BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Birds should not be caged as pets.

I think we can all agree upon the fact that it extremely difficult to care for a bird without using a cage or controlling their flight. [1] Whether or not cages or flight control are necessary for caring for birds may be irrelevant to the question of whether the birds make suitable pets. The major question of this debate is whether it is acceptable to keep a bird as a companion if ensuring their safety or compatibility in the home requires that they be caged/physically disabled. I am here to state this it has been proven through this debate to be morally wrong. [1] Pet birds are denied two of their most natural behaviors — flying and socialization. This leads to physical and behavioral problems including screaming, pacing, head-bobbing, feather-plucking, and self-mutilation. This is not the sign of a tame bird, it's a sign of a bird who has given up. [1] The vast majority of birds kept as pets are also fed inadequate seed-only diets. Only 11.7% of bird-owners seek veterinary advice for their birds. It has been estimated that malnutrition is responsible for up to 90% of all clinical conditions seen by avian practitioners. Many look at quantity, not quality of health when breeding these birds. [1] While changes in cage size (larger) , socialization (2 birds instead of one) can improve the welfare of birds, many owners do not have the motivation or the money to provide these luxuries. As I have stated, larger aviary cages are $1000. I will let the readers be the judge whether the minimum size cage (18x18) is only by opinion, small. Many parrots outlive their caretakers and even more, outlive their caretakers' interest in them. In addition, evidence suggests that as long as the private ownership of parrots remains socially acceptable and profits persist, the smuggling of parrots for the pet trade will likely continue despite laws against them. Because captive birds are identical to their wild-caught birds, the presence of captive birds in the trade actually promotes more smuggling practices! [1] When one considers the considerable restrictions captive birds endure, the inadequate diets most are fed, and impact the trade in birds as pets has had on species in the wild, it is easy to conclude that, like other non-domesticated animals, birds are not suitable companion animals. [1] Thank you for the debate! VOTE PRO that birds should not be pets based on the evidence. Resource http://10000birds.com... [1]
Birds should not be caged as pets.

Birds should not be caged for the purpose of being a pet. I will start with the fact that I am "pro-flight. Here are my opening arguments. 1. WING CLIPPING. Pet birds are most likely to have their wings clipped from time to time. This reduces their mobility too much. [1] That is like preventing a pet dog from walking or running because it is inconvenient. No one would ever think of doing that. Flying is the best form of exercise for birds, and denying pet birds the opportunity to fly may also contribute to sedentary behavior, obesity and related health problems. [1] Clipping wings can contributing to insecure or fearful behavior, which is cruel on the owners part. [1] 2. NOT DOMESTICATED. Whether captive bred or wild caught, birds are not domesticated animals. [2] Domestic animals are animals that have been bred for hundreds of years to live in the care of humans and are distinct from their wild ancestors. [2] Birds commonly kept as pets are no different than their wild relatives—they are the native species of other countries. [2] 3. DOES NOT INTEGRATE WELL WITH HUMANS. Vocalizing (squawking, chirping, talking) is an important part of any parrot's social communication; birds eat continually throughout the day, dropping and discarding bits of food everywhere; birds are instinctively programmed to chew and shred wood, whether it is a perch, toy, picture frame, or furniture. [2] Birds will also chew electrical cords, paper, and curtains which can be dangerous to their health. [2] 4. BAD FOR THEIR EMOTIONAL HEALTH. Birds are meant to fly and to be with other birds. Confinement in cages can lead to neurotic behavior, excessive screaming, feather plucking, self-mutilation and other destructive habits. [2] As a result, very few people are capable of caring for the special needs of exotic birds or comprehend the seriousness of the commitment for the birds' life span—20 to 70 years or more depending on species. [2] 5. MANY PET OWNERS NEGLECT THEM. Each year thousands of birds are sold into the pet trade to individuals who are under the mistaken impression that a bird will make a "cool" pet. [2] Eventually, whether due to frustration, disinterest, or concern, many people attempt to rid themselves of the responsibility of caring for their birds. [2] Unfortunately, few of these birds will find a loving home, and most will spend their days isolated and confined to their cages. [2] Others will bounce from home to home as "owners" tire of them, and some may be abandoned at local shelters and birds rescues, or set free to fend for themselves. [2] Meanwhile, breeders and retailers continue to treat these animals as mere merchandise, peddling and producing them for profit. [3] Resource http://en.wikipedia.org...... [1] http://www.peta.org...... [2] http://www.bornfreeusa.org...... [3]
Santa Claus=God

