BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Friere's theory of education is effective than Hirsch's

In the essay, "Pedagogy of the Oppressed- Chapter 2," Paolo Friere outlines the "banking" concept of education as "Education...becomes the act of depositing...students are the depositories...the teacher is the depositor. Instead of communicating, the teacher issues communiques and makes deposits which the students patiently receive, memorize, and repeat." As described by Friere, the "banking" concept of education is quite oppressive, and unfortunately, that is the system utilized by the United States educational system. This form of education is overbearing and misguided. Students are not just empty vaults waiting to be filled with "the necessary knowledge," they are human beings, that have their own thoughts and experiences to relate. Furthermore, according to the "banking" concept of education, there is certain knowledge that is deemed more "important" than some. A "one-size-fits-all" approach to education is deeply flawed for any society that promotes freedom, as this relegates some individuals as ignorant peasants, and praises a meritocracy over actual learning. For example, one day during her husband's presidency, Jackie Kennedy Onassis visited an Indian reservation. Since it was Columbus Day, the children had to write composition on what Christopher Columbus means to them, and he "positively" shaped history for them. Now, does this not seem remarkably cruel? To force the oppressed to praise the source of their oppression? Moving forward, according to Friere, who recorded a quote by Eric Fromm in the same essay, that the "banking" concept of education is "necrophilic," as "Oppression...is nourished by the love of death...Based on a mechanistic, static, naturalistic, spatialized view of consciousness, it transforms students into receiving objects. It attempts to control thinking and action, leads men to adjust to the world, and inhibits their creative power...[and] men suffer." Thus, by practicing the "banking" concept of education, the teacher is denying the "student's" humanity, treating him or her as a mindless receptacle of "knowledge," and nothing more. This theory finds critical thought downright threatening, and corrosive to their control. By forcing all the students into a single category of imbeciles, the system promotes pedantic recitation over true learning.
Friere's theory of education is effective than Hirsch's

So let me get this straight, you said "Repeating, memorizing, and reciting? To me, and, I presume, to Friere as well, that would not appear to be actual learning, but rather, a sort of 'scholastic muscle reflex,'", but is this "scholastic muscle reflex" you speak off not a form of learning? I'm sure you can still spell those basic words you had to write over and over again as a child. Or the multiplication table, right? Why? Because of the "scholastic muscle reflex" form of learning. When you were taught new words and definitions growing up, was the "scholastic muscle reflex" the successful toll that helped you do so? You also wrote "The "banking" system doesn't hold anyone against, eh? In the United States, at least, education until sixteen years of age is mandatory; and since it is mandatory, there are some "students" that are presumably in school against their will.". Now is it the education system that holding students against their will? Or is it the government and national law? Even if, slavery was to be owned as property to an oppressor for their own benefits. This differs for the fact the government has these laws in place to increase the already low level of literacy in the youth. Not for their benefit, but for the sake of the children. this goes to show you the government is fully invested in the banking system, because it works. So, I'll leave you with these final questions; has the "banking" system of education not worked for many generations, and probably worked in your case of education also? How about your professors, friends, roommates? Why is it our government would have laws in place to keep the children in these systems that don't work? So how is it you can claim it's "overbearing and misguided"?
Friere's theory of education is effective than Hirsch's

I concede, Hirsch's "banking" concept does hold some weight in regards to matters that do not really require much critical thought, such as arithmetic, but that is all. Still, as my opponent stated, "Was the teacher not 'depositing' information to us that we repeated and memorized and can still recite to this day?" Repeating, memorizing, and reciting? To me, and, I presume, to Friere as well, that would not appear to be actual learning, but rather, a sort of "scholastic muscle reflex," wherein, there was a pseudo-intelligent response, that did not, in fact, depend upon a comprehensive utilization of one's mental faculties. Furthermore, my opponent wrote: "For one, slavery was holding people against their will to serve another and the banking system certainly doesn't hold anyone against free will." The "banking" system doesn't hold anyone against, eh? In the United States, at least, education until sixteen years of age is mandatory; and since it is mandatory, there are some "students" that are presumably in school against their will. Nonetheless, for anyone to learn, both "students" and "teachers" must speak a common language, so that they can communicate. This is not Hirsch's theory, as he suggests that the only key to "literacy" is if we all know the same things and never deviate from what is already known. As Hirsch wrote in his book, Literacy and Cultural Literacy, "[Dr. Hilary] Putnam does acknowledge a limit on the degrees of ignorance and vagueness that are acceptable in discourse. 'Significant communication,' he observes, 'requires that people know something of what they are talking about.' ...What is required for communication is often so vague and superficial that we can properly understand and the word elm without being able to distinguish an elm tree from a beech tree. What we need to know in order to use and understand a word is an initial stereotype that has a few vague traits." What Friere and I likely gathered from that rather pompous display of verbosity, is that to know "everything," we must only know a few key stereotypes, and we can endure in a "bank driven" society, so long as we learn very little, but profess that we are, in fact, enlightened. While this is all well and good for an individual, how does this benefit society as a whole, if we must constantly fall back on established stereotypes in lieu of actual substance? The answer to this question is: that it doesn't. The "banking" concept has worked wonders with countries with such outstanding records of preserving human rights, such as China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, etc. etc. Is this the kind of system that you, the reader, want to live in?
Friere's theory of education is effective than Hirsch's

Slavery cannot be compared to an education system. For one, slavery was holding people against their will to serve another and the banking system certainly doesn't hold anyone against free will. Slavery was abolished for that reason. On the other hand, the banking system is still in full swing to this day; you sit in class while the teacher "banks" the information to you. If it wasn't an effective mean of education, how is it so many of us have made it to colegiate levels of education and beyond with it? You went on to state "Men must be able to question the "teacher" in order to truly learn, otherwise they are forced down a narrow avenue of skewed thinking that leads them right where their oppressors want them to be.", but I don't agree with that. As children were we not all taught basic multiplication and spelling through the banking system without question? Was the teacher not "depositing" information to us that we repeated and memorized and can still recite to this day? And without these basics that were "deposited" on us, could one be considered literate at all? As Hirsch states, "The chief function of literacy is to make us masters of this standard instrument of knowledge and communication..." (2.2).
Dress codes for public schools

If students dress the same they will be able to preform better in their school work and will actually then make the students preform better. http://www.psmag.com... "Councilmember Jose Huizar (former president of the LAUSD's Board of Education) hailed this proposal as a harbinger for greater "order," "focus" and "higher achievement" in classrooms across the district." "the U.S. Department of Education found that school crime decreased 36 percent, sexual offenses fell 74 percent and fights between students dropped 51 percent after the policy went into effect." I pulled out the major importance of the article to show you that in this Los Angeles city switched to have a uniform policy and look how much they benefited from it they did have focus and the crime dropped significantly. Now LA is a very urban and most parts of LA are dangerous so to see the numbers like this really makes it considerable for schools to change their policy. Also I cannot address your uniforms costing too much for the parents because there is no article. Another point I would like to bring up is the Labeling Theory. http://www.d.umn.edu... Just so we both have a common understanding of the Labeling Theory the link above contains a description of the labeling theory. Lets take a group of students and one teacher which is there teacher for the year. In the class there is a boy with a button down shirt a nice pair of pants and shoes. Another is a girl with an appropriate length skirt with nice shoes and nice top. Now on the other side of the classroom is a boy with baggy pants a pair of beaten up Jordan's a shirt that is an arrow pointing down to his crotch area and above the arrow saying $5 foot long and a gold chain. Now there is another girl and she is wearing flats with a skirt in which her cheeks are almost hanging out and wearing a shirt that says don't bother I am not drunk yet. The teachers automatic opinion of the well dressed students is a positive outlook on them the teacher predicts that they are the students who gets straight A's does all their homework and treats the well dressed kids like A like students. So in turn the well dressed students will fit the label they were given and become Model A students. While the Teacher with the not so well dressed students will treat them as juvenile delinquents, who cut class miss homework and fail all the tests, and those students will fit their label and be late or cut class and be the trouble students and fail out of the class and shuts them off too learning all together. Now picture this situation but the students all wear the same uniform. The teacher can only label the students in a positive matter. That way now all the students reflection is positive which than makes all of the students become successful in the learning place. The teacher than doesn't put any of the students at risk for forfeiting their interest in learning and all the distractions of outbursts will disappear and the students would be more focused on the subject.
Dress codes for public schools

