azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

I believe that high IQ citizens should run our nation to make Democratic decisions that can affect other citizens in a good way. Look at our other republicans, they most likely have a lower IQ level than this guy. I think it is ridiculous to allow people with the IQ of a moldy rock to run our country!
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

Most intelligent people are fairly psychopathic.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

Statistical Proof is required.   Hand it over. >:D
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

http://www.friedgreentomatoes.org/articles/thepsychopathicpersonality.phphttp://www.crimetimes.org/06b/w06bp7.htm http://theeconomyofmeaning.com/2014/09/09/psychopaths-with-high-iqs-can-manipulate-revealing-personality-tests/ http://examinedexistence.com/the-difference-between-a-sociopath-and-a-psychopath/
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

None of those provide statiscal evidence that most intelligent people are psychopathic.Also, they just discuss the subject of psychopaths, rather than discuss intelligence and how high intelligence contributes to causing psychopathic behavior.You're funny x)
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

You clearly only clicked the first one.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

The 2nd article says.The researchers say that while psychopaths are not more intelligent than non-psychopaths as Cleckley suggested, high intelligence appears to "enhance the destructive potential" of a psychopath. They speculate, "[P]erhaps an explanation lies in the experience of having high intellectual abilities together with characteristics such as impulsivity and irresponsibility that do not allow one to succeed in the ways that people with high intellectual abilities normally do."Seems to go against your own point. Hmmm3rd. Article only discusses how intelligent psychopaths are likely to better conceal their psychopathy. 4th. One only discusses the differences between psychopaths and sociopaths.You derp.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

Go neck yourself.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

I already have a neck.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

based on what evidence?gufuvtucehcrucfgufuvtucehcrucfgufuvtucehcrucfgufuvtucehcrucfgufuvtucehcrucf
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

The more intelligent you are, the dumber and 'simpler' everyone else seems. This gives you bouts of manipulation capabilities over the average person and leads to you taking major advantage of any power given. The intelligent person takes the same rank and/or power as the normal or dumb person and makes far more use of it than they do including selfish use.The intelligent person would sooner use their power to benefit themselves and trick people into believing they are not than to be dumb and genuinely give away their resources etc for others to benefit as this is irrational and hence goes against the intelligent man/woman's ethos.Additionally, you will find that intelligent people tend to use their superior ability to convince others to get others to do work for them rather than to do an awful lot themselves. They'd sooner have those below them doing their jobs for them than be lifting a finger themselves.Being smart is great for the smart person, not for others. The only way to keep smart people useful to others is to have people less intelligent, or perhaps of normal intelligence, to keep them under their thumb and ensure they are using their talents for the good of others.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

The more intelligent you are, the dumber and 'simpler' everyone else seems. This gives you bouts of manipulation capabilities over the average person and leads to you taking major advantage of any power given. Just because someone is capable doing something, doesn't mean they'll do it. The intelligent person takes the same rank and/or power as the normal or dumb person and makes far more use of it than they do including selfish use.Selfish use doesn't necessarily mean that it is no use to others.Additionally, you will find that intelligent people tend to use their superior ability to convince others to get others to do work for them rather than to do an awful lot themselves. They'd sooner have those below them doing their jobs for them than be lifting a finger themselves.A good leadership quality.The only way to keep smart people useful to others is to have people less intelligent, or perhaps of normal intelligence, to keep them under their thumb and ensure they are using their talents for the good of othersBut normal intelligence people will have issues with seeing what the intelligent persons talents are, as this takes good critical thinking skills to ascertain....something that normal intelligence people lack.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

Someone being less capable at something makes them less able to do it. You are a moron.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

That does not mean that they'll ACTUALLY DO IT, if they are capable of it. Moron. :D
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

"A history of criminal behavior in which they do not seem to learn from their experience, but merely think about ways to not get caught is the second best sign."That's a quote from your first article and that is one unintelligent quality. The most intelligent people learn from their mistakes, since everyone makes them.I believe that that may be one type of intelligent person, but it is not all."Psychopathy involves poor emotional intelligence, the lack of conscience, and an inability to feel attached to people except in terms of their value as a source of stimulation or new possessions. "This also seems less intelligent. A psychopath is intelligent at manipulating others, but there are many kinds of intelligent. What this article seems to describe is someone who is intelligent in one specific, or even a few specific ways. It does not describe someone with general high intelligence.In much the same way, being a computer hacker is intelligent in one way, but not another.I feel that to be the person who takes advantage of the world, one must be sufficiently smarter than the average person in a lot of ways, and one way especially, but be dumb enough in another way to care enough to do such a thing. Overall it is high intelligence, but it sounds to me like the most intelligent person wouldn't need to do this. They MIGHT do it if there's a good reason.Also, even among people who share similar views (believe me, I think most people are dumb too, that doesn't make me Einstein right?), not everyone is a society hater. To be fair, I'm a hypocrite because I'm completely anti-establishment and against the social norm, not to say that I am Einstein because I'm not.Further, to support the person who just disputed you further, if intelligent people never did good things why then were George Washington, Einstein, and Martin Luther King good people? I'll be fair and say there are people who take advantage of the system like Hitler.I'll conclude to say that it might be true that an intelligent person can be bad, and therefore take advantage of the system (Hitler). It is debatable that there are also some nice people that take advantage of systems set up by bad people (like anonymous arguably or someone similar taking advantage of computer systems to expose corruption). But a huge percentage of histories great people who were intelligent did wonderful things for society. If there are nice intelligent people, then nice intelligent people should run the nation. But the word intelligent still has to be included in that because unintelligent people will screw everything up.Or maybe you'd say intelligence comes with responsibility.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

