BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Its acceptable to require students to participate in P.E.

I'll now proceed to offer my rebuttal.1) As I've already mentioned, it is true that some students are more suited to certain subject, whereas others are not. However, harder work in subjects that one is less talented for can, and will, produce satisfactory results. On the other hand, one cannot become taller, shorter etc. through hard work. Even though most subjects are biased due to some traits, P. E. exceeds the acceptable level. And again, I've yet to see a student teased by his peers due to a low understanding of algebra.2) A person who cannot grasp reading or writing most likely has a learning disorder (dyslexia or the like). However, normal physical traits differ from person to person, and despite being perfectly normal, still do not allow for some activities. Furthermore, you seem to be living in a very nice town - bullying due to physical traits and inability in sports is a major issue in most schools, in the USA as well as in other countries. There are always exceptions, but bullyng due to such traits is an issue. Finally, if a person is incapable of participating in a sport, they shoudn't be forced to make that obvious for no reson. Those who wish to practice sports can participate in P. E. , those who cannot do not have to - it is the best solution. Handling one's body isn't a matter of the school, rather of the individual, and the subject itself is irrelevant. I do not support discontinuing P. E. It should - nay, must - be available. But not mandatory.3), 4) Schools are institutions which exist to give students necessary education and general skills so they could later specialize. In such a system, P. E. is irrelevant. Furthermore, some jobs do indeed require more physical force, but it is not a universal requirement. One is more likely to be chosen for the job because they understand their role, know how to cooperate with their co-workers and so on, which are all values that schools, as social institutions, must instill. If one wishes to improve their strength afterwards, they can, and will likely be encouraged. That doesn't mean, however, that physical strength is a universal necessity for such jobs. To conclude, my opponent failed to present any decisive arguments as to why P. E. should be compulsory. I have own that P. E. as a secondary subject which students may attend at will fulfills the role of the school in providing such a service and allows students who wish to participate in sports and recreation to do so. P. E. as a compulsory subject holds no advantages over P. E. as a secondary subject - it carries more cons, though, as I've elaborated.
Its acceptable to require students to participate in P.E.

I apologize for forfeiting round 4. I've been busy lately, and didn't have an opportunity to make a response. I suppose conduct should go to con for that. Anyways, to continue the pattern, I'll respond directly to your counter arguments. Since it is the last round, I won't introduce any new arguments and I hope you will do the same. 1) So your saying that some people will never be able to be good at a sport, because of some trait like shortness, and that P.E just causes distress I these people. the problem with these arguments is that they don't apply only to P.E. They also are perfectly applicable to any class. Some children are fundamentally less capable to learn, and this will certainly cause them distress when they can't get good grades no matter how hard they try. This would probably cause more distress in many people then simply having to play soccer. 2) You said that a person with a talent for mathematics can still have perfectly good grades in other subjects. But this logic doesn't follow. If a person can be better in a particular subject, then they could also be worse. What if that person, because of the way their brain works, cannot grasp reading or writing. They will struggle in that class and won't be able to succeed because of the way they are born. They can't just magically learn it because their genetics won't allow it. And about your bullying argument, where are you from? Where I live, the sports teams are constantly getting bullied by the science club. The chess team goes around giving oral tests on calculus of variations and beating you up if you fail. WITH MATH. But lets assume that you live in a backwards town where the strong rule the weak. Generally a person who is incapable of participating in a sport is going to get bullied regardless of whether they participate in gym. Their physically weakness will probably be obvious whether or not they're in P.E. 3,4) school is not an institution designed to allow students to keep up with modern society as you say. That is a rather ambiguous statement witch doesn't quite seem necessary. Schools are institutions to prepare students for their careers. For some, this means preparing them for college and a career that requires an extensive knowledge base. But for others, this is just a basic knowledge of reading and writing, while social and physical aspects will be a more important part of their career. You tried to explain how a construction worker would need knowledge of the nature of construction in order to do their job. But that is the job of the architect. The construction worker has a much more menial purpose, putting together materials the way the architect says. some jobs simply don't require intelligence. That is all.
Its acceptable to require students to participate in P.E.

