BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pesci-Vegetarianism is beneficial

I cannot believe that my stupid computer decided to freeze after I had spent two hours writing a rebuttal for this topic! Oh well... In interest of time and because I understand that this was an extremely lengthy debate, I will only assert the burden, remember, if my opponent does not achieve her burden she can not win. I have expressed this point throughout ALL of my rebuttals, yet, my opponent never answers this issue. _________________________________ Understanding the Burden: Burden, in a debate context, is defined as something that a debater must achieve in order to win the debate. I have expressed my opponent's burden multiple times within the past three rounds, yet, she chose to ignore this critical issue. Beneficial, according to dictionary.com, is defined as producing or promoting a favorable result; advantageous. Thus establishing the following burden: By the definition of "beneficial", my opponent must offer a substantial and unique benefit that you gain from pesci-vegetarianism. _________________________________ Why I win: My opponent NEVER shows you a unique benfit, in fact, she even admits that the benefits gained through pesci-vegetarianism are NOT unique. She agrees an omnivore can be just as healthy as a pesci-vegetarian, she even admits that a vegetarian can be HEALTHIER than a pesci-vegetarian, [recall her oldest woman alive example, whom was a vegetarian], furthermore, my opponent then concedes that the environment issue could be solved by people becoming vegetarians or vegans, thus any envoronmental benefit she offers is not unique to pesci-vegetarianism. __________________________________ Conclusion: Despite whether or not you personally agree with my purposed burden, you must accept it, this is because my opponent NEVER offers ANY arguments against it, hence, you must default CON in light of the fact that my opponent has not achieved her burden. Thank you for your time and consideration, - Protagoras of Abdera P.S. Please remember that I have offered valid responses to my opponent's case separate from the burden, please take that into account if you still hapen to disagree with the burden.
The banking concept of education is oppressive

I disagree with you when you state that teachers only educate based off a book. When you make that statement you are assuming that all teachers become textbook zombies. Although there are some teachers who are guilty of this, not all succumb to the power of their books. For example, and not for the sake of my argument, I have been enrolled in several classes where there have been no text books involved. Instead, in these classes, the teachings were provided and based off of current and real life situations. Instead of learning about the statistics of immigrants living in this country as of now, I learned why they are living here and how they are progressing. This thinking in a real aspect is dubbed as "authentic thinking" by Paolo Freire, which in turn sparks minds into thinking creatively as well as realistically. In this case, education is oppressive depending on how you view the class teachings. Education requires two beings: one to teach and inform, and one to listen and think. The teacher stands in front of the room to directly inform all the students respectively, not to gain a sudden burst of confidence and authority. The student must have an open mind in order to grasp the information because in many instances it might be the first time they are even receiving that information. After all, those who are students wish to learn new information that they have never learned before, which makes the "banking system" of education a mind boggling process instead of an oppression.
The banking concept of education is oppressive

When you mentioned "In order to read a newspaper, you have to know how to read" I completely agreed. But the fact that you disagree that teachers have no knowledge confuses me. Teachers are only teaching what"s in the textbooks. They explain the ABC"s and 123"s, they explain how to pronounce each letter and how to add the numbers up. I"m not saying that teachers have no knowledge whatsoever and neither is Freire. What he means is that teachers are only teaching what"s found in the books. What about the reality of life and society? They should teach that as well too. Teaching within the curriculum is mandatory, but there is nothing wrong with providing students with information and useful knowledge beyond that. Freire mentions that "Those who use the banking approach, knowingly or unknowingly, fail to perceive that the deposits themselves contain contradictions about reality". Which leads me back to my first point in this round, it is highly possible that what the instructor has taught and what the student has memorized does not match what happens in reality. For example, if an instructor says that terrorists from Afghanistan were the reason behind 9/11, a student might begin to believe that everyone from Afghanistan is out to harm the United States. What the student should know is that it"s not everyone from Afghanistan or people from there want to harm us, it"s a universal matter. Different countries have tried to harm the U.S. and are still in the process of doing so. In situations like these, students can begin to change their beliefs and values about the real world. Freire says that "these contradictions may lead formerly passive students to turn against their domestications and attempt to domesticate reality". The banking concept of education is oppressive because students have no understanding behind the history of slaves, the history of the United States, or the history of long division and how it works. It is oppressive because the relationship between students and teachers does not flow so well because the lack of communication. The students simply absorb the information with no reciprocal actions for the teacher. It is oppressive because teachers believe they know everything while students are viewed to know nothing. Lastly, as stated, it is oppressive because student are learning nothing but memorizing a lot.
The banking concept of education is oppressive

