BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
certain animals shouldnt be in cages since they have cognitive abilities

1. They may have large cages. Anyway, The origin of dogs is relevant because it shows we are responsible for keeping them in check and to keep them safe from the wild. 2. If you reproduce it usually means you are comfortable and happy. Goldfish also get free food with little effort on their part. I am talking about larger fish tanks and small ponds. And according to your definition of cage, this counts. 3. There are some animals that don't need to be caged or are to small to be caged. Also bacteria don't count as animals, they are microorganisms [1]. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... 4. And we are animals. It is fun to see animals at the zoo and if an animal kills a human that is not showing respect for life either. Where did killing come into this argument other than animals killing humans. My points are such: Cages keep people and animals safe. also the animals may be happy in their cages. we still have not found a way to communicate with them.
certain animals shouldnt be in cages since they have cognitive abilities

addressing my opponents first comment1. The origins of dogs is irrelevant. It doesnt matter how they came into existence the fact of the matter is they shouldn't be kept in cages because they become depressed in these cages. Also a house could not possibly considered a cage, it could fall out of the category if the owner has a doggie door or one of those magnetic mesh screens. Also dogs have more space and flexibility in houses than a metal cage. Thus they shouldn't be caged.2.I Know the animals are not happy based on evaluating signs of depression..............http://www.vetinfo.com......Also just because something breeds doesnt mean there happy it just means the want to have sex. lol. Also most goldfish are isolated in there glass cage. So they wont be repopulating in the first place.3. So by this logic should we then cage all bacteria and all other animals in the word just so we can feel secure. Or should we kill all animals just to feel safe and prevent accidents? No this logic is flawed. My opponent cannot defend his case witch means pro should win this debate.4.Okay since my opponent wants to bring god into this. In the bible it states we need to show respect for life. Is depriving animals happiness and freedom or killing them to feel secure showing respect for life? No.so my contentions are.......1. loss of freedom,sanitation,2. animals cant possibly be happy in in a small confined area,lastly we wouldn't want to be in cages so we shouldn't cage animals for amazement.My opponent has not offered any effective counterargument to my contentions thus I/ve proven y case and pro should win this debate.Sources1.-http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com......2..http://www.vetinfo.com......3.http://abcnews.go.com......4.http://a.abcnews.com......; border="0" alt="Animal attacks" width="200" /> ABC News Photo Illustration5..http://abcnews.go.com......
certain animals shouldnt be in cages since they have cognitive abilities

1. First off, Dogs would not exist without humans. Dogs were the result off careful breeding down from wolves to small dogs. This shows we are responsible for them because they would die in nature. We need to keep them somewhere and by your definition a house could be a cage. If we let them loose, They could run wild and WOULD attack people. 2.How do you know the animals are not happy. Gold fish are obviosly happy with the transition because they breed like crazy. 3.A cage keeps the people outside safe. It is best to keep the sccident rare than common 4.God made us the stewards of the earth. It is our decition. We are the superior beings and we cannot compare ourselves to other animals
certain animals shouldnt be in cages since they have cognitive abilities

I am generally arguing here that it is ethically immoral for humans to incarcerate ceratian animals since they have cognitive functions. witch means they feel and think in a sense as we do. How would you feel if you were caged for a lifetime to be stared at for another larger beings entertainment for your entire life? not too great.certain animals-dogs,cats,amphibious creatures,tigers,monkeys, another mammalfirst round=acceptancesecond =positionsthird=rebuttal's,summaries
USA should spend significantly less

- Cutting specific programs Could you name a few of those programs that shouldn't exist? While it is clear that basically all government programs could run better, I haven't really found any that are useless like Pro states. The fact that they could run better does however not mean that funding towards them should be cut. Most programs that I know have that have been under fire, for example some public transportation projects, are valuable projects that help citizens. They deal with the transportation issues of te future, which is when they will be needed. Building for current demands is too late. When we look to cities that are thriving around the world, we see elaborate public transportation. Public transportation contracts also provide jobs and will continue to provide jobs. - The private sector would fix it The reason the health care system in the U.S. is completely messed up is entirely because of the private sector. Lack of government control in health care in the past has lead health care costs to escalate. A minority could not afford health care or insurance. This caused hospitals to increase the cost of everything to make up for this lost revenue. As a result more people could not afford paying their medical bills, and so on, and so on. The cost for medical insurances (entirely private sector) are also absurdly high. Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act (AKA Obamacare) attempted to remedy this problem and to some extent succeeded, but the problem of actual health care costs are insane. We assume that the private sector will optimalize but what we fail to see is that the private sector optimalizes for the best achievable finances at the end of one fiscal year. More often than not though, companies make it difficult for themselves to survive this way (as happened with health care). - Throwing money at something => probably not worth it. An easy way to counter this argument is by bringing up basic security, giving people who don't make enough money on themselves a little support. People who don't make enough money to sustain their families become dangerous people. People will always choose the best solution for their situation. When people resort to a life of crime, two things can be wrong with them; they're either abandoned by society and find a way to make a living, or they're messed up in the head and need help/be removed from society. I would conclude from almost every case of crime I have heard of and knew who did it, excluding serial killers and the like, were people struggling to keep their family fed. Being poor makes for bad decisions http://www.sciencemag.org... - Increased income tax Pro is correct in my point being an increased income tax, this by introducing another bracket for extremely high salaries. I look forward to your rebuttal.
USA should spend significantly less

