BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bishop is better than the Knight in a game of chess

This debate is to show if the bishop or the knight is the better piece in a game of chess. The piece I choose to be better is the Bishop, therefore who ever accepts this debate will have to argue that the Knight is in fact better. There are two rules I am going to make in this debate and they are: RULE 1: Round 1 is JUST for introductions, arguments start in the Round 2. RULE 2: CON must argue that the Knight is the better piece, NOT that it is equally good. I await my opponent...
The Bishop is better than the Knight in a game of chess

Unfortunately my opponent forfeited his last round, so I have nothing to rebut in this round and my argument is extended. I hope my opponent will at least say something in his final round. Seeing as this is my final round I will now conclude the debate... Round 1 of course was just for introductions. In round 2 I provided strong facts about the bishop being better for the chess player than the knight and also showed that even professional chess players favour the bishop over the Knight. And CON has not been able to provide any professional chess players that favour the Knight instead of the Bishop. In round 3 I successfully rebutted all of CON's rebuts that he made in his Round 2 to my Round 2. The fact that CON forfeited his Round 3 supports the fact that I was indeed very successful in doing it. Now here in Round 4 I just conclude the debate. Thegodhand please do not forfeit your final round, you should at least say something (forfeiting is regarded as a cowards way out). I thank you for being part of this debate; I hope you will thank me too. However anyway I urge a PRO vote
Gay Marriage

Some Gay-Rights Activists Regret Focus on Marriage Even as it celebrates victories in the push for same-sex marriage, America's gay-rights movement is experiencing self-criticism and internal divisions over its approach to other thorny issues. Some activists say the nationwide marriage campaign, while worthwhile, has diverted energy and resources from causes that may be harder to market " such as rights for transgender people and advocacy to combat HIV and AIDS. "I wish we were spending a little more time working on these other issues and not just making marriage the centerpiece," said Terry Stone of CenterLink, a nationwide coalition of more than 200 community centers that serve lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people http://abcnews.go.com...
Socrates should have drank the hemlock

Socrates stated that he was not a Sophist, nor a corrupter of the youth, but described himself as a gadfly sent to help the people. Socrates was well aware of his ignorance, in reference to Sophists who proclaimed to know everything, yet they did not. While on trial, Socrates proceeded to ask everyone present if he had corrupted anyone's mind. Plato, among others, spoke out in defense of Socrates stating that Socrates has helped them, but never corrupted their minds or ways of thinking. therefore, Socrates was innocent of the crime of corrupting the youth.
Socrates should have drank the hemlock

I agree with the drinking of the hemlock, because during this time period once a young adult turned 18 years of age he had the right to continue living in Athens or to move elsewhere. If the young adult continued to live Athens there was an agreement that he would abide by the rules and standards of the Athenian court including trial by a judge and jury. Socrates decided to continue to live in Athens which was an agreement that he would obey the law. In this case if the court stated that he was guilty, whether or not he committed the crimes he was guilty
Socrates should have drank the hemlock

Socrates himself noted that he could have won the trial and been acquitted of his charges had he practiced the art of Sophistry, yet he chose to speak the truth. He did not try to finesse his way out of the charges against him, though he knew he had committed no crime whatsoever. I chose the negative side of this argument because I don't believe that Socrates should have drank the hemlock, or that he even wanted to because he was of old age. He knew in his mind that he was simply testing the Oracle's vision of him being the wisest man. He set out to find others who were like him, or wiser and made them question certain beliefs, in order to in fact determine whether or not he actually was the wisest man.
Socrates should have drank the hemlock

