BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should Socrates have drank the Hemlock

Socrates did believe in God's in fact he believed in the Devine Spirit who was the Oracle of Delphi. According to Socrates the Oracle of Delphi claimed that "their was no man wiser than Socrates". To prove this Oracle wrong Socrates came up with his own system, in which he would ask a question, propose an idea, and then continue to ask more questions. By doing this he was trying to prove the Oracle wrong, proving that there was somebody wiser than himself. It was due to the Oracle that Socrates began to question people's wisdom. He was not trying to corrupt the youth and did not believe in false God's. Socrates knew how little he knew, and taught people to question things. None of this information he had learned from the Oracle would have been significant however, if he had fled his death.
Should Socrates have drank the Hemlock

Socrates was accused of "corrupting the youth" with his teaching, accused is a big part of this. Yes he did speck and teach children his ideas, but being accused of corrupting them is an idea the Athens government came up with to get rid of Socrates. Now why would they want to do that? Well Socrates did not believe in what the government and higher power people believed. Socrates wanted people to open their minds and understand more ways of thinking. Socrates was trying to explain to the youth idea of agnosticism which is the idea of that the gods and goddess are unknown, which is different from being an atheist who does not believe there are gods. Of course the Greeks had their ideas of gods and goddess. he truly was not trying to go against the Greeks believes he was questioning how can you be so sure they exist. In the Apology by Plato Socrates says "can a man believe in spiritual and divine agencies, and not in spirits or demigods"? and Meletus says you can not. as he goes on Socrates stats that spirits and demigods "are they either gods or sons of gods"? and Meletus says they are. This proves to the court and people that Socrates is not an atheist and does in fact believe in agnosticism.
Should Socrates have drank the Hemlock

Socrates was accused of refusing to recognize the God's and in doing so he was corrupting the youth in the city of Athens. Socrates believed it was impossible for everyone to know what was right for the youth. He believed that only those had been trained to teach the youth would be the only ones who were beneficial to them. Socrates did not believe he was "teaching" the youth, but was allowing think for themselves, which ultimately struck fear in the eyes of the Athenian government. It struck fear to the government despite the fact that Socrates believed that laws were needed, the city of Athens made laws for people to follow, and to go against the law "would be the wrong thing to do". By running away and not facing his punishment Socrates would be contradicting his "think for yourself" philosophy, and his statements on how laws were needed.
Should Socrates have drank the Hemlock

Socrates was not correct for drinking the hemlock. Socrates was the great philosopher of his time, spreading his wisdom throughout Athens, trying to get people to understand a different ways of thinking, and understanding .Even though Socrates did not fear death he did in fact want to die naturally, not forcefully. Socrates was forced to drink the hemlock, they forced Socrates to kill himself. I believe he should have ran away to go elsewhere and spread his ideas he had the money and the power to escape. If Socrates leaves he can then go and die in a natural way like he wants sometime down the road.
Should Socrates have drank the Hemlock

Socrates was in fact correct for drinking the Hemlock. Socrates believed that a good life is a just and honorable one, which ultimately led to his final decision of drinking the Hemlock. At the age of 18, like all Athenians, Socrates knowingly had the opportunity to leave Athens if he was unhappy with their rule, with no punishment at all. By choosing not to leave the city, he decided that he would live under the city's laws. In the eyes of Athenians, Socrates had broken the law, and in order to be an honorable man, he must face the punishment. On top of this Socrates did not fear death, nor did he think death was evil, in fact he believed life after death was preferable to the life he was living in Athens. At the time of his death Socrates believed that his "time" had come for him to die.
Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices.

Thanks for starting the challenge and continuing the debate. While this debate was not particularly productive (I take the blame for not understanding), I still appreciate it. I also appreciate your learned debating and other skills. I hope that you have a Happy New Year and make lots of resolutions. I know I will make a ton of resolutions, and not one that I can successfully keep. Your book Oedipus seems like a really nice one. I might give it a try. I've never read one, and welcome the opportunity to find a good read. It was a lot of fun debating against you. I also agree with the fact that votes wouldn't be beneficial. Thank you, opponent. If you ever feel like you need to make a much more productive debate, feel free to challenge me. Thanks. P.S: If one of you spectators decides to be all like, "Troll" and decides to vote, I will hire an actual "troll" (from the fairy tales) to come and smash your head in. Then maybe you can make your own autonomous medical decision in which you decide to get a facial surgery or get a new face. Thank you.
Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices.

