BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Common Consent Provides a Reasonable Foundation for a Belief

“My opponent seems to believe that believing something is "probable" or "likely" is not sufficient to "adhere" to it.” That is not what I was arguing. I will do my best to clarify. The belief you hold is not the same belief that the majority holds. You believe that the majority opinion MAY be correct, while the majority holds the belief that they ARE correct. These are not the same beliefs, and therefore you are not strictly “adhering to the preponderant viewpoint,” which is what your entire argument rests on. In regards to the math problem, you said we may be able to: “… conclude that 42 is PROBABLY the right answer…” Using only common consent and no other information, evidence or argument, I do not see how you can get there. In our example you know nothing of the difficulty of the problem or the abilities of the persons involved. “..no intelligent person would ever claim certainty about one's solution to a math problem).” Are you claiming that if I asked you to solve the problem “50 minus 8” you would not claim certainty that the answer is 42? There are many situations in which intelligent persons can claim certainty. Of course in our example we don't know how difficult the problem is, and can only gauge our belief off the certainty exhibited by the respondents. Your belief is contingent on their belief, the two beliefs will never be equal nor identical. Therefore you will not be ‘adhering to the preponderant viewpoint.’ If you are relying solely on common consent, your belief will always be a belief ABOUT the 'preponderant viewpoint.' The only way to get past that is via a logical fallacy.In regards to your syllogism, you haven’t offered any proof for Premise 1: “Common Consent establishes that a proposition is probably true.” So, even if the syllogism is valid, which I haven't granted, we cannot assume it is sound. I hold that you have not yet supported the argument that if a majority of people believe something it is reasonable to adhere to the preponderant viewpoint.
Common Consent Provides a Reasonable Foundation for a Belief

I disagree that I have shifted my contention in this debate, but I think I understand what gave rise to that impression. My opponent seems to believe that believing something is "probable" or "likely" is not sufficient to "adhere" to it. I disagree. If my friend tells me that he can play at 5 o'clock tomorrow, I "adhere" to the view that he is correct -- despite the possibility that he is lying or mistaken -- in that I operate as if it was true (perhaps I shift my schedule to be free at 5 o'clock tomorrow). Likewise, if my biology teacher tells me that the tissue I observe through the microscope is necrotic, I "adhere" to that view, despite the fact that my teacher may be lying, ignorant, or insane. Certainty is not necessary to adhere to a belief. As for my example concerning the math problem, I concede that the simplified version you present is a better illustration of the concept I am attempting to convey. In your illustration, you claim that one can only reasonably conclude that 42 MIGHT be the correct answer. I believe that one can reasonably go further and -- based on the preponderance of the view -- conclude that 42 is PROBABLY the right answer, thus adhering to the majority opinion (since the majority believe that 42 is PROBABLY the right answer; no intelligent person would ever claim certainty about one's solution to a math problem). Your final paragraph states that common consent can only establish the "possibility" of a proposition, but you are not justified in "adhering to it." That is misguided; common consent establishes that a proposition is probably true, and it is reasonable to adhere to opinions that are probably true. I can present my view in a very simple syllogism: 1) Common consent establishes that a proposition is probably true 2) It is reasonable to adhere to a proposition that is probably true 3) Therefore, it is reasonable to adhere to a proposition that is established through common consent.
Common Consent Provides a Reasonable Foundation for a Belief

I can't help but feel you've shifted the goal posts a bit. Originally you said you'd argue "if a majority of people believe something - barring any other arguments for or against their position - it is reasonable to adhere to the preponderant viewpoint." However, you've now shifted to claim that common consent "seeks merely to establish probability, not certainty, about a proposition." Adhering to the preponderant viewpoint means accepting the preponderant viewpoint as true, not that it might be true. That may be a subtle distinction, but its a significant one.You are now arguing for a weaker position, essentially conceding your original proposition that common consent is reasonable to adhere to the preponderant viewpoint.Having said that, I will go on to your 'math problem' example. Given that we should "bar any other arguments," I don't feel your example fits. In your example we have our own math skills and the problem itself to compare against the answers of the other people.You said you wanted to argue that common consent alone was a reasonable foundation for belief, so I would put forth the following: 100 people are given a math problem that you do not see. The majority tell you the answer is 42. The minority tells you the answer is 51. You have no way of judging who may be right and only have common consent to go off of. This more accurately displays whether or not common consent is enough to adhere to the preponderant viewpoint.In this situation the "preponderant viewpoint" is that the answer is 42. However, I can only reasonably believe that the answer might be 42. But that is not what the 'preponderant viewpoint' is, and so I would not be adhering to it. Those in the majority hold the belief that the answer is 42. The most I can do is believe that it might be 42.Via common consent you can only admit the possibility of the preponderant viewpoint, but you are not reasonably justified in adhering to it. To do so is making a logical leap.
Common Consent Provides a Reasonable Foundation for a Belief

