azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: People should not use swastika as their avatar
Side: Swastika are not bad

It is basically the sign Aryan race used.. It has been dirties over the years.. But how you give meaning to it is what matters.. It's very different! Like u use abusive language.. But, they are to the extent of perception. Not really meant bad. The origin of it wasn't bad.. So it should be let alone!
Debate: People should not use swastika as their avatar
Side: Swastika are bad

Should Hitler have been left alone? We shouldn't stand up to evil? It is OK for ThePyg to run all Jewish people from this site, by posting swastica's all over it? We should just leave him alone, while he is free to spread hatred all over this site? The only thing necessary for bad to win is for good to do nothing.
Debate: People should not use swastika as their avatar
Side: Swastika are not bad

No.. Hitler is more than a criminal. He is worth all the hate that is imposed on him today... He deserves it! Standing up to evil is different from blaming a particular sign for it's past it could not help. Besides it was used then by the Nazis.. They created a wrong meaning to it during their existence which is now dead. And Yes, that is no excuse not to call it wrong. And the Jews should not be bothered by a mere swastica, that one person uses... It is going to do no harm to them. I don't think it is really that bad as you put it. It is just something he is using. There is nothing to be offended!
Debate: People should not use swastika as their avatar
Side: Swastika are not bad

As the only person who has, to my knowledge, ever used an actual Nazi party swastika as his avatar, to represent his fascist ideals, I think a great deal of Mr. Clob's criticism should be directed at me.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

I completely agree with this because once this has been accomplished the human race will cease to exist. Those people only the highest IQ's and Harvard should be kept alive. In a couple of years when their egos are deflated, so will the food supply. Those left will feed off their comrades still boosting about how smart they are, while eying the weakest member of the group. Finally the last of them will fall and be rewarded for his great IQ as a vulture rips out his heart. The world at last will be a better place, for animals don't boost how great they are.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Disagree

In a couple of years when their egos are deflatedWhy are you conflating IQ with ego? I understand this is a simplistic piece of rhetoric, but for it to be meant to establish a point, it is entirely inefficacious.for animals don't boost how great they are.Take a look at the male peacock, lion, various insects, etc., and come back and look at this statement. It was a nice try, but sometimes the best thing to do is to not try. Though I do apologize if you felt insulted (perhaps your IQ wouldn't fit the criterion for 'High'), this was entirely theoretical.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

Why are you conflating IQ with ego? I understand this is a simplistic piece of rhetoric, but for it to be meant to establish a point, it is entirely inefficacious.I don't conflate IQ with ego, but you do. This is in direct response to arguments that you have stated in the past and the debates in which you start like this one. It is your claim of superiority and the claims you've made in regard to you deeming yourself as intelligent that one write this rhetorical. The claim is not mine, but yours.Take a look at the male peacock, lion, various insects, etc., and come back and look at this statement.Yes, take a look at those animals in which you listed and prove to me that it is boosting and not basic instinctual functions of that species. What you are basically attempting to claim is that the male rabbit has intercourse to prove he has a penis worth showing the gals and not that it is basic instinctual behavior. What a crack pot!It was a nice try, but sometimes the best thing to do is to not try. Though I do apologize if you felt insulted (perhaps your IQ wouldn't fit the criterion for 'High'), I would only be insulted if I ever agreed with you on anything, and this will never happen.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Disagree

I don't conflate IQ with ego, but you do. This is in direct response to arguments that you have stated in the past and the debates in which you start like this one. It is your claim of superiority and the claims you've made in regard to you deeming yourself as intelligent that one write this rhetorical. The claim is not mine, but yours.None of what you just written deals with the point of conflating IQ with ego. Essentially all you have just said is that I have a big ego and a (self-proclaimed) high IQ... Yes, take a look at those animals in which you listed and prove to me that it is boosting and not basic instinctual functions of that species. What you are basically attempting to claim is that the male rabbit has intercourse to prove he has a penis worth showing the gals and not that it is basic instinctual behavior. What a crack pot!I had to second-guess whether or not you were serious when I read this. Its instinctual function is to "boost", obviously. This is why your claim rendered itself erroneous, and this counter-rebuttal only exacerbated it. I would only be insulted if I ever agreed with you on anything, and this will never happen.This speaks volumes of your constrained mind-state and predisposes you to such statements such as the one above. Just because you do not like someones based on their proclamations, doesn't mean that their wrong about certain subject material. That's like someone disliking Obama because he is black and therefore disagree with all of his policies, which sadly, for too many people, that is the case.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

Are you talking about this peacock debate?I still have no idea what you are talking about. Are you going to respond to my posts on the other side or do you admit defeat?It seems pretty obvious by now that you did not understand your own citation at all.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

I see merit in your proposal, but democrats won't be too happy; it would eliminate their voting base. ha ha ha
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Disagree

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2012/nov/05/larry-sabato/education-level-tied-voting-tendencies/ Bout that.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

