BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should an IQ in the top 5% and passing a test be required to run for state/federal office

I had previously cancelled this debate, but now I've decided I can make time for it in my busy schedule. Here is my opening argument- What I am arguing for is a hybrid of meritocracy and American style democracy where anyone running for state or federal office should have an IQ in the top 2% and score at least 90% on a long and very difficult test designed to prove the test taker is capable of running our government , or have an IQ in the top 5% and get a perfect score on the test. Their will still be democracy as IQ will not be required to vote(maybe we could switch to the NPV, but that is a different argument). I have chosen the IQ test because it is the best indicator of someone's intelligence, and if someone can score high enough on that plus the quiz which would be written and updated by a committee consisting of a mix of people with a lot of political experience and people with an IQ of 160+ or top 2% that scored perfect on the test once it's created. If these qualifications are added to become a candidate for Federal/State government the United States or any other country that adopts this system will have a government which is better and more capable to govern successfully than any government in history. If an average person can't compete in the Olympics, why can someone with an IQ of 100(to be clear I'm not mentioning any candidate or current holder of any government position of having an average to below average intelligence) be allowed to run our government.
Should an IQ in the top 5% and passing a test be required to run for state/federal office

Hey Bruce, Yes, it's completely relevant. Smart people are more likely to be unstable. For example, I'm pretty smart. I take that back- I'm very smart. I've got a mental condition, and to be honest with you it would effect the way I govern, if I ever decided to. There are plenty of other smart people that I can use as examples- Beethoven, van got, Edgar Allan Poe- ect. I really would have appreciated it if you used examples of people in the top 5%, because you've provided no evidence for your claims. Also, the three candidates may be smart, but I doubt their in the top 5%. Thank you for taking time from your busy schedule of fighting crime. I tried not to post at nighttime, even tho daytime is probably your bedtime. All the best
Should an IQ in the top 5% and passing a test be required to run for state/federal office

-Not relevant -Better than under thinking -So basically politicians -People with a high IQ have statically more common sense than normal people, and I don't know what you mean when you call geniuses less stable -high IQ people understand things better, if not they wouldn't score highly on the test, if someone wanted to represent his people a more intelligent person would better understand how -I'm going to presume you accidentally copy pasted the most qualified part -Did you just question the intelligence of people with a high IQ? Trump won the republican nomination, and while I'm not calling him stupid, I promise you there were at least 3 republican candidates smarter than him, if not more, if have 3 in particular-Kasich,Rubio, Bush(Jeb is way more intelligent and capable of leading a nation than his brother)
Should an IQ in the top 5% and passing a test be required to run for state/federal office

It definitely can help to be smart, but it comes with some trade-offs. For example, people in the top 5% are: -more likely to be depressed -likely to overthink things -sneakier than most people I don't know, I'd take a reasonably commonsense, ordinary guy over some unstable genius... "-having a high IQ means someone better understands how to represent the needs of the people," Back up your claim Mr. Wayne. I want evidence. In a crisis I would like to know the most qualified people are taking care of it. Lastly, if the top 5% are as smart as you think they are, they could easily defeat any opponent of lesser intelligence through superior campaigning, and of course debates.
Homework should be optional in schools

You make a good point about parents being demanding. You're right, many parents put a lot of pressure on their child to do well in school. But that supports my argument even more. If homework wasn't required, that would be one less thing both students and parents would have to worry about. Homework actually takes away opportunities to increase your level of individuality. Here's why: Teenagers need about 9 hours of sleep per night (1), so in order to wake up around 7:00 AM to get ready for school (most schools start around 8:00 AM), they should technically be asleep by at least 10:00 PM. Most school days end around 3:00 PM, and the average high school student takes about 3.5 hours to finish their homework every night (2)! On top of that, after school they need to eat dinner, which could take about another 30 minutes to an hour. This leaves students with, at the most, only about 3 hours left, which is most likely spent doing other required daily tasks like showering, exercising, or maybe even working. This leaves students with little to no time to express and increase their level of individuality. So basically, homework not only can cause physical and mental sickness as I stated earlier, but it also takes up important time needed for teenagers to develop properly. (1) http://kidshealth.org... (2) http://articles.latimes.com...
Homework should be optional in schools

Although I see your point about homework giving psychological problems, most of that stress comes from parents demanding the impossible which puts an incredible amount of stress on the child. Also homework is a necessity so that students don't fall behind in the curiculum. Homework should not be accounted for in the final grades, but should not be optional. Homework also helps you increase your level of individuality, while also helping you learn your own way.. classroom tutoring will not cover all that is needed to understand an entire subject.
Homework should be optional in schools