I agree with your concluding statement saying that miscommunication makes it difficult for the teacher-student relationship to work resulting in a wrongful education , however, it is not the main focus of this argument. Just because teachers teach information that the students may not fully understand does not make it oppressive. I am sure many people have left a classroom after a discussion not really understanding the entire concept that was just taught to them. That does not make education oppressive; it ultimately makes it a process. Even the smartest of men was once without knowledge. This leads me to my next point. As Hirsch said, "It is the background information, stored in their minds, that enables them to take up a newspaper and read it [...] relating what they read to the unstated context ." Although you stated that teachers have no knowledge, I believe this to be false. Teachers are purposely placed in front of a classroom to guide students in the right path of their education, not to feel superior among others (as you previously stated). And what does this guidance entail? It entails teaching the students about the common knowledge that they will need in order to fully grasp whatever comes there way later in life. This is what Hirsch means. In order to read a newspaper, you have to know how to read. Teachers are there to help the students with their readings, not to tell them what to read, which would definitely be oppressive. Without them how would students read? How would they write? How would they speak? In this way education is not oppressive, rather it is a process that requires common knowledge which is provided by teachers.
The banking concept of education is oppressive

In your argument you state that "education requires a relationship between two beings". I agree on your statement 100%, nonetheless, a relationship without communication could be a predicament to most. Freire mentions that teachers and students lack communication because of the banking concept of education. The absence of communication is displayed when the teacher distributes information and the student absorbs it. Questions that aren"t asked are questions that aren"t answered. However, the students are not the ones to be blamed for in this situation. The role of a teacher is to provide facts with explanations and reason behind those explanations. A teacher is supposed to make the material more understandable to the pupils. Freire says that "knowledge is a gift bestowed by those who consider themselves knowledgeable upon those whom they consider to know nothing". Teachers acquire the feelings of superiority, dominance, and authority just because they are getting paid to teach those who know nothing. Yet, Freire claims that teachers know nothing as well. Over the years teachers have projected ignorance amongst students who "receive, file, and store" this ignorance into their minds. Freire argues that as a teacher attempts to teach students, the students are teaching the teachers as well. The banking concept of education is oppressive because it "minimizes the students" creative power" and allows them to believe and memorize every word that comes out the instructor"s mouth. The banking concept of education makes students merely gullible at the same time ignorant because they have memorized information without knowledge and meaning behind it. Again, lack of communication makes it difficult for relationships to work compatibly with one another, which leads to a wrongfully taught education.
The banking concept of education is oppressive

According to Paolo Freire, he believes education involves and requires a relationship between two beings. He terms it the teacher-student relationship where the teacher is the "narrating subject" and the student is the "patient and listening object". Millions of students go to school everyday to learn what they do not know. They receive this information from teachers. You say education is oppressive when in reality, education is exactly what it entails. These students look to teachers to learn what they do not know. And how else is it done? It is done by a ready-to-learn and open mind on behalf of a student. They must take in all their teacher tells them as this is how their education forms and their minds to adapt to the information they are learning for the first time. For example, in math class, how will one be able to learn? The teacher explains to the student why 2+2=4 and the student will retain that information. In this way, the students must look to their teachers for information they otherwise would not know, making education a relationship and process instead of oppressive.
The banking concept of education is oppressive

After reading "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" by Paolo Freire, I strongly believe that the banking concept of education is overwhelming and bleak. According to Freire, the banking concept of education could be defined as "the teacher issues communiqu"s and makes deposits which the students patiently receive, memorize, and repeat". In other words, is the student actually understanding what he/she is "learning" or is the student simply memorizing the material that was provided? What is education when a child does not understand the meanings and connotations of information embedded into their brains? In reality, education is nothing when it comes to memorization. Practically anyone has the ability to memorize any piece of information. However, being able to explain the information might become the challenging task. For example, a student could know that the capital of the United States is Washington D.C., yet not know the history of why it this district was selected to be the nation"s capital. That is what most teachers have failed to make clear and explain; the history behind the facts themselves. The banking concept of education is oppressive because teachers have taught students to be ignorant and unaware of material that is vital to their learning.
Giving Children Phones