Purpose of debate is to define our reasons, "Why Socrates should have by drank the hemlock" or the opposite, "Why should he have not drunk the hemlock". R1. Why did we decide to chose our side of the debate. R2. Explanation R3. Rebuttal. R4. Conclusion of each side. Socrates was a man of integrity and never wronged the community of Athens at least not intentionally. Plato referenced a gadfly to demonstrate Socrates stirring up Athens to make them think as a gadfly would sting a horse and irate it into action. His actions of provoking thought are what caused the Athenians to sentence his death by drinking hemlock. I chose the pro side because I believe that Socrates wanted to die. He was 70 years old and decided that it was time. He was given the chance to escaped prison but chose not to. He was a man that believed in justice. The court decided that he was guilty and his punishment was death. Socrates, whether or not they were right was going to obey their orders.
Socrates should have drank the hemlock

I agree with you that he would be accepting consequences of a crime that he did not commit. And that is unfair, but under the Athenian court he was guilty. Socrates obeyed the court and took his punishment knowing that they were wrong and he was not guilty. I also continue to agree with him taking the hemlock. Although it can be considered suicide he drank it so that he would not contradict what he stands for. By committing suicide his actions spoke loud about what he believed in. This is why i believe he was a martyr. All he did was teach his beliefs and he thought he was right by doing so. Some believed he was corrupting the youth with his teachings but he wasn't. He knew he did nothing wrong and he was going to take his punishment knowing that he was innocent. Socrates was all for justice and he would commit and injustice if he disobeyed the court. Escaping prison would confirm to the court that he is guilty. To conclude, Just as Socrates said, "Will you tell them that excellence and justice and institutions and law are the most valuable things that men can have"? If he didn"t drink the hemlock he would negate this statement from The Crito. Escaping prison and not drinking the poison would negate excellence, justice, and the law, the three things that Socrates believed are valuable.
Socrates should have drank the hemlock

By drinking the hemlock, Socrates would have accepted the consequences of a crime that he did not commit. Socrates was not looking to be a martyr and die for what he believed in, but he said that there would be others like him. Also, he spoke of death as a "deep, peaceful sleep" or a "change of place." His meaning of this was that no matter what happened, he would continue to speak his words, while "sleeping soundly'" , through death which would do no physical harm to him anyway.
Socrates should have drank the hemlock

I agree that he did not corrupt the youth, But coming back to my first point he lived in Athens and had to abide by the court decision to punish him by making him drink hemlock. By not drinking it he would dishonor what the court had decided and giving them a reason to accuse him of breaking laws. Socrates became a martyr for what he believed. He practiced what he believed in. By drinking the poison he did not contradict his life in anyway. Not drinking the hemlock would go against his beliefs about justice.
Family Guy is MUCH better than the Simpson's.

First off, stop stealing the words I use such as "additionally." Second, although the Simpson's have won more awards, they have been aired on television much longer, thus, more time to be nominated. Furthermore, your only proving my point of more mature by saying the humor is "crude," I said earlier in my argument family guy is for MATURE people, I would expect a 21 year old such as yourself to watch and enjoy jokes that are more for your age groups, than nasty, idiotic, pile of crap jokes that amuse little kids. Yea, sure "spider pig, spider pig, does whatever a spider pig does" only took up 5 minutes of the film, but yet, those freaks say that one stupid little line over and over again? I'm making this too easy? You should be asking yourself the same question! Nobody I know likes the Simpson's! At least Family guy can make some good jokes! You need to get out more and meet people who enjoy REAL television, not 21 year olds who watch "the Simpson's!" Come on! My friends little sister who is 6 watches the Simpson's! Yet, my cousin who is 21 watched the Simpson's movie, fell asleep, came home and but seasons 3 and 4 of "Family Guy!" You only gave a tremendously small amount of critics, who criticize Family Guy. And don't give a lame excuse that it is crude, because frankly that's what America's people like! Funny, crude, watching people do dumb things, yea the dumbest thing on "The Simpson's," is the show itself. Face it, we all hate the show, we all love Family Guy, and you're failing miserably trying to prove it's humorous. Nice try but family guy is better. (P.S.- Look I already got a comment, he thinks I'm better.) (P.S.S.- did you get a comment? no you didn't, this only proves how much better family guy is.) (P.S.S.S.- HAHA)
Family Guy is MUCH better than the Simpson's.

