text stringlengths 0 9.69k |
|---|
And if you don't know these sort of things, even if you do get more knowledge of the open government, like I probably do know a greater amount of things in terms of the dumb memorization, they have the capacity to do these things that are harmful to myself because I'm incapable of applying them either in terms of my job, university exams, etc., or being in terms of pragmatic contribution to society. I'll take closing |
<poi> |
If you're not a journalist and you're constantly trying to learn things by experimenting with them, but then they change care because I don't know what I want to do when I'm 15. How do you achieve people? |
</poi> |
Okay, okay, this is opening government. Let's deal with this. Let's talk about pressure and let's talk about the capacity to choose, engaging directly with these sort of things. |
Number one, "Ah, my parents force me to do a specific discipline I don't want to do this anymore." How do the two sides compare? I think priorities, either stupid choice or parent pressure, exist either way. Right? Like, presumably, I still have a priority on medicine or a priority on other things that my parents are pushing me into, or I made a stupid choice because I'm a hot girl in my class or something like this. |
What is the comparative here? Number one, I have the agency of interpreting these sort of things. So, if I'm anyways pushed into doing more chemistry classes, more advanced math classes, if I'm naturally more artistic, I'm going to interpret these things in an artistic way. I'm going to look for the things that are nice, look for the things that are creative, and the stuff that I'm learning in terms of chemistry or biology. |
I can go into stuff like biological art or the way that biology, chemistry, and physics interact with the artistic world and other things. These are cross-connected in actual life. There's a lot of scientists that also do talk about stuff like the importance of art and the way that it reflects itself into science, and I'm able to change the angle from which I explore these sort of things. So, if I'm pushed into this anyways, I have far more individual agency. |
But B) and more importantly, because the subjects are generalized and because the subjects transcend a greater amount of stuff, if I'm pushed into a class that talks about environmentalism or the way the human body works, there's a greater amount of avenues. Right? I'm able to learn about the biological, physical, and chemical composition of this instead of only learning about it as a doctor or a mathematician. |
So I have, in the single subject that I'm doing that I'm probably pressured into, the agency to do these sort of things anyways, and I think this is far more important. Thirdly, let's talk about interest. They say, "Ah, students aren't interested, are going to make choices based on stupid stuff, and are going to do stupid things." Number one, I think this is symmetric, as I explained previously, and the applicability of this matters more. But they say, "Ah, teachers are going to make this fun, and therefore you're going to be interested in it anyways." |
Teachers cannot make this fun for a couple of reasons. Number one, because the fun doesn't come from the teacher explaining to you in a fun way if you do not fundamentally... |
Mentally care about the things that are explaining why does this change in NS of the house a couple of more reasons than you heard previously. Number one, you gain agency over the stuff you do. I am able to control the interpretation of my curriculum. I am able to control the way in which I'm going to interact. This one means that I'm likely to do it in a way that is just more applicable to my future life and my personal interest, if anything subconsciously, if not consciously, you know, because I'm just inclined to do these sort of things. But being more important, more interested in it, because I feel like I have agency. Most children at the ages want agency. I want control over my life. I don't want to be dictated to about the stuff that I want to do. So I'm inherently more interested in this applicability. I see the applicability of my things. No teacher can make the binomial theorem interesting because it's just not, because I don't see where this helps me in my real life in absence of the application that we give to you on the rest of the house. |
Thirdly, just a lot more work because it's a lot more spread out in terms of the amount. The reason you read this is because it's a prerequisite for other stuff. A prerequisite you to be able to be interested in the sort of things to want to apply them further. But more importantly, because when I do apply them, it's a better and more important application. This is why we care. |
</dlo> |
<mg> |
I think conveniently, opposition just tries to ignore that this is a motion of refer W. We're talking about secondary education systems that are going to change, but their size stills with the status quo of universities. My opening government quite clearly tells you how they're going to impact better the students and how it's likely for the system to make them better just because of being a generalist. If they're going to tell me that's going to be interesting for them, they're going to take the lack of, If you have a world in which they have agency, they have to accept this is going to take a long time. If their case is well understanding the topics, it's going to be in the matter of taking more time to explain it, having more resources in which you're trying to get them to understand it. And furthermore, we have a lack of opportunities to generalize some of the topics they likely are going to be tested on in the future. |
Secondly, I want to be really clear on my structure here for my extension. I think inherently in this debate, there's a clear principle. We're talking about dedication; it's a mandatory thing. The system must ensure for every one of their citizens. We believe government doesn't actively tackle why this is important and how a system that actually changes this for an experimental system firstly clearly ignores the inequality that exists around the world for educational systems. But secondly, how do we believe they have to ensure basic needs for all their necessities? I'll take a POI for closing whenever you want to take it for engagement. |
Let's start with the learning structure. CRS, I think education fails the potential of every kid that passes through it. Do we have an obligation with its users to not rock that in quality back? Firstly, what's your learning structure like and what do we think is important? Really, first, there's a progressive overload of content. I'm giving you every single thing along the way that you're able to get the tools to do whatever you want with this content and this knowledge. Specifically, this looks like I'm giving you algebra in the first grade of secondary school, and then I'm giving you calculus at last because I know you need to build in steps to do it. What happens on the other side is this progressive overload of content looks extremely different because we're focusing on them learning, not memorizing. We believe when we don't tackle while memorizing inherently, even though we think it may be bad, it's what gets you a job. It's what gets you into university. Every type of impact that we can claim on government or opposition about the kid comes from where they get after secondary school. If I ensure that better, I think we win on that competitive. |
But then secondly, I think they need to accept specialized schools. You're a generalist, so basically characterizations. I'm going to give the kid everything that they don't want to give, like geography, history, even though you know that you want to go into pure MS. So why does progressive fault in structure? Three main points. I think firstly, this is a sidelining of the teacher. This is an extension to the mechanism. My OG says we believe sidelining a teacher is not like taking them out of the classroom. We believe inherently from the motion when you give them a facilitator goal, they lack the academic empowerment they get when they're the ones giving knowledge to the kids, to the students. When there's a professor that teaches me something I don't know, in my brain, I'm recognizing them as someone powerful or someone that I can get as a role model. |
Specifically, this makes it less easy or accessible the way that this structure works to get more learning in the person. But then secondly, I think there's more diversifying in the curriculum. Inherently, when you give students the possibility or agency to change the style of what they're learning, there's more variety in which classes they can take. This is exactly what I mean by not allowing them to get all the basic needs. For example, the basic requirements for university. give me poi |
<poi> |
So if there's more variety, there's also just a greater chance that they're going to cover the stuff that they're going to get tested on in university directly. |
</poi> |
It is pretty square from the opposition to try and claim that they're going to have all the experience in the field and also the knowledge from my side. If that's the case, there's no agency in opposition. We have to understand that there's a possibility of them actually learning something the way they want it to. They're lacking certain spaces, like my OG said quite clearly, in which they're going to give this other asset. If we are specific in the way that we give classes to the kids, we lack the agency to teach them the other things they don't need but are quite not only obligatory as they try to mitigate but also important if they want to change careers. |
But then thirdly, I think the connection of topics that directly relates to this. I think the lack of agency for the kid is extremely bad. It is quite important to have, firstly, for specialized education. Secondly, because I well understood the topic as memorized. I think that's important. I would explain it. Let's go with the idea of a principle. We think education is a mandatory obligation. We think here in society we value that the government pays for education for their citizens because it's the only mechanism in which they can scale not only economically but socially. I think fairly one, there has to be available to everyone. That's why we have public and free education. But then secondly, it has to meet the basic needs of every one of its citizens that passes through it. This is a mechanism that unless someone only goes to obligatory education, every single one of us has gone to school. We need a system that works and does not impair people by the opportunities we have. |
There's a clear piece of characterization that none of the opening cameras have touched, specifically what do you believe education is unequal and how does your side make it more unequal? So we think firstly we're not going to tell you that education in my side is available completely at the same level for everyone, but we believe in the worst-case scenario when we have public education and it's just a base curriculum that the government allows or gives the professors to follow, it's meeting the basic needs of something I may need in the future, like math, like science, and being a generalist like social sciences, geography, and history. If I decide to change careers, if I decide to not be the thing I wanted when I was 15, like for example, I'm an engineer, and I want to be a medic. This system allows me and gives me the tools to do so. In their side, when I'm being a specialist, I'm going to have to learn better. I'm going to be way better at understanding certain mathematical concepts, |
