BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
An IQ Debate

My opponent claims "people with bad environments would do somewhat worse on IQ tests.", but that is due to a degradation of knowledge not Intelligence. When one takes an IQ test , the higher IQ is always the right one, no matter which order the tests was taken in; this is to account for lack of knowledge, and proves the unreliability of IQ tests. Intelligence does not change, knowledge does. Someone can be highly intelligent and also highly ignorant. This again is why IQ tests are not a real measure of one's IQ, yet IQ tests do give a good "range" of one's intelligence, without be considered at all accurate. One could get a good feel of the range of one's Intelligence through an IQ test, but they could get an even better feel through and interview. When a child is an Infant of course they will have a 50/50 chance of inheriting their family's IQ "score", their brains have not yet developed enough to significantly absorb knowledge. As they get older, they are more capable of soaking up knowledge which is the x factor in taking IQ tests. If children has a 75% to 85% chance of inheriting IQ scores, than that just means that 15% to 25% of the IQ score is effected by Knowledge rather than Intelligence. All the arguments about IQ changing with age, and IQ variations among Incomes is again proving my point, about the impact of knowledge on IQ tests as compared to Intelligence. When you talk about IQ you are talking about this formula; IQ = 100 x (Mental Age / Actual Age) For example and IQ of 129 = 100 x (14.19 Mental Age / 11 Actual Age) A decade later the same IQ if maintained would be 129 = 100 x (27.09 Mental Age / 21 Actual Age) The Mental age is defined as a person's mental ability expressed as the age at which an average person reaches the same ability. According to Gilbert supporters of the Gifted, "Mental age predicts the amount of knowledge (a child) has mastered, the rate at which the child learns, sophistication of play, age of true peers, maturity of the child's sense of humor, ethical judgment, and awareness of the world." In other words, if a 11 year old year old has an IQ of 129 than they could do the work of a child 3 grades ahead of them in school. Notice the part where they say, ""Mental age predicts the amount of knowledge (a child) has mastered" Intelligence is defined as the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. Knowledge is defined as Information and skills acquired through experience or education Those with higher incomes generally have higher levels of education, or educated experiences. Intelligence does not change, knowledge does, and both factor into IQ tests. "an IQ is not capable of measuring one's intelligence, only one's ability to take IQ tests".
An IQ Debate

First, let me say that we obviously have to compare IQs on the same test. Otherwise, we would be comparing apples to oranges. The most mainstream IQ test is the Stanford Binet. So, when I speak of IQ, I am speaking of this scale. Of course, other IQ tests can have the scores adjusted to Stanford Binet Scores, meaning that they are not useless. My opponent says: "As stated before IQ tests are not a real measure of one's IQ. IQ tests do give a good "range" of one's intelligence, however cannot be considered accurate at all. "He does not explain why this would be. And, of course, people with bad environments would do somewhat worse on IQ tests. But, as I discuss later, they do not do substantially worse. IQ tests are a pretty good, albeit imperfect measure, of the genetic quality of General Intelligence. IQ Does Measure Intelligence and is Largely GeneticThe best available research on the heritability of IQ is twin studies. Using these, we find that, by the time people reach their adolescent years, IQ, as measured by IQ tests, is about 75% to 85% heritable [1]. This result has been confirmed from numerous reports, meta studies, and studies from non partisan sources. It is less at younger ages (closer to 50%), but gene effects get stronger as people get older. Given that these are the best available studies, it is reasonable to assume that these estimates are accurate. Since IQ is measured by tests in these studies, it is also reasonable to assume that IQ tests measure a genetic intelligence (g), relatively accuratley. The next question is whether or not IQ measures a Genetic Quality that matters. There is reason to believe it does. First, we have already established that IQ is heavily genetic. We can add to this that IQ is also very predictive of life outcomes [2]. People with high IQs make higher incomes, perform better in their jobs, are less likely to get pregnant out of wedlock, and are less likely to commit crimes. Given these two realities, there is reason to believe that genetics are a major factor in many of societies social problems. I would also like to say that, given that IQ tests can accuratley measure intelligence, we should restrict immigration more based on IQ. This would keep low-IQ immigrants from coming in and increasing poverty, crime, and unwed child birth, while siphoning off resources from the welfare state. I look forward to my opponents response. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...;
An IQ Debate