Thank you for accepting to participate in this debate. I would like to thank my opponent for drawing the distinction between objective facts about reality and socio-cultural norms -- it is the former, not the latter, that concern us in this debate. As he rightly indicates, socio-cultural norms -- matters of taste or custom like culinary traditions -- are inherently determined by the majority; to attempt to deploy the Argument from Common Consent in their defense would be a futile tautology. I would also like to point out the Appeal to Majority fallacy refers to efforts to establish the veridicality of a position with certainty through an appeal to majority opinion. Clearly, it is possible for the majority to be incorrect -- as it was in the 14th century when most believed in a flat Earth. Hence, the Appeal to Majority to establish certainty is logically flawed. This does nothing, however, to the Argument from Common Consent, which seeks merely to establish probability -- not certainty -- about a proposition. Take, for instance, a mathematical problem. You and ninety-nine other people puzzle over this problem, trying to find the solution. Suppose you and eight other people come to one conclusion, one person comes to another conclusion, and the ninety other people come to yet another conclusion. Would it not be reasonable to conclude that you -- despite support from eight other people -- are mistaken and that the over-whelming majority is correct? And would it not be even more reasonable for the one person with a unique solution to the problem doubt his/her conclusion and side with the majority? Remember, other factors -- such as individual mathematical expertise, propensity for pranks, etc. -- are not to be taken into account. We are concerned only with the fact that a majority or human beings -- regardless of other characteristics -- agree or disagree with you, and how that should influence your confidence in your beliefs. I await your erudite thoughts.
Common Consent Provides a Reasonable Foundation for a Belief

First off, thank you Liam for setting up this debate, I'm looking forward to it. I will refrain from making too detailed an argument before Liam has an opportunity to lay out his case, but I do feel the need to point out one thing from the start. The idea of common consent as a foundation for belief is such an old and recognized logical fallacy that it has a name, commonly referred to as the 'appeal to majority.' I would also like to clarify terms a bit. The use of the word 'belief' in Liam's claim points to the idea that we can know real truths about the world that we inhabit. Simply put, I understand the claim to say that common consent provides a reasonable foundation for a belief in a given fact about the world. This would not encompass things such as societal norms, conventions or customs, as those are things that by their nature are defined only through the majority opinion. But those are merely preferences of a culture, not 'beliefs' in the classic sense. I'll end it there for now and give Liam an opportunity to make his case. I look forward to hearing how exactly an appeal to majority is not a logical fallacy and actually a 'reasonable foundation for belief.'
Students ought to be able to chew gum in class.

I will only make my defense this round, and I will rebut my opponent's defense.FrameworkI will only be making my defense this round. BoP is on Pro.DefenseMy opponent says that you can just not chew gum loudly. However, the problem is that children do, because they are being silly, so that is why it is a problem because they just do this, for fun. My opponent drops this.My opponent says that it is common sense to not chew gum when speaking. How do you know you will speak. A gum chewer might be called at with a question, then he has gum in public speaking. My opponent drops this.My opponent drops this by saying that it is rebutted in the second one, but I also said that the listener can't hear the people around because of the gum noise. Therefore, my opponent drops this also.My opponent had dropped all my arguments. Thank you. Rebuttals from DefenseMy opponent says that the same age group will have the same intelligence. Nope. Some people might have learned a lot, when some people did not. The same age does not mean about the same intelligence. This is why some people get A's, and some people get C's.My opponent says that gum has 20 calories. But then gum with flavor, which more students like because of taste has 76 calories. This is the same as juice.Therefore, my opponents arguments are all refuted, and mine are dropped.
Students ought to be able to chew gum in class.