con argues instead of cutting spending, he basically says we should increase taxes. he didnt use that jargon, cause it's poison. i would agree tax increases is a good thing, but would posit it needs to be a balanced approach. there are surely places where spending could be reduced, or cut out entirely. i can think of plenty of programs that shouldnt exist, or could run better. con focuses only on tax increases. i wouldnt necessarily be opposed to increases in R and D as i am not a hard core conservative. i just think we should spend less. and there is some good points from traditioal conservatism, that says if there's a way for us to improve efifcincy etc, the private sector would probably fix it. the 'invisitble hand'. if we have to throw money at it artificially, ie the government, it could very well be something that doesn't deserve the money to begin with. of course, not being a traditional conservative, i can see some merit to government some times having a hand in spending there.
USA should spend significantly less

I will defend the view that the U. S. would not benefit from spending less. While I agree with the premise that debt should not increase, moreover that in prosperous times debt should decrease, I disagree that cutting spending is the ideal solution. Government funding should not be cut just for the sake of reducing government spending. We should however always be open to innovation to reduce spending in the long haul. Rather than focussing on reducing spending, introducing a +1mil. USD income tax bracket could help the budgetcrisis (if I may call it that). As the money a person makes for example under 55.000 USD is much more valuable to that person, than the money another person would make over 400k, and even more valuable than the money another would make over one million dollars. The most surefire way to boost the economy (and ultimately government income) is by investing in R&D and large government projects. I look forward to this debate.
USA should spend significantly less

our debt is out of control. if you look at the experts, we see the congressional budget office, and plenty of current and former administraters in that and realted organizations that say the same thing. a noteable name comptroller david walker. our triple A rating has been downgraded a notch, and they warn us it could be more if we don't get our affairs in order. china is warning us that we need to get our affairs in order. only people like paul krugman argue it is not a big deal. he probably does this mostly to be a contrarian and get attention. he argues for keysian econonomics, that we can grow ourselves out by spending more. while keynesian econ has some merit to it, it's not applicable now. that theory says when we are in a recession we should spend so as to stimulate. now, we are not in recession, and while we are not optimal, i would argue it's the new normal. employment won't go down more, cause our economic structure doesn't need that many people working. and similar arguments could be made about other economic indicators. the measure of how much we should spend is often GDP v debt. we are about 75% debt to GDP, and the highest it has been was around WWII. what makes now different, is that the country was developing, and had a marked advanged over less developed and war torn counties. that allowed them to pull themselves out of the mire. now, we dont have things like that to pull us out. also, probably a better measure, is that we should compare debt to national revenue. if we continue to grow in debt, we revenue won't increase in proportion. also, within maybe thirty or so years, interest on the debt will eat out much of other spending, even to the detriment of entitlement spending. an example that revenue increases are not matching debt levels. i'm not saying we are beyond the point of no return. but we are getting there. things need to shape up. we can't keep spending like a drunken sailor.
Immigrant crisis in Europe

Before I begin the debate, I think it would be helpful to clarify a few different things. You are side pro that any and all immigrants should be allowed into Europe, within certain quotas as to how many are allowed in. You believe that the borders should be open to everyone, is this correct? You also stated immigrants and not refugees? Do you mean the refugees from Iraq and Syria or other immigrants, as I cannot find reference to anything other then a refugee crisis. I would like you to clarify on the points that I have just listed above. I would need numbers of quota's and the type of immigrants or refugees that would be admitted into Europe before any kind of debate can begin, as there is no argument for either side with such vague statements.
Immigrant crisis in Europe