Here your arguments as I see them: 1) It is unfair for an intelligent person to have his/her grade lowered because he/she cannot grasp a sport or is bad at said sport. 2) grading a person on ones inborn traits is wrong. 3) grading students based on their physical abilities is attempting to control their lifestyle, witch a school shouldn't do. 4) a school is a place for education, and physical activities do not relate to this, so they should not be required in schools. If this is the correct summary of your argument, then here is my rebuttal. 1) First of all, your comment about intelligent kids not grasping the basics of a sport seems kind of paradoxical. If the student is unable to comprehend the basic rules of a system, then they probably won't be particularly competent In the real world. Also, I could say the same thing about math; it's unfair that a perfectly knowledgeable persons grade is brought down just because they can't do mental math well. If you accept that all the graded subjects are approximately equal in importance, then it is acceptable to bring their grade down if they do poorly. 2) I brought this up in my previous argument. Ones mental capabilities is equally, if not more, based of their genetics as their physical characteristics. If we consider this discrimination wrong at it's core, then we would have to consider all forms of grading as discrimination. 3) Again, this is nothing that regular schooling doesn't do. Any class will send a message to a kid that they should be using their time studying and learning about that subject, as opposed to other things. If you accept that gym is wrong because of this, then your also saying that its wrong to teach kids anything. 4) I think that it is flawed to say the only, or even primary, purpose of grade school is education. An institution that has no purpose but to give children knowledge would not be particularly helpful. The primary purpose of grade school is to prepare the students for their lives ahead. This might mean college, witch really is just an institution to give students knowledge, or it could be a less glamorous future, like a desk job, or a construction worker. And in some jobs, your physical appearance and capabilities is equally important as your mental capabilities. Also, in general, people who are healthier lead happier lives. I feel that my rebuttals do a fairly good job at summarizing my arguments. I'd also like to raise another point. Americans are not in the best of shape. I'm not going to provide a source for this, but I hope you know this already. Perhaps it would be good if the nations youth where encouraged to get in shape. Other then that, on to con.
Its acceptable to require students to participate in P.E.

Without further ado, I shall begin said rebuttal. The first point heard from my opponent is the fact that the idea of schooling is based on comparing one to his peers; the only difference of P. E. from oter subjects being the fact that bodily ability is compared instead of knowledge. However, the problem lies in that very fact. Comparing people based on their skills in physical activities is unfair due to more than one reason. To begin with, in many countries, one's grade in P. E. counts towards the final average grade. It is unfair that one, who might be just as capable and knowledgeable (or even more so) than his fellow students, should have a lower final average due to, for example, not being able to grasp the basics of a certain sport. What we must discuss here are priorities. Why should it be a priority for children to know moves in basketball, handball, etc. ? Why should they necessarily have to be able to do a certain number of sit-ups? Why should we grade them based on that and how is it relevant? Schools are meant to educate children. How strong or physically able one is depends mostly in one's inborn traits, and on one's lifestyle to an extent. The idea of grading person X better than person Y just because he is more talented in a certain irrelevant activity is unfair. Furthermore, schools are not here to tell people how to live their lives - grading one based on physical exercise is, basically, sending a message that one must spend his time on improving his physical traits to better complete his education. This falls under one's personal jurisdiction; everyone is entitled to manage their body howevery they want and it is not the school's job to meddle with this. Finally, my opponent states that physical exercise is good for one's body, which is true. That is why the school, as per its function as an institution, should offer children the chance to participate in physical exercise and activities. However, such activities ought not to be compulsory, for they are irrelevant to one's education. As for discriminating factors, such factors do exist. I've witnessed more than once the sight of children sitting on the sidelines, being ridiculed by their peers. Why? Because they couldn't play football (or whichever sport) just as well. Thus, I am compelled to ask my opponent what effect exactly does compulsory P. E. have, except what I've now stated? To conclude, P. E. shouldn't be compulsory due to the fact that's it is irrelevant to one's education, as well as producing no visible positive effects. It is unfair to grade somebody based on traits that are either not completely under his control, or based on one's management of his own body. Back to my opponent.
Its acceptable to require students to participate in P.E.