I don't believe that you have read Oedipus Rex by Sophocles ... the story of Oedipus by Deleuze and Guattari isn't meant to be taken exactly as that story (and you do not understand the fundamental story, it seems, though this isn't a big deal. Oedipus didn't knowingly sleep with his mother or kill his father, this was just fate and he didn't know better!).Yes, if society starts to pressure an adolescent into becoming a societal norm, then the child will change and accept whatever hierarchies exist. Yes, society does pressure adolescents - they show their opinion. While you are correct in saying that they are not 'forced' per se into doing something, when you are facing being expelled from society for not giving up Oedipal desires (broad, Lacanian Oedipal ones, not just Deleuzian ones), then I would call that being forced.I don't think that this debate was extremely productive (nothing against you, just the way that the debate ended up) so I don't think that any votes would really be beneficial. If you agree just put "don't vote, but we'd appreciate feedback" in the next round, or not, it's up to you :) Thanks for all, good luck in the future.
Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices.

I apologize for creating this speech at the last moment; I shouldn't make my opponent wait for me. First of all, I would like to address a statement from your second speech. " It weighs the outcomes of everything, not just the personal beliefs," which sort of helps me, in my opinion. Since this example that I gave also has a bad outcome if the child decides to make their own autonomous choice. If they decide that they want braces, it will set their family's financial status in danger, even if the child is paying (addressing your burdens). Also, I would like to state that the example that I gave could be referring to anybody. I just chose 'child' over 'adolescent' because 'child' was easier to type. Also, I would like to say that Oedipus is a very messed up book, you know what I mean? What kind of sick child would kill his dad to sleep with his mother? But sick children/adolescents aside, I would like to make several rebuttals to your Oedipus. Since you have already made an argument about this book in your first speech, and you are addressing it in this speech (for explanation), then I will make a rebuttal to it. I would like to ask if you are saying this: The adolescent (or child) will feel guilty if his society begins to make him feel that he shouldn't do that. If the society begins to pressure him to think differently, then he/she will begin to think differently. Address this if it is correct in your next speech. Thanks. While the book's philosophy is mainly correct, the situation that it is being applied to is not. First of all, does the society really pressure the adolescent to feel this way? Does the society really show their opinion as to pressure the adolescent? After all, one is not 'forced' to do something by their society, they are merely being influenced. Thanks for your time and consideration, judges and debater.
Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices.

I would also like to point out that NFL and NJFL are similar, and only differentiated by age group. However, I ask you not to copy and paste your next argument, as you have already done with your first speech. Rebuttal for O1: First of all, you are not making an argument, but only providing an alternative. Is this statement to resolve, or is it just a suggestion? Please address this in your following speech. FW: First of all, you are stating that egoism is self-preservation, or self-love, right? Why must this be upheld? Egoism is to ensure the best for themselves, but their self-preservation is only based upon what they believe is good for them, although their choices are not always the best choice. Most of the time, what an adolescent believes to be good for them is not always agreed on by their parents or guardians. Pretend that a child wants to get braces, because they are afraid that their teeth will turn out ugly. However, the family is a lower class family, and constantly in need of money. The kid wants to get braces, but braces are a want, not a necessity. If it's not a necessity, then the family can't afford to buy it. What is the kid supposed to do, get braces without the parent's permission? If the child makes their own autonomous choice, it could potentially place their family's financial status in danger. You might be thinking that the child is already an adolescent now, and they are capable of making wise choices. But is that so? After all, adolescents are known to have mood swings and easily have the act of defying their parents. C1: First of all, I would like to state that the "book" that you mention is nothing but a book that is based upon the mindset of an adolescent youth and philosophy, and it was not based upon the autonomous decisions of adolescents. Who cares about the book? What does it even have to do with this? Besides, the adolescent doesn't want to rebel against their parents, but they are making their own choice. As I have said, though, their choice is not the right one all the time. Guilt is not a variable in the choices that are made by adolescents. No offense, but I couldn't understand 90% of your C1. Could you please explain it in your own words? Sorry, I am just a little boy that can't understand anything. Now I need to go cry to my "mommy" and daddy. " Thanks for your time and consideration, judges and debater.
Illegal Immigration

