BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
P.E should not required in schools (Or at least there should be alternatives)

Well, for one, regarding your statement about P.E being an alternative for kids who cannot go outside and exercise, P.E. by itself is not enough to provide children with 60 minutes every day. With the short class length, different schedules, and time needed to change, P.E does not provide children with a significant amount of exercise. Furthermore, it discourages kids to exercise when they really need to, which is outside of school on their own. Getting a bad grade in P.E. feels horrible. How are children supposed to want to exercise it when they associate it with a bad grade and feel as if they cannot physically improve. To respond to your statement that P.E. teachers usually watch you and grade you based on your ability level. I and others have found that that is not often the case. Teachers often use the widely implemented Fitnessgram tests as a grade, measuring whether the child got a certain score, despite the fact that Fitnessgram recommends that this should not be done. Some schools make students participate in skills tests as well, and students get graded on that. Furthermore, these skills by themselves have very little use. Throwing a ball or running a mile is simply not useful in today's day and age. To answer your question on why P.E. creates a bad atmosphere, certain practices like the "team leader" system make children who are not the best get picked last, making them feel horrible. P.E. can also empower the good players to pick on the weaker ones. People can get upset if a player who is not that good misses a shot or falls while doing push ups, and revert to hurting that player. There is also the chance that teachers may favor the stronger students over the weaker ones, or dismiss the harmful bullying as competition or peer pressure.
P.E should not required in schools (Or at least there should be alternatives)

First off, I would like to say good luck to you. I feel that P.E, or some type of physical activity, is necessary and should be a required class that should be taken in class. Studies have shown that people that get out and have fun, or exercise, will have a more focused mind when learning a concept. For example, there are workplaces in Sweden that force office workers to go outside/the gym during their break. Data showed that those workplaces had a higher productivity rate. Many people have heard of the Play 60" campaign. This campaign states that every child should exercise for at least 60 minutes a day. Some kids are not able to go outside and get exercise. P.E is an alternative for that group of people. Now, regarding your statement about gifted kids getting lower grades because they are judged on how they hit the ball or how far they can run. With my experience, P.E teachers usually watch you and grade you based on your ability level. You said, "Yet this class often fails at its main goal of encouraging children to exercise and alienates children by encouraging a violent atmosphere in which the strong prevail and the weak get picked on." I am confused how the P.E class is a violent atmosphere and people getting picked on. May you please explain this to me in you next statement?
P.E should not required in schools (Or at least there should be alternatives)

P.E. is a class required by schools all across the country. Yet this class often fails at its main goal of encouraging children to exercise and alienates children by encouraging a violent atmosphere in which the strong prevail and the weak get picked on. Not only that, but it oftentimes affects bright individuals' GPA and is not fair to students' grades and academic achievement. How can you base a grade on wether someone can hit a ball the right way or run a certain distance.. Other activities revolving around P.E. such as having to take communal showers or having to change into a horrible uniform every class also make P.E. a terrible experience and overall reduce students' quality of life.
Time is not a dimension

Thanks for accepting. I hadn't originally planned on taking a philosophical angle, but I suppose it makes sense to do that.I'll begin by addressing the argument of perception. "Time", as I'm sure you're aware, stems from human perception, as do the three measurable dimensions in which we exist, these being length width and height. Perception is, of course, unreliable in a philosophical sense, as my perception of the universe and yours may be vastly different (hence the "Is Red Red for Everyone?" debate as to whether each person sees their own unique set of colors). As such, arguments regarding the perception of time either proving or disproving its existence as a dimension, while not invalid obviously, do seem counterintuitive, as calling into question its perception brings up an entirely new set of issues for debate.For this reason, I will primarily focus on the non-philosophical aspects of time. Time is a measurable quantity, but that does not make it a dimension. Stay with me here, but I believe that time is just an alternative method of observing length, which varies based on the tools used for measuring. For example, most clocks run on electric current; typically, a small piece of quartz will "pulse", as it were, at a regular rate, allowing the electric current to travel through at particular intervals. It is by measuring this distance accurately and transferring this information through a complex set of mechanism that time is measured. Time, then, is defined by the distance of a hand moving across a clock face, or the length of a electrical signal which lights up a digital display. When a object moves from Point A to Point B in, say, 10 seconds, the seconds are actually the measure of a variable on the recording device itself. By applying this variable to the formula for velocity, for example, in addition to another, separate measure of distance called length, we can determine how many intervals occurred during the period of the object's motion from point to point."A period of what?" you ask, certainly hoping that I'll see that I've back myself into a corner with my own argument. In this case it would be the period of... time. See, just because time isn't a dimension doesn't mean that it is not an observable variable in measurement. It is measurable, just as much as force or mass or resistance. The issue is that it is not a separate entity from length width, and height.With the three dimensions, we can measure anything. A book may be 13 cm x 20 cm x 3 cm. Time is not a quantifiable dimension in the sense that the book does not require motion to be measured. The only point in which the variable time applies is during motion, and even then, the dimensions of the book are not altered by the "passing" of time, such as other non-dimensions like acceleration, which would be affected by including the measurement of time.There are multiple arguments other than the one I've described above to prove that time is not a dimension, but since there's multiple rounds of debate, I'll save them for later.
Time is not a dimension