I would allow all immigrants permanent shelter in EU, however, since they came all borders for economic immigrants have been closed. I personally feel that these immigrants need help and we should give it to them, but I would also consider bringing in certain quotas as to how much immigrants can come inside a certain country every month. What do you think? Should the European borders for immigrants be closed? Let me know. Note: please don't use slang, as some users may not understand it. Also, please no discrimination, racism or arguing in the comments. Being polite while debating is also preferable.
Immigrant crisis in Europe

Thank you for this wonderful debate. I would just like to rebut your points before my conclusion. If the parents haven't assimilated then the kids would also become radical as stated above. This is because kids are taught by their parents and wouldn't fully understand what they were fleeing from. All they would understand is their horrible situation in their country, and become radical. As stated before, economies do not have the strength to create thousands of jobs. The population of a country is constantly cycling and those jobs that are vacated are filled by the childeren of the workers, as a new work force comes in. We know as a result of other immigration crisis that there are never enough jobs and that the economies need to be looked at. Paranoia can and will stop us from stupidly accepting all immigrants at a breakneck speed. If we move too fast we risk accepting immigrants that have problems and are undercover terrorists. To conclude these immigrants will pose a security risk, take our jobs and will grow up to be future problems. There is simple not the time nor the money to be accepting thousands of immigrants, and it is not worth the risk. Thank you for this wonderful debate.
Immigrant crisis in Europe

First of all, just because the parents didn't doesn't mean the immigrants' children will not assimilate. Of course the opinions of these future kids will be somewhat forged by their families, but I don't think that stops these people from at least trying to assimilate. Second of all, a lot of people nowadays are going from secondary (industry) to terciary(tourism, banks and such) job sectors. I know it sounds bad, but immigrants could easily replace them in their secondary-sector jobs. Also, I only took Germany as an example. There are hundreds of thousands of job opportunities for immigrants in Balcan countries, which our own people don't want to do. Again, I know it sounds bad, but this hiring model has not been tested yet, and we cannot know if it will be good or bad. Third and final, some immigrants will definitely be terrorists. But as I said before, can this paranoia stop us from helping these people. Morale issues aside, I agree that our perception in terrorists' power is still pretty vague, and we cannot certainly know how many terrorists will infiltrate this way. But Germany (again, for example) still accepted a lot of immigrants, perfectly knowing the risks involved in doing so. Why? Because it has a strong military and police force, as well as all the prime targets of all these immigrants. To conclude, most of these immigrants are now living on the borders between two countries, as some countries have closed them. At this point they can either return to their countries, which are in war, or the countries they are trying to get into will allow them to do so. What I'm trying to say, they have nothing to do but to exist right now. They are stuck in a stalemate and they will not return, as it is not in their interest to do so. This is why I offered a solution to this(letting them in), as they are currently blocking any form of borderline action(military, political, economical inter-European immigration).
Immigrant crisis in Europe

Allowing millions of Syrians and others from the Muslim Middle East into Europe will end up as a catastrophe for Europe, and therefore for the West. This may be the most difficult sentence I have ever written. Little seems more moral than to allow these Syrians, Iraqis, and others to flee from hell into heaven. Therefore, arguing against allowing large numbers of them into Europe seems to be advocating for something that is just morally wrong. Many Muslim immigrants in the U.K., France, and Sweden live in Muslim ghettoes, and have not assimilated. Moreover, and of particular importance, children of the immigrants " the ones born and raised in European countries " are usually the most radical and anti-Western. It is worth recalling that the 9/11 terror attack on America was planned by Muslim immigrants living in Germany. Muhammad Atta, the leader, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Ziad Jarrah, Said Bahaji, and Marwan al-Shehhi had each lived in Germany for eight years and Bahaji was born there. There are three reasons that we cannot allow immigrants into the EU. First, many of the children of these immigrants will not remember Assad or ISIS and will resent their likely inferior socioeconomic status and lack of full integration into European society. They will then cause havoc in Europe. Second, the economic growth and unemployment rates of the EU countries including Germany are not robust enough to handle a vast number of newcomers. And as the British writer Janet Daly pointed out in the Telegraph, what about "the pressures on their hospitals and GPs" surgeries, and of shortages of housing and school places"? Third, it is as certain as night follows day that Islamic State and other terror groups will place terrorists among the refugees coming into Europe. As a result of the three arguments above, some European countries will be threatened by far-right political movements that will arise in opposition to the the threat to their national identity, values and economy.
Immigrant crisis in Europe