"The show has also been nominated for nine Annies, and won twice, both in 2006. The show has also been nominated for a Golden Reel Award three times, winning once." Nice stat. The Simpsons, on the other hand, have been nominated for 29 Annies, winning 24, as well as 5 Golden Reel nominations, winning once. While you may not think that that one line from a ninety minute movie was funny, I find it rather comical that you continue to hinge your argument on that fact. That is simply a five second clip from a series that has been running for over 400 episodes. Consider this quote from Family Guy's Ali Williams: "Who wants this dog?!" Out of context that's not particularly funny at all, but that has no relevance in this argument. Your claim is that Family Guy is funnier "because its account of comedy that is much more natural, humorous, unique, and original." First let's deal with unique and original. Family Guy has been accused by numerous critics of simply being a copy of...THE SIMPSONS! I think you would be hard pressed to find many serious comedy writers who have any respect for Family Guy. It is regarded much the same way that serious musicians view the Ying Yang Twins. As far as the show being more humorous, lets look at the opinions of Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the creators of South Park and two people who many people would agree have a pretty good idea of humor. When asked what the meanest thing anyone ever said to them was, they responded "When people say to (us), 'God, you guys have one of the best shows on television. You and Family Guy.' That fucking hurts so bad" They say that they hate the show because it relies too much on gag humor instead of jokes that are inherent to a story or deep situational and emotional jokes based on what is relevant and has a point, not just one random interchangeable joke after another. (This latter description was paraphrased from a rant by Cartman about why he hates Family Guy) Kevin Smith, writer and director of such films as Dogma, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, Clerks I and II, and Mallrats, is a self-described Family Guy hater. He describes it as poor writing due to its heavy usage of pop culture references and offensive humor, and calls it "Emmy-nominated sh*t". "Additionally, The Simpson's have been decline in their ability to achieve a high standard of quality." Family Guy has NEVER achieved a high standard of quality! Entertainment Weekly named it the worst show of the 1999-2000 season as well as the 2001-2002 season, describing it as an "awful show they just keep putting on the air". This same publication named The Simpsons the best TV shows of the 1990's. "Following this, Family Guy also has an extensive list of famous actors/ actresses, who appear on cast." You're making this too easy. The Simpsons is in the Guinness Book of World Records for Most Guest Stars Featured in a Television Series! I have clearly refuted all of your main points, while making a solid case for the Simpsons, backed up by statistics and experts. The Simpsons is clearly the better show.
Family Guy is MUCH better than the Simpson's.

I vastly disagree with your poor judgment of "Family Guy vs. Simpson's." I return to my earlier quote from "The Simpson's Movie," of "Spider pig, spider pig, does whatever a spider pig does." Do you honestly think that is amusing? To add to my disagreement, Family Guy has won awards for the following; • 2000: Outstanding Voice-Over Performance – Seth MacFarlane for "Stewie Griffin" •2002: Outstanding Music and Lyrics –Walter Murphy(composer), Seth MacFarlane (lyricist) •2007: Outstanding Individual Achievement in Animation – Steve Fonti (storyboard artist) The show has also been nominated for nine Annies, and won twice, both in 2006. The show has also been nominated for a Golden Reel Award three times, winning once. Additionally, The Simpson's have been decline in their ability to achieve a high standard of quality. For example, in 2004, Harry Shearer criticized what he perceived as the show's declining quality: "I rate the last three seasons as among the worst." For those who don't know who he is, he is a fabulous comedian/ actor. Following this, Family Guy also has an extensive list of famous actors/ actresses, who appear on cast. A list includes, Seth MacFarlane, Alex Borstein, Mila Kunis, Randy Jackson, Simon Cowell, Paula Abdul, (all in one episode), Adam West, Diane Simmons, and much more. Also, my opponent states that "The Simpson's" is more mature than "Family Guy," but yet the best quote they can come up with is "Marge: Homer! There's someone here who can help you... Homer: Is it Batman? Marge: No, he's a scientist. Homer: Batman's a scientist?! Marge: It's not Batman!" You can not honestly say that's amusing. So to my readers, do you think that repetitive jokes that amuse an 8 year old, lack of humor, and no originality is funny? For the reasons, and facts, stated above, I dislike "the Simpson's" and enjoy "Family Guy"
Family Guy is MUCH better than the Simpson's.