As my grandfather (who had a genius IQ) has always said, "an IQ is not capable of measuring one's intelligence, only one's ability to take IQ tests". My IQ is 128 on the Stanford Binet scale, which makes me "Gifted" with "Very superior intelligence", an IQ of 128 on the Stanford-Binet Scale, is comparable to an IQ of 142 on the Cattell Scale, so when you talk about specific IQ's you must include the specific scale; because IQ are not standardized, there is much confusion when talking about specific IQ's. As stated before IQ tests are not a real measure of one's IQ. IQ tests do give a good "range" of one's intelligence, however cannot be considered accurate at all. Intelligence is not mostly genetic, it is 100% genetic. Knowledge on the other hand is 100% environment. One who has a High IQ, but has an environment that dumb them down, will test lower on an IQ test, than they would in a more intellectually stimulating background. I agree with my opponent that, "IQ Differences explain Social Problems like Crime and Poverty better than Differences in Environment" as well as the fact that, "Intervention Programs, like Head Start, are not effective in significantly raising Long Term IQ" Welfare Programs should be restructured, they should be eliminated, and Immigration should not have IQ as a factor, because an IQ test cannot correctly measure one's Intelligence. Welfare is a drain on society, and there are many with high IQs on welfare. The Government was instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; for the Government to favor one by their level of income, or by their IQ score, would be tyranny, and a perversion of their authority. The government should work to benefit the entire nation, rich or poor, intelligent or dull, because all men are created equal.
An IQ Debate

This Debate is About this Line of thinking:1.) IQ is an Good, albeit Imperfect, Measure of General Human Intelligence2.) IQ is significantly (40% to 80%) Genetic 3.) Group IQ Differences are both Genetic and Environmental (as opposed to just Environmental) 4.) IQ Differences explain Social Problems like Crime and Poverty better than Differences in Environment 5.) Intervention Programs, like Head Start, are not effective in significantly raising Long Term IQ 6.) Therefore, we should make the following policy conclusions a.) Restructure or Keep Welfare Programs from incentivizing low income, and low IQ, women from reproducing more than they naturally would b.) Affirmative Action should be reduced, restructured, or eliminated in light of genetic effects on Intelligence c.) Immigration should be restricted to keep too many low-IQ immigrants from entering countries and worsening social problems I will be arguing for this line of thinking. I also ask a couple things of my opponent:1.) No Ad Hominem attacks on me or any of the Research I present in this debate. 2.) Related to 1.), Consider the word Racist banned. If your approach to debating is to call your opponent a racist, please to not accept.3.) Try to avoid moral arguments. (e.g. "Affirmative Action should stay because it woulld be unfair to Minorities if we were to get rid of it")4.) Saying that "that sounds like Eugenics" is not an argument. Eugenics may be a relevant topic here, but simply using that buzzword is not acceptable.5.) Basically, just try to approach this sensitive topic like an intelligent adult.Here is debate structure:RD 1: Pro sets Structure and Debate. Con makes Initial Case.RD 2: Pro makes case and responds to Con. Con responds to Pro.RD 3: Pro responds to Con. Con responds to Pro.RD 4: Pro makes final case. Con makes final case.Feel free to ask any questions in comment section.READ ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS!!! EDIT: Con does not have to disagree with all statements, they must simply disagree with the line of thinking...
An IQ Debate

My opponent has misunderstood my stance on intelligence; A. ) Intelligence is 100% genetic and B. ) IQ tests rely on knowledge to test intelligence My opponent claims IQ scores is 75-85% genetic, that means 15-25% is knowledge based. An IQ of 140 is genius 140 • 75% = 105 An IQ of 105 is average . http://wilderdom.com... An IQ of 110 is superior Intelligence 110 • 75% = 83 An IQ of 83 is Dull . http://wilderdom.com... This goes to show that IQ scores is highly dependent on knowledge Because IQ scores is so heavily depended on knowledge, it cannot truly measure one's Intellect. Because IQ scores are depended on environment, it should not be used to determine immigration, or government services. I have disproven all my opponent's claims.
Their Should be Open Borders

Framework for Debate: This will be a policy style debate. I am prepared to defend all aspects of my plan which is Resolved: The United States should create a default presumption in favor of admission for legal immigration that requires very strict scrutiny to override and eliminate existing caps and quotas for legal immigration The Order is as follows Aff 1st (framework for debate) Neg 1st (Confirmation) Aff 2nd (First Aff Constructive) Neg 2nd (First Neg Constructive) Aff 3rd (Second Aff Constructive) Neg 3rd (Second Neg Constructive) Aff 4th (Affirmative Rebuttal) Neg 4th (Negative Rebuttal) No Entirely New Arguments May be brought up during rebuttals. Cite your sources/cards Make sure your arguments have warrants. No counterplans Have fun!
Being a muslim is a lifestyle of fear