Homework should be optional for students to complete in school. Homework, although useful for practicing the skills taught in class, has been shown to cause depression, stress (1), and even physical problems such as migraines, stomach problems, weight loss, and sleep deprivation (2). In a study conducted by a Stanford researcher involving high school students who lived in upper-middle class communities, 56% of the students considered homework a primary source of stress (3). In most schools, homework counts as a large part of students' final grades, which explains why it can be so stressful. If homework wasn't counted as part of students' final grades, we wouldn't have to worry about it so much and our health in general would improve. Those are some reasons why homework should be optional. (1) http://factualfacts.com... (2) http://www.dailymail.co.uk... (3) http://news.stanford.edu...
Homework should be optional in schools

We live in a capitalistic world where the demands at workplaces keep increasing. I fear that if you make homework optional you will end up making a lot of people unemployed and raise the already high poverty. The students need to learn how to act as an independent human, a trait that is not taught by hanging out with your friends. The students might be stressed now but let's be real, if they don't get used to it then will end up collapsing when they reach adulthood and get their first job. Thank you for a nice and friendly debate.
Homework should be optional in schools

The massive amounts of homework given to students may get them adapted to a fast-paced, stressful work environment, but it does not make them mature any faster. You're right, students learn at their own pace, but the same homework is given to all students in the same class so its purpose can't have anything to do with flexibility according to the students' individual levels. Homework can be fun! But like I said, even if it is fun, there's so much of it that it still takes up important time and can ruin students' sleep schedules. Thank you.
Homework should be optional in schools

Homework makes you mature at a faster rate. Besides if homework was optional then nobody would be doing it, and as we all know students learn at their own pace. Classroom tutoring will not be able to be as flexible as it would be required to if every student is at a different level. Homework can be fun, not just boring and stressful... It is up to the teachers to try and make their tutoring more interesting so that the children gain an interest. I'm going to close round 2 with a quote "the things you are best at often are the most fun" - Jan Koch
Smoking E-cigarettes in public should be categorized the same as any cigarette and not allowed.

Nicotine is derived from tobacco. I am not saying that people should not be allowed to use these devices, I am saying they should not be allowed to use them in public around other people potentially putting other's health at risk. They have not proven that these devices are not damaging to those around them and therefore should not be allowed in public and should fall under these protective laws. While there have been benefits from these devices, they have enable some to decrease the amount they smoke or stop smoking, there have also been people that have stared smoking because of them. There has been an increased use in the younger population as well. The effect these products can have on those using them, and those around them include; nausea, head aches, cough, dizziness, sore throat, nose bleeds, chest pain or other cardiovascular problems, and allergic reactions such as itchiness and swelling of the lips. I have also read about people getting wheezy, heart burn, and watery eyes. There have also been reports of young children developing a raspy voice after exposure in a vehicle or enclosed places. There is more and more evidence pointing that these devices can have negative effects on those around them. Since the health of others is at risk, they should not be allowed in public places, and should fall under they same laws as other cigarette products.
Smoking E-cigarettes in public should be categorized the same as any cigarette and not allowed.

The initial reason for the electronic cigarette was for people to stop smoking. Personally, I have seen so many people that benefited from it. Although it has nicotine, it does not have tobacco, and it doesn't burn. Vaporizing is and should be allowed in smoke-free places. Also I don't think it is anyone else business whether or not someone is smoking if it is not damaging to them.
Smoking E-cigarettes in public should be categorized the same as any cigarette and not allowed.

The FDA is actually proposing extending its authority to cover additional products that meet the definition of a tobacco product under the proposed rule: Tobacco Products Deemed To Be Subject to the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act. Currently FDA regulates cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco and smokeless tobacco. Proposed newly "deemed" products would include electronic cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, certain dissolvables that are not "smokeless tobacco," gels, and waterpipe tobacco. The definition of a "tobacco product" according to the FDA is any product "made or derived from tobacco" that is not a "drug," "device," or "combination product" (except for accessories of deemed tobacco products). Examples of tobacco products include; hookah, e-cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, novel tobacco products, and tobacco products that may be developed in the future. To read this definition for yourself go to http://www.fda.gov... (It is on page 7 of the document.) Nicotine overdose has increased in not just adults, but also children. CNN did a story on this. In February there were 215 poison center calls involving e-cigarettes which is an huge increase from one per month in September 2010. The sad thing is 51% of those calls involved children 5 and under. http://www.cnn.com... E-cigarettes fall under the definition of a tobacco product according to the FDA. Manny of the E-cigarette devices contain nicotine the drug found in tobacco along with other substances and some have been found to contain carcinogens. There is not enough evidence to support that these devices are safe for those exposed to them and therefore should be categorized the same as any cigarette. Meaning they should not be allowed in hospitals and other public places.
Smoking E-cigarettes in public should be categorized the same as any cigarette and not allowed.