Dress codes should not be mandatory in school nationwide. My first argument is that forcing children and teenagers to dress alike, takes away their individuality. All people need a sense of expression and many people do it through their clothing. If all teens and children were forced to dress alike, they would not be able to develop properly. Also when they are out of school, they will feel as if they do not know who they truly are because of lack of self-expression. Next, when uniforms are put into schools, the focus of the school then becomes on the children and teens wearing the uniforms properly. Teachers will have to measure lengths of skirts and pants and make sure everyone is following the code properly. The uniforms will be taking away much needed time for learning in the classroom. As you mentioned above, uniforms create safety for teens and children in certain neighborhoods. The article mentioned how gang members were killing people who wore a certain color because he might be part of another gang. If the uniform was the color that the gang decided to use as their target, the members would not take a second look before shooting him or her dead. They would not look for a school logo to see if they should kill or not. Also, many schools have rivals with each other and school uniforms would only help students to pick out what students go to which schools. Therefore, more violence would occur because everyone would know who goes to each school and what students they do not like. Also, there are many child predators in the world today and putting a school name on an everyday outfit only gives these predators more information about a potential victim. School uniforms would not create a safer environment but would increase violence and crime rates across the nation. You also mention that having uniforms will cut down on the cost parents have to spend on school. Uniforms can be much more expensive for people than just regular clothes. Getting a uniform is an expensive, additional outfit for the child or teenager to wear. These children do have to have other clothes to wear other than their school uniform so spending money on clothes is inevitable. Buying a pair of jeans for $20 and a shirt for $15 is much cheaper than having to purchase dress slacks, blazers, skirts, socks, and shoes all together ranging $150-$200. Not to mention as school policies change, the purchase of new uniforms will also have to be purchased. And if the children have to wear uniforms should the faculty wear uniforms too? If so where will the money come from to fund all the uniforms for the staff?
Dress codes for public schools

Dress codes should be mandatory nationwide for many reasons and I will first start out by addressing my first point and the debate should carry on from there. My first argument as to why schools should mandate school uniforms is in urban school districts violence and safety, among rival schools, gangs, and simply any dangerous being that can come in the building, teachers and faculty will be able to distinguish a kid who is not suppose to be in the school. http://www.mantecabulletin.com... In this article there was a murder of a student and the reason was this, "Classes had been out for a couple of hours. Still the fact gang members are seeking out victims based on clothing." So while this student was out of school and wearing the wrong colors in the wrong neighborhood gangs spotted this kid possibly thinking he was a rival gang member and he was killed. It is more than possible that if this student had a school uniform with his schools logo in the upper left hand corner he may still be alive today. Another point I have is having school uniforms will save money for parents and also make the child feel less threatened. Well start with speaking about the child feeling less threatened. In the elementary school the age group of students are undergoing their awkward phase and helping them where a designated school uniform will ensure the student to feel a little more comfortable with the idea that other students around them are wearing the same clothes. This could increase the confidence in the class room by a less fortunate student noticing the people in the class with nike's and all the name brand clothes. http://www.ehow.com... In this article it speaks about how the young students are psychologically told that they are trying to instill a positive professional facade which could than in turn fluctuate to a positive, more confident self in the class. Leading into my last point for this round is the financial problems individuals have can be a positive solution to them. http://ww2.gazette.net... We will take this woman in the article to be our example she is a mother in college and she has a child so already she is paying well over 10,000 dollars in expenses for her schooling and we have to keep in mind that they need food, shelter, heat, water, electricity and all the essentials in life. By having her child be a participant in a school uniform the financially stressed mother becomes relieved at the fact that she only has to pay 130 dollars a month as oppose to buying name brand clothes as stated in the article. Going back to my last point in this given situation the child will defiantly be a social outcast if the child is wearing clothes other than the top name brands and that will drop his confidence and performance in his studies. Many parents especially in our economical situation will benefit from this alter change in dress codes at school so they will have more money to take care of the necessities.
Dress codes for public schools

To answer your first question before wrapping things up, If a teacher sees a student dressed poorly they may get the wrong impression of the student which will rub them the wrong way. The effect of this situation will be the teacher will give this student a little more trouble which will than in turn make the student act out. Now because of this disruptiveness in the class room it will be difficult to get the full learning time period in when there are all these distractions going on. Also people in the work force dress professionally if we teach the children to dress like this now we can teach them professionalism now which is what we are trying to bring out in the students. Now in our society it is a corporate world and people compete for who looks the best. School is a place where we teach children to dress the part for the right situation, we are teaching them what society expects from us and what employers search for. http://www.wisconsinjobcenter.org... "95% of the employers interviewed said a jobseeker's personal appearance affected the employer's opinion of that applicant's suitability for the job. 91% said they believed dress and grooming reflected the applicant's attitude towards the company. 61% said dress and grooming had an effect on subsequent promotions as well." If we teach the children to be dressed up in their clothes now than in the future and then they would be prepared for the real world. My last point and article is: http://wisecurve.com... "It does affect how other people perceive us, especially when we are meeting people for the first time, the look is important to give first impression. If I wear a cheap old T-shirt like a beggar, the respect and expectation that I gain from people around me will be poor. Hence, I might get second class treatment." If the students wear the wrong clothes the teacher may perceive them to be bad students which is why the uniforms should be effective in school because the students will most likely have the same equal treatment as every other student. So in conclusion I would like to bring up all the benefits of making schools mandate uniforms for the students: It provides a sense of a team, shows respect to the teachers and shows they have respect of learning, lowers the risk of violence in schools, saves parents money, introduces the way you should dress in the work place, provides more focus, and helps grades increase. If all we need to do is change one rule to get students to perform better in school than I ask why not? The school uniforms are beneficial to the school environment because it creates a positive atmosphere and hopefully the students can enjoy school so much more. Also the students won't be uncomfortable in their school uniforms because if we introduce it at a young age they will be used to it in the years to come. So school uniforms should be a mandatory part of school nation wide so that we can see our future children of America excel.
Dress codes for public schools

Yes, teachers like all humans are going to judge people. But what does teachers judging students have to do with their grades or behavior? A student wearing a polo shirts and kakis will have the same behavior as a student where a t-shirt and jeans. The point of school is for children to get a good education. People are going to judge you your whole life, why shelter the children from it now? Children need to learn that everyone is different and the need to accept people differences. If we dress all the children the same they are going to expect that that is how the world is. They will never be able to except people who have other tastes. School should be a place of expression where children get to show their creativity especially in their wardrobe. Sometimes just wearing a favorite shirt on a bad day can make someone happy. Students need to learn right from wrong sometimes getting in trouble helps them sort out good behavior from deviant behavior. In life, people are not going to give you exactly what is correct handed on to you on a silver platter. Children need to learn through the unwritten curriculum in school of making friends and learning social norms. Also, you mention that children look up to their parents and they should be able to dress like them. I agree with you on that. Nothing is better than being a parent and having your child want to be just like you. Little girls will try on their mother's shoes and boys will try on their father's ties. But childhood is such an important time for young children and they only have about 10 years of childhood whereas adulthood is around 50 years. Children should get to enjoy themselves and have fun and wear goofy outfits! It's the times the get to express themselves and show what they like and what they are interested in. Children should not be forced to become mini adults walking around in schools. They will have plenty of time to do that when they are adults in the workforce. Next, you mention the safety issues in school. The most important thing today in school has to be safety. With bullying and bomb scares, people need to know who belongs in the schools and who does not. Many schools today have the children and teenager wear student id necklaces at all times. These id's include a picture, school name, grade and an id #. This is a lot more accurate than just a school uniform. If someone really wanted to get into the school and the only security was the uniforms they could just watch the children come in and out of the school each day and make a replica of the uniform. Uniforms are not a good way of making schools safer. http://www.alphacard.com... Although school uniforms might help students feel better about their socio-economic status, this is a status that they will carry throughout their entire life and they need to learn about each status.