Someone intelligent can't help being intelligent and someone dumb can't help being dumb. The intelligent person has the ability to make use of their ability for selfish reasons (look at black hat computer hackers and social engineers), but that's not always the highest level of intelligence because the most intelligent person wouldn't need to take advantage of everyone. Einstein and Steven Hawking don't need to right? They can solve their own problems without doing it. There might be a few intelligent people in an in between range where they are smart enough to take advantage of people but dumb enough to need to use other people as a stepping stone to make solving those problems in their own personal lives easier.I feel like one fictional show that everyone here could use as an example of this is Mr Robot, where a lot of intelligent people take advantage of dumb people. The show doesn't supply any factually based argument because its a fiction based TV show (although it portrays a lot of things accurately), but do you think a smart person would be like the main character from that show or one of the business people? There's a comparative or metaphorical example somewhere in that show that relates to this argument, probably in favor of the opposing side to my opinion, but I can't quite nail what it is.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

Intelligence is one component of overall personality. I am aware of no research which suggests that it has any common, unique causal relationship with sociopathy. Even if this were true, why is it a bad thing? Why should more intelligent people with the capacity to use others to their ends not do so? Why should they need to bend their abilities to the ends of others? This seems a perversion of power. Under either, one is expected serve as an ends to another but only under one is that according to actual ability.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

Unmitigated, unwarranted nonsense. *
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

Character is a far more important quality for a leader than intelligence, especially so when the nation faces a crisis. Though intelligence is important to some degree, I would not choose individuals to run the government on the basis of intelligence alone. I've witnessed the behavior of highly intelligent individuals in academia--I'm not sure I'd trust them to run the nation...
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

What did you see academics do?
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

It's not so much what they do as much as it is their attitude. Often times, highly intelligent people can become quite enamored with elegant and compelling ideas. In academia, my impression was that many such individuals pursued the development of their ideas at the expense of their teaching--I've heard many in academia express a disdain for teaching since it takes up valuable research time. I would not want a leader with such a singular focus on the implementation of his/her ideas. I would rather have a leader that makes the well being of the nation and the people in it his/her only priority.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

I feel like you might be mixing causation and correlation. In academia a teacher is really only judged on their research. If they aren't able to conduct research the school will get rid of them.But, either way an academic would probably feel that they must stick to the promises they made to get elected instead of what might be best for the country, so your point is valid.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

Yeah, I suppose there was some selection bias in my experience; unless you're at a teaching college, most of the untenured faculty will focus on research for that reason. Furthermore, tenured faculty might have kept that attitude from their time as untenured faculty.You make an interesting point though: intellectuals tend to place a high value on being consistent in their views--my feeling is that it may stem from a fear of being wrong (though I'm not entirely sure I have a tangible basis for this).
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

It has been my empirical experience that highly educated people are often quite impractical and when placed in positions of authority they often make decisions that defy logic. Having a high IQ, especially in the absence of emotional intelligence, does not automatically mean that rational thought presides
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

IQ and education level are not entirely related. You can practise and work hard enough to overcome lack of natural intelligence in the same way that a naturally intelligent person can be lazy and underachieve.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

Yes this debate is about IQ I agree that IQ and education are not unrelated. However, as far as I am aware the only way to raise one's IQ is through cognitive training which takes a very long time often with minimal effect. Being able to increase one's IQ by practice and hard work is incorrect.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

He's not saying that someone can increase their IQ, he is saying that someone who is a hard worker and with a lower IQ than someone intelligent can still excel over the intelligent person, if the intelligent person is lazy. (Note that i say can not will)...Which is an argument for his point that intelligence and education level are not entirely associated.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

Not all high IQ people should run the govt as they would have a biased vote compared to those with a lower IQ level..
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

How does that make any sense?
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

This is true as when you have a large amount of people who come from a certain background, it falsely represents the country. As the high IQ people will only think alike and not correctly represent the low IQ people.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

The high IQ possess the ability to observe and come to an accurate summation of what people want and can therefore correctly represent the country.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

If anything low IQ people would have a biased vote as they would be less educated and believe what the media tell them all of the time.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

That is not necessarily true! Some people who have a low IQ might have a grudge against the news company or something like that.. or the other possibility is that the person who has low IQ only has low IQ in certain areas and may not believe everything that the news says.. And anyway, not all the news represent and support the same thing, so when you watch many types of news, you basically get the whole idea of how the news should be like
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

