other words, someone couldn't just up and change it and expect to get away with it. As far as the semantics game goes. I don't even know what argument you're talking about. I don't take arguments from the comment section and if I did, I would have suggested the single account with videos being posted argument. (2 people make arguments and one person posts the link on one account)… However, I did not take that argument because I would have considered it unfair. In this paragraph, he goes completely off topic. What you have to see is that team debates CAN still work whether or not there are lazy people on the team. YES, bad teams will be made because of some lazy guy, BUT that doesn't mean that team debates can't work. Team debates CAN still work whether or not there are lazy members. More accounts argument--> 1) Team debates can still exist. 2) More accounts equals more attention for debate.org (more accounts is not necessarily a bad thing… it's not like their debates are taking up the home page space) I look forward to your response.
Team debates on debate.org could work on version 3.

I'm going to do this round as type because of time constraints. I typed it up very informally to not give my opponent any disadvantage. Everything written could fit in a 10 minute video. You can do text if you'd like, but my last round will be video. Thanks. What's more suspicious? An account made "legally" if you will for team debates, or a dupe account made for the sole purpose of voting. I know not what details the admins can see, but if they know an account is made for team debates they'd be less likely to check it for cheating compared to an account that has let's say 100 votes and hasn't done a singe debate. Passwords could be changed to prevent other party from logging in and fixing votes. Tons of email addresses would have to be made as well, because as far as I know you can't make a new account with an email already being used on debate.org. Don't play the semantics game, without the help from the comments I bet my opponent would not even of went there. Let us argue what we've gone with the first round, and not cast "semanticaga" as Logical Master puts it. Yes, there are lazy people, and they cause problems. Let me use Logical Master an an example as well as football. I'm on a up and coming football team and we get logical master to play. Because of his actions we end up loosing the games. Just because we knew there were risks involved with playing him, does not mean we can't get mad at him because of his actions. Team debates will lead to feuds between members because one may particpate to their fullest, then feel cheated when their team mate forfeits or posts a horrible round. In order to prevent this team debates should not be allowed. Perhaps teams should be recognized separately, but that would lead to too many accounts. There are probably upwards of 20 people I could team up with. Imagine if newscasters had to judge some football player 20 different times because he's on 20 different teams, then judge him separately, it could get overwhelming. Again, feel free to respond in whatever format you'd like. I will be doing video in round 3.
Laptops in Class

PrefaceI am auditing a class over the winter break, and I've noticed that the professor prohibits the use of laptops in class. When asked why, he cited their potential for distraction. I am interested in having a debate on this topic, since I have also heard educators laud the things that laptops can enable them to do with students. I think this should be an enlightening discourse. There is a 2,000 ELO minimum needed to vote on this debate. You must have completed at least 1 debate to accept this challenge. You will have 8,000 characters to make your case. Full TopicOn balance, the regular use of personal* laptops in school or college is beneficial for the student. (*by "personal" I am referring to laptops owned by the student and to laptops provided to particular students for their continuous use while at school; I am not referring to laptops controlled primarily by the school, and used only when requisitioned by a teacher)Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round; Pro must go first4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No semantics, though debaters are allowed debate what constitutes a "benefit" to the student7. My opponent waives his/her right to add definitions8. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's Constructive CaseR2. Con's Constructive Case, Pro rebuts Con's CaseR3. Con rebuts Pro's Case, Pro defends Pro's Case and CrystallizesR4. Con defends Con's Case and Crystallizes, Pro waivesThanks.
You are racist if you are proud of being white

You said if you are proud being ________ you are racist because you think your race is superior. Not necessarily, for example, I am a proud white german, but I think that the black race is more interesting and have a greater culture ( I am talking about all the culture that is in Africa). "It would be foolish to be proud of your skin color is different to others" I am not proud because of my skin color, I am proud of my culture, but then again, I don't think the culture is superior to all, but I am proud of my culture. "Otherwise, why would you be proud? " I am proud my culture. -- And I know that racism is believing that your race is superior, but I don't think my race is superior, if I did, I wouldn't have so many Black and Asian friends. There are many proud whites who are proud of being white, but thinks all races are equal. Sources: No sources were used, probably in the next round I will.
A Zygote is a Human Being, Abortion is Murder

Thank you for the response, Con has refused to engage this debate on its terms and is avoiding the issue. I would gladly refute the appeals to emotion, Appeals to consequence and non-sequiturs in another debate, But will not engage anything other than a refutation of my position, "that human life begins at conception, And to unjustifiably end that life is murder. " Respectfully, dbox
A Zygote is a Human Being, Abortion is Murder

Therefore you would like it if abortion was illegal and the parents were not ready to raise a baby? Would you like that the baby we're to suffer the rest of his life? What if if they are Mentally Challenged and they lock the baby in a cage or such? Is that Justafied? No I don't think so. So I ask you Wich one is a better and more Justafied choice? Murder Or Suffer
A Zygote is a Human Being, Abortion is Murder

Good Day, By agreeing to this debate, Con is bound to, "the set definitions of 'organism' and 'murder'. . . Murder: the unjustified killing of a human being by another human being". When I said Con was allowed to "present their view of what constitutes justification", This was not to the exclusion of a defense of the view or a change of the word, As concepts that have different meanings are by necessity different words. If this was unclear, I am sorry. Murder is by definition, "unjustifiable", Which precludes the possibility of it being "okay". I ask that Con make a meaningful distinction for the sake of a clear discussion so that the debate can go on sensibly. If I may suggest killing (justified) versus murder (unjustified). The debate is about, "my position is that human life begins at conception, And to unjustifiably end that life is murder". If Con uses the same word, "murder" but uses it in a way that means "justified", This is the fallacy of equivocation and invalidates Cons position. If Con cannot argue against my position as I mean it, Then Con is forfeiting this debate. Respectfully, dbox
A Zygote is a Human Being, Abortion is Murder

Con, Thank you for taking the debate. First, As Con conceded Pros proposition, That abortion is indeed murder, The debate should be over. The fact that Con offered a reason that murder was "okay" only indicates the arguments internal inconsistency by stating in essence, 'Yes it is unjustified, But it is justified (okay). That being said, I would like to see this debate to its finish, But request that Con take his next round to clarify the definitions and take a clear stance. Respectfully, Dbox
A Zygote is a Human Being, Abortion is Murder

The debate is predicated on the set definitions of "organism" and "murder". Organism: an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of parts or organs more or less separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being Murder: the unjustified killing of a human being by another human being The opposition is free to contest the definition of "organism" provided they supply a scientific, Not semantic, Justification for the challenge. The opposition is also free to present their view of what constitutes justification throughout the debate. My position is that human life begins at conception, And to unjustifiably end that life is murder. https://www. Merriam-webster. Com/dictionary/organism
We're Not Helping The Planet, No Matter How Hard We Try

My opponent's argument is very much like a vagina and mine very much like a penis. I am pleasing his/her/its argument by penetrating it and ripping it apart and my opponent is loving every second of their vagina being torn to shreds by my powerful counterarguments, sorry I meant to say penis but then got confused which was the fake and real thing in this metaphor. It was a pleasure to have this debate... Sexually I mean. Wait, no I don't that was just a metaphor, or was the metaphor a metaphor of a metaphor? No, it was definitely just a metaphor. Earth has too much life, poor little retard planet, we're helping it the best we can to stop this disease but there's only so much that we can do.