It seems to me that the major opposition to P.E is the discrimination of the unfit. Some may find it offensive to be forced to participate in physical activities when they are unfit, and worse at the activities then their peers. Of course, it would be possible to rectify this by simply grading the students based on effort, as opposed to actual performance, but I believe that even this is unnecessary. The entire institution of school is based on comparing the abilities of a student to his peers. Although in normal classes compare the brains, and not the bodies, of students, the principle is the same. A person that is less intelligent then his fellow students in class is in the same position as an unfit child in P.E. In fact, I feel that it is more difficult to control your own intelligence then it is your fitness. The purpose of a grade school is to prepare kids for their future. Of course I would say that intelligence is more important then physical strength in life, I would in no way say that physical strength is useless. If weight or muscle weakness gets to extreme, it can make a persons day to day life significantly more difficult. Also, in most cases, people will feel more comfortable around people who are average or above average physically, witch can be handy in a job dealing with people, like a receptionist or sales rep. So to conclude, P.E should not be considered wrong because of it's discriminating factors, as school is based is similar principals, and being physically phit can be a positive force in a persons life.
The world should be united under one goverment.

As humans, we must be divided into smaller factions, such as nations. Wars are not solved by one government - in fact, wars maybe encouraged. Historical fact has shown that governments ruling from vast distances often have trouble keeping people in line. The American Revolution was based on this premise - Thomas Paine's Common Sense stated that the American people should not be ruled by a monarch 3,000 miles away. Several cons against a World Government include the following: - Civil Wars will become unavoidable. Humans have never been able to work together. We cannot simply turn a switch and start cooperating. It may takes a few years to set up a world government, but humans will not be able to adapt as a civilization in such a short time and in such a drastic way. On the other hand, in our own divided nations, governments will be able to establish more control in a socially beneficial manner. Civil wars do affect nations, but in a World Government, a civil war would be more catastrophic and would negatively affect all people. - Persecution - Our world is imperfect as it is. If we were to establish one government, eventually, persecution of some group, based on age, gender association, race, or religion, would arise, which would ensure the eventual downfall of the government. Economies would not improve world wide. We depend on globalization and international trade to bolster the global economy. Creating one government that manages one economy would lead to the inefficient allocation of economic resources, resulting in more inequality in income distribution and greater environmental problems along with more negative economic externalities of production and consumption. We can never completely eradicate terrorists or radical groups. In fact, in attempting to create a world government, we would generate even more enemies, causing the general downturn of the global society. A government so large with so many constituents would be unstable and would face many more enemies.
The world should be united under one goverment.

I believe that the world should unite under one government. If we were to do this than all war between nations would be stopped. It might require one huge war but if we could convince as many countries as possible to join in the act we could take over or intimidate into submission with sheer size of might. We could stop world hunger by uniting and spreading food more effectively. World economy would be boosted immensely and therefore we would have a greater work force. Hostilities involving religion could be stopped and terrorist groups could be eliminated totally.
The world should be united under one goverment.

Unfortunately, it seems that your argument maybe a little to optimistic in viewing human nature. I probably sound pessimistic, but the truth is that we cannot simply unit under one government. Even if we tried, the first major issue we would face is finding a capital city, which would immediately wage fights. I won't say that there are not good candidates, such as the Hague or Geneva, perhaps, that are already in use for diplomacy between nations, but in truth, no city could be perfect. You also speak of "having this much local power globally", but how could we do so? What methods would we employ to keep a localized government in equal reign around the whole world? It seems that this is more wishful thinking rather than an actual possibility. In order for a world government to even attempt to function, it would need to be divided into smaller subcategories, and because of population and ethnic differences around the world, there would be inequalities, which would spark more disputes and general discontent. You also discuss nuclear weapons and how they would be less of a threat. I think they'd still be a large threat. Your argument seems to based on the assumption that the world government would be a beneficial force, but there would always be corruption. What would happen if a war-like leader came to power and used nuclear weapons to obliterate areas of the world that contain many of his military opponents? It is entirely possible, as history has shown. Hitler came to power in Germany in the 1930s with promises of making Germany a better place. In my previous argument, I discussed how the economy would not be stable due to the lack of globalization and international trade. The business cycle would continue even under a world government, and if a recession or depression were to come, the economy would provide fertile grounds for someone like Hitler to return. Nuclear weapons and oppression would be a threat once again, except refugees would have no where to run as the whole world would be a trap against them. The fundamental flaw in the argument for a united world government is the assumption that nations, including the radical ones, would simply lay down their arms and join in. This simply would not happen. Those patriotic to their nations would take up arms against those who are trying to enforce a world government. If you believe we should use military force to implement the world government, which it seems your argument may be subtly hinting, then it would cause more unrest and discontent from other groups, undermining the authority of the world government, and causing the system to fail. We cannot cooperate on such a large scale, so does this mean we would turn to inhumane acts of violence to enforce the government and its laws?
The world should be united under one goverment.

