BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Occam's Razor Exploits Goodwill

To be clear, it's rather disappointing that my opponent didn't even consider the link cited over the quantitative definition of "simplicity" in scientific explanations. Con also fails to understand the difference between a cause and effect with regards to explanations versus conclusions. One doesn't conclude a cause. Conclusions happen at the end. Causes happen at the beginning, so one literally externalizes a cause to a future plain of time. Causes explain effects. To be fair, my opponent might be confusing timelines in this instance between investigated events (such as a bull running through a china shop) and an investigator's own existence. Yes, an investigator's own existence concludes over an understanding of events, but that understanding of events is an explanation. My opponent also completely failed to respond to what was said before about the "tradeoff between simplicity and explanatory power". I was hoping this tradeoff would be responded to in order to clarify any discrepancies in the final round. It hasn't been, and by no wonder, Con persists in making arguments over creationism when in fact, I've agreed over creationism's invalidity. The problem is now, there will be no time available to refute discrepancies over simplicity versus explanatory power. I hope voters can see how that shows poor conduct. Also, it's disappointing that my opponent can't recognize the exploitation of goodwill which took place in the two scientist scenario originally described in discovering the nature of the color red. The second scientist had to commit additional time, energy, and attention to the project because of the first scientist's laziness from using Occam's razor. The first scientist was content with a simple solution that lacked explanatory power. The second scientist was not. Had the second scientist not investigated thing deeper, nothing would have been achieved.
Occam's Razor Exploits Goodwill

I know what a conclusion is, but I don't think my opponent does. You can conclusion on what the cause of an even was. For example, concluding that a bull busted up the china shop. The difference between simplicity and less assumptions is NOT semantics as I showed last round. You can have a complicated answer that's not based on many assumptions and you can have a simple answer that's entirely an assumption (evolution and God). The distinction is important because Occam's razor has to do with assumptions and not simplicity, but this is a common mistake. "Because Occam's razor is sometimes called the principle of simplicity some creationists have argued that Occam's razor can be used to support creationism over evolution. After all, having God create everything is much simpler than evolution, which is a very complex mechanism. But Occam's razor does not say that the more simple a hypothesis, the better. If it did, Occam's would be dull razor for a dim populace indeed." [1] Therefore, since my opponent has misunderstood Occam's razor, his example doesn't work. He has two methods of coming to the same conclusion, so Occam's razor really isn't a factor here. Occam's razor would say trust the method that involves the least amount of assumptions, but since both methods here give the same conclusion there's no point in applying Occam's razor to either. In short, Occam's razor does not exploit goodwill (which my opponent hasn't really defined yet). To the contrary, it promotes critical thinking of the methods we use to derive conclusions. 1. http://skepdic.com...
Occam's Razor Exploits Goodwill

First, it's not clear that Con understands what a "conclusion" is. Conclusions are the results of events, not the causes. Occam's Razor deals with explaining causes. "Comparing conclusions" has nothing to do with what's going on. The distinction between simplicity and less assumptions is semantic as well. Simplicity is defined according to the quantity of elements which explain a hypothesis: http://plato.stanford.edu... Second, I agree that Occam's razor is about coming to probable conclusions with limited information. My point with the two scientists is the second scientist was more committed to uncovering information that the first. The first lazily got off the hook from investigating the origin of the color red. Instead, the first simply retracted among limited information from appearances rather than looking for what counts to really understand what's going on. Furthermore, Occam's razor does not provide a reliable benchmark for justifying an appropriate tradeoff between simplicity and explanatory power. The first scientist was content with the simplicity and explanatory power at hand given limited information. The second scientist was not. However, both scientists benefited from the second scientist's additional effort. That's not fair, and is effectively slavery whether in terms of a life-threatening scenario or profit. Lastly, to use Con's counterexample, Occam's razor could be used to justify believing in God instead of evolution because of the simplicity of God. Likewise, it's possible that evolution's discovery was so delayed because of people taking Occam's razor as an excuse to refrain from investigating it. Had people not been obsessed with limited information and tradeoffs between simplicity versus explanatory power, they would have driven towards investigating evolution instead of simply being content with intelligent design. The suffering endured by people in society due to believing in intelligent design before evolution could have been averted.
Occam's Razor Exploits Goodwill

