BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
P. E. Teachers shouldn't be overweight

That may be true for some people, But many students have distinct learning styles. Some students aren't tactile and are visual, Or auditory. The learning style you described was just for a tactile learning style. The PE teacher can ask for a student themselves to demonstrate running while dribbling with a ball, That is how my PE teachers did it when I was in school. >Studies show that when it comes to teaching a class, A visual example from the teacher has a more successful result than a non-visual example. What studies are you referring too? Because everyone learns a different way, So while Paul may benefit from that Joe may not. Having a student do it for an example to teach the PE class is just as effective if not more since they are leading by example from a fellow student rather then a teacher. Once again, The qualifications of the individual to teach should be education and testing. Rather then physical experience. It would be very disappointing to want to do something in your life but you cannot since you weigh too much. If you want to do something and you educate yourself to do so, You should have the freedom to do so; and that obese/overweight PE teacher can use the knowledge they teach to improve there own health. Thank you for a inciteful debate, I enjoyed debating about this topic with you.
P. E. Teachers shouldn't be overweight

The problem with our educational system is that many teachers teach subjects out of the book rather than give a clear personal indication of what they're teaching. If the P. E. Teacher teaches a class by telling them to do things which they themselves cannot do, Then it makes it harder for the students to comprehend the subject which the P. E. Teacher teaches. The point of school (I would hope) is to teach a subject while choosing the best and easiest way to make the children learn. Giving directions and telling people what to do in point form isn't exactly helpful for students that are more visual. This means that if a student asks the obese (yes speaking fat percentage) P. E. Teacher to demonstrate how to run while dribbling a ball, He may not be able to, Which is a problem. Also, Studies show that when it comes to teaching a class, A visual example from the teacher has a more successful result than a non-visual example.
P. E. Teachers shouldn't be overweight

>Who do students take example of? Students in a math class rely on the teacher to show examples of math problems. Obesity (I am assuming you mean people who look physically fat not an obese BMI) does not disqualify anyone from actually teaching the subject. Obesity can also be a genetic factor, And while you do mention that this has nothing to do with discrimination, The actual discussion you are arguing with is that PE teachers should not be overweight and it should be illegal for an overweight individual to be a PE teacher, So discrimination is a factor that is in play with this debate. >Should it really be? Or should we make sure students get a proper education and example from someone who knows how to do the things they teach. It's not about discrimination. To teach Physical Education and Health, One needs to be physically educated and healthy. How would this be enforced? By the weight of the person, By the fat percentage? Does the physical characteristic of the teacher really matter? It is about the information they are presenting to the students. If a PE teacher studies for it in college, Passes examinations, And are qualified to teach it, Why should there fat level matter? The job of a PE teacher is to teach health and wellness while making kids exercise, The teachers themselves don't move as much, And even if they did; it will only make someone who is obese/overweight become more healthy. Imagine if you will if you are studying in college to become a PE teacher at a school because that is what you want to do with you life. You get depressed over a bad break up and cope with it by eating. You gain some weight but your coursework continues and you get good grades. Then you get a degree, Pass examinations to fully qualify to teach health/PE only to not find work because your too fat by 1% of the subject, Thus all of your student loans, Years of education are wasted due to weight discriminatory factors. How would you determine what is too much weight? BMI? Total weight? Body fat percentage? That would make me feel very upset and it isn't a rocket scientist here. The topic of our debate is about a very low paying job in a field which has an established curriculum, Should it matter if its a fit/unfit individual presenting the same information about health?
P. E. Teachers shouldn't be overweight

Speaking strictly about obesity, The question is, Who do students take example of? Students in a math class rely on the teacher to show examples of math problems. The same applies to P. E. Teachers and their ability to be able to show example of a healthy, Physical diet. The question isn't if it's against the law or not. Should it really be? Or should we make sure students get a proper education and example from someone who knows how to do the things they teach. It's not about discrimination. To teach Physical Education and Health, One needs to be physically educated and healthy.
P. E. Teachers shouldn't be overweight

It is illegal to discriminate against anyone for a job due to any physical characteristic and impedes on freedom of choosing a career they want. Also by "overweight are you referring to the BMI? Someone can be extremely muscular and be shown as Obese. A PE teacher doesn't get paid much at all and they aren't the ones being educated. It is the students themselves who are doing the physical work. Plus there are overweight students as well, Having a teacher that they look too (provided it isn't a fake overweight thing) can give them more motivation since it comes from someone who understands.
That whatever the prosecution spends in a criminal case, the defence should be entitled to