But we would not be ruling from a distance if all nations world wide were to unite. We would be one nation with absolute power and one military might larger than any ever on earth. One faction would rise up but if you give people over all world peace they would not be as ready to attack , especially if the government ruled together as one body. Nuclear war would be less of a threat. Nukes would not be readily launched at the countries own people. Instead of a complicated list of many national priorities , we could meet a mass crisis with strategic understanding rather than worrying about safe placement that does not spark war. So, if we had this much local power globally, how would it be stretched out over a distance? And no, you are right that terrorists could not be completely destroyed, but we would find it much easier to oppose terrorist groups if we had a large government that had combined funds. Our world economy would be boosted drastically. A $40 item might cost just $6. Gas and oil trade would be boosted drastically. We would not have all these international tensions between countries.
E-books V's Printed books

Thanks ----------------------------- Although you are right, you are missing something's . When you have an E-book you can underline and un underline in case you had a mistake you can even take notes and save them instead on writing on the book permanently, an other great thing is that you can have more than 40 books in one little device or in many, also caring chargers is lighter than caring books. An other thing is if you are waiting for... Whatever you can take your phone/tablet and read meanwhile you wait, also an other great thing about E-books is that if you finish a book you don't have to wait to go to the book store to buy a new one you can get a new one immediately, plus it's cheaper and you don't cut hundreds of trees for an E-book.
E-books V's Printed books

I hope you do well in your schooling :) ----------------------------------------------------------- Printed books are more personal. (If you own the book, because damaging someone else's property is wrong) you can dog ear the book, underline words, hell you could rip the front cover off, you should be able to enjoy the book the way you want, as you're the one reading it. If you're reading ebooks off a website and something happens and either your account or the app gets deleted, you would lose all your books. But if you were to lose a printed book, you would only be losing one. Also you don't need to be caring charges and what not everywhere for printed books, plus we all need time off from a screen every once in a while.
E-books V's Printed books

If your device gets lost/stolen you can pas it to an other device using I cloud, and with the technology these days you can find a place to plug your charger almost everywhere. Also reading a book meanwhile you take a bath it can easily fall into the water and is not always repairable. One of the big benefits with an eBook is a clickable TOC. It makes it really easy when reading an academic or textbook to be able to quickly go to the exact page that you want, with minimal fuss. An other great thing is the X-Ray, which gives you a comprehensive list of all the major and minor characters in any given book. It also tells you about the locations, objects and how many times they are referrences throughout the book. No longer will readers be confused on a book they are reading, because they can easily access a small biography. Also When reading fiction or non-fiction title, inevitability you will be unsure on the exact meaning of a word. It might be something you never heard before, or may use idioms from another country. Many of the top e-readers by Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and Kobo all have dictionaries pre-loaded on their devices, with the options to download additional ones, for free. If you buy an English Kindle, but want to load in a German dictionary, no problem. Oh, you can also get diverted to Wikipedia and Google to look up a specific word too! The social stigma of reading trashy romance, fantasy have been firmly removed with the advantage of portable e-readers. Not advertising what you are reading allows you to immerse yourself in a book you love, without attracting too much attention.
E-books V's Printed books

Well you have a very good point with the underlining and saving. It is also true you can have 40+ books, but what happens when that device gets broken/lost/stolen? It's true a book can be stolen, but I doubt someone would steal that many books. Also, what if you can't plug your charger in whether you are? Plus while I agree it is easier with E-books to get a new book, going to the library is a nice excuse to get out and about. Plus I find the satisfaction of turning the last page of a fantastic novel seems more of an achievement than swiping a page. Now, this may not matter to you, but for some, a bookcase full of awesome books can really lighten up a room. Books, all types of books, look amazing on the shelf. Some of those covers are amazing and make you want to uncover the treasures within. An electronic device however, not by much. Also, I don't know about you, but I find reading a book while relaxing in the bath is amazing (as do many other people, I find). Personally, I would be scared to read an ebook in the bath, plus if there's any steam it would fog up the screen. Also if you dropped it in the water, I think the consequences of dropping an e-book is greater. We could say "just don't read in the bath" but for some busy bookworms, this is the only time they can really sit down and read. Also, for some readers, a magical moment is getting your books signed. You can't get an e-book signed. BUT I do agree about the cutting hundreds of trees part. That sucks and I can see where e-books are Superior in that aspect.