I work at a hospital in an Emergency department. While I was at work a few weeks ago, I walked past a visitor that was smoking his electronic cigarette, or E-cigarette, while walking down the hall. I was very appalled and realized that people think it is okay to smoke these anywhere including hospitals. It seems as though the laws don't always apply to these devices, even though they should. I informed the visitor that smoking in any form is not allowed on hospital property, and while he was annoyed he did put the device away. With the many advances in Health care we have learned much about the effects of tobacco and nicotine on the body. I think that people should have the choice to use it or not, but I do not believe they should be able to use it in any public place. My health and the health of others is important to me. Smoking in any form, be it cigarettes or E-cigarettes, exposes the people in the vicinity and should be categorized the same.
Smoking E-cigarettes in public should be categorized the same as any cigarette and not allowed.

Are they safer than tobacco? Or are they a high-tech way to hook a new generation on a bad nicotine habit? Nobody knows yet. Research into the effects of e-cigarettes lags behind their popularity. But ready or not, the era of e-cigarettes is here. It"s a booming, billion-dollar industry -- on track to outsell tobacco products within a decade. The number of teens and tweens using these products doubled between 2011 and 2012. The time to get informed about these products is now. So far, evidence suggests that e-cigarettes may be safer than regular cigarettes. The biggest danger from tobacco is the smoke, and e-cigarettes don't burn. Tests show the levels of dangerous chemicals they give off are a fraction of what you'd get from a real cigarette. But what's in them can vary. "E-cigarettes may be less harmful than cigarettes," Drummond says. "But we still don't know enough about their long-term risks or the effects of secondhand exposure." E-cigarettes have triggered a fierce debate among health experts who share the same goal -- reducing the disease and death caused by tobacco. But they disagree about whether e-cigarettes make the problem better or worse. Opponents say that because nicotine is addictive, e-cigarettes could be a "gateway drug," leading nonsmokers and kids to use tobacco. They also worry that manufacturers -- with huge advertising budgets and celebrity endorsements -- could make smoking popular again. That would roll back decades of progress in getting people to quit or never start smoking. Others look at possible benefits for smokers. "Obviously, it would be best if smokers could quit completely," says Michael Siegel, MD, MPH, a professor at Boston University's School of Public Health. "But if that's not possible, I think they'd be a lot better off with e-cigarettes. They're a safer alternative." Siegel compares replacing tobacco with e-cigarettes to heroin users switching to the painkiller methadone. The replacement may have its own risks, but it's safer. Some supporters believe that e-cigarettes could help people quit, just like nicotine gum. Research hasn't shown that yet, though. But there is no hard evidence that they are harmful OR safe. http://www.webmd.com...
There are more important things in life than education

First, I am very insulted by the statement you made against the Asians(for I am one myself). Asians are NOT corrupt or smart aleks. We do not create corrupt laws or enforcements. This is why you need education, many people examine stereotypes such as Asian hating as a fact, when they can be intelligent enough actually to open a book and read a page or two about Asian history. Please read a passage or two about Asian history and you will realize that most of the items or ideas you consider today as art or essential mainly came from Asia. Asians create, we don't destroy or corrupt. I was about to say that I enjoyed this debate with you. However, I refuse to talk to ignorant, stereotypical racists about anything.
There are more important things in life than education

