BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Socrates ingesting the hemlock

It is true that St. Thomas Aquinas believed that an unjust law is a law that degrades human personality. However, I am referring to the beliefs of Socrates, for his life was the one in question. He believed that "nothing evil can happen to a good man, either in life or after death." He viewed himself as a man who had done nothing wrong, thus good. He approached death without fear. Socrates was searching to better understand true and false knowledge, and to discover who is wise and who is not. He believed that death would help him to complete his search. He was not angry with those who accused him and sentenced him to death. He did not believe that they harmed him either, even though that was their intention. Socrates was ready to fulfill his journey that he spent most of his life working towards. Socrates' s last statement in Apology was, "The hour of departure has arrived, and we go our ways - I to die, and you to live. Which is better God only knows." He died a believer.
Socrates ingesting the hemlock

St. Thomas Aquinas said an "unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust." Therefore, the "law" that condemned Socrates was unjust in the sense that it corrupted his human character because he was fighting to overcome fallacies by finding truth. All statutes including acting against a fallacy (like Socrates did) are unjust because they damage the personalities of people. By remaining in prison, Socrates is acting unjustly as well and therefore Socrates should not have drank the hemlock. Yes, the law that committed Socrates was just on the surface, but it was unjust in its application. Socrates was arrested for teaching new gods and corrupting the youth. Nothing is wrong with the regulation mentioned. However, such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to prevent anyone (including Socrates) from seeking truth and gaining a higher level of understanding
Socrates ingesting the hemlock

Socrates did not see his death as the end, however. As a Philosopher, he was intrigued by the new knowledge he would uncover; he wanted to learn the mysteries of death, so why not now? He realized that he could not change the minds of those accusing him. Socrates chose not to see death as the end of his life, but as the beginning of a new state of understanding. Death was not something to run away from, in his opinion; it was something to embrace. Socrates also stated that he was an old man. In the Apology, after discovering his sentence, Socrates says, "If you had waited a little while, your desire would have been fulfilled in the course of nature. For I am far advanced in years, as you may perceive, and not far from death." He knew he did not have much time left in this world and he was ready to discover what the next world, if a such place did exist, had waiting for him.
Socrates ingesting the hemlock

Like Socrates, Martin Luther King Jr. was wrongly condemned to prison. Socrates was committed to truth and philosophical inquires but was committed of corrupting the youth and teaching new gods. MLK was sent to Birmingham jail because he broke the law by performing a single peace march. Both men were wrongly sent to prison. Both Socrates and MLK were loathed by a large majority of society. However, Martin Luther King was sent to prison numerous times and each time he rose from his confinements and went right back to what he believed in, chasing his dream of creating equality. Socrates, arguably one of the world"s greatest philosophers, was sent to prison just once and he never attempted to leave and go back to what he did best. Imagine Martin Luther King Jr. never returned from prison. He was wrongly accused once and he never returned to do what he believed was right. How different do you think the United States, even the world, would be if MLK just ended it? Imagine how much more the world could know about philosophy and the teachings of Socrates if he had remained a fighter pursuing his beliefs, his intelligence, and his wisdom. Socrates should not have drank the Hemlock.
Socrates ingesting the hemlock

Socrates should have ingested the hemlock. Why should an innocent man make himself look guilty? Socrates was too smart to let that happen; therefore, after pleading his side of the story, he gracefully accepted the verdict that was given to him: death by hemlock. He had always followed the laws in the past. Why start breaking them now and prove the court correct in finding him guilty of corrupting the youth, thus breaking the law.
creationism verses evolution

yes this is a big topic. any way i believe creationism is right because of the overwhelming evidence also if you do not believe in intelligent design here is what Richard Dawkins has to say about that. so please say why there is not any proof on intelligent design if you believe there is not. for more info on intelligent design if you want something you think you can use against watch the movie expelled. it will also show how truth is always snuffed out back to you jamccartney
The Nuremberg Trials