Thank you Con for participating in this debate and for the final arguments of this round. I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! :D "By "song" and "figure," do you mean the hymns and carols you spoke of in Round 2? If so, you stated that God and Santa resemble each other because they both have songs in praise for them. I've heard songs in praise of numerous people, does that mean they're God?" Yes Santa is a public figure. No it does not mean they are, I say this because we are not debating anybody else except Santa and God. Bringing anyone else into the arguments to justify one side is irrelevant, because they are not creators of the known universe or a gift giver to all the known children around the world. public figure: a well-known or notable person; Source: http://dictionary.reference.com... Sorry for the misconception, "I'm claiming that Santa is a simpler form of God". "But not for religious reasons. Atheists would celebrate Christmas solely for merriment and such. The point is is that they don't celebrate it for religious purposes." Right, but you don't need to be religious to celebrate Christmas in any situation. That's what I was trying to get at in the first place. 1. Then you agree that the comparison here is correct then. I never claimed that piece of "evidence" was proof alone. 2. Perhaps "demand" is too strong of a word. The point is that the comparisons between setting out cookies and tithing are similar to each other. The fact that not all children set out cookies and milk or not is irrelevant to the debate. 3. Yes, but God can do things that no other being can do...except Santa. Points 3 and 4 justify this. Justify: to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right Source: http://dictionary.reference.com... 4. Con seems to neglect the whole bit on taking both sides into consideration. I wasn't speaking as if it was fact, I was comparing morals through a child's point of view and an adults point of view. Santa is similar to God because he punishes, God doesn't always punish by Hell either. Maybe God will take away your mother or your house, aka: giving you something you don't want (homelessness, foster child or being motherless), which is the opposite of what you want. You don't get what you want by getting coal. The comparison here is correct. Hence, Santa is (once again) a simplified form of God.
Santa Claus=God

-Rebuttals "This is false, I never said that Santa "only" resembles God through a child's eyes. " My mistake, I must have misread. "Santa may resemble a wide variety of things in a child's eyes, since everyone thinks differently. What I stated in the first round was a comparison to a song and a figure. " By "song" and "figure," do you mean the hymns and carols you spoke of in Round 2? If so, you stated that God and Santa resemble each other because they both have songs in praise for them. I've heard songs in praise of numerous people, does that mean they're God? "I never stated that Santa "has" similarities with God, I'm claiming that Santa Claus "does" resemble God. " Resemble - to be like or similar to Source: . http://www.merriam-webster.com... If Santa Claus resembles God, he has similarities akin to him. "It doesn't matter what religion you are, a vast majority of people in the world knows who God is one way or another. It wouldn't really make a difference if you believed or not because there are Atheists who celebrate Christmas too. " But not for religious reasons. Atheists would celebrate Christmas solely for merriment and such. The point is is that they don't celebrate it for religious purposes. 1. Sure, there a lots of carols that don't involve Santa, but the same could be said for Jesus as well. Right. The point is that you said Santa has a resemblance with God because he has songs written about him. I've already shown that just because songs speak of him in praise, it does not prove he resembles God. 2. Yes, but not all children do this. Santa does not "demand" it as you said he did. 3. Point 3 basically recapitulates what this whole debate is about, so I think it's best to leave it at that. The point of this was that just because Santa has workers, he is not equivalent to God. 4. It's hardly the same. A punishment because you did something a bit bad and an eternity of cipher because of evil sins is hardly comparable. Santa is not similar to God because he dishes out coal to castigate. Parents would be comparable to God with this logic, as would police officers. In conclusion, Santa does not hold similarities with God simply because whatever resemblances may appear similar, they're too vague and comparable with other factors to hold water.
Santa Claus=God

"Pro states that Santa only resembles God when viewed through a child's eyes. However, in the opening round Pro stated forthwith that Santa Claus has similarities with God; no other specifications." This is false, I never said that Santa "only" resembles God through a child's eyes. Santa may resemble a wide variety of things in a child's eyes, since everyone thinks differently. What I stated in the first round was a comparison to a song and a figure. I never stated that Santa "has" similarities with God, I'm claiming that Santa Claus "does" resemble God. "In addition, an adult may not view God has being existent. What I mean is, Adults as you say may not "know God" as well as one child does. It's simply based on belief." It doesn't matter what religion you are, a vast majority of people in the world knows who God is one way or another. It wouldn't really make a difference if you believed or not because there are Atheists who celebrate Christmas too. 1. Sure, there a lots of carols that don't involve Santa, but the same could be said for Jesus as well. 2. The reason children set out milk and cookies is because they want a sign if Santa is real or not. Just like people pray for a good future, they want to a sign to see if he's listening (in retrospect: if he's real). Your right, lets not do that. 3. So, because God has workers, he's similar to Bill Gates? No, if that were the case then God could be compared to a lot individuals. You can't compare God to any normal individual because no "normal" individual can do what God does (like create a whole universe). That being said, Santa is obviously not a normal individual because he's magical. He has flying reindeer, lives in an uninhabitable region of the world, and knows every known child on the planet. Do you know of anyone who has and does all those things? 4. "Coal is something you get for being bad." Right, and Hell is a place you go for being bad as well. You must take both sides into consideration though. A life with Santa is a more simplified way of being good then it would than being in a life with God (which has many more temptations). So when comparing the two, throwing tantrums and sassy attitudes is an equivalent to adultery or speaking blasphemy. Also, children don't fully understand the many temptations and sins that await them when they find out that Santa doesn't exist. That he is merely a mask that was put in front of the face that is God's. This is when they find out who the "gift giver" really is. Parents do this so their children don't worry about as many things as older people do, they want them to be carefree before they come to an age where they need to be brought to reality. When they are old enough to understand the difference between right or wrong, adults see this as a time to bring them to a more a realistic truth (God). With that being said, Santa is a simplified, child's figure for God.
Santa Claus=God