Let's get a few things straight about Occam's razor. Occam's razor is defined as "is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic and problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected." [1]. So for example if I walk into a china shop and see all the glass is broken and I also see a bull standing in the middle of the shop, the most reasonable assumption is that the bull broke all the glass. If someone comes by and says "No, it's more likely that a bunch of aliens came in and shot all the plates", Occam's razor says we should reject that hypothesis because it requires much more assumptions, like aliens existing, aliens visiting Earth, and aliens having a motive to break plates. Occam's razor isn't meant to be proof of anything, it's just a method of coming to the most probable conclusion with limited information. This is why Occam's razor is is valuable. Pro gives two argument for why we would see red marbles as red, which go like this. "One, they're red because they're round (and hard). After all, all marbles are round (and hard). The common characteristic suggests a connection between one characteristic and the other. Two, they're red because of the optic nature of light. When analyzing the behavior of wavelengths and frequencies reflecting off surfaces, radiating throughout media (air), and refracting through eyeballs, it yields the impression of "red"." Pro says that Occam's razor says the first argument should be accepted over the second because it is simpler. Firstly, both argument give the same conclusion, so Occam's razor doesn't play a part in this. Occam's razor only comes into play when we're talking about different conclusions. otherwise, we have nothing to compare. Secondly, Occam's razor doesn't care which argument is more simple, only which one makes the least assumptions. For example, God vs. evolution. Evolution is a much more complicated answer than God because it involves complex genetic structures making small changes over billions of years, but since there's more hard evidence for evolution than God, Occam's razor favors evolution. It's about the number of assumptions, not the complexity. To conclude, Pro doesn't really get what Occam's razor is. Occam's razor is a valuable logical tool for coming up with the most likely conclusion with limited information, that's all. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor
Occam's Razor Exploits Goodwill

This is a simple argument that explains the problem with tolerating Occam's Razor in debate. For those unfamiliar, Occam's Razor is the idea that among plausible explanations, the simplest one should be chosen: http://math.ucr.edu... http://science.howstuffworks.com... http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be... The problem with Occam's Razor is it allows people to claim possibilities as sufficient reason for why conditions exist. For example, let us say we have a group of red marbles. Two arguments are provided for why those marbles are red: One, they're red because they're round (and hard). After all, all marbles are round (and hard). The common characteristic suggests a connection between one characteristic and the other. Two, they're red because of the optic nature of light. When analyzing the behavior of wavelengths and frequencies reflecting off surfaces, radiating throughout media (air), and refracting through eyeballs, it yields the impression of "red". Occam's razor would suggest that the first argument should be accepted before the second. Why? The second argument is complex and requires lots of investigation. If two scientists are investigating the nature of "red", a scientist who identifies with the first explanation will be able to exploit a scientist who identifies with the second explanation. That is the first scientist isn't actually analyzing the situation at hand, but rather is simply synthesizing characteristics together to find a plausible explanation. The second scientist, however, is discovering the real nature of "red". Furthermore, let us say both scientists are in a life-threatening situation, and they need to figure out how the color "red" actually exists in order to save themselves. For example, maybe they need to build a mechanism that yields a red laser in order to sign for help or cut through some material. In turn, the first scientist will be satisfied with the reckless explanation and trying to build something round (and hard) that has no mechanical value at all. The second scientist will be satisfied with a thorough explanation and trying to build something that reflects, radiates, and refracts in an appropriately mechanical manner. Ultimately, the first scientist has been lazy whereas the second scientist has been goodwilling. That is the first scientist has gotten away from being committed to the project because someone else was more committed. Furthermore, if the situation of needing a red laser was only life-threatening to the second scientist, but the first scientist would be OK (or could possibly benefit), then the first scientist would be alleviated from thoroughly investigating the nature of "red".
Special debate: Diary of a character

This is a special debate where we will each assign our opponent with a character (in round 1). We will then write a diary entry for that character in the second round. The winner is the person with the more entertaining entry.For the formulation of the characters, there will be a basic identification of that character, and then an added characteristic. E.g:A priest with a lisp.A political activist who can't stop eating.A graffiti artist who has an obsession with trampolines.The character I assign my opponent with is a farmer who uses words beginning with the letter F as much as possible.
Atheism and Theism are different.

