BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The fickle-minded should not be concentrated on more than the 'intellectuals.'

I firmly believe, in this day and age the 'educational system,' concentrates it's efforts on those not up to par, with average standards. As a subsequent result; intellectuals are losing out. Why are the people that lack an 'objective intelligence,' pushed more avidly than the naturally gifted? It's ridiculous. The gifted, may or may not realize their innate ability. Thus should be provided with more resources.As they maybe settling for the measly 'pass-average.' The contention there in lies, in the fact why is there a major disposition to one side- not the other? When sound reason and logic simply dictate the fickle-minded shouldn't be the prime focus; the focus should be on the naturally gifted, the academics. Why? Because, they have the ability period. It doesn't make logical sense, to fund the losers.
The fickle-minded should not be concentrated on more than the 'intellectuals.'

1. My opponent has dropped the argument that paying special attention to High IQ kids, encourages underachieving. 2. My opponent has dropped my argument that paying special attention to low IQ students reduces the chances of failing grades and thus unemployment. Having a significant and positive effect on poverty and crime. 3. My opponent has attempted to shift the burden of proof, and just metaphorically sits there with his arms crossed and his hands covering his ears singing "la la la". The proposition clearly has the burden of proof here and no judge will disagree with the fact that he atleast splits it with me. The proposition has failed to competantly present a single argument and doesn't even attempt to make any rebuttals. I'm sorry pro, shifting the burden of proof, making nonsensical statements and ignoring your opponent's arguments, is not only a sign of being fickle minded, but a recipe for the loss I just handed you. I want to remind voters to consider the source vote.
The fickle-minded should not be concentrated on more than the 'intellectuals.'

I've provided "no citations," because 'logical and rational thinking' dictates you place your money on the fastest horse. That's generic knowledge; common sense is subjective, for everyone-- thus doesn't exist so don't use that as a foundation to justify a claim. Now that's my true argument. So evidence hasn't be required to rebut your claims, or substantiate my claim. Consequently meaning, I haven't felt inclined to provide any with just foundation. You haven't formulated your argument strongly to directly assess, the actual argument despite you holding validity in regards to the repercussions and effects. You're absolutely correct, but you're not. You're not rebutting the root problem, similar to answering a question with everything besides the 'actual answer.' So let me sound this out for you...find evidence that contradicts reasoning and logic and you'll win. Then the argument, will actually begin.
The fickle-minded should not be concentrated on more than the 'intellectuals.'

"Now correct me if I'm wrong,but that's the foundation to my argument."You're wrong. The special attention on me gave me a big ego and hurt me in the long run, it was better spent helping somebody who needed it. " The repercussions are irrelevant e.g, because it's conjecture. Humans are inherently bias, so who am I to take your words, as "Gods," without evidence."You've provided no citations either and common sense dictates the people who need more attention should get more attention.The less intelligent are more likely to end up in poverty and prison. http://www.vulnerablegroupsandinclusion.net...If we want a safer society with less poverty and crime, than we should put most of our focus on making the fickle minded employable. Since they require more effort to make employable than higher IQ people that is where the focus should be. The intelligent, overachiever needs no push, to learn. they often find learning fun.
The fickle-minded should not be concentrated on more than the 'intellectuals.'

The repercussions are irrelevant e.g, because it's conjecture. Humans are inherently bias, so who am I to take your words, as "Gods," without evidence. You argue it will "create an entitled thinking that causes underachieving." Gaining stature, from your personal experiences with regards to your education. Ultimately underlined by you, quitting "school at 16, because what mattered" to you was your IQ. Now correct me if I'm wrong,but that's the foundation to my argument. My argument by core: more emphasis on the intellectuals, to act as preventive to underachieving. Now, the fact you were treated as "special," warranted your decision to leave (from what I understand). If there was more emphasis and structured education directed at your mentalities, that may not happen. As you're not special, you're by fact the same in reflection to the hypothetical "scheme." But, the fact you're now "struggling with bills," could be as a dire consequence of a lack of emphasis on the intellectuals.
The fickle-minded should not be concentrated on more than the 'intellectuals.'

I have a high IQ. I won't say how high. Saying so unneccesarily intimidates people.. I had special treatment in school. I would get Fs and be passed to the next grade. Teachers thought learning the material was enough to pass, and I knew the material. This happened several times. I learned I was special and could get by on my IQ. I quit school at 16, because what mattered was my IQ, not my actions. I am now 33 years old, working at Walmart and struggling with bills. If you treat high IQ kids as if they're special, and they'll believe it. This thinking is a disease, and will create an entitled thinking that causes underachieving. Smart kids will learn the stuff without the extra attention, but the slower kids will not. By helping the slower kids more, we can help them to learn the material better, increase their confidence and help them become more employable. Kids without opportunities become criminals, which harms society. Let's give these kids the attention they need.
Do You Think God Exists? I do.