It's a pleasure to debate with you! . :;Rebuttals;:. Pro states that Santa only resembles God when viewed through a child's eyes. However, in the opening round Pro stated forthwith that Santa Claus has similarities with God; no other specifications. In addition, an adult may not view God has being existent. What I mean is, Adults as you say may not "know God" as well as one child does. It's simply based on belief. 1. Actually, carols are songs of Christmas, and joy as well: carol - a Christmas song or hymn; a song of joy Source: . http://www.dictionary.com.... Some carols do not necessarily even include Santa; Jesus is actually a frequent allusion target, moreso than Santa. 2. By "in return," I assume you mean for service. Santa Claus is given cookies by those whom wish to do so. Nowhere in tradition does it assert you must give milk and cookies in exchange for Santa's "services. " The same could be said of God, but let's not turn this into a whole "Does God exist" tirade. 3. So, because Santa has workers, he's similar to God? I suppose Bill Gates is God (oh please nooooo)? I see what you mean, God and Santa have "workers. " However, elves don't do "bidding. " They make toys, as you said. Santa gets no personal gain from it. 4. Right, Santa does give the bad children coal. This cannot be used as an analogy for God's system of Hell. Coal is something you get for being bad. As a child, the most bad thing possible for one to do would be something along the lines of temper tantrums or sassy attitdes. Hell is where sinners go. Evil people. Just because Santa attempts to castigate children with coal does not put him on the plane of God's sending sinners to Hell.
Santa Claus=God

Let us start! Santa Claus doesn't necessarily have to represent God as adults know Him, but rather "God-for-Children". A "less intimidating" way of setting children straight. To wait an entire lifetime to go to heaven would be a really long time for a 5-year-old to be "good". So in this case it's shredded down to 1 year in waiting time. Lets look at the similarities here: 1. God has songs written in his praise called hymns, Santa has songs written in his praise called carols. The comparison here is both God and Santa have songs that praise them. 2. God demands tithing, by way of the church, Santa demands that you set out milk and cookies, by way of tradition. The comparison here is God and Santa Claus both demand something in return. 3. God has angels to do his will, Santa has elves to do his bidding. The comparison here is simply God and Santa both have workers to do their will. Elves make toys for the good little boys and girls who deserve them. Angels bring answers to prayers to people who deserve them. 4. God punishes by an eternity in hell, Santa punishes by a lump of coal in your stocking. The comparison here is simply not getting what you want because you've been "bad". You don't want to go to hell and you don't want to get a lump of coal that would ruin any child's Christmas.
Santa Claus=God

(Season's) Greetings! I thank Pro for starting this jolly debate :). Rebuttals and Contentions are all I'll state to finish Round 1. As Con, I accept the burden of proof in which I must display, without a doubt, that Santa Claus has no relationship or similarity with God. To assist with my rebuttal, I'd like to post a definition of my own. God: the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. Source: http://www.dictionary.com... As you can see, God is described and believed to be the creator of the universe and its sentient beings. Santa Claus is not. I look forward to a holiday cheer-filled debate ;D.
Santa Claus=God

Hello and welcome! Pro's objective: State that any relation between God and Santa Claus are coincidence. This debate may seem obvious but "what-the-heck" its Christmas. Well let us begin! We all know who Santa Claus is right? An overweight, jolly man who gives toys to all the good children around the world. Pretty simple right? Well I listened to the "Santa Claus is Coming to Town" song and noticed something. I will now quote the song. "He sees you when your sleeping" "He knows when your awake" "He knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake" Now if he can see you when your sleeping, know when your awake and know if you've been "bad or good" then this would mean that Santa is an "all knowing" being. Who else is an all knowing being? I assume this would be God. I will save further arguments for the next round.
Santa Claus=God