Education is obviously overrated. Many of the recent graduates come from the liberal environment that colleges and universities are saturated with. These institutions are notoriously liberal and therefore turn out liberal-minded people. These kinds of "studies" are often a concoction of the left designed to stroke their minions and make them think they are smart for voting democratic. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are many of these faux studies put forth by the left to try to convince their followers to stay the course. I'm sure after a few years of paying taxes and footing the bill for the bottom half, most will see the light of day and become more conservative and they mature.Nice try, though. The fact that they vote liberal undermines the study. ha ha ha
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Disagree

Not a single surprise within that response. Dismiss evidence without reading it, come up with a generalization based upon nothing, and then end with an insult.You've got it down to a formula.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

Eugenics was legal in 1929. We did it before, we can do it again.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Disagree

The North Carolina law was repealed in 2003 and the "victims" compensated in 2013.The law was related to only mentally defective individuals and this debate is about low IQ which does not identify a score or mental deficit
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Disagree

mentally defective individuals vs low IQWe are splitting hairs now.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

No Jolie we are not - we need to understand the language we use The term mental retardation does not just mean a Low IQ but also levels of function. Simply because a person has a low IQ (>70) does not automatically mean they also have behavioural problems or lack daily living skills. There is a considerable difference between the two believe me I used to work in such a unit
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

You have a very politically correct idea of this. Have you ever met someone with an IQ of less than 70 that can function in daily life the same way as someone with average intelligence?
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

That is the whole point.Yes there are people with low IQ who are able to function in their daily living tasks It is simply a matter of degree of what they are able to achieve.We are not talking about high function activities just simply managing daily living tasks
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

So it would seem that IQ relates to do the ability to do 'high functional activities' then. A person with an IQ of 70 wouldn't be able to whereas someone with an IQ of 100 could. So what exactly is the objection? That the difference isn't proportional? That for example someone with a IQ of 50 isn't necessarily less able than one with 70?
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

It would be best to not only look at IQ alone, rather someone's genetic chances of having children with high or maybe even average IQs. Now I've read that IQ has a bit more to with nurture instead of nature. In that case there has to be looked into someone's ability to raise a child instead of genetics or some combination of those two in a ratio based on proper research and theory. This law in North Carolina was on the right track of realising this but the execution was not based on proper research since we still lack knowledge on the causes of low IQs.I tried to expand here on the relevance of IQ and the rational motives behind the application of this law on mentally defective individuals without regarding the ethics.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

you first.The Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis,derived from the logical conjunction of theSavanna Principle and a theory of the evolutionof general intelligence, suggests thatmore intelligent individuals may be morelikely to acquire and espouse evolutionarilynovel values, such as liberalism, atheism,and, for men, sexual exclusivity, than lessintelligent individuals, while general intelligencemay have no effect on the acquisitionand espousal of evolutionarily familiar values.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

Why is the fact that more intelligent people tend to be more creative (not only in value acquisition) enough to support eugenics?
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Disagree

liberalism, atheism,and, for men, sexual exclusivityThese attributes are not evolutionary qualities.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

yes, they are.that's the whole point behind evolutionary psychology.evolved humans no longer need to cling to tradition, religion or disperse their "seed" as widely as possible in order for the species to continue.in fact these things all become a detriment to a species population at some point.... i think we are AT that point now.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Disagree

That makes those things an indirect result of evolution, but not evolutionary qualities themselves.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

That makes those things an indirect result of evolution, but not evolutionary qualities themselves.you would seem to claiming that i've made a variation on the causation/correlation fallacy here.but you have failed to establish the difference in this case between "qualities" and "indirect results"you are welcome to try.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Disagree

Ignoring the fact that Evolutionary Psychology is almost a pseudoscience, you still listed random traits that have nothing to do with the field.You listed human constructs that have nothing to do with evolution. How would natural selection affect "liberalism"?An actual trait studied in the field would be the intrinsic ability to identify beauty, to prefer sweetness, etc.The only thing that came close was "for men, sexual exclusivity". No idea why you qualified it with "for men".You should look up evolutionary psychology before talking about it.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

oh, i've looked it up... an utterly fascinating theory called the savannah hypothesis explains why those particular traits are evolutionarily significant.perhaps it is YOU who needs to look things up before spouting your easy negativity.it's SO easy, isn't it?.do you ALWAYS denounce things you don't understand?
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Disagree

oh, i've looked it up...an utterly fascinating theory called the savannah hypothesis explains why those particular traits are evolutionarily significant.perhaps it is YOU who needs to look things up before spouting your easy negativity.it's SO easy, isn't it?.do you ALWAYS denounce things you don't understand?Then explain how the Savanna principle extends to liberalism and atheism.I am pretty sure you have completely misinterpreted the Savanna principle. That would explain why you think human constructs were genetically inherited from human ancestors.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

Then explain how the Savanna principle extends to liberalism and atheism.well, if you bothered to look it up you would know that liberalism is defined as a willingness to share scarce resources, which is not something you would do if "survival of the fittest" is your only criteria..as for religion, it has an evolutionary function to help explain the unknown (rustling in the brush) and generally keep ppