Meditation should be compulsory for all citizen of post-industrialized societies.

I do understand your arguments and topic, but maybe because opponent thought that I didn't due to the wording of my argument. No, I did not purposely make it difficult to understand, mind you. I am assuming that you never understood my arguments regarding rights and freedoms, and have decided to use the "let us debate about said argument another time because I do not understand it and/or how it is relevant to said debate" scape-goat again. That will work this time, but the next time we argue another debate and you use that scape-goat once more, you won't be so lucky to get away with it that easily. In your argument, you said to propose a law to force students to take compulsory courses (which are courses that must be taken for credits and not alternative) on a free and daily basis. If you wanted to point out that you meant to make it an option and not a forced choice, then you should have used different vocabulary such as alternative or elective instead of compulsory. You contradicted yourself yet again by saying past argument is not about forcing people to meditate, then you say it is. It is not me that misunderstands, it is you who misunderstands the definition of compulsory. Since you were dumb enough (no offense though) to break down your argument, then I will break down the definition of compulsory and how it counters your arguments and explain how other terms such as elective and alternative could have helped strengthen your argument instead of weakening it: Compulsory (com"pul"so"ry): required by law or a rule; obligatory. "compulsory military service" involving or exercising compulsion; coercive. "the abuse of compulsory powers" [source: Google/Oxford Dictionary] As compulsory actually means being required or forced, you are actually unknowingly arguing that a law should be proposed by you to the government to enforce all students to be required to take meditation on a daily basis at a free financial price, or run the risk of failing said course and not earning enough credits or grades to either succeed through elementary, middle, high-school; college or university. Now you are claiming that you never meant to say it that way as nobody should be forced to take meditation, yet you contradict yourself by saying that they should be required by the educational systems to take those courses. Should you have used other words that meant the exact opposite of compulsory, then I would be certainly misunderstood your arguments and I should be the one to blame for all the confusion. Below are definitions of alternative and elective, terms that you should have used and the educational systems use for courses that are not mandatory or required to take whether students like it or not: Alternative (al"ter"na"tive): adjective (of one or more things) available as another possibility. "the various alternative methods for resolving disputes" (of two things) mutually exclusive. "the facts fit two alternative scenarios" of or relating to behavior that is considered unconventional and is often seen as a challenge to traditional norms. "an alternative lifestyle" noun noun: alternative; plural noun: alternatives one of two or more available possibilities. "audiocassettes are an interesting alternative to reading" Elective (e"lec"tive): adjective related to or working by means of election. "an elective democracy" "he had never held elective office" (of a body or position) possessing or giving the power to elect. (of a course of study) chosen by the student rather than compulsory. (of surgical or medical treatment) chosen by the patient rather than urgently necessary. noun NORTH AMERICAN noun: elective; plural noun: electives an optional course of study. "up to half the credits in many public high schools are electives" [source: Google/Oxford Dictionary] Now that I have explained to you the true definition of compulsory, you should now understand that your arguments have confused you to misunderstand my rebuttals, and not vice versa. If you have used alternative, elective, or other synonyms, then this debate would have been more likely in your favor, however; since you used the opposite term that you intended to use when making said argument, you have failed to to make an effective debate and now the odds of me winning have increased. Please do try to use the terms mentioned above instead of compulsory next time though. With your regard to what you wrote about technology to rebuttal my arguments refuting yours of technology, I have never made any references to social networking or video sharing sites every in my past rebuttals. Perhaps in my other debates, but certainly not in this debate. No, I cannot remember all of the information that I read or watch on such sites, but I certainly can process it all, as it is not as complex as something you would see in a scholarly or post-secondary educational site (except for this site, I give you that.) I do not spend my time on the computer surfing the web every single day, but when I do, I do spend at least 3 hours or more on the web. I am able to tell you approximately 20% of what I saw today online, as I haven't been online for that long and since the human brain can only remember up to 20% of events that occur in a single day; if you want me to tell you more, then I can't because I am not a genius with an IQ of over 150, so I can't and won't. Maybe you can't process information as much as I can, but I certainly can process alot of information much faster and much more than the average human, mainly because I play video games, search up random things on the internet, and I have the strange (but natural) ability to read several times faster than the average human. You won't believe what I said, but it is true if you did "study" me doing these acts under strict laboratory conditions. I read so fast compared to the average joe that they may think I am not even reading at all and just skimming through the pages. Maybe it's because I spend my time always gaming, internet surfing, and reading books; as in reading novels with several hundred pages in one sitting like it was nothing and becoming a bookworm as a result, or maybe it is because I am an android that came from the future to destroy this time-line and create countless paradoxes to defeat my enemies in my time in the distant future. While I do admit that this does apply to things I learn in school and other things, that is mostly because, like you, I am human and will filter it to prevent myself from getting head-aches and stress (not losing my sanity), and I am not very interested in learning said things, mainly school. Also, since I have limited photographic memory that is only slightly better than the average human (but still pales in comparison to those with great photographic memory), I also filter information as you said. You never said that humans can become more intelligent through overload of information, but I said it directly and you said it indirectly (that's how I made such a conclusion after all), so my inferences are not burdened with proof. And for the record, go search it up yourself as you have told me to search up the benefits of meditation. As for the actual benefits of mediation itself, opponent states that it can actually make one more intelligent as it clears the mind of stress, annoyances, trauma, and the like. Yet according to the benefits and your poor wording again, your arguments are invalid (no, Batman is not with me, don't be stressed out). You say that it does improve intelligence, but according to the actual mental benefits and your wording, it actually does not improve intelligence; rather, it simply clears the mind of any distractions that poison it, so that the mind will be able to focus better and allows the self to become better at processing information now that the mind isn't clogged up with such "toxins". So you finally admit your mistakes after the end of the argument? Maybe it is you that needs it...