Thank you for accepting my challenge. First, of all, how can you say that Americans are better workers than Mexican immigrants? And even though it is impossible to prove who is a better worker, in my experience, immigrants have been the most hard working people I've ever seen. However, I do agree that the influx of Mexican workers is because they are cheap. Second, if we reform the current system in favor of immigrants, than employers wouldn't have to resort to illegal practices. It takes about 6 years to become a full citizen. This is outrageous! If we make it easier to apply and gain citizenship, or even provide temporary amnesty, than more and more Mexicans will become legal, and this will level the playing field. People complain about the issues of immigration, but they are all caused by the fact that it is almost impossible to gain citizenship. A new pro-Mexican immigrant policy will solve all this problems in a proactive way.
Illegal Immigration

(Just debating to be devils advocate, I am also pro illegal immigration) It is true that illegal immigrants contribute to the American economy, but they only lower working wages for us American workers. Business owners are always tempted to violate the law by hiring illegal immigrants. They do not hire illegal immigrants because they are better workers than American workers. They only do so because they are cheaper than Americans. If an American should want to break into an industry at the low level(the job most of us dont want to do), he/she is now forced to compete against people who are willing to work illegally for less. We Americans cannot work for less by law, so we Americans can not be forced out of a job that could have had been ours, we would have to break the law. Since the nature businesses and capitalism is to compete, many owners choose to break the law to make profit. This is one of the many problems with illegal immigration in America. 9 Seconds Ago
Illegal Immigration

First off, let me just say that I am not "pro-illegal immigration" in the sense that I support people moving here without documentation. Rather, I am for reform that encourages immigration and does not intimidate those who want to better themselves and thier lives. As an Arizonan, I am right at the center of the illegal immigration debate. I have gotten to know some of the people whom have immigrated here both legally and illegally. In my experience, I have found that immigrants of all kinds, not just Mexicans, enrich our society and benefit all involved. They are here to feed their families, not to steal our jobs or to bring crime into our country. I find it ridiculous that people want to make it impossible for people to come here. I mean, if someone is breaking the law by being here illegally, then they deserve to be dealt with accordingly. But it takes so long to gain citizenship now, that they really have no choice. Why not reform the laws to make citizenship more accessible?
Illegal Immigration

Well man if you havent woken up from the american dream, you should. This is not the best country of the world, this is one of the most corrupt and is the one who is the blame for most of the things that go on in the world. Like how corporation and banks have taken control of the people. There is slavery in america today, we are slave to debt. To get an ok education in the united states you need to go into massive amounts of debt. Health is not universal and millions are left high and dry, Left to die with no help. We live in a corporate facism, if you dont know, get educated. I'm done with this round, becuase this dream that you talk about has never existed, you could be a fool and believe in it, but if you look at the statistic and facts, you will see how f*uck up is this system and how unfair it is. Question the income tax. Question the patriot act. Question the government. Question everyone..
Illegal Immigration

First of all, I disagree when you say that America is only for the rich. If you mean that only rich men can be a part of the political scheme, then maybe. But Mexican immigrants aren't interested in running for office. And also, the American dream is not dead. It has only become harder to achieve because of people who want strict immigration laws. If the laws become more lenient, then all of the problems you talk about won't be a problem. "...the very best way to do so is by opposing illegal immigration practices." I agree that illegal immigration is wrong, my beef is that no one is asking why it is a problem. It is because of our anti-immigrant attitude. I believe that if we are proactive, the issues associated with illegal immigration will not be prevalent, because there won't be any more illegals. In other words, "agressive legislation" would not benefit Mexico, or the United States. A lax policy would solve the problem, and make things better for both countries. How can you say that? It is true that the world is getting more crowded, but that doesn't make the poor inhuman and that doesn't mean we can just give up. Bono once said, "Where we live should no longer decide whether we live." I totally agree. Plus, I live in Arizona where a majority of the immigration is going on. I know first hand that there is plenty of room. This "boat" if far from full and it won't be for many years.
Illegal Immigration