I'm going to refute first. To refute my opponent's Argument 1, you can easily avoid this distraction issue by making it not allowed to chew gum loudly in class. Another way to make this not happen is by not allowing the chewing of gum in class while somebody is presenting, making it so there won't be any distractions. To refute my opponent's Argument 2, why would you want to chew gum while public speaking? Voters, this isn't even an issue, as it is common sense to not chew gum while publicly speaking. Even if this argument still stands, this can be easily avoided, because the resolution is "be able", not "have to", meaning that while publicly speaking one can just take the gum out of their mouths. I will not refute my opponent's Argument 3, as they even say that it is the same as their 2nd argument. Now, I am going to strengthen my own case. My opponent refutes both my memory and concentration argument with the same thing: people might have been smarter before the test was even done. This is actually very simple: no. They were people of the same age group and of the same area of intelligence, meaning that the gum WAS the reason for their concentration and memory being better. My opponent has refuted my physical help argument with "My opponent says that it helps them eat not much. But gum, is eating. They both have calories, however gum does not make you have energy". The average piece of gum has around 20 calories. In the study mentioned in the 2nd round, they showed that chewing on gum makes people not want to eat snacks that would have been much more calories than the piece of gum. Even if gum has calories, it is much less than what the people would have eaten without the gum.
Students ought to be able to chew gum in class.

Gum PROP Students ought to be able to chew gum in school. DEFINITIONS: "student" Merriam-Webster is defined as one who attends a school. This does not specifically mean any form of school. CONTENTIONS: C1: Chewing gum can help with test scores and grades. "Chewing gum is an easy tool students can use for a potential academic edge," says Craig Johnston, Ph. D. Chewing gum can help with academics involving students. Subpoint A - Helping with memory. Chewing gum can greatly improve memory in different ways. UK Psychologists found that people who chewed gum throughout tests of both long-term and short-term memory had significantly better results than those who don"t. Memory is a big thing in schools, and gum can greatly help with both long and short term, as I just proved. Subpoint B - Helping with concentration. A study done by Kate Morgan proves that gum helps with concentration. The study involved 38 participants being split into two groups. Both groups completed a 30 minute audio task that involved listening to a list of numbers from 1-9 being read out in a random manner. Participants were scored on how accurately and quickly they were able to detect a sequence of odd-even-odd numbers, such as 7-2-1. Participants also completed questionnaires on their mood both before and after the task. The results showed that participants who chewed gum had quicker reaction times and more accurate results than the participants who didn't chew gum. Both of these subpoints are very important with test scores and grades. Gum helps with both. C2: Chewing gum helps students physically. There are many different ways that chewing gum can actually help students physically. One of these is with their teeth. The American Dental Association says that chewing gum after meals (in this case it would be lunch during school) helps to not only prevent tooth decay, which is very prevalent in our world, but also acid reflux disease. Another way that chewing gum can help students physically is by helping them not eat as much. Investigators at Louisiana State University took 115 people who regularly chewed gum and fed them lunch. They measured their cravings before and after lunch. They found that those subjects, who chewed gum three times hourly after lunch, ate fewer high-calorie snacks. The chewers also reported decreased feelings of hunger and cravings for sweet foods. "We decreased overall snack intake by 40 to 60 calories. Having something in the mouth likely calms the appetite," explains Paula Geiselman, Ph. D, lead researcher and physiological psychologist.
Students ought to be able to chew gum in class.

I will refute my opponents 5th round. Even though they made sure to get people from the same age or group, some people might have studied or have been strong in that part. Who knows? My opponent gives no sources for this. My opponent says I have no source. This is my source: . http://theeducatorsroom.com...My opponent says that I have no source that students like gum with sugar. Sugar make things sweet, and many of sugar gum is good with flavor. It tastes sweet. Students like this. No students like gum with absolutely no sweetness and taste. They chew gum for flavor also.
Students ought to be able to chew gum in class.

Thank you for your case, but PLEASE stop saying that I dropped your arguments after you refute them. This isn't how the term is used. Dropped means that I never refuted it in the first place, not that you defended my refutation in your speech. Christ. I don't think my opponent understands what I am saying. I am not saying that people of the same age group have the same intelligence, but rather the people conducting the study MADE SURE to get people from the same age and intelligence group, based on grades in school. My opponent offers no source for their claim that students chew gum to be silly, so please ignore this, Voters. Last of all, my opponent also offers no source for their claim that most students like to chew gum with sugar. Nevertheless, I never specified sugary gum in the resolution, so their argument is non-topical and therefore should be ignored in this debate.
Students ought to be able to chew gum in class.