Are you... fine? Islam is a religion... Check the dictionary, ask a Muslim, and anybody. No matter what you believe, Islam is a religion, and what you think doesn't matter and will never change anything. And I don't know about you, but I'm not forced to eat food.. and make it religious. I understand that in some places people cannot believe in anything else. But that is the case with many other religions, and doesn't determine what the religion itself is fundamentally like. What I think you were meaning to say was the Sharia Law. Sharia Law is considered to be a "good" thing based on how it was intended to be, but seeing how it played out through history, some of it wasn't. Some of the Sharia even promoted charity. That isn't the fault of the religion, though. Changes happened through many, many Islamic Caliphates and cultures, and some customs have stayed, for the better or worse. Today, Sharia is different than what it was "meant" to be , but it isn't really what Islam means. It's just a facade of what few used to get and mantain influence. Not. The. Religion. Now along with decency, reasoning, ignorance, historical knowlege, religious tolerance, and grammar, we also have to the piling list of things you need to fix, your analogies. Please. At least try. You used this before, so you thought about using it. Don't. NONE of your sentences even make SENSE. Are you literate? FOR SUCH BOLD CLAIMS YOU MAKE, MAKE THEM LOGICAL AND CONSISE. I am having TROUBLE READING them and having even more trouble THINKING how such IGNORANT connections can be made! And onto the oncoming tide of disaster? You? Are you living in the Middle Ages? Is knowledge and acceptance still a bad thing to have? Can YOU answer to me, CLEARLY, why Islam is a "life of fear" (hopefully without your atrocious figures of speech) and compare it to other religions ? Do you even know anything of Islamic history? World history? Or history in general? BEFORE YOU RESPOND, PLEASE READ THROUGHOUT ALL OF ISLAMIC HISTORY. I can guarantee you will make a half-arsed effort of a response, so please read all of it. From Muhammad to the Caliphs to the Golden Age all the way to the Soviet-Afghani War to now. At least understand what Islamic culture and history is like. You may find something you disagree with, you may even find something that you agree with, but you should at least understand how the religion has developed and why it did that way. I doubt you are even going to read this, but if you actually do take a step towards being more knowledgeable, respond with the name of a major Caliphate. If this doesn't work, the debate will soon shift to why and how much of a fundamentally flawed person you are. Please look into this. Thanks! :)
Being a muslim is a lifestyle of fear

I accepted your previous debate, but I have also accepted you do not know how be open-minded, intelligent, accepting, and overall not an absolute cretin of a person. I am not Muslim myself, but there is so much wrong with what you've said. Islam is just a religion, and the actions of a few aren't determinative of 1.3 billion people. What you meant was the Koran (say it with me!) does have some pretty preposterous things in it, but not everybody follows exactly what it says and enforces it on themself and others. Do all Christians follow the Bible word-for-word and listen to everything it says and agree with it? OF. COURSE. NOT. Terrorists and extremists are hated by many Muslims and they are often the victims. This like getting a glimpse of the KKK and labeling all Christians as the same. I give up on giving evidence and further arguing because you are too shallow to absorb the facts. This debate and all your one-sentence arguments are just a failing attempt to voice your own political ideas. Please stop. Also, before making such stupid claims, use correct grammar. The comma between "be" and "without" is unnecessary. I bet you didn't know how to spell "Koran." And "Muslim" is capitalized. Idiot. At least be a gramatically correct xenophobe. :)
chocolate milk comes from black cows

is there really any proof that it doesn't I believe that some cows have been bread differently than white milk cows because there is no possible ways that non-homemade chocolate milk(chocolate made with milk and chocolate syrup) that comes in cartons could be so horrible if it was really mixed with chocolate all the chocolate milk brands I have tried have either been bitter, plain old gross, or so thin I think I'm drinking water with cream.
Rapists should experience the psychological and physical torture that they put their victims through

Point 3: Torture in this context accomplishes nothing and undermines the justice system The prison system exists for a reason; to punish criminals in a an effective yet humane way. My opponent's entire argument rests on the need to punish rapists in a "proper" and "fair" way, which raises the question: What is so improper or unfair about a prison sentence? The thing that my opponent fails to understand is that the majority of rapists are physiologically disturbed individuals with sociopathic patterns of behavior who, more often then not, can not control their actions. My opponent's statements thus far indicate that she is under the misconception that rapists take the time to think about the repercussions of their actions and weigh the risks they are taking logically before committing their crime; I can say with 100% percent certainty that this is not the case in the vast majority of rapes. You could make the punishment for rape whatever you wanted; death even, and the number of rapes would barely go down, if at all. This is because the criminal psychology is not a logical one, it is a "heat of the moment", uncontrollable impulse that mentally ill individuals succumb to on a regular basis. Therefore, I assert that making the punishment for rape more severe not only sends the false message to the American citizens that prison does not work, it accomplishes absolutely nothing. To recap: My opponent has demonstrated a clear disregard for human rights, a complete misunderstanding of the criminal psychology, and has made poorly thought-out and fundamentally flawed suggestions that are ethically incomprehensible. That is why I stand firmly against her position.
Rapists should experience the psychological and physical torture that they put their victims through