I agree with everything you said. What I meant was (I'm sorry for my lack of explaination in previous arguments)- Education is either used for these things: 1. Power 2. Detriment 3. Helping society with our knowledge 4. Gaining wisdom 5. Simply just knowing it so we won't get f***ed (ex: drink acid). But look at Fry from Futurama. He was a total dumba**, yet he was really sweet. And Leela was one smart cookie. But you've got to admit she was a bit prejudiced sometimes. I mean, aren't so many of us, even when we are not at times? Which person would you rather have as a friend or go out with? Educated people can think it is best to lie. They have the brains to think about otherwise, so why don't they? I only believe we should lie when we are trying to gain information (ex: being a secret/double agent). Lies will never help us grow. What good is it not knowing the truth? You can believe that animals are not as smart as we are. But we had to do research first. But sometimes by just observing we can learn. Just because we haven't seen it yet, it doesn't mean it's impossible. We evolve. Evolution has not ended. Just because things are rare, that doesn't mean it's not possible. And you may ask me, "Why are you obsessed with pedo rights?" I am not. If you mean if I support child rape or molestation, you are DEAD WRONG. I defend the sexual orientation, not the actions. Educated people (99% of them) believe that pedophilia is a disorder. Why? Because it's rare. And whatever is rare in a country can be considered immoral. Just because EVERYBODY is doing it, it doesn't mean it's right. Just because it's LEGAL, it doesn't mean it's right. The Asians (not the stereotype, I mean the countries) are total smarties, and they make these laws that are corrupt and immoral. I believe true education should come with education (duh), critical thinking in all ways, and TRUE wisdom. Not being wise in some ways and ignorant in other ways. BTW: I am a straight A student (except in Math, which is either a B or C) and I've been dreaming of going to Stanford. I would choose Erudite when it comes to critical thinking and wisdom if they weren't corrupt like they were in the books, Candor because they don't accept lies, and or Amity because they are peaceful. It's hard to choose between the two because they all have flaws that are hard to choose from.
There are more important things in life than education

I enjoyed reading your argument. Even though I agree with most of your opinion, I have to say there are a few flaws in your statement. First,majority of the great men and women in the coarse of history who changed the world were highly educated. Abraham Lincoln, who wasn't able to afford for school, borrowed books from his neighbors and read almost all day. He even said, "My best friends are the people who send be a book I didn't read", by educating himself, he became a rhetoric giant that changed the fate of millions of African American people living in the United States today. Nelson Mandela(RIP) also quoted, "Education is the best weapon which you can use the change the world". What are the similarity with these two great men? They sacrificed their lives for their people. Is there any rule on this good Earth that says only high school drop outs can change the world? Education not only teaches, but it informs our adolescents the current issues around the globe. By learning the facts, they earn the ability to critically think and create philosophical ideas that might someday change the world. You say as if common sense is not relative whatsoever to education we receive at school. Let me ask you this, how do you know that hydrochloric acid never should be swallowed? Common sense isn't it? But what made you think that you should never drink a highly concentrated acid? Someone or something possibly taught you in the past about the corroding property of acid. Therefore, you know today that drinking hydrochloric acid is suicide. Common sense is only achievable by education. Without being educated by someone, you wouldn't know that marijuana can ruin your life, or fire burns when you touch it. I think education is far more broad that just being taught by teachers. Your parents can teach, the nature can teach, even the television can teach. To sum up, common sense, critical thinking requires FACTS, but facts are unachievable without education.
There are more important things in life than education

All of what you just said is true. However, several high school or college dropouts become successful. I'm guessing what I am trying to say is education should not be simply being a bookworm, being a nerd, or anything simply JUST learning and experimenting. Education must be research with critical thinking. And critical thinking is thinking about everything. Educated or intelligent people cannot realize our hypocrisy I believe to be intelligent you must do it for the people, and actually know what you are doing, not out of power, or simply just knowing. There are two types of intelligence. Educated intelligence and common sense intelligence. We should have both. But so many people only have educated intelligence and/or can know the periodic elements but not social life. To be intelligent and educated, we must be dedicated to society in the way that it should be. Critical thinking of possibilites AND facts. Knowledge,intelligence, and creativity should never have limits
There are more important things in life than education

Education began when human beings began to ponder about the wonders of their surroundings. As the ages of human history passed, education slowly became more sophisticated and constructive. Education caused us humans to ask innovative questions that their ancestors never thought of. As a result, we humans made innumerable amounts of advances than our prior ancestors ever have. Socrates once quoted, "Wisdom begins in wonder". What makes us humans different from other animals in Earth? We have ability to ask questions and answer them using the facts that we know. However, in order to ask questions, we needed verities that we knew for certain was true. In order to motivate people to ameliorate our levels of questions, education was created. Education taught the new generation almost everything that the prior generations discovered. Therefore, those new generations would acquire more information than the people in the past. Using these new knowledge, they will create new ideas and inventions that will be left to the people in the future to examine and improve. As the cycle of education described before continued, human beings began to improve their lives by inventing new items, ideas, and theories that dramatically changed our lives. Therefore, education is what made the world we know today. Without education, we will still be in Monolithic times trying to catch rabbits by hand. Without education, you won't have your computer that you are using to debate with me. Without education,you wouldn't have enough knowledge to write a counterargument against me. Without education, you wouldn't realize how all the things you suggested such as wisdom, commonsense, and critical thinking requires education. Henceforth, education is essential to have a successful and productive life.