To be clear: As Pro, I will be arguing that time is not a dimension. For the purpose of the debate, alternatives to the claim that time is a dimension shall be saved for my debate rounds.Rules: 1. There's not actually any rules, but if you apply any fallacies you'll probably be called out on them. 2. Okay, so there is one rule, but it's not really a rule: if Con uses Round 1 for debate, they cannot use Round 4 for debate. Seems pretty standtard procedure around here.That's about it. Con should be trying to prove that time is a dimension. Oh, and for this debate, we'll be using the Oxford Dictionary of English's definition of dimension: a measurable extent of a particular kind, such as length, breadth, depth, or height. The debate may challenge the interpretation of this meaning, as it seems to be intentionally left vague.Finally, here is a handy poster of common fallacies. Try to avoid these and I'll do the same:https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
Absolute Scientific Proof of the Existence of God

"The facts that there are two things in the universe: energy; and, information, which is the conformation of energy; consciousness is caused by capacitance; and, that there is enough capacitance in the infinite universe to cause energy to be conscious; is self evident to any science loving person. "1. The universe isn't infinite.2. The universe has caused energy to be conscious: they're called human beings, but if you want to call them gods, go ahead. "Upon reading this I was instantly no longer an atheist"Instantly, huh? No further reading, no contemplation, no nothing? You shouldn't be so quick to change your views.
Absolute Scientific Proof of the Existence of God

The short "1John1:5" is all that was for Christians. The facts that there are two things in the universe: energy; and, information, which is the conformation of energy; consciousness is caused by capacitance; and, that there is enough capacitance in the infinite universe to cause energy to be conscious; is self evident to any science loving person. My parents were athiests, and I was an athiest until I was 54 years old, when I came upon this knowledge. Upon reading this I was instantly no longer an athiest, but a knowing theist, by more than beilef, by undoubtable knowledge.
Absolute Scientific Proof of the Existence of God

The use of 1John1:5 is essentially for Christians, so that they realize that energy is God, and that, therefore, this is a logical universe of laws. The fact that there are two things in the universe: energy; and, informaiton, which is the conformation of energy, was established by Dr. James Miller. We then see that consciousness is caused by capacitance. Solvents reducing our consciousness demonstrate that. Our neurons are mainly capacitors, and the lipids of the neuron walls are dissolved by the solvents. All the infinitude of things (information) in the multiverse (Dr. Max Tegmark's term) certainly provide enough capacitance to give energy consciousness. What else would you call energy, then, besides God. "Is a rose by any other name still a rose?" The figures vO^XvO^ is a picture, not a formula. It an attempt in two dimensions to show like polarities repelling. You could have pointed out that the "prime vector", /, as we call it, would seem to exert the same friction on both sides of the would be circuit, and it would remain undifferentiated. But, with this timespace expanding in the fifth dimensional direction from very globally bent timespace toward flat timespace, and beyond, the friction on the two sides is uneven. Thus it moves and undifferentiates as a closed circuit. Also we wouldn't be here if the smallest possible thing wasn't Planck's volume. With infinitessimality there'd be no friction. Plank's volume confers granuality for friction. By the same diagrams, confluency of opposite polarities is drawn by this print, ^OvvO^, but after the Big Bang circuits circulating side by side draw other circuits (there ultimately can only be circuits) in like a wringer which would push components of this wringer, the original confluent circuits, apart. It is the opposite polarities on top of each other like heads on tails, flat, that is pushed together into confluency and undifferentiation, that we call "attraction".
Absolute Scientific Proof of the Existence of God