In addition, "an eye for an eye," a commonly used phrase, alludes that these victims deserve justice! My opponent may try to convince you that we have to "turn the other cheek" and be the better people. Unfortunately, he does not realise that turning the other cheek "makes the other side bloody as well." If we ignore the problem, it will continue to haunt us. I know torture seems harsh and immoral, but some criminals don't mind going to jail! As I stated before, they get food, water, somewhere to sleep! In some countries, governments are even trying to get televisions installed for them! Why? Why would they need a television? Jail is a punishment! If they are as one parliament member stated, "bored" or "it would be good for education," they should have thought of that before they committed their actions. A rapist is a criminal, like the others, but not only did that person violate his victim's personal space but also stole their sense of security, peace and some of their esteem. These people go to sleep at night, haunted with nightmares of what happened. No one can give them back their sense of security. If you knew you were going to punished severely for doing something wrong, would you do it? (A/N: I have little time during the week and don't know if I will be able to post out next round. I will try my very best but I am not sure.)
Rapists should experience the psychological and physical torture that they put their victims through

2nd point: Torture is immoral The primary reason that my opponent's assertion is immoral is because torture is always wrong and always unethical. In fact, the very idea that our government should condone torture is absolutely repulsive. When a human being is tortured, they are being completely dehumanized. It treats human beings as merely pawns to be manipulated by their pain and suffering. It violates the very fundamental philosophies of human rights on which our entire justice system is built, making the act of torture not only inhumane, but undermining. Additionally, the person who is actually carrying out this torture will become completely dehumanized. All the history, research and statistics we have indicate that torturing another human being completely dismantles that individual's sense of humanity. The torturer never says, "I go home at 4"; he lives constantly with the knowledge that he has inflicted the horrible mix of fear, humiliation, abandonment, and open-ended sadism that the practice connotes on another human being, and that stigma lasts forever. There are also other crimes besides rape; so does my opponent also suggest that someone in jail for assault should be assaulted? That someone in jail for robbery should be robbed? That someone in jail for shooting someone should be shot? My opponent has not drawn a line and is treating rapists as if they are some sort of special case.
Rapists should experience the psychological and physical torture that they put their victims through

A California legislator stated that, "What we"re up against is the kind of criminal who, just as soon as he gets out of jail, will immediately commit this crime again at least 90 percent of the time." When younger and you made a mistake more than once, you were corrected by any means necessary, not so? Why is it that these sex offenders not taught a lesson? They should feel the same pain that they put their victims through. That is the only way to deter them from hurting others and committing their heinous crimes again. Of course, my deluded opponent has not considered that plans will have to be established to ensure innocent people are not convicted, but that is where forensic evidence comes in, to ensure we are putting away the right people. The purpose of such an establishment will be to prevent people from ever wanting to commit such a crime. If people see there are serious repercussions to their actions, they will thread more carefully, not so?
Rapists should experience the psychological and physical torture that they put their victims through

Point 1: Such a system would be impossible to establish and would only cause more suffering in the end with nothing to gain There is no doubt that rapists are terrible people who inflict immense amounts of suffering upon their victims; this is not the debate. What my opponent will need to prove in this debate is that the only fair punishment for rapists is to inflict the exact same terrible things upon them that they have inflicted upon their victims. Putting the morality aspect of such a proposition aside for a second, I seriously doubt my opponent has considered all the complications that would arise by implementing such a policy. a. People get falsely accused and convicted of rape more then any other crime in the United States; is my opponent honestly suggesting that we inflict torture equivalent to rape upon innocent men, which would inevitably happen? b. Who would be carrying out this torture? Would "torturer" have to become a legitimate occupation in 21st century America? Such a proposition is absurd. c. Any sentence that would include this kind of torture would certainly result in reduced jail time (i.e, a 3 year sentence + torture as opposed to a 20+ year sentence), meaning that there would be more rapists on the streets who could repeat their past crimes. The purpose of our prison system is to reform, not to get revenge, and your proposed system is nothing more then a form of revenge. I will get into more of these complications as the debate progresses. Now for the moral aspect...