Although I am not an expert in this field, I shall try my best in negating this resolution. Resolved: That the Nuremberg Trials were not a true application of justice, but rather one that was heavily biased in favor of the victorious. Since the affirmative side did not provide definitions, I would like to put forward some of them. Nuremberg Trials: A tribunal established in the German city of Nuremberg by Great Britain, France, the Soviet Union and the United States, to bring to trial those war criminals whose actions during the Second World War were deemed to be international crimes against humanity. Application: the act of bringing something to bear; using it for a particular purpose Justice: the concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, fairness, or equity. Also, I would like to put forward the additional definition of war crimes as violations of the laws or customs of war. Since the resolution specially addresses the Nuremberg Trials and whether or not it is "just", I believe that this debate should be framed around events that happened during the Second World War. All examples that occurred after the war should therefore not be accepted. Contention 1: Nuremberg Trials Present the Greatest Benefits for the Greatest Number of People During World War II, the German military committed many questionable actions throughout Europe. From France to Poland, more people suffered from the Nazi regime than those who benefited from it. Nuremberg Trials allow for retributive justice for those people who were oppressed under the Nazi regime. Since more people received retributive justice in the form of Nuremberg Trials, therefore it is just. Contention 2: German War Unjustified According to Jus ad bellum, in order to wage a just war, the war must have a just cause and a right intention. However, in the case of Germany, it neither has a just cause nor a right intention in the invasion of Poland. Adolf Hitler's ideas of "lebensarum" and "Greater Germany" seem hardly to be "just". Since there is no just cause for the war, we can reasonably assume that the war Germany waged isn't a "just war". As the result, Nuremberg Trials, by punishing the perpetrators of an unjust war, serve as an instrument of justice. Contention 3: Porportionality Though it is true that the Allied powers may have committed war crimes during the Second World War, porportionally, it is still drastically smaller compare to the actions perpetuated by Germany during this conflict. As the result, though German civilians may have suffer, it still did not outweigh the harms that the Nazis brought to others. Porportionally speaking, the Nuremberg Trials did serve its function as an instrument of justice. I am now open for cross-examinations before moving on to rebuttals.
The M16 is better than the AK47 (redo)

Since my opponent couldnt meet the time limit of 24 hours, I had to remake the debate. The M16 is better than the AK47. True, both have had many variants, but it all comes down to the originals. First of all, the amount of recoil the AK47 has when fired. The M16 has little recoil and excellent precision and accuracy. Second, the grenade launchers. The M16 has the M203. The AK, the GP-30. Now, the M203 can penetrate windows, take out groups of enemies, and even destroy bunkers. The GP-30 is mostly an enemy killer. The AK47 wasnt even an original design. It was taken form the German STG-44 used during WWII. The M-16 was purely original and revolutionary for its day. The M-16 vs AK-47 conflict has taken to the battlefield, most recently in Afghanistan, and the M-16 (US) has triumphed. So, the M16 is better than the AK-47. As such, the scope of research will include variants and bullet calibers
The M16 is better than the AK47 (redo)

CONCLUSIONSo there we have it folks; my opponent has conceded all arguments. He has also rehashed the information I provided in round one.As I have shown, the AK47 is not a terrible gun. It is quite accurate and deadly. The M16 is simply more accurate and deadly. However, the AK47 makes up for the slightly poorer performance by being far cheaper and reliable.Resolution Negated.http://www.youtube.com...
The M16 is better than the AK47 (redo)

My opponent is right. The M4, not the M16, has been used in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will concede that. And i will concede the prices. But, let us make a comparison of both guns. The M-16 has greater velocity, energy and range than the AK47. I will concede that the AK-47 has greater accuracy. Now, lets look at the firepower of both weapons. An American soldier armed with an M-16 can carry 22 additional 30 round magazines that allows for an extra 660 rounds. A soldier with an AK can only carry 10 additional 30 round magazines, only allowing 300 extra rounds. As for the reliability, i will concede that the AK-47 can function more easily. But, vote Pro! http://en.wikipedia.org...
The M16 is better than the AK47 (redo)

INTRODUCTIONI’m just going to get straight into it.ARGUMENTSMy opponent has conceded all my arguments. That’s nice…REBUTTALSRED HERRING: AMERICA VERSUS AL QUEDAMy opponent claims that the coalition force’s ‘victorious’ invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan demonstrates the superiority of the M16.As my opponent said, modern forces use the M4 Carbine, which is not the M16. I would love to refer to the AK74, which is superior in every way to the AK47. However, this is not the resolution of this debate. A better ‘metaphorical symbolic’ battle would be Vietnam, where Vietcong forces commonly used the AK47 and American forces used the M16. That was not such a victory.This entire argument is a red herring anyway. American forces don’t exclusively use the M4 Carbine for all their combat purposes. They have helicopters, jets, tanks, machine guns, rocket launchers and so on. There is no doubt America’s arsenal is superior in every way. CONCLUSIONAll my arguments still stand and my opponent has made no effort to rebutt them. It is too easy to interpret this as him conceding this debate.Resolution Negated.
The M16 is better than the AK47 (redo)

