Which was a better empire Rome or Greece

Okay well, this still wasn't very specific and as the instigator, I feel that you should be presenting your arguments for Greece first. I want to first clarify what I mean when I say you haven't outlined your argument in order to give you one last opportunity to do so before I begin my argumentation.Your Arguments for the Greeks Thus Far:uTechnology: NoneLiterature: The works of Socrates, Plato & AristotleSociety: Philosophical Superiority (Socrates, Plato & Aristotle)Rebuttals:Technology: You presented no argumentation as to why the Greeks excelled the Romans in technology.Literature: While I would like to state that philosophy is not literature, that in itself warrants an entirely new debate. Thus, I will confine myself as to why the works of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle alone, cannot be considered as literature and therefore, they cannot be included in this category. Socrates: We have no written works of his, thus he cannot be included in Greek literature. Even some of those 'ideas' written by others and ascribed to him are not well documented, and thus, we cannot even empirically prove he postulated them. Plato: Plato is a philosopher, that is for certain. However, we cannot praise him as a literary genius by any means. He was of the mindset that the philosophical treatise was an affront to the ideas presented therein, and so confined himself to writing letters, dialogues and speeches. He was in no way the first to delvelop these methods, nor did he excel at their execution of technique beyond the abilities of previous or subsequent authors. The only characteristic of his written works that made them unique or noteworthy was the philosophical ideas contained inside. Furthermore, he wrote an entire critique on literature in and of itself, which explicitly maintains that not only did the styles of his works preclude him from being literature, he wished to distance himself from this association as much as possible. Artistotle: Even if philosophy could be deemed to be literature, Aristotle could not be used as such anyhow. We have only a small fraction of his works in the present day, and those that we do have are mostly dubious in their origins as they passed from generation to generation, civilization to civilization, most of which were notes being recopied, edited and supplemented in areas which were lacking detail. Therefore, much of the work we do have of his cannot even readily identify which parts of the writing were his, his heir's, his heir's heir, Roman librarians, papal librarians, etc. Social: In this category is where I would put philosophy. You mentioned three Greek philosophers: Socrates, Aristotle and Plato, yet you never mentioned why they were 'great'. This is a subjective term, and cannot be used as evidence. Upon my argument, I will be listing some Roman philospohers and why their philosophies were superior. Please do the same.I will come to the issue of Democracy upon my argumentation in the next slot, but as I said, in the interests of having a good debate, I am giving you this one last opportunity to present evidence and argumentation rather than opinion. Checklist for Your Next Post:Did you include argumentation on all three of the following topics? Technology Literature Society 2.Did You include verifiable evidence rather than merely opinion?3.Did you include this evidence in your sourcing?4.Did you make a comparative against Roman equivalents in any capacity?5.Did you quantify and/or qualify this comparison with facts, rather than opinion? Thanks again, and hopefully this debate turns around. Cheers!