I am not too familiar with the legal system in New Zealand, but I assume that over there, as well as here in the United States, the cost of both public defense and prosecution is carried by the taxpayer. In a criminal case, the interest of the people are represented by the prosecution, therefore it's understandable that the prosecution, on average, makes more than a legal aid lawyer. In the United States, and I think in New Zealand as well since you guys have common law as well, before a suspect can be put on trial a Grand Jury has to establish if there is probable cause, which reduces the risk of putting an innocent person on trial in the first place. The right to due process means being able to receive a fair, timely trial, which is achieved through the process of jury selection and in some case transfer of the case to a different court. I would also like to point out that your assumption that the prosecution has most of its job done by the police seems to me invalid. Our legal system is based on the assumption that a suspect is to be regarded as innocent until proven guilty, which means that since the burden of proof is on the prosecution, the prosecution might need more resources during the process, in order to examine all the evidence. Furthermore, I don't believe that more money necessarily means a better defense and I would like you to show that in criminal cases, it does.
That whatever the prosecution spends in a criminal case, the defence should be entitled to

Greetings and thanks to whoever accepts this!RULESThis debate shall be three rounds. Please do not accept if you cannot post your argument in each round.No new lines of argumentation may be introduced in the third round.Neither debater may post videos.If you want clarifications, post in the comments BEFORE accepting.RESOLUTION NOTESFirst and foremost, I'm going to be running largely New Zealand examples. However, I think it is safe to apply this debate to an international context, so don't be put off.The resolution is that the defense should be entitled to whatever money the prosecution spends in criminal cases. For the purposes of this debate, I propose that this entitlement would come through the legal aid system that exists in many countries. For instance, if a prosecution lawyer is paid $4000 for a case, a legal aid lawyer's client should be eligable for at least $4000 in legal aid. The resolution does not extend to civil cases."Legal aid" takes different forms in different countries, but generally it has two key features. First, it is only available to those who really could not otherwise afford the cost of their lawyer themselves. Second, it almost always needs to be paid back with interest - it is not a grant, but a loan.My burden of proof in this debate is to show why it is a good thing that the defence is paid at least as much as the prosecution in a criminal trial. My opponent needs to show why my reasoning is not correct.CONTEXTIn New Zealand, on average, legal aid lawyers earn 4.6 times less per case than prosecution lawyers in criminal trials. This is despite the fact that they need to do more work because prosecutors have all their work done for them by the police. The maximum a legal aid lawyer can earn in a year is almost half of what the same lawyers earn ON AVERAGE in private practice. Therefore, few good lawyers go in to doing legal aid work because the pay is so bad. No suprise, perhaps, that success rates for poor people in court are much lower than for wealthy or middle-class people.PROBLEM -> SOLUTIONIn western legal frameworks there is a notion known as "due process." Due process means that a person's life, property and liberty cannot be removed without appropriate legal safeguards. To ensure that these legal safeguards are fairly implemented, there must be a fair trial. If we are to assume a due process jurisdiction, therefore, the rule of law and all of the civil duties it encompasses are predicated upon an individual's access to fair trials.There is nothing fair about one party being disadvantaged in a trial because of their financial position. Ideally, both lawyers in a trial should be of the same quality and level of experience. In order to encourage this, it would seem that both positions - prosecution and legal aid - should be paid equally. In this way, the most vulnerable in our society will have access to lawyers who are paid industry-standard rates. As the prosecution gets pay rises, so do legal aid lawyers.I have many rebuttals prepared, but I'd rather wait until I hear my opponent's line of attack.
Dios Si Existe

Gracias a todo que leyó nuestro debate! A mí me fue una diversión.Mi oponente dice que tengo que establecer la verdad de mis premisas, pero sólo tengo que hacerlo para las de que los dos no estemos acuerdos.Las teorías a que nos presenta mi oponente no soporten su caso. Primero, El modelo "Hartle-Hawking" del universo no es soportado por las observaciones: "The problem with Hartle and Hawking's theory is that it predicted the universe is "closed." [However,] observations favor the idea of an "open" universe, a universe that will continue to expand."(1)Con respecto al modelo "Carroll-Chen" del universo, ni es plausible.(2) Y finalmente, el model de Vilenkin que se llama "Quantum Tunneling." Simplemente no tiene sentido decir que este explica el origen del universo. Aunque afirme que el universo nació de nada, su propio autor dice que "[T]he state of “nothing” cannot be identified with absolute nothingness. The tunneling is described by the laws of quantum mechanics, and thus “nothing” should be subject to these laws. The laws of physics must have existed, even though there was no universe."(3) Obviamente, este modelo ni pretende explicar el origen del universo, porque el universo contiene sus leyes, las que este modelo no explica.Mi oponente se equicova por decir que La Teoría De La Relatividad explica la gravidad: "[G]ravity just doesn't fit in when using Einstein's theory of relativity, which explains gravity only on large scales."(4) Al fin y al cabo, la ciencia no puede explicar el universo sin Dios, como yo decía.Mi oponente me pide una prueba científica por mi explicación de la gravidad, implicando que no es falsificable. Mi oponente no se da cuenta que es una prueba lógica, y refutarla requiere una prueba lógica: algo que todavía él no ha podido hacer.Me parece que mi oponente no crea que la mente interactúa con el cuerpo. Eso es simplemente una tontería.En resumen, la ciencia no puede explicar el origen del universo, y mi oponente no ha podido demostrarlo. Por otro lado, yo les he dado una explicación filosófica y también valida que Dios ha creado el universo. (1) http://web.uvic.ca...(2) http://adsabs.harvard.edu...(3) Many Worlds in One (2006), Alexander Vilenkin, Page 181(4) http://www.livescience.com...
Dios Si Existe