The only thing that my opponent even began to contend was the morality of their deity, which is in no way pertinent to their existence; and since my opponent had the burden of proof, it is essentially a mute point to even contemplate a closing argument that exceeds five hundred characters. I rest my case simply on that I do not even need to have a case because no opposing case was given. -regards, TryingAtLogic
Do You Think God Exists? I do.

In Response to Argument to Creation: Have you not examined that which is nature? Earth? The Universe? Since Earth and the Universe are part of the nature, it is clearly unnecessary to elaborate that nature is flawed if I elaborate that Earth and the Universe are flawed. Thus: Earth: plague, starvation, natural disasters, radical environments, etc., etc.. Universe: asteroids, poor star formation, universal expansion, colliding galaxies, the death of our sun, CO2, no oxygen in space, etc., etc.. All of these things humans have absolutely no control over. How is it part of a deity's judgment that one should suffer whilst the latter is affected by something another cannot fix? Response to Argument to Death: "What do you believe happens after death. Do we just die? Nothing happens?" Yes. I see no scientific reason to believe anything else. Response to Argument to Divine Morality: Not only is morality not empirical evidence of any deity, but your deity--if he exists--is not even a moral deity. If we examine the evidence, we see that your deity--who is either omnipotent or omniscient (see arguments about)--has created a very flawed system, with either the power to change it, or, in past tense, having the knowledge that it shall be flawed and still deigning to create it. Moreover, God is in no way pertinent to the perpetuation of my morality, but I do not deign to continue the counteraction of such an argument past this round because it is in no way relevant to the debate. Conclusively: Imagine the Israelites as Moses walked down with the Ten Commandments. When they saw "Thou Shalt not Kill" they exclaimed, "Oh, thou shalt NOT kill! How silly of us to think otherwise!"--Christopher Hitchens, paraphrased. Ironically, Yahweh then urged the Israelites to ruthlessly murder the occupants of the "holy land." Response to Argument to Creation: The system, if indeed you mean the universe, is failing! What a horrendous scientific illiteracy, to state that the system does not fail. It will indeed fail, approximately around the time it collapses in on itself. Response to Argument to Humanity: Yes, indeed, humans have destroyed Earth. So has God. Suffice to say, the fact that X slit the throat of the Y does not render innocence to the fact that, at precisely the same time, Z was stabbing Y repeated. Besides, if your god is omniscience then he would already have known that humans were going to perpetuate damage, so why not make them more docile--yet still give them free will--when he created them? That leaves you only omnipotence as a counter, and a flawed counter be that. Response to Argument to Evolution: No, of course evolution cannot build an unbreakable natural system. That is precisely why 95-99% of all species that have ever lived on Earth no longer do. Argument to lack thereof Evidence: You will please note that you offered no empirical nor logical evidence for the existence of God; you simply assigned humans free will. Your point?
Do You Think God Exists? I do.

God did not create the universe just to plague it. He didn't even plague it. What he did was, he created humans to be free-minded, meaning us, humans decide on our actions. He then created Nature, The Earth, The Universe, and then he began to watch what we would do with all of our surroundings. Life is a test for every human, and humans born poor with no money, food, and water? They are our tests, yes, mine and yours. Will we help them or ignore them? What do you believe happens after death. Do we just die? Nothing happens? No. God judges us by everything we have done. You must be an Atheist, so, because you have no "rules" and no "God" does that mean that you can break every rule, and achieve every sin and receive no punishment? Furthermore, how do you think everything was made. All you have to do is look down, up, and all around and think: "Who could have made such a system that does not fail?" Imagine where we would be today in Earth if there were no Plagues. Our resources would have already finished, there would have been no more room on Earth, and our population would be much higher then today"s. So, regarding your metaphor: "...stacking blocks atop each other only to knock them down." I"ve answered it. But, just a re-cap: Humans have free-will, and we are the ones who destroyed the Earth, not God. One more point before I go, If you don"t believe in God, you must believe in evolution, and I must ask you, because you seem like a really smart man to ponder the following question: Can evolution build an unbreakable natural system?
Do You Think God Exists? I do.