Thank you, Con.REBUTTALS"First, these definitions come from mixed sources." One source was different.. but okay. And yes, hold those definitions."Finally, this action is a forfeiture of the 'Reliable Sources' voter. There are two warrants (a)Pro failed to actually provide these sources in-round which suggests he doesn't much care; and (b) Pro falsely cited the definition of different as a double posting of 'Theism'." Don't tell the audience how they should vote, it is up to them. Not to mention I provided it in the comments for different, so this is irrelevent. Not to mention in your arguments you have NO sources whatsoever. I will have sources in mine, however.And you really don't choose the criteria, the audience chooses their own, but anyway."Pro cannot claim that because the definitions of the these two things are not the same that his burden has been met. Such a tactic would be abusive to the Con and make the resolution a truism."Define- to state or set forth the meaning of (a word, phrase, etc.) [1]Meaning- what is intended to be, or actually is, expressed or indicated; signification; import [2]So, the meaning of Atheism and Theism actually is different, because the definitons are different, meaning that the meaning of both have to be different, which means they are actually different.Con's arguments were relatively weak. He says that definitions can't express the meaning of something when it says it.Con says that I have to prove that Atheism and Theism are different, although he needs to as well. The BOP is shared. So far, he hasn't which means he can't say that I lost, in fact, he hasn't done anything in the first round but contridict my definitions, and also tell the audience what to do.Because Con's arguments were weak, and I am low on time, because I have to be somewhere and I do not wish to forfeit, I will not argue this round.Cites:[1]- http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]-http://dictionary.reference.com...
Atheism and Theism are different.

DEFINITIONS:Atheism: a disbelief in the existence of deity. [1]Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world. [2]Different: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world. [3]RULES: 1. No trolling.2. Vote as fair as possible.No more rules. Good luck.
Gay Marriage

My opponent states that being gay/lesbian is predetermined based on things such as finger length. So, if this is true, females who have male like fingers and males who have different fingers would have to be considered gay or lesbian? This is just as irrational as gays claiming they don't have the same human rights. Is it morally correct for one to feel gay or lesbian because of their finger size? Must they make this choice? 3.5% of America is gay according to a UCLA study. According to a recent survey 83% of Americans claim to be a Christian. You can not defy the fact that a majority of Christians are against gay marriage. Why do you think gay marriage is still illegal in most states? Should the government appeal to 3.5%, or 83%? Marriage is originated between a man and a woman. I am not arguing that Christianity is correct. I am arguing that the modern marriage is from Christianity which is suppose to be between a man and a woman. Gays have a civil union. Now, is it morally correct that civil unions do not have the same right as marriages? No, a civil union should have the same rights as a marriage. That is not what this debate is about though, it is about if gays are part of the definition of marriage, which they are not and shouldn't be a part of. Should a kid at age 7 have to decide to marry a male or female? Bringing up if God exists or not is a totally different discussion and is irrelevant. I am not a Christian but I do know what marriage is based from and that a majority of America is Christian. Telling gay couples that they do not deserve to be married does imply that there is something filthy and wrong about a gay couple. A "traditional, Christian marriage" IS what a marriage is based off today. Like it or not, that is what marriage is. If you want to change that, debate that in a different section. Telling gay couples they can not marry is similar to telling a black man they can not be white. Does that mean they are filthy and wrong? No, it means they are different. Black people have rights now, so can gays. I promote that. But, black people do not consider themselves white. Black people consider themselves people who deserve the same rights Whites do. Why can't gays and straight people consider themselves to be couples in love who deserve the same right, just as black and whites do now? Please explain to me why it is required that you need to be considered "married" to be equal. http://www.christianpost.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...
usa should ban most guns and confiscate them

Guns are an important check on the establishment of a tyrannical government. How else are we supposed to over throw them and return to a free society? It is important to understand that most people throughout history, heck, most people extant at this moment, are not free. Freedom is a scarce and wonderful thing. So I will not trust, naively, in the state, but instead seek to trust in myself and want to prepare for the unthinkable. Writing in 'The Gulag Archipelago' Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn described the agony that prisoners of the Soviet Slave state felt about not resisting their enslavement. ". And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you'd be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur-what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked? The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! " Is it really so unthinkable, that what has happened in countless societies, could happen here in the West? Should we not prepare, yes pray that day never comes, but should we not prepare for the eventuality of dictatorship here? Should we not have a plan, so that we are not the ones burning in the camps wondering why we did not resist? Why we did not fight for our freedom? You may naively assure me that this will never happen, and I will hope that you are right, but rather than simply hoping I would instead prefer to fight to ensure that our society is free and that due process and the rule of law triumph over kangeroo courts and the suspension of civil liberties.
usa should ban most guns and confiscate them