Gracias por responder.Mi oponente afirma que mi posición no es científica, pero lo hace sin ninguna explicación. Es por eso que yo afirmo que sí es científica. La ciencia no explica todo el universo sin Dios; por ejemplo, no puede explicar el origen de la gravidad. Por otro lado, yo sí puedo, con Dios.Mi oponent comete un error grave por suponer que Dios fue engelado antes del tiempo, ¡porque ni hay "antes del tiempo"! Para hablar de un tiempo antes del tiempo, uno necesita el tiempo mismo. Es mejor dicho que Dios existe afuera del tiempo, no antes del tiempo. Es por eso que las argumentaciones de mi oponente en este punto se niegan.Mi oponente me pregunta que ¿Cómo se interactúan el uno la otra un reino de nada y la materia? Por comenzar, Dios no es nada, sino una mente. Segundo, ya sabemos que una mente y la materia se puede interactúan la una a la otra, ¡porque nuestras mentes interactúan a nuestros cuerpos!En conclusión, la ciencia no puede explicar todo el universo sin Dios, y no hay problemas filosóficos con mi posición. Se lo vuelvo a mi oponente.
Dios Si Existe

¡Gracias por aceptar mi debatito!Premisa 1: Una infinidad real no puede existir.Conclusión 1: Una regresión infinita del tiempo no puede existir.Conclusión 2: El tiempo comenzó. Premisa 2: Nada se puede crear a sí mismo.Conclusión 3: El tiempo no se creó a sí mismo.Conclusión 4: El tiempo fue creado por alguien. A esa persona, nosostros le llamamos "Dios." Dios sí existe. ¡Tu turno!
Sex Education should be taught to students....

Seeing that my competitor failed to make his arguments I will just back up my stance on how teaching sex to school could prevent premarital sex. And thus this will lead to one thing or another. For example, by avoiding premarital sex, we can avoid abortion. Preventing sex education in schools can only lead to the students learning sex from porn movies which have little or less educational benefit compared to the knowledge they learn about sex in school. PS: Vote for Con! XD
Sex Education should be taught to students....

Your claim that children will become more curious to sex if not taught in class is not true because they will not be curious about such things if it were taught at school. Because logically and psychologically speaking, how will a person be curious about things he/she is familiar at through education? It would be ironic that a person will be curious about things that he/she is familiar with, right? Well the fact that sex can only be done by 2 married couples doesn't claim that it shouldn't be taught to schools. It would be better if it should be taught in school since children need the moral implication and guidelines about sex and therefore prevent them from committing such acts like premarital sex.
Students should be allowed to use their cell phones in school

My opponent mentioned that if students are allowed to use cell phones in school then it would be difficult for teachers to catch who is cheating. Well, I did not say that students will be allowed to use their cell phones whenever they wanted, just that they should be allowed to them in school. Teachers dont have to let their class use their phones for things like quizzes and tests. My opponent also mentioned that cell phones would cause a distraction. students arent going to be on their cell phones half the class time because they would be able to use them outside of their classes like for passing time or their lunch breaks. This is the time that students will use their phones for social network sites and texting. Students know that if they're distracted by their phones in the classroom then they are not going to be getting the information they need for quizzes, tests, and assignments. You also said that students shouldnt use their cell phones for safety reasons such as fights. In this case, it doesnt matter if they're at school because if they really want to fight then they're still going to call for outside assistance regardless if they're allowed to use their phones or not. If they don't do that then they will wait until they get out of school to fight. As for the tools that I mentioned, it does not just mean calculators. It could also mean to use encyclopedias on the web or to record what the teacher is saying so you can study better. You can even use that information you recorded and send it to a sick friend so that they will know what to do when they return to school. When I said that they can contact their parents it didn't just mean rides. Parents may want to contact their child for a reminder for things such as doctor appointments. Students may, also, want to contact their friends when they're sick.
Students should be allowed to use their cell phones in school