Since your god here seems to hold no creed, is this deity a foundation to deism? Pantheism? Nevertheless, this god is in no way that I can see related to any known religions and, accordingly, should not be pertinent to any scriptures. The evidence will be strictly upon you and scientific finding. Moreover, is it not a paradoxical assertion that a deity is genderless, but then to perpetuate genders on them, even if only in accordance with modern stereotype? After all, it was a "modern stereotype" circa 1490 C.E. that Earth was flat. The prolific nature of a stereotype does not make it true, nor does it flatter human intelligence to reiterate it. And since I can't really counter any point you've made (I reiterate, you have the burden of proof), I'm not really capable of hoping giving a sophistication reprise. The only real thing I can assail is that why would any deity create something--in this case, the universe--only to plague it with disasters innumerable? Strictly on Earth alone, we have plague, famine, natural disaster, survival of the fittest, ect., ect.. Once we leave the pale blue dot, as Sagan put it, we are venturing into a place where mountains--literal mountains--of rock hurl through occupied space, where the air cannot be breathed by most life forms, where the nearest safe haven is light years away. Our own pale blue dot will not survive much longer, since the sun is going to burn out--that is, after it expands and cooks us. Some time in the future the Andromeda galaxy is going to crash into our own Milky Way and then one must say, "Auf wiedersehen" (German for: "I hope to see you again") to the idealistic ovular shape that the galaxy currently holds. We will indeed be thrown out of place, not be an asteroid or something of that manner, but by another galaxy. But what does that matter? Eventually the universe will expand to such a point that it will be so massive that it will have to collapse in on itself, and everything will be destroyed. What grand invention is this that your deity has created? It speaks to the mannerism of a child, stacking blocks atop each other only to knock them down. -regards, TryingAtLogic
Do You Think God Exists? I do.

God is a supreme being, neither male nor female, (we wouldn"t know, we"ve never seen him) that has created Earth, the Solar System, and the entire universe. Basically He (He is referred to as He, because of modern stereotypes that declare males being the lead gender on Earth) created everything that is Natural, and indirectly created everything artificial (By making humans). That is the definition of God, I look forward to our debate.
Do You Think God Exists? I do.

God hasn't interfered with modern life because in every religious text it is said that its supposed to be a test, and what is the point of a test when you are given the answers? I believe in God because you cannot prove evolution the same way you can't prove that there is a God. I believe that there is a God, because I do not believe that the Earth, the Sun, and the Solar System happened to create itself. I took the time to study nature and also found that Nature always fixes itself no matter what we humans do, or what happens, and I think the only one capable of making such an intricate system is God Himself. I believe in God, and I am not scared of death, because as long as I do good, I shall go to heaven, which is my prize. Another reason why I believe in God is because science isn"t fully developed. I mean, just a couple hundred years ago, we used to believe that the world was flat! So I don"t believe that Science counts as any answer, which is what Atheists rely heavily on. The only way to prove an Atheist wrong, is to prove Science wrong, which is impossible because Science always changes. I respect Atheists, if I was born an Atheist, is would be hard for me to start believing in God just because of what some guy says on the Internet. I was born believing in God, so its hard for me to stop believing in Him. Also, I would like to add that I do not believe Jesus is God, and neither do I believe that the Holy Ghost is God. I only believe in one God, and that is the God hopefully waiting to have us all enter heaven.
Gentle oral sex should be legal between small children and big adults

What are you a pedophile? Love is not love when it comes to Age OK PERIOD. Minors cannot give consent when in a sexual situation, But pedophiles like you take advantage of little boys and girls to get what you want because you feel like it. Why don't you do that to people your own age? You need some help. This ain't a argument no more. I AM REPORTING YOU.
Gentle oral sex should be legal between small children and big adults