My opponent makes pretty good points. To answer his rebuttal, we need only to look at the weaponry of the US Army and Al-Qaeda. The average US Army infantryman uses the M4 Carbine (a variant of the M-16). In Al-Qaeda, they most commonly use the AK-47. Now, when i said that the M-16 vs AK-47 conflict had taken to the battlefield, I was using metaphorical symbolism. The M-16/M4 is for the US, and the AK47 is for Al-Qaeda. Now, with the liberation of Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan, The US has all but guaranteed a victory in Afghanistan. But, lets get back on track. First, let me give you a history of the M-16. In 1959, Armalite sold the rights of the AR-15 to Colt. It was adopted by the Air force in 1962, where it became popularly known as the M-16. The Army began producing the rifle in 1965, distributing them among the 1st Air Cavalry Division and the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam War. Afterwards, the Marines started to experiment with the rifle. Throughout the war, the M-16 was the standard rifle for all infantrymen. After the war, it became more popular among NATO forces. During the 1980s, the caliber used for the M-16, the 5.56x45mm, was standardized throughout NATO. I leave my opponent to rebut
The M16 is better than the AK47 (redo)

INTRODUCTIONI always used to switch my M4 Carbine for the AK47 in Counter Strike.Moving on.ARGUMENTSEstablishing the facts…Before I begin, let it be known: The M16 is a lighter and more accurate gun. It has a faster rate of fire and much higher velocity. I am conceding those points right now, since they are statistical facts. This is not to say the AK47 is inaccurate, it’s just the M16 is around 35% better. In terms of penetration the AK47 is twice as effective as the M16. I think this is probably a result of the age difference. The AK47 is after all, more than 10 years older than the M16.With that said, here are the two reasons why the AK47 is still better.PriceThe AK47 is much cheaper to produce and this difference is greatly reflected in their price. My research indicates that the AK47 is at least half the price of an M16.The M16 is certainly not twice as effective in any of the above factors, so if you want to equip your guerrilla army quickly with a kick arse assault rifle, you’re clearly going to go with the humble AK.Unfortunately, my Google-fu wasn’t able to come up with production costs, but I imagine the AK47 probably costs around a third of the cost to produce as the very least. Here are some sources with commercial prices:Bud’s Gun StoreAK47($361): http://www.budsgunshop.com...M16(Most comparable gun, AR-15 $916): http://www.budsgunshop.com...Impact GunsAK47($339): http://www.impactguns.com...M16(Most comparable gun, AR15 $679): http://www.impactguns.com...ReliabilityThis is a well-established fact. The AK47 is among the most reliable assault rifles ever made, while the M16 was racked with design problems and requires routine and strenuous cleaning to keep it working at its full potential.REBUTTALS"M16 has little recoil and excellent precision and accuracy."I concede this point. As I already added, the M16 is an excellent gun, but the AK47 is also very good."The AK47 wasnt even an original design. It was taken form the German STG-44 used during WWII. The M-16 was purely original and revolutionary for its day."I think this is irrelevant. "The M-16 vs AK-47 conflict has taken to the battlefield, most recently in Afghanistan, and the M-16 (US) has triumphed."Evidence?CONCLUSIONThe M16 is a really excellent gun, while the AK47 is a somewhat excellent gun. Given the makers of the M16 had the AK47 to aspire to and beat, the difference in performance is to be expected. However, when it comes to price and reliability, the AK47 outclasses the M16. I think these are such important factors that the fact the AK47 is superior in them, makes it a better overall choice.http://www.youtube.com...
Bike helmet law

That's not going to cut it. Whatever you think Con's argument was in R1, it was conceded with a "yeah, but' in R3 and he brought out a new argument that kids will ride bikes less if they have to wear helmets. Even when specifically requested, he was unable to point to a source for this, and besides that, my uncontested case that kids getting their heads cracked open is bad (injury, death, etc) and is prevented by helmet laws would outweigh less overall bike riding, the harm of which wasn't discussed. In short, Con brought nothing of substance to the table, and even if he had, I showed helmet laws solving a more important problem than he asserts they cause.
Bike helmet law

Oh hey, I meet the requirements. I totally didn't expect that to happen. Since it did, let's debate this thing.I'm arguing for bike helmet laws for children. My Case:Kids getting their heads cracked open is really bad.Helmet laws lessen the number of kids who get their heads cracked open. [1]Therfore helmet laws are good and we should have them.Rebuttal to my opponents case:1)No existing helmet laws contain provsions for an invasion of familys. Most are content to require the children to wear helmets. Even if it did, why would that neccesarily be a bad thing? Some invasions are awesome. Space Invaders was a classic [2]. The British Invasion gave us the Beatles and they were bigger than Jesus [3]. Then again, some people claim Mexicans are an invasion[4]. Those people are bigots. Don't be a bigot. Hug a Mexican and vote Pro.2)Letting children where it on NOT is tremendously irresponsibe. Whereing it on NOT is something that should only be done between consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes, or lawfully rented hotel rooms. Trying to include children in this activity speaks to the general degradation of society, and trying to involve their own families in the process is beyond what a moral person should countenance.[1]http://www.abc.net.au...[2]http://www.spaceinvaders.de...[3]http://www.bbc.co.uk...[4]http://www.ourcivilisation.com...
Resolved: That, on balance, the rise of Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC) has had a positive i