Both FOX News and CNN are usually in favor of the establishment. And, being pro establishment, at least for the most part, is universal propaganda because our government has flaws that cause major events all of the time that we don't hear about. Anons post legitimate events as tweets, reported by smaller news sources, all of the time. Its actually a quite large percentage of the time they are legit.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

What makes you think the nation would (still) be democratic?
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

I think that intelligent people should definitely run the nation. However, seeing as their is no accurate way to measure how intelligent a person is (because of multiple intelligences) there is no way to know other than personal opinion.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

IQ IS an accurate assessment of intelligence, it just doesn't go so far as to specify the other persons intelligences, but If you look at the multiple intelligences, you may see that they are mostly talents that someone with good analytical abilities can figure out. High IQ is directly associated with good analytical abilities, so someone with high IQ will have high scores in multiple intelligences and someone with low IQ will have lower scores in multiple intelligences.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

I am against this topic.High IQ person is not always a good leader,its not logical to make newton or other scientist president or king of there country.Everyone is expertised in his own field,if sachin is a very good batsman it dosent mean that he can even play soccer in man utd. i belive that they can face country's problems in more advance manner due to there IQ but expirence is also needed to deal with situation.at last theortically it may seems possible but practically it's not.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

well said.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

I think intelligence and education are overrated. Just look at what's in the WH, or the entire liberal establishment for that matter. They are suppose to be the best and the brightest. Case closed.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

.........................................................................................................
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: yes

Hillary is a conservative Democrat who is popular among liberals. That's why she is polling so high: she represents the center. (source) Positives and negatives at this point is matter of perspective. None of the Republican candidates thus far (except Chris Christie) have declared global warming to be a threat while 97% of climatologists are alarmist. (source) Global Warming is the biggest threat by far, and Hillary sands with the overwhelming scientific consensus. If it wasn't for this fact I would be more open to voting for someone like Rand Paul who has many sensible views that outweigh Hillary, but unfortunately all of the republicans are funded by the oil industry.
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: no

Hillary is not a conservative, she is a liberal. .
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: yes

On some issues, sure, but by the standards of the Democratic Party, she is closer to a Blue Dog than mainstream. She is considered Conservative by the standards of a Democratic.Edit: And enough of this absurd down voting tirade you are on. The comment you down voted was factually correct.
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: no

I disagree. Hillary is a liberal, not a centrist. She is a member of a liberal political party.
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: yes

I disagree. Hillary is a liberal, not a centrist. She is a member of a liberal political party.Being a member of the Left-Wing Party does not mean someone is necessarily that Liberal. Are you familiar with the term Blue Dog Democrat, for example?Edit: And seriously, why are you down voting every single comment you disagree with?
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: no

The left wing is liberal, and the right wing is conservative. You are misinformed.
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: yes

Why are you ignoring my comments? Do you or do you not know what a Blue Dog Democrat is?
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: yes

He didn't say she was a conservative, he said she was a "conservative Democrat." He does affiliate with the liberal party, but has some views that lean a little conservative.
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: yes

This is a perfect example of why people accuse you of not reading what is presented. There are lines and lines of text in the argument you responded to and your objection was with the fourth word that he used.
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: yes

Hillary has the credentials and the leadership abilities to be President.
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: yes

Hillary has been working very hard on a green campaign, she is planning on reusing both of Bushs' campaign signs. What they are doing is painting over the parts she doesn't need. They will read......Bush for President
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: yes

Yes. She is a liberal, so I support her. .
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: yes

Hmm, that's a pretty poor reason. I too am a liberal, but you should support someone for more than just the fact that they share some of your beliefs. What if a 4 year old was a liberal and wanted to run for president? Would you elect them? What about a person who was a serial killer? Or one of your liberal enemies on this site xD…I am a liberal and you don't always support me in debates. I am heartbroken. ;)
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: no

but you should support someone for more than just the fact that they share some of your beliefsThat is the only criteria anyone ever uses.What if a 4 year old was a liberal and wanted to run for president? Would you elect them? What about a person who was a serial killer?What would you rather have her say? "Hillary is a liberal, and is old enough to run and not a criminal"? Hillary is the only candidate that has Dana's beliefs. She can't make a determination to who would be a better liberal candidate.
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: yes

That is the only criteria anyone ever uses.That's not true. People do address candidate's ability to make decisions, their age, emotional influence, the kind of person they, their capabilities, etc. etc.. It's definitely the primary one, but since there is more than one person a party, it can't be the only one. What would you rather have her say? "Hillary is a liberal, and is old enough to run and not a criminal"? Hillary is the only candidate that has Dana's beliefs. She can't make a determination to who would be a better liberal candidate.Hillary is not the only person to announce her candidacy. It wasn't a major criticism either, merely the fact that your reasons for supporting a candidate should be more than the fact that they are in the same political party as you. And, to answer the question of the debate, just because someone is in the same political party as you, it doesn't mean they should be president. Wasn't meant to be a major criticism, merely pointing out the flaw in her logic here.