Ok, First to set meanings. Oral sex = Either putting genitals in mouth either licking genitals Gentle = One that causes no harm Legal = Non-sanctioned We all know how children like putting things in their mouth. Sadly, In the world where we live, The beautiful practice of children sucking on adult's genitals has been condemned and sanctioned by the law and the masses. Because of this, Children who have had oral sex with adults are being impacted with the guilt for the deed they have done. For those who want more information on this topic, Book "The Trauma Myth" by Susan Clancy explains this very well. In the book, She interviews today's adults, Children in the past who engaged in gentle sexual activities and came out unharmed by them. The statistics that she uses face some problems from the very start. Like, The fact that she combines gentle sexual activities with violent ones into one statistic. But in her book, She did correct one of her statistics when she said that it is not known whether children are hurt by sexual activities, Or are hurt children more likely to engage in sexual activities. Children who wonder around alone with no parents or friends are likely already damaged by that alone, But they are also easier targets for child lovers. Which means that in studying statistics one can falsely assume that children are damaged by sexual activities, Rather than damaged children being more likely to engage in sexual activities. As explained, It is much more possible that already hurt children are engaging in sexual activities, Rather than children engaging in sexual activities are being hurt by sexual activities. Second factor is the fact that children are often being separated from their lovers when their relationship is discovered, And questioned by family and police. This can easily lead to a sense of guilt, Which later in life results in alcohol and drug abuse. So rather than sexual activities being the cause of problems later in life, The reaction of people, Friends, Family and police are just as likely to be the cause of those problems. Third factor is the huge condemnation of sexual activities with children by the society. Often condemned in news, Stories written about this form of love in a very negative way, Along with the complete media censorship of any positive examples of this form of love. So it is only expected for children who engage in sexual activities to feel as outcasts. Children who had sexual experiences feel like they have disappointed their family and friends, Because the reaction that their friends and family produce is usually disapproval, Which borders closely with disappointment. Saying that society protects children from sexual activities is equal to saying that society protects children from joy. Sexual activities cause joy, Both in children and adults. Saying that sexual activities are against the rights of a child is saying that children don't have right to sexual activities, That their freedom is limited. And considering the joyful nature of sexual activities, It is a negative limitation.
Addiction of all kinds is a choice

I maintain that people though animals ourselves cannot be compared to other life forms in terms of choice and willpower. I maintain that slight compulsion unless it has lobotomized the person cannot take away his human ability of choice. I maintain that people with enough of a reason to make the choice can endure great hardship even whilst alone and in misery, that happiness and endorphins are not the be all end all of humanity. The endorphins a hermit may get from the pleasure of his solitary life can hardly measure to the endorphins brought about by worldly pleasure. He Chooses it from a different purpose and calling, exerts his will that he can overcome. I would like to thank my opponent for this debate and hope that I do not appear to fall into this category of person https://www.smbc-comics.com....
Addiction of all kinds is a choice

What it seems to me, is that you're arguing that humans have no choice at all and are just pleasure seeking junkies predetermined to act out as their biological machines see fit. I agree with your statement that people do not have a choice about the physiological effects of withdrawal, Once the initial choice has been made that is. Just because the effects are to the side or after the fact doesn't change the choice to my eyes. If I reeeallly like money and the pleasures it brings me and am an indolent person who has developed a remarkably weak willpower regarding the well being of others and I decide to rob a bank because it feels good, are you really saying that I had no choice? Just because I have a weak warped mind or a physical desire of material goods? Desire, want, some slight compulsion to do something is Not a good enough argument to say they had no choice. I agree that people who's mental capacity is damaged through extensive long time use are less capable if not incapable of properly exercising their choice, but this I would say is because they have regressed further from what I see a human as. Simply because genetic factors are passed down does not mean we have no choice, we all inherit the human condition. We are born more or less equal but are what we becoame Because of the choices we make. Are we arguing about capable adults young adults full of the power of self determination or are we arguing about the mentally handicapped unable to understand or children lacking all the knowledge?
Addiction of all kinds is a choice

Sure, I'll give another try. If we were simpler animals such as mice then perhaps we would have no choice over addiction as I don't really see a mice being able to consider its position, option, or dream of a better life as a human might. I still say it is a choice, it's less of a choice the less that people know, but it remains a choice no matter how small. People are able to take those small steps in the direction of therapy and knowledge if they choose to. Or at least I like to believe so. Maybe I'm missing something and I'm just going with choice because the alternative concept of humans being so weak irritates me.
Addiction of all kinds is a choice

Although addicts of all kinds make that conscious decision to go ahead and do some heroin or drink alcohol or do whatever fuels their addiction, they don't really have a legitimate choice, because addiction is so strong that it cannot be overcome with simple willpower, except for EXTREMELY rare cases. The drug is really strong and it affects the levels of certain chemicals in your brain, such as dopamine and serotonin, which are essentially the chemicals that tell your brain to be happy. The affects those chemicals and causes an imbalance, which after a while means that the drug is the only thing that can bring you happiness. Therefore, you stop doing things like playing music or sports and devote all your time to either finding the money for drugs, doing drugs, or being high. If you asked a person who has been addicted to, say, heroin whether or not they want to get off the drug, their response may differ depending on whether or not they're lying to themselves. If they realize that they won't be okay on the drug (which they won't), then they will say that they prefer to be off the drug. If they're lying to themselves, then they will say that they are going to be fine and they can quit the drug right now, if they wanted to. Here is a source to support my position. Look it over before responding, please. http:/www.elementsbehavioralhealth.com/news-and-reach/addiction-is-not-a-choice