(Again bro, I'm a waiting and my kitchen staff is all Mexicans and they are my daily heroes, and as a latino I'm proud that they are working hard for a better life of their children. Sadly America is not a good places for everybody, only for the rich. Cause here the rich control everyting, you have to be asleep to believe in the American dream.) Another problem with illegal immigration in America, is that it is a slap in the face to law-abiding potential immigrants. By allowing people to flood across our two major borders, what does that tell somebody from Eastern Europe who would like to experience the American dream? It tells him that Americans value cheap illegal labor over the application process it forces on people who obey the law. I encourage all Americans to support and encourage the immigrants in our country and the very best way to do so is by opposing illegal immigration practices. Some state that America cannot afford to round up and deport all the millions of illegal immigrants in our country. They're probably right, and the good news is that America would not have to do so. This problem could be solved by more aggressive legislation and enforcement of anti-illegal immigration laws. If business owners are fined large sums and threatened with prison sentences because of this practice, they will quickly reconsider which method of employment is cheaper; a threat that should be backed up with undercover agents. Once owners get on board and start obeying the law, jobs for illegal immigrants will dry up and illegal immigrants will have to emigrate somewhere else to find work. If there is an employee shortage because of this, wages will rise and the "invisible hand" will ensure that employees are found to fills these jobs. Finally, I hear many arguments that begin "but they are PEOPLE, you can't just-" Let's get down to hard facts: The world is becoming overpopulated and more people are going into poverty and starvation every year. America is a relatively wealthy nation with room for growth and naturally people will look to America as a place to go to provide for themselves and their families. How many such people can America support? 10 million? 100 million? 1 billion? Draw the line where you see fit, the point is that just because we have compassion for the poor does not mean we can save everybody from poverty by bringing them to our country. This saddens me, as I'm sure it does you but you cannot save a horde of drowning souls by placing them on a small boat; you'll lose both the boat and the doomed people. Compassion in this world is a worthwhile pursuit, but it must be tempered with the proper application of wisdom and foresight.
Resolved: On Balance, Gay Marriage is Good

As readers can see, the debate that both parties agree to was whether gay marriage was good, meaning society should approve of it. [See Con’s first Round statement, if there are any doubts]. APPROVE is key Here what Con states he says are the definitions from Round 1: Con focused exclusively on children but it is never obvious how this debate relates specifically to marriage. I’m not sure what Con’s argument was, given that marriage has never been defined based on whether or not the couples wanted children or not—the ability or desire to have children has never been a qualification for marriage. For instance, George and Martha Washington didn’t have children but they wouldn’t disqualify or undermine the nature or the essential nature of their marriage. There will always be both good and bad parents, no matter if they are single, married, heterosexual, or homosexual. But this has been the focus on Con’s argument. The fact that Con’s sources are biased was the real issue. The real issue is they are garage, completely ridiculous, but thankfully, Regnerus is so discredited a simple google search of his name brings up articles, academic studies, and other publications about his discredited status as an academic. So, they weren’t just biased they were ridiculous, not worthy of the debate. This tendency to hold on to sources so thoroughly debunked is also irritating, it is a lot trying to have an argument with someone a 9/11 truther, no matter what how stupid or flimsy or ridiculous the evidence or academics they use, nonetheless they won’t budge. Here are clipping on the methodology of Regnerus and his study Con said I couldn’t challenge Regnerus methodology—here you go[1][2][3] Con also states: Con I suppose then agrees with the vast majority of states where same sex-marriage is legal, currently 37 state approve of marriage equality while a minority 13 have bans or restrictions. Most states already approve of marriage equality on Constitutional grounds, and the Supreme Court is likely to rule on a 50 state solution to marriage equality at the end of this section. Con did not provide a reason why constitutionally we should think marriage is good, meaning approved of. This brings us back to the Constitutional argument I mentioned last round, the Fourteenth Amendment says In contrast this seems to be my opponent’s position: Pro will simply reiterate points to approve of same-sex marriage, other than its already approved of in 37 states, and constitutionally protected: (1) Our society is better off when more of us are in stable, loving relationships that we choose. (2) Marriage is the highest form of displaying commitment and love in our society. (3) Weddings, gift registries and honeymoons help create millions of jobs for Americans and infuse billions into our economy. Con did not contest these points at all. I assume they stand. By the way, I agree with Con on one point [see Con’s last statement] [1] http://thinkprogress.org... [2] http://www.washingtonpost.com... [3]http://www.slate.com...