I will rebut my opponent's fourth round. FrameworkBoP is on Pro. Rebuttals of round 4"Now to refute. First, my opponent has said multiple times that these children were of a different intelligence, however, I have already proven that no, they weren't. The conductors of the study even say themselves that they had students from a similar intelligence and age group for the study. Children do not chew gum to "be silly". They do it because of the flavor and of the entertainment for themselves, not others. Also, children can speak with gum in their mouths. Gum doesn't effect speech that greatly, and any gum chewers know this. My opponent has also said, "gum with flavor, which more students like because of taste has 76 calories". Not only does my opponent not have a source for this, but I can prove it wrong either way. There are actually many less calories than my opponent states in gum. Take sugarless gum, still flavored, but much better in terms of calories. In fact, one stick of this sugarless gum from the biggest manufacturer in the world, Wrigley, is just five calories, according to their website. "I will rebut my opponents arguments one by one. My opponent says that same age has about sam intelliegence. As I said, then why are some students D students when some are A? This is because they have different intelligence! Then why are there scores. Then are all report cards of every student and A or B, or the same? It is because they have different intelligence! Second of all my opponent says that they do not chew gum to be silly. But then some students, do this, because not a students actually just properly chew gum, some like to be funny or enjoy being silly. My opponent says that gum is not important in public speaking, but then your voice will be muffled so others can't hear you properly [1]. Most gums that are liked. Most bubble gums that are like are gums with sugar, because honestly, gum with sugar tastes better than sugarless gum even if they have flavor. Why? Because most children like sweet, and sugar is sweet, so they like gum with sugar! My arguments are standing, and my opponents arguments are dropped.
Students ought to be able to chew gum in class.

First of all, I didn't drop any of your arguments, you just defended my refutations. Learn your debate terminology. Now to refute. First, my opponent has said multiple times that these children were of a different intelligence, however, I have already proven that no, they weren't. The conductors of the study even say themselves that they had students from a similar intelligence and age group for the study. Children do not chew gum to "be silly". They do it because of the flavor and of the entertainment for themselves, not others. Also, children can speak with gum in their mouths. Gum doesn't effect speech that greatly, and any gum chewers know this. My opponent has also said, "gum with flavor, which more students like because of taste has 76 calories". Not only does my opponent not have a source for this, but I can prove it wrong either way. There are actually many less calories than my opponent states in gum. Take sugarless gum, still flavored, but much better in terms of calories. In fact, one stick of this sugarless gum from the biggest manufacturer in the world, Wrigley, is just five calories, according to their website. My opponent has no arguments or refutations left standing, and my points therefore stand.
The Simpsons Should be Canceled

Ummm..I don't know what to say...I mean I guess I can prove my points without an arguement...The episodes aren't really that different, it's the same show. And a lot of the characters have evolved, like Ned not being such a push over, Selma being gay, Flanders' being an all but confirmed gay, Bart being more understood..This would be easier if I had something to argue against...
The Paradox of Hell

Most mainstream western religions subscribe to the following:1) God is omniscient (All-Knowing)2) God is omnipotent (All-Powerful)3) God is omnibenevolent (All-Loving)4) Hell exists and is a state of eternal torment reserved for those who deny God.I maintain that these four concepts result in a logical paradox.By accepting you agree to points 1 through 4 above. Any requests for alterations should be left in the comments.Round 1 will be for acceptance only.Rounds 2 and 3 will be for argument and rebuttals.Round 4 is reserved for final rebuttals and conclusions. No new arguments in the final round.Burden of Proof is shared equally.
Should students spend more time in school, rather then given homework.

I think rather giving students homework, we should have the be in school more. Giving students homework has clearly shown be ineffective over the last few years. In "Why Homework Does More Harm than Good" by Etta Kralovec of Pepperdine University, she talks about how homework doesn't help students at all. http://colleague.pepperdine.edu... Homework disrupts a students young life. Instead of "learning things from their parents, they are at the table completing unfinished school work." She claims. After loads of research, I can agree with the above statement. Homework puts so many things on hold in a child's life. The necessary life stills that you just cant learn from a textbook are not there for a lot of kids these days due to over working from the school system. I think spending more time in school would be a better solution. This would eliminate the need for homework, and give families that time to spend with there children. Instead of school starting at 8:30 per say, let it start at 7:30 or even 6:30. This would be a much better for both families and teachers.
Report Topic Do you believe the Boston Marathon bombing suspects ACTUALLY DID IT "No Evidence"!

They didn't do it. All the evidence doesn't add up they've been framed. How did police know of bombing prior with k9. Why would they realize a hostage unharmed but kill an unaware officer. No 19 year old could outsmart the FBI and his backpack was grey. Not only that the government had previously questioned the older brother years back and found no evidence yet now say he had searched radical videos? AND to top it off the FBI now says they had no escape plan?!! Terrorists always would either bomb themselves and commit suicide or have a crazy escape plan... even shoplifter would have an escape plan... WTF?!!