Very interesting argument you've got there, Lahunken. However, there is one glaring flaw in it that I simply must point out: it makes no sense at all."Scientific" proofScientific evidence must be observable, repeatable, and falsifiable. Whatever speculative babbling you just wasted twenty minutes typing doesn't meet any of those qualifications. Therefore, your resolution fails immediately.Logical "proof"This is your argument in sum:1. The Bible says "God is light".2. Light is energy.3. Therefore, God is energy.This argument isn't even valid, let alone sound, until it includes a premise that reads "The Bible is factually correct". And you would have a hell of a hard time proving that one, especially using scientific means.Other flawsYou say creation is a consequence of theophysiology. This statement is simply false, though, and is probably a result from the common misconception that theophysiology is a subset of theologicology, when in reality, theologicology couldn't be any more different than theophysiology. In fact, it was only due to the division of phycoradiantology that anthropreumpton fields (such as physiology) even exist.Next, you say timespace U (exerting in one direction /) stirring closed circuitry O, which all going the same way, vO^XvO^, clashes, X, which forces confluency. This might have been considered true in the 1980s, but nowadays the theory reads "vOX^Ovx^x", as it takes into account the second spacetime conflexion created approximately three macro-seconds after "the big bang".Finally, you say Jesus came to earth to give man immortality, but again, this is following very archaic studies. Nowadays, it's widely understood in theological circles that Jesus came to earth because the last KFC went out of business in Heaven and he really wanted some good fried chicken. [1]Source[1] Koopin told me
Absolute Scientific Proof of the Existence of God

The absolute scientific proof of the existence of God is: There are two things in the universe: energy; and, information, which is the conformation of energy. In 1John1:5 it says, "God is light". Light is energy, therefore, energy is God. Capacitance causes consciousness. Gods eternal creating causes His eternal consciousness. If we were energy we would never sleep. We are information, a closed circuit of the one substance in the one substance, and, we may undifferentiate into confluent circuits, thereby losing consciousness. We may totally undifferentiate into nothingness. That which leads toward that is pleasure. The one force of the universe is pushing all to undifferentiate into nothingness. Everything is running down, or wound up by that which is running down. Creation is a consequence of theophysiology. There are an infinitude of dimensions. The infinitesimal point nothingness, . , is rastered by time into timespace, U, which exerts its oneness in one direction, /, that stirs closed circuitry, O, which all going the same way, vO^XvO^, clashes, X, a "big bang", which forces confluency, =, to undifferentiate into nonexistence. This is the mechnism of creation. The rest is the force to undifferentiate into nothingness. Too much capacitance is unpleasant, to say the least. God doesn't like it and we don't like it. But, mankind cried for immortality so that God incarnated as Jesus Christ to give immortality to those who followed His directions. With the ultimate closed circuitry of the one substance, "what goes around comes around".
Faith in god is faithlessness in man

I would like to open my argument by stating that PRO has not addressed any of my rebuttals from the previous round and, in addition, doesn't seem to have posed any new argument. My opponent posted three sentences which, while they concern the issues addressed in the debate topic, don't directly address the question or support his position.Since my opponent has the burden of proof, has not responded to my previous argument, nor provided any new argument, I'd like to forfeit the rest of my argument. Thank you.
Faith in god is faithlessness in man

Faith in god is faithlessness in man. Man seeks solace from heaven when he has no friend or relative to help him in times of crisis. As materialistic people put more faith on money and not on fellow men they don't come to the rescue of fellow men in distress. Millions of people the world over go hungry and rich nations and people do not help them. When man finds that nobody helps, even the close relatives, in difficult times he tries to safeguard his security by having more money which can purchase everything. So it is the social alienation that makes men seek solace from something other than his own community. When the earthly problems are solved by one's neighbor, his local government , the nation or the world, he has no other option but to pray to something existing above in the so called heaven that he strongly believes can help him
belief=supernatural=false