Thank you very much Getrekt20! The problem with your first 'answering' argument is that this isn't all that specific to young ages. What I mean by that is 11 year olds all the way to eighteen can 'be taught, but it won't have any meaning until they actually lose them.' Your argument can't really say much about it being only younger (2 to 10 year old) children. Your second 'answering' argument can go both ways, yours or mine. While it is true they can be addicted, they can be also learn to not be addicted on the other hand. It really only matters in terms of their environment. 'It's difficult to gauge the accuracy on parent influence.' That's what makes this debate extremely unstable. On one side, they can totally ignore their parent's teachings, and on the other, they can be totally obedient. However, sometimes a child simply, even though they are over the age of 10, can still view their parent's words as just words. So, again, this view is not young child specific. Your second argument steps on your fourth 'answering' argument, as you said, 'I must say though, kids usually make friends anyway.' unless a child stays in their home in a dark room on their phone for the entirety of ten years, I doubt a child can't make a singular connection with someone their age. Besides, 7 year olds usually don't get life-long relationships, as they usually make friends based on how their first impression was. I will not argue that exercise is important, but so can any other form of entertainment. TV, books, and other activities that don't require exercise can do the same effect, sometimes even more so. Again, how many times have you heard a relationship that starts with 'what's your name? Let's be friends!' last for as long as the pair live? I know this is plenty overreacting, but I'm just trying to say 'life-long' friends usually don't start becoming friends until their, say, in their teens? Your example does not say anything specific about young children, especially 2 to 10 years olds. (At least, I think that's the age range here.) Thank you very much, getrekt20! Vote your favorite Pro! -Me
Giving Children Phones

Thanks ImaRealMeanie for putting up a great debate!ANSWERING1) Children can be taught, but it won't have any meaning until they actually lose them. Most children learn from experience or observation. The concept of logic is hard to grasp until they reach an older age. Yes, an accident is an accident, but only then will they have learned. I want to prevent this by only giving phones when children reach an older, more responsible, age.2) Children do learn most during their youngest ages, however, that can also be a problem. They can learn to love this technology. I am not against tech, but it is possible for them to have an increased addiction to it if they start then. It could cause problems and distract them later on (ex. school). 3) Yes, they will learn. I doubt they will learn in time though. A parent's words are just words if the child cannot grasp logic and reason. It's difficult to gauge the accuracy on parent influence. They can take away a phone and the child would be confused.4) I said this generation idolizes phones, which includes the teenagers. Using your phone is not taboo. Like you said, phones are meant to communicate and entertain. However this generation is on them all the time, allowing little time for socializing. An important part of a kid's life is to make friends, is it not? ARGUMENTS1) Exercise is extremely important for a child's health. Kids need exercise to grow up strong and healthy. Phones may reduce the time they get to excercise. Staring at a screen isn't good for them when they can be playing outside. If they are at school, they can use it during recess or lunch as well. Entertainment is a plus, buy exercise is a must.2) Another key area to a child's life is being able to socialize properly. Making long-lasting friendships is what makes our lives better. We grow up and share moments with our friends. I wouldn't want my child's best friend to be technology. I must say though, kids usually make friends anyway. However, phones can be detrimental to their social skills. Your argument can be interpreted in a different way. You say that children will be more experienced if they use a phone now rather than later. That experience can lead them to other addicting gadgets like computers or tablets. By then, they will see the world of gaming. Socializing with people on the internet doesn't feel as genuine as the real thing. Here is a great example: http://www.ted.com...In Conclusion, I believe kids should not have phones.Thanks ImaRealMeanie for having the time to debate with me! Good luck on your next argument.Vote for Con! ~Getrekt20
Giving Children Phones

Thank you for responding. While it is true that children can lose their phones at any time, so can adults. Children can just be taught to be careful with the phones, and if they do somehow lose or break it, an accident is an accident, correct? You can't prevent someone stealing just by putting out a law that says not to do so. And, there are much more safety cautions being used with children's phones, partly from parent supervision. While children above the age of ten might feel a bit uncomfortable, children under that age usually would be okay with their parent having some sort of app to watch what their child is doing on the phone. There is even tech being developed to find items that a person has lost- phones, game cartridges, keys, etc. All on your/the parent's phone. Now, I'm not saying that giving a young child a phone is absolutely important for their survival in this world. What I'm saying is that, as I have stated, humans learn most during their youngest ages, so having them learn about phones then will give them a head start in the digital world. And, being given a phone at young ages will give them some restraint as well. They will, at first, never be very far from it, but will soon learn a phone isn't exactly their entire world, if taught right by their parents. I must ask, however, who do you know that 'idolizes' phones? To most of the world, they are simply tools to communicate and entertain. And this 'disability to not critically think' is very strange. How are phones for young children the main culprit? If phones are a culprit, then so can books, teachings and everything else could be affecting them to think that way.
Giving Children Phones