Thank you very much for a very thought-provoking debate, Pro! I shall make my final arguments and allow this to be plunged into the voting period. Happy holidays :). "Yes Santa is a public figure. No it does not mean they are, I say this because we are not debating anybody else except Santa and God. Bringing anyone else into the arguments to justify one side is irrelevant, because they are not creators of the known universe or a gift giver to all the known children around the world." Actually, it's quite relevant. If I make a song in praise of Michael Jackson, he would have one of the similarities you used Santa for, making him an effective substitute. Therefore, your statement that "Santa has carols, God has hymns" holds no water because this can be applied to anyone. There needs to be something distinctive about Santa that allows him to resemble God. 1. Of course the comparison is correct; it's such a vague one that can be applied to a multitudinous amount of people that it can't possibly hold any water. 2. Regardless, you claimed that God demands tithing from the church. That means it's required, according to you. Santa does not require anything, nor does he ask for anything in return. All we have is a tradition that some families do to fuel the idea of Santa. 3. So you agree on the workers thing; great. Secondly, Santa cannot do things that God can. Can Santa be ubiquitous? No, he must travel. 4. Alright. Again, this is a vague similarity. A police officer could bear this resemblance to God since he/she punishes. This has little to do with morals. Your original comparison was Hell and coal. The mother analogy is irrelevant. Hell is eternal suffrage of the soul for major sins. A lump of coal is a once-a-year thing that can be rectified by being a good little kid the next year. The coal serves as a reminder to be nice. In conclusion, Santa Claus bears no resemblance to God because the similarities my opponent described were much too vague to be an adequate comparison. There is nothing distinctive that was posted here. Santa Claus bears no similarities with God. Thank you and happy holidays everybody =).
Girraffes are better fighters then bulls

Are we still arguing? I have seen a Holstein bull since an acquaintance of mine owns a dairy farm. I do not doubt ju have experience with bulls, but due to the unfortunate reality that giraffes do not live in our habitats, many undermine an experience with one. Ja, a bull may crash through a fence but the giraffe avoids the mess by being able to step right over it-like it is nothing. A giraffe is also known to kick. Spryness and agility stand on its side. Did I also mention speed. Let me see your bull outrun het listig giraffe. And as for preferring to stand in front of a giraffe. Well, by all means, it is to your own risk. Just remember, giraffes are precision animals.
Girraffes are better fighters then bulls

I agree that giraffes are impressive fighters but youtube bull fights. Especially long horn bulls because they always end up stabbing one another with their horns. And there are many people that get killed by bulls every year because they are so deadly. I'd like to see a giraffe break through fences like it's nothing. When bulls are scared or angry they can literally go through just about anything. Giraffes do have their neck things but that is really only useful for other giraffes. Bulls have really hard heads and like I said before, some have sharp horns. I also said I have experience with bulls because I live on a dairy farm and we have Holstein cattle.Have you seen a Holstein bull? They are huge and scary and they always turn out to be mean. I stand by my argument when I say that I'd rather be in front of a charging giraffe rather than a charging bull.
Girraffes are better fighters then bulls

Before you become dogmatic, have you seen a giraffe fight. It is exhilarating. How about we start a fight between a giraffe and zebra to see which wins? If it was only that easy. I stand my case upon certified knowledge. Ik heb geen personal against het osken. Excuse me, I sometimes Dutch and Norwegian with English. However; fighting is also about style.-something giraffes hold in advantage. Please YouTube giraffe fighting.
Pro-Choice

In summation: 1. Abortion can only be legal if the humanity of the choice is denied. Unborn children were considered non-human or sub-human in the same way Africans were in 1857 by the Supreme Court. 2.Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, because the unborn are 14th Amendment persons. The majority opinion of Blackmun was seriously flawed. 3. "Viability" is an intrinsically flawed and unjust determination for deciding 14th Amendment personhood. 4.The burden of proof for when life begins is on the "pro- choice " people. You can't kill something that may be an innocent person; you first must be certain it is NOT a person. Therefore, abortion should be illegal in America. Thank you.
its ok to be gay

i have a question for my opponent. do you are about what gay men do in there spare time. Do Gay people have any effect on your life directly. and the " bible" the so called "word of god" is half wrong about jesus christ. Jesus christ accepted gay people for who they are, and that god loves them. but we as a society have freedom of religion, alot of people choose not to beleve in christianity, because there teachings are hypocritical. we are in the united states of america where the pilgrims came for religious freedom. so i ask you this, why is being gay wrong? because if your argument is religion are argument is invalid.