But I'm going to be lacking the agency to switch from that when we don't allow people to actually move and decipher themselves in an academic setting. But more so in the future, we're failing them as a government. We think it's way better on our side of the house. Firstly, because we don't have the problem of accessibility. We think even in the worst-case scenario, where resources are lacking and we don't have the opportunity to give every single student a great textbook, we're allowing them still the opportunity to learn from a teacher that has experience, a curriculum that has worked for 35 plus years. Specifically, the clear-cut case that makes government win against opposition for now is that we allow them to fit into university because that's not the system that they're likely going to change. In both, sides university still sucks and I still get an exam to decide my future. |
Closing, I'll take you if you have anything. I'll take you. |
<poi> |
So the way that university works in the States, we explain it to you, is oftentimes testing your ability to the prior knowledge that you get. It's better if you already know how to apply knowledge, if you know the way the university is going for it, rather than it's a shock when you don't know how to. |
</poi> |
Okay, Let's put this into comparative. This is not a concession, just an exercise..., let's assume the exercise of them being more capable of understanding deep scientific textbooks or knowledge because they spend more time doing so. I still believe my side is better when I'm allowing more quantity of people to have more abilities to have just the basic needs met and not having them go to a different opportunity or a different system or having to learn by myself all the things that I need in the system just because of the quantity of people health. |
And just because of my side, the education needs an obligatory mandatory, let's say, things that the government has to do are being met. Really proud to propose, |
</mg> |
<mo> |
Firstly dealing with OG's cases about why this is notable, why people cannot change their major when they're really young. Their main argument or main reason, they first say they're too young, they're too naive, they don't know what it's like. But we believe our side of the house, it's not that. We give you tons of knowledge that probably you can apply for work or something. We give you the instability for thinking, for creativity, for working, or sociability, for working in cooperation. |
Whether the things that progress on buildings can also be transferable when they're transferring to the other major. And also notice we believe the way they work on their side of the house, side of education, will also work in our side of the house. For example, we also give you a period of thinking, we also give you time for internships, we also give you visits, chances for going to workshops or factories for seeing how those things are actually working or how different kinds of jobs are done. |
So we believe the things that you're talking about is almost magic, not that really important. But However, we believe the really important capability over the ability gained on our side of the house is how the student deals with themselves, how they have the incentive for learning, how they try to equip themselves with a better knowledge of thinking or different exploration of research, etc. |
So in their side of the house, all students only know how to do tests, how to do math, how to have better scores on testing. However, in their house, students have no chance of changing what they really like. I think the majority of students now in their side of the world is that they have to fake things. It's like I have to do good, like probably get an A or B, but however they don't know why they should get an A or why they don't really like this kind of subject. |
Why I really have to do math? Because the government forced them to go into the tracks that the government designed for them, there are no personal choices for them in their world. And we believe the personal choices for individualization in our side also really matters. |
Well, okay, firstly dealing with the gap that our side of the house is missing, the burden why our side of house students or teachers also have the capability of good quality of education. Firstly, we believe there are a few reasons why the goal of education is likely to be. First, we want to equip the skills in society. Like we want corporations because you have to have a good relationship with your students or your coworkers in the future or exactly how you have a good student in the future. |
So what the text will give you is that first, they give you simple knowledge without those pictures or long sentences. Somebody just really feels really boring or feels really sleepy when going to the classroom in etc.. We believe this is so worn out and so traditional. What the world looks like now, there are tons of interesting platforms, for example, TikTok or YouTube, for equipping you with so much information that you're probably more likely to learn in the future. |
So that means that the ways for education in schools are too old and without reform. Three reasons why it's really hard to reform as a traditional way. First, it takes a super long time. For example, as a teacher, you have to get the government censorship. You have to get tons of government decisions for what kind of knowledge you're talking about, what kind of topics or things that are better for future education or future generations' capability. |