Thanks for replying ImaRealMeanie!ANSWERING1) You are correct. The world is becoming more dependent on technology. I, however, do not see the the need for a child to use a phone. 2) It is unlikely that they will use it for educational purposes.It does more harm than good to the malleable mind of the child. Their phone would serve more as a distraction than a tool. Even most teenagers and adults struggle to get off their phones. If they are given a phone at this age, it will only grow into a bad habit.3) Technology is all around us. Being able to get hands-on learning of the phone is not a necessity. Children can simply observe and later on, infer on how to use the gadget. You aren't completely stripping them of technology when I said they shouldn't have a phone.4) The one thing I agree with you is your safety argument. A child should never be separated from their parent (I fear this too) and if they do somehow, then the parent should invest in the time to actually watch the child.5) You proved my point. Yes, it is the parent's fault. It's their fault for buying them a phone so soon. Let me remind you that I am the Con here (just a friendly reminder). A large contribution to the generation's disability to not critically think is the technology they idolize. 6) The subject is on the personal use of the phone. Schools provide the students with technology for educational reasons.ARGUMENTSHere are my next arguments.The phone is handy for all sorts of matters but we need to take one thing into consideration. I have stressed that the children category I am speaking of is below the age group of tweens, which is below the age of 10 (It depends on perspective but I chose the most logical number). So I must question-how responsible would a child be with a phone? 1) Children should not be given a phone because of the possibilty of losing it. It costs money and the parent would be furious if it was lost. You could say that the parent would keep the phone, but that would nullify your safety with communication argument. How would we be able to trust them with an expensive gadget that can be stolen or lost?2) What if the phone gets cracked if the the child drops it? It would be frustrating getting it fixed for the child. If it has a case, it could be accidently dropped into the toilet or some body of liquid. If the phone has a waterproof case, then I would refer back to the previous paragraph. Those are the two I can think for now. Good luck.
Giving Children Phones

Thank you for specifying. Everyone knows that most of a human's intellectual development comes from their youth. As such, a lot of parents choose to let their child (usually to a certain extent) have a phone. If a child has a phone in their younger days, they will quite likely have a much better handle on the future. I'm sure you know how many times a parents asks their own children about computer problems, yes? The truth is that the whole world is becoming more and more dependent on technology, and having children learn about it using phones is the perfect gateway for perhaps the next great future Einstein to learn about/create (and to use) computers, etc. You said it yourself: The USA is constantly innovating its gadgets. If a child were to get a phone in their tweens, don't you think they would be a little too overwhelmed with the new things, instead of easing technology though their early years? And, there's also a safety factor lying beneath this. (Hoping this never happens) If a child were to get separated from their parent and somehow be alone without anyone else, don't you think they should quickly dial 911? Phones save thousands of lives. And, if generations lack critical thinking, don't you think that is more of the parent's fault? A parent's job is to protect and teach, if a parent cannot even talk to their child without a phone in their hands, wouldn't that be the parent's bad teaching? On the note of teaching, by the way, Phones, tablets and computers are being used for plenty of educational reasons as well.
Giving Children Phones

When I say children, I mean the category under Tweens. I will start it off. Children in the Capitalist West are provided with much more than the basic necessities of life. It should be common knowledge that children here are blessed with the gift of technology-perhaps too blessed. The USA is constantly innovating its gadgets. Among them are our trademark smartphones. These phones are being distributed to the children of the USA. The question is, do they really need them? I argue no. Raising a child is possible without spoiling them with technology. As they grow, they look for an idol or role model to learn ideals and logic from. If these children are given phones in their youth, they will grow dependent on it. One thing this generation lacks is being able to critically think. They are molded by these phones, not books. How can we expect the youth to learn if they are never taught? I have seen five-year-olds with iPhones which is absurd. Education nowadays is not a strived-for ideal. We cannot teach the youth how to be leaders if we regard them as followers.