The Simpsons is a far superior television show to Family Guy. The Simpsons has become an icon of American culture. Time Magazine named it among the 100 greatest TV shows of all time, TV Guide named it the 8th greatest TV show of all time, it is about to surpass Gunsmoke as the longest running show of all time, and the list of accolades simply continues ad infinitum. My opponent states that The Simpsons is less mature than Family Guy. The Simpsons, in fact, pioneered the adult cartoon. When The Simpson came on the air in the 1980's, animated shows were considered only for children. The Simpsons turned that idea on its head and paved the way for other shows such as The Critic, South Park, and especially Family Guy. While Family Guy's jokes generally have no connection to the plot, The Simpsons routinely skewers American culture with a social commentary that has been recognized by many as simply genius. While it may be true that the Simpsons appeals to a wider audience than Family Guy, that in no way makes it a lesser show than Family Guy. While The Simpsons often tackles significant issues head on, such as the decline of our public schools or the effects of alcoholism on families, Family Guy has routinely been criticized for being base and crude. Family Guy also consistently loses out to The Simpsons in the "mature" 18-49 demographic in the Nielsen Ratings This is why The Simpsons is a better show than Family Guy,
Family Guy is MUCH better than the Simpson's.

I consider "Family Guy," to a large extent, much more superior than the "The Simpson's," because its account of comedy that is much more natural, humorous, unique, and original. Additionally, I find ‘The Simpson's" to be more of a family friendly show, which implies the humor to be a lot less enjoyable for those who are a little bit more mature. In this statement, I imply that these jokes can be enjoyed simply by an Eight year old, but will irritate those who enjoy a much higher standard of humor. An example for those who don't want to waste mindless hours of their life hearing and watching jokes that amuse an eight year old, I suggest "Family Guy!"☺ "Family Guy," shown on adult swim, TBS, fox, and my20fox, is much more hilarious and can be enjoyed more by adults than children. The humor exposed by Family guy is enjoyed by many ages, around 13 years of age and up. Funny quotes such as "Did you hear that Meg? Guys can marry other guys now. So...this is awkward, but I mean, if they can do that, that is pretty much it for you, isn't it? I mean you might as well pack it in. Game over." Where as in "the Simpson's," a quote is "Spider pig, spider pig, does whatever a spider pig does." In my opinion, that is lame and unquestionably not amusing. For the reasons stated in the above sentences, I believe "Family Guy" is a much more advanced show than "The Simpson's."
Are Video Games Too Expensive

You cant claim something is expensive. It depends on the person. If I said I wanted to get DBZ game and it was 70$ I might its not expensive because of how much money I have. for example if I had 1000000000 $ and I wanted to buy a video game I would think its not expensive. And there are other things in the world that are more expensive then video games. And some video games are 15$ or lower so you cant claim that all is expensive
moutain top removal

but natural beauty is a terrible thing to waste, a picture cannot last over the years and habitats are also destroyed coal is what keeps me in a job, i work in a lot of power plants in the eastern states, i'm either vacuming up a coal spill, or flyash, its hot and dangerous work and i have to wear a respirator most of the time to prevent inorganic arsenic poisoning and some of the work is dangerous, but i never think of it, i would gladly go into a shaft mine, it doesn't bother me that i may die while at my job because i know i am square with the Lord and i do not fear death
moutain top removal