as the oxford link indicates, a gun is a danger to yourself and those around you... you're more likely to be shot or to kill with a gun. most people can accept this much. but then the next step is imagine lots of people with guns. wouldnt be common sense to expect more murders? that's what the evidence indicates, not just common sense. more guns means more overall homicide http://www.debate.org...;would you be open to this if it could reduce murders by say, eighty percent?i reluctantly would probably support bans and confiscation on a nationwide scale. this view doesn't make me popular and i dont like taking people's guns away. and i am open to evidence to contradict my main premises and cause me more caution in my view. i am just openly considering the idea, which is what i think should be expected from everyone. as the oxford link indicates, a gun is a danger to yourself and those around you... you're more likely to be shot or to kill with a gun. most people can accept this much. but then the next step is imagine lots of people with guns. wouldnt be common sense to expect more murders? that's what the evidence indicates, not just common sense. i would expect if we banned and confiscated weopons that gun murders would go down as that's what the evidence indicates. i'm sure with the open borders etc that there would still be some murder, and defenseless people, just not as much. the main reason people need a gun for self defense is because there's so many guns to begin with. ive never seen someone acknowledge "yes we get more murder with gun rights, but that's the way it is for self defense". but it seems that's what the situation is. getting rid of guns should be taken seriously, i just dont know the exact numbers for what would happen. i know australia banned and confiscated a bunch of more serious guns and they knocked their rate in half. and they went from one mass shooting per year to none, that's not a statistical anomaly. that's not bad, if it was more serious confiscating, i could see it knocking say eighty percent of the murders. is that worth it while leaving people defenseless? i suppose it's not unreasonable to think otherwise than what im pushing, but yhou should at least acknowledge the deaths you're allowing for and openly consider both sides.
Higher corporate tax rates encourage business investment.

Thank you very much for your rebuttal and taking the time to debate this subject. Let me begin by addressing your contention that my scenario's are incorrect. You stated in your rebuttal that "In scenario #2, the pre-tax profit will be much lower". And that, "the reasons for the less money include": 1. More money has to be paid to government 2. Economies with less tax regime will be more economical thus out-competing the countries with more tax. 3. Companies will be tempted to invest in economies with lower taxes, thus slowing down the whole economy To address these points: 1. EBIT = "Earnings before Interest and Taxes". This is a term well-known to CEO's and CFO's the world over. It's basically a companies "Operating Earnings". You state that 'more money has to be paid to the government' so my scenario is inaccurate. I disagree. The $1,000,000 in earnings would be the same in both scenarios because they are PRE-TAX earnings. No money has been paid to the government in either Scenario. 2. While, theoretically, this point is true. I believe it to be irrelevant to this debate. This more of point in discussing international trade agreements & tariffs. 3. Companies cannot "write-off" as expenses, investments in other companies or economies, so there isn't a "tax incentive" for them to do so. A CEO's motivation is to lower the companies tax burden while simultaneously growing their own company. In short, the scenario's I've illustrated are correct, and valid. They are indicative of the way 'Real World' CEO's view taxes and their effect on business decisions. I know this from first-hand experiences. In your rebuttal, you referenced the study, 'Fiscal stimuli based upon tax cuts are more likely to increase growth than those based upon spending increases'. While this study may be accurate and insightful, it doesn't address the topic of this debate. It addresses tax cuts vs. increased government spending. Hence, I find it irrelevant. However, I did find an article which illustrates my point very well in an even more extreme example. The link is below. To Summarize, higher corporate tax rates DO encourage business investment. The higher the tax rate, the more motivated a CEO is to avoid paying the taxes. The best way for them to do this is to spend the money on growing their business (invest) instead of giving a large amount to the government as taxes on their NET profit. The Mind of a CEO: Tax rates high = Cheap to reinvest in company Tax rates low = Cheap to declare profits Thank you for the opportunity to debate this subject - I look forward to many more discussions! http://www.alternet.org...