You tried, but did not manage I am afraid. Firstly you claim the Belief is false. As shown before, your statement is actually false. Henceforth Belief is not false. The Paradox cannot be Backwards nor forwards, its a cycle that is never ending, aka a Paradox. Beliefs are not Unknown, as we all have our own beliefs, and we know them. You claim Know is True, we Know our Beliefs, Beliefs are True. I do not have any knowledge of Fire Spewing Hats, therefore according to your logic, Fire Spewing Hat is False. I know of Blue Hats, hence that is true. However I do not know whether you are wearing a hat. Hence both answers are wrong. Now just because I do know of any fire spewing hats, does that mean it is always false? No it does not. I could probably douse a hat in gasoline and burn it. I could then make it have a contraption of shooting more oil out of it so it spews fire. Whether this is a good idea or not, I don't know, sounds cool though. Knowledge is not the opposite of belief. Knowledge noun 1. facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. 2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation. As we can see Knowledge has a lot to do with experince. Not truth, it also holds the theoretical in its definition. Are Theories always true? No! So Knowledge is not always Truth. Neither is Belief, however Belief is always what you believe is true. Knowledge is what facts may point at what could possibly be true. (Forgot to mention earlier. All definitions are provided by Google. )Now for how Pro is wrong with his assumptions and pure claims. Lets have an example, those are always good! Truth 1 + 1 = 2 Knowledge: X + X = 2Belief: 1 + 1 ≈ 2False: 1 + 1 ≠ 2We can see very well how Belief, Knowledge, Truth and False are all different things. I have shown many examples of how Beliefs can be true, there hasnt been a single proof by Pro that every belief is false. If Pro does believe that every belief is false, then he must believe he is correct, meaning he is wrong. Because he would believe his own belief is false. So in accordance with what I have presented I think it is only logical if the Audience, our Judges, disregard any and everything Pro states unless it proves that his belief of beliefs being false is true without him contradicting himself. However everything he has stated has no backing, and is also based of his belief which he himself believes is false. (Another Paradox if you get into it. .. .) Conclusion:Pro has yet to offer his BoPPro has yet to disprove my belief that there is truth. Pro has yet to prove that his own beliefs are true, when he is stating beliefs are false. Pro has yet to prove that only that which is known is true. Pro has yet to prove that he is wearing either, a blue hat or a fire spewing hat. Pro has yet to prove that the color that he believes is blue is not a false belief. Which would debunk his whole argument. Pro has yet to prove anything. .. .. .. And he has already used all his rounds.
belief=supernatural=false

Pro has asked me: "so far you have claimed many things, can you demonstrate any belief that is not false?"Firstly I would like to appluad my opponnet for escaping the logic trap I set up in my first round by stating anythign he states is false. He then asked me a question to escape this, Bravo.Now to answer the Question.I believe that there is truth.If this is false, than it is not true that this is false. You see how this goes? It becomes paradoxal. Truth is false, and that is true, so it must be false that truth is false. Henceforth Truth is Truth. But if thats false, then it must be true that there is no truth, which would mean there is truth. Except that would be false because truth is false? But if False is True, then that must be true? However it is false that truth is false, henceforth Truth? I have now given you a Belief that is not false, because it is True, and if it is false then it is true that its false, but the truth that its false is also false hence Truth is still True? As you can see, I have presented a Belief that is not false because it is True. (I don't want to start the paradox again, I hope everyone already understands my point here.) Henceforth I have met my BoP while Pro has not met his.Now we await Pro's BoP. I am not entirely sure how he could present it, as he would have to prove that anything that is believed is false, including his belief that belief is false..... Meaning anything he tries to prove, will be admittenly a lie. So what can Pro say to us, that can convince us, if he himself does not believe it? If he does believe it, then he also believes he is false, which would be false to believe, but the belief that it would be false is also false?AGAIN THE PARADOXES! Oh well.Base Line: Anything Pro tries to state will be incorrect by his own logic. I have given my BoP and have given the sentence he asked for and proved it True. Pro has yet to prove my Truth is False, and if he does manage to do this, then he is the one who is wrong because all beliefs are wrong, including his beliefs. Remember Belief is what you accept is true, so anything he tries to make us believe is not true. Meaning there is only one person you can believe, and that is Me.^_^ Muwahahahahahahaha! Can Vi_Spex manage to make us believe his belief is correct? But if we believe him, how could we believe him? We would be wrong to believe him. So how will he manage to win? I don't know but it sounds cool!Give it your best Vi_Spex!
Russia has every right to annex the Crimea

Then I'm very sorry. However, a lot of people don't argue from conviction here. If you want a genuine supporter, you may want to state clearly that your opponent must be a true, hardcore supporter of this or that position. If you want to avoid idiots like me in the future (again, I apologize fully) you can also make sure you clearly state your position in your first argument as well. Some people have a tendency to assume you automatically took "pro" for the statement you are making. Again, I'm very sorry for ruining the debate.
Politcs

Thanks to my opponent for instigating this debate. Let’s keep this civil, but impassioned! Since time is of the essence in this debate, here are my opening arguments. 1. While many may not agree with Mrs. Clinton’s politics, calling her stupid is false. She is an educated women with both a instinctive, and sometimes cunning nature about herself. 2. To call a wealthy politician and socialite white trash would also be false, seeing as the definition of white trash is: poor white people, especially those living in the southern US. 3. As far as staking up against most other presidential candidates, Hilary is not the worst choice. No, in my opinion that position should go to Donald Trump or Ted Cruz, both of which have been proven wrong on multiple occasions for their stances. I look forward to my opponent's next arguments...