However, those things have never been performed in their side in a really super fast time. However, why is it faster in our side? Because on our side of the house, we have better teachers for knowing. We're also immersed in the super informative world that we know how we can get access to information. |
However, in their side, some teachers are too stressed out by the standardized testing or they've been informed by the government that they should teach the things in the textbook, so they are free to do so. However, in our side of the house, the teachers know that they have to do progressive learning. They know they have some authority for teaching my students in a way that we really like. |
So we believe the teachers have more rights to choose the way that individualization students want. Second of all, we believe the second reason why teachers are also good is they also will experience a time of certification, internship to become a teacher. They also got the teachers' certificates or whatever, so it means that they have the basic sense for choosing what kind of knowledge is really good or capable for the students in the future or what kind of things they should really adopt for helping them out in the future. |
So, second of all, we believe they also have the basic observation for basic education. Thirdly, we believe they are also stressed that they don't want to fake things up. Notice this is the worst case now because we believe there are also a majority of the super big problems. Sorry later, there are a lot of teachers who are just faking things because they have the textbook, they have the tests, they have so many papers for teaching you how to do things well. |
However, they just ignore what the students really like. You know, like they don't know what the children really love or what their biggest questions are about this. But however, in our side of health, there is progressive teaching, so the teacher has to answer their questions. They have to answer what kind of things they're thinking about. So we believe they have more engagement; they have better progress in our side of house because they have stress to not fake things. |
Thirdly, also the teachers' incentive. They want to make the students love them, so they also want to make the things so they want to try to perform well to make them understand what they're talking about. We also have accessibility to engage with the students in ourselves. Why is the government investing in our side of the house? Because we believe even though their side of the house has a lot of majority who don't really engage with this scenario, however, in our half, we will need, because of this progressive learning, some majority also will have the voting spring for the government to continue to provide better educational resources in order to continue through their votes in like future or whatever. So we also likely to have our data for Progressive designing also will be more super effective. Our set, so lastly about students, uh, reaction. Yes, |
<poi> |
Your maths prove that teachers have capacity to use material as well. This is symmetric. on our side, teachers have more time to spend with their students. So this is on our side of house. |
</poi> |
I think time or energy spent on both sides is actually symmetrical. more the passions of the teachers, whatever is that just, but the prominent incentive of a teacher is to try to know more about what the students are thinking. Your house is too long or traditional with that teacher just thinking they're too like there are so many experiences or whatever. However, only in our side of house students don't make their step out to contact with the teachers for trying to know more about their progress. We're trying to know about their program. That is a thing that we believe is a key point in the students, uh, interest. |
So last argument about why we believe, uh, there will be more students' interest in this kind of like qu. First, firstly, we believe we will have more special, uh, more incentive like for the students. They will become more happier and more centralize. first reason is that because our work cation is that we have more programs to cooperate with our, uh, classmates. We know we want to build a bridge together instead of we're just looking on the bridge in your Texas, right? So we have to go from more real places, from visiting more museums to, uh, research about how we can build a better like program, how appears on the world, like how appears on the or outcome. So it means that we're trying to think more ourselves, our more like ability when we're working together. And also the parents are also more likely to, um, keep their like, uh, more by because they see their children are more happy with the outcome. They're more confident seeing their results. |
But everything your side of house only has Force without me, okay proud to oppose. |
</mo> |
<gw> |
I know was just brought an extension, but I really want to be clear about how swiftly opposition has completely ignored the section. Even though it's kind of dirty, I still believe it's not not new material and I do believe they have to engage in this education. It is inherently not accessible for everyone. This is a statement that I did, I had opportunities from them to give me a POI and they're able to do so now. And I'm going to explain how this is the angular stone in which my case lands. And even the worst case scenario where my principal is depending on the Practical and you by on my vote extension, I think I land second. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.