Yes, I should definitely consider the factors of immigrants getting jobs and different values of life in foreign countries. For someone making it brief, I have to hand it to you, you make some convincing arguments. Yet again, you cannot say that these immigrants pose a threat to our nations' securities. Sure, some will definitely rebel and thus pose an insecurity, but I got the impression that you're saying they are terrorists. Some may be, and with ISIL around, we have all the rights to feel insecure. But are we truly so paranoid that we cannot accept starving, poor immigrants who currently live in unsanitary and unsafe enveironments, just because we irrationally feel they're terrorists? Isn't humankind better than that? Haven't we evolved to help those in need? I know morale, which is currently speaking, is irrational as well, but have we really decreased to this?
Immigrant crisis in Europe

I don't have any time to debate today, so I will make this very brief. Canada, the third largest country in the world with a great economy, is struggling to bring in 25000 Syrian refugees in a year! How can you expect other countries to do it in a month, and 12 times in a year! This is simply not economically feasible. Also you have to think about the job market that these immigrants are coming into and the dangers that some immigrants pose to society. Some immigrant groups also, will not conform and do not follow the values of our societies so how can we let them live in our countries. These are my points in brief, and I will go more in depth on them later.
Immigrant crisis in Europe

Yes, I believe borders should be open for everyone. I was, of course, referencing to the refugee crisis. I think that these are basic moral and humane rules, but I am also considering quotas of cca 25000 immigrants per country per month, as the crisis may or may not destroy Shengen. Despite being pro in this argument, I am considering quotas because after Shengen comes the European Union and so on.
security >> liberty

In Serbia we are not tapping anyone's calls, but yet only one to bomb us so far was NATO. US media did a great job scaring people, but information they provided is not factual. This debate's name is not "Government wiretapping". I was talking about liberty in general. Here is some information about government tapping calls and reading e-mails: - Nothing can stop security agencies to sell some data to big companies, who need them to make profit. - Nothing can stop security agencies to sell data about individuals to big organizations who want to kill them. - Congressmen and Senators are spied upon as well, so security agencies can blackmail them.
security >> liberty

wiretapping has given us information to save lives and stop terrorist threats. no one can be taken seriously who says otherwise. i could provide sources if you insist, buti t's an insult to everyone to ask for it. serious people argue that wire tapping and such isn't worth it, despite what it provides. con is now arguing that liberty is better than safety. before he said it was a false dilemma, as if we could have both. only now does he get into something to be taken seriously. 1. if it was as easy as extreme life of pain or shorter life, yes it would easy. you didnt take any proportinoality into your situation, as i said in the get go is important. if the government wire tapping a few people without a warrant saves new york from getting bombed, so be it. 2. i have no idea what you are talking about. what oppressors are you talking about who make us do chores? this is a non sequiter. 3. we are not slaves. do youmean subject to government intrusion? that's true if so. but it can also be said that our children can be safer if we dont fight back so much. your arguments are extremely simplistic. it's hard to think you are taking this debate seriously. either that, or .... yeah.
security >> liberty

Pro stated that when we enter a fight, our lives are often at stake. That fact is not relevant for my argument. Government tapping our phones does provide safety from non-government terrorists, but government has became worst of all terrorists. I will ask voters to take into account my opponent's flaws in spelling/grammar. I will now make arguments why liberty is better then safety. 1) We will all die anyway. We can only live longer by submitting to oppressor. It is better to have shorter good life then longer painful life. 2) Our oppressor would shorten our lives by forcing us to do chores and by making physical punishments when we are not doing our job as well as he expects us to do. 3) If we are slaves, our children will be born slaves as well, if we fight back, there is a chance of our children being free.
security >> liberty

con is actually the false dimemma starter. if it was simply rights comprised versus fighting those who might compromise them (the oppressors), there would be no tension. the reason there is tension, is because our lives are often at stake. the government could wire tap our phones, and invade people's houses, all without warrants, and you can be sure that some terrorist threats would be stopped with the information and people they attacked. of course, i wouldn't be constituitional. our rights would be compromised. do you seriously argue that those examples wouldn't provide safety? if you don't argue that, then how do you call it a false dilemma? most people at least acknowledge that we could be better off with safety without compromised rights, but they just argue that we shouldnt allow it, or that ti's not worth it. con is very much an outlier, and probably because his position is so, frankly, silly.
security >> liberty

it is common, and frankly par for the course, for people to quote many great founders, that say that he who wishes for security over liberty, deserves neither liberty or security. i draw issue. would you rather die, or have your 'rights' compromised? i agree that there is an issue with proportion. frankly, i would guess most people even if they didnt come out and say it, would be for some slight compromises so as not to die. heck, if you put it that way, most would take some major compromises. it's just not politically popular to admit. and not something people really think about enough to admit. and i could possibly agree that major compromises should not be allowed for the most part. it is mostly an issue of proportionality. what it is not, though, is all all or nothing liberty being trumped by liberty.