My opponent attacks my first point by saying that my evidence is outdated and that BRIC has helped us in geopolitcal affairs and specifically cites india helping us in the war against terror. Look then to Russia giving Iran and Syria both known supporters of hezbollah arms(http://www.haaretz.com...). One also can look to Russia threatening to point target missile defense systems of the US(http://www.telegraph.co.uk...). China has consistently threatened our ally taiwan. The point here is that because of their rise, the BRIC nationas have gained the power to disregard stability and US interests and threaten to attack us and our allies, and give weapons too those who support terrorists. Given his one example of india, i clearly outweigh. He attacks my second point by saying i confused a trade deficit and budget deficit. I didnt. "In 2009 the trade deficit is slicing $400 billion to $600 billion off GDP, and longer term, it reduces potential annual GDP growth to 3 percent from 4 percent." (http://www.rhsmith.umd.edu...). He says there are times where we've grown under a deficit, that is true but he didnt prove that the deficit caused this growth. Furthermore, a deficit can be good as he states, but they are good to a point, one that china's rise has pushed us far beyond. He then moves on to give a number of 6 million jobs insourced, But fails to specify when these jobs where created as he has limited the round to past 2000. This is a total figure rather than a yearly figure, hence it becomes somewhat less useful for this round. Now onto my opponents case. Even if i misunderstood him 9900 billions total pales in comparison to 200-300 billion a year from just china alone as this this is what the trade deficit is costing(as i clarified again above, this is the trade deficit) c2-where did you mention 2.7 trillion. I've already covered your jobs comments, 343k jobs lost per year to just china, versus 6 million gained over some unspecified period of time so its non resolutional. In summation my opponents key points are that we have gained 6 millions jobs total and that we have gained 900 billion total. compare this to hundred of thousands of jobs lost each year, hundreds of billions lost each year, and security threats to both the US and its allies and it becomes clear what the rise oof the BRIC nations net impact has been. note, there are tons of typos because i submitted this with thirty seconds left and didnt have time to spell check
the bible is scientifically correct

Once again, my opponent quotes a biased source for radioactive dating. And like I said in the first speech, evolution is a fact. My opponent doesn't quote any sources (or at least any good sources) on either of these points, while I show the scientific consensus on them, so I'm still winning these two points. My opponent also concedes on the order of creation, as scientists disagree with the order the Bible supposes. And finally, if the Bible says the Earth revolves around the Sun and not the other way around, why would the church claim that the Sun revolved around the Earth? And why would they censor Galileo's work? Clearly they were wrong about this point as well. All my contentions stand, so this is an easy negation of the resolution. I'm also the only one to quote sources during the debate as well. I think that's certainly sufficient reason to negate. Thank you.
the bible is scientifically correct

1 Carbon dating has been proven to be inaccurate.Its just a guess.http://contenderministries.org... 2 Genesis chapter 1 does disagree with evolution.Because evolution is false. 3 Con keeps saying the Bible says the sun circles the Earth. This is not true,The Bible mentions the sun as we see it from the ground.It does not say the sun circles the planet.Example: "But when the sun came up...-Mark 4:6. If you are watching a sunrise ,You say the sun is coming up.You don't say the earth is spinning around.
the bible is scientifically correct

First, on evolution. You need to understand that evolution happens over loooooong periods of time. It's not that a new species forms every day, but every 10,000 years or so, a new species forms. "For example, scientists estimate that the common ancestor shared by humans and chimpanzees lived some 5 to 8 million years ago." (http://www.pbs.org...) As for carbon dating, when you search it, yes, sites say it is unreliable. But all the sites calling it unreliable are things like carm.org or christiananswers, etc. All actual, unbiased scientists concur that carbon dating is fantastically accurate. "The burden of proof is on skeptics of old-earth geology to explain why tens of thousands of other carefully measured ages are all internally and externally consistent. Indeed, there is no known physical phenomenon that can yield consistent results in many thousands of measurements, year after year, except one: that these specimens really are as old as the data shows them to be. As biologist Kenneth Miller has observed, "The consistency of [radiometric] data ... is nothing short of stunning." (http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org...) "The researchers followed the gamma-ray emission rate of each source for several weeks and found no difference between the decay rate of the spheres and the corresponding foils. According to NIST scientist emeritus Richard Lindstrom, the variations observed in other experiments may have been due to environmental conditions interfering with the instruments themselves." (http://www.sciencedaily.com...) On to the order of creation. My opponent only responds to a portion of the evidence. He doesnt respond to "The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The order of events known from science is just the opposite." So this point still stands. The Bible says the sun rises at one end of the heavens, implying that it is the Sun that moves so this point stands as well. And my fifth point has no impact, but if only one of my points is true, I'm still winning this debate. Since the other 4 stand, this is clearly a con vote. Thank you.