Your point is a valid one my friend. Unfortunately your idealism gets in the way of practicality. America, as it is, is currently going through an energy crisis. Our dependence on foreign oil has negatively affected both our foreign policy and our economy. We must break free of the vice that the middle east has put us in! To do so, we must find our energy hear, in America. There are several plausible and practical solutions. They range from drilling in ANWR to providing more subsidies for alternative fuels. Within that spectrum there are many other options. Coal is a good one. Clean coal technology is making coal much more environmentally friendly. Yes, I know it is a fossil fuel, but until alternative energy becomes more effective, it is a legitimate way to break free of oil in the short term. And the most effective way to get coal is mountain top removal. If we limit the number of mountains it can be done on, this will not ruin the beauty of the region. I agree, it is a sacrifice, but things like this occasionally have to be done if only to provide people with energy.
moutain top removal

i thought i'd get something started that is close to home for me moutain top removal this is the process of blowing up a moutain to extract the coal, this is the safest way of mining coal, but it destroys my states natural beauty it destroys the whole maoutain and the hollows around it, the excess rock is dumped in the closest hollow, this disturbs the headwaters and increases flooding the only other option is a mine, going into the moutain with tons of earth above you
We are far worse off now as tax payers than we were before the American Revolution

Bankrupting the US to pay for anything and everything to every whining individual in the US is not a benefit. It is disastrous. This country now barrows money to pay interest on already borrowed money that still has yet to be paid back this means we as tax payers are paying interest on interest. That means there is no money and my taxes don't go to anything except interest on borrowed money. The Federal reserve now counterfeits worthless money and devalues the dollar every day. The federal govt does not collect enough taxes to even operate the federal govt taxes to even operate and pay for all of it's mandates for one month in an entire fiscal year. The other 11 months is borrowed from foreign nations. This money of course will have to be paid back with interest further increasing the cost of everything exponentially. This country now pays more in interest every year than all of the budgets combined in the entire history of the US. Interest on national debt (Not part of fiscal year budgets) 412 billion per year and rising as nothing is being paid off. The govt barrows money to pay this interest on borrowed money this figure will triple over the next 5 years at the current rate of borrowing. 2007 revenues............ +2.4 trillion 2007 expenditures -2.8 trillion plus the -412 billion interest plus the stimulus plan -876 billion plus the interest on the 876 billion. Trillion dollar deficits expected for at least the next 5 years if foreign countries are stupid enough to lend the US Money. Our children will suffer and their standards of living will be substantialy less than ours. At least we didn't owe any money and didn't destroy our children's futures before the revolution. This country is going to go bankrupt at the current level of spending, this is simple math and economics 101. There will be no money for anything, none of the things my opponent lists. Not only do we pay twice and three times as much for everything that our gov't provides but we also support more than just one country as we did before the revolution. Now we owe dozens and dozens of countries money that can never be paid back except for the fact that the federal reserve just prints worthless money. We are far worse off>
We are far worse off now as tax payers than we were before the American Revolution

The AFF clearly defines "We are far worse off now as tax payers" as the level of taxation determining the detriment of society. I disagree with the framing of his argument. The definition of "We are far worse off now as tax payers" must be measured economically. Before the American Revolution, taxation funded an Imperialist government that operated the American colonies but did not use government spending to benefit the colonists. Using simple cost-benefit analysis, because today taxes fund the federal government on behalf of the American constituency we are de facto better off now as tax payers. Whether we pay more taxes (or not) because the benefit received from taxes is much higher than it was then the NEG stands. Some examples of benefit received (or external benefits): public parks, public education, federal welfare, Social Security, Medicare. The AFF misinterprets the rallying call of "taxation without representation" as an objection to taxation. Instead, it was expressed frustration that the people did not have influence over their own governance, and because taxation was a symbol of operating a government, it was thus used as a simple cry to recruit the masses into the American Revolution. Vote NEG.