Responding to my opponent's most recent arguments: Distraction: My high school allowed cell phone use in-between classes, but not during class. Students never got enough of texting during the 6-minute "walking period" or our 30-minute lunches. They would continue to text surreptitiously during classes. It's absurd to believe that teenagers would stop texting if they got an extra 6 minutes between classes to do so. For example, the NY Times reports in 2009, "They do it late at night when their parents are asleep. They do it in restaurants and while crossing busy streets. They do it in the classroom with their hands behind their back. They do it so much their thumbs hurt. Spurred by the unlimited texting plans offered by carriers like AT&T Mobility and Verizon Wireless, American teenagers sent and received an average of 2,272 text messages per month in the fourth quarter of 2008, according to the Nielsen Company — almost 80 messages a day, more than double the average of a year earlier. The phenomenon is beginning to worry physicians and psychologists, who say it is leading to anxiety, distraction in school, falling grades, repetitive stress injury and sleep deprivation." [1] It is even worse to encourage this behavior at younger ages, like in elementary school, by permitting cell phone use during class. Safety: I agree fights could still occur off-campus. However, someone is less likely to "postpone" a fight, since his or her emotions will have calmed down by then. In addition, fights off-campus do not endanger other students or school administrators. Lastly, it is silly to think that a school policy can solve for problems that occur outside school. My opponent essentially agrees that cell phone bans in dangerous schools prevent large-scale fights from breaking out on school property. The bans thus accomplish all that they are designed to do. Laptops: You can't email or IM if your school doesn't have internet access available. This argument is irrelevant, however, since I would support schools banning laptops if they were used for social networking and IM. Contact friends: There is no good reason students cannot wait until after school to call friends. Contact parents: If a child is sick, the school nurse will typically call the parents using a school landline and the parent's emergency contact information. A cell phone is unnecessary for this purpose. Since all the tools and uses for cell phones could be accomplished through other means, but cell phones remain a major distraction during class and remain a safety hazard in some schools, I urge a con vote. [1] http://www.nytimes.com...
Students should be allowed to use their cell phones in school

My opponent said himself that students will need much more advanced calculators that cell phones have to provide so students will be able to use those on their tests. However, I said that teachers can tell their class that they can't use their cell phones during quizzes/tests but I did not say that they can't use them in class. So therefore, students won't cheat but can still use the tools their phones have to provide for class assignments. As for the distractions, when you said that students always got caught texting, well, the same happens at my high school but then again, these high schools do not allow students to use their phones so unless you went to a high school where they allowed students to use their cell phones, you can't use that as an example because you don't have a personal experience with students being allowed to use their cell phones in school. My opponent says that fights are caused by heightened emotion. Well, when two students want to fight but can't then the hightened emotions won't just leave. They'll still have those emotions. I know two people that wanted to fight but couldn't so they met at a park to fight so you can't say that students are less likely to fight outside school. Also, if two students really want to fight and want to call some people to help them, not bei granted permission to use their phones at school isn't going to stop them from calling whoever they want to help them fight. especially if they're going to get in trouble anyways for fighting at school. As for laptops as a replacement, that isn't much better than a cell phone because kids can still email or use social networks which would be a distraction and having access to social networks and IM would still have safety risks. As for being able to contact their friends, if they contact their friends at their own time in school like lunch or passing time there's really no problem. Students should also be able to use their phones to contact their parents if they're sick. they can contact their parents first and while they're waiting for their parents, they can sign out at the office. Students shouldn't have to wait all that time when they're sick. They would have to wait after calling their parents then if there's a line for the phone they would have to wait for their turn to use the phone, as well.
Jiraiya will defeat Kisame in a fight

Definition of "Will"- expressing the future tense. ----Google Definitions Jiraiya and Kisame are characters from the TV anime show Naruto, so it is in this animated realm that they "exist". You assert that Jiraiya will defeat Kisame in a fight, however It IS Impossible for Jiraiya to beat Kisame in a fight because Jiraiya is dead and will never occur again as a live character who can fight Anybody on the show..... "Jiraiya sends the secret behind Nagato's Paths of Pain, along with a disabled Animal Path, to Naruto and the rest of Konoha to give them an edge.[11][29] He then dies without regret as he sinks into the sea; knowing that he did all he could for the future hero of the world." ~WIKI