At the beginning of 2023 I thought Google was a good place to work. I changed my mind after receiving new evidence.
Agreed there's a lot of work ahead in making it engaging.
I define "pro" as anything one might say in defense of a statement, and that includes decomposing it. It can also include disambiguating it. Or citing a source.
Thanks for the well-wishes. Only two paid users so far, but I'm getting very useful feedback and will have a second iteration with key improvements.
My humble opinion is that teachers should make such decisions. From my own education I've come to think that the best education comes from enthusiastic teachers.
I had not heard of Community Notes. Interesting anti-bias technique "notes require agreement between contributors who have sometimes disagreed in their past ratings". https://communitynotes.twitter.com/guide/en/about/introduction
There's truth in what you're saying. At the same time, I feel like people have an instinctive desire for clarity over riddlespeak. I think it's the same instinct that makes people favor 4k televisions over standard definition. I think it's possible to make a twitter-like medium that discourages hardcoded blind spots.
Do you still think students should learn to analyze conflicts and write about them in a nuanced and researched way? I think answering that question will lead you to the answer to your original question.
OK so the immune system comment simply meant that since vaccines rely on a system that isn't 100% effective, they can't themselves be 100% effective. It definitely wasn't intended to compare a vaccine-trained immune system to a non-vaccine-trained immune system.
To make a statement more specific, just make the more specific wording a "pro" argument. Because it's something someone might say when arguing for the main statement. I just made a new introductory video today that illustrates this.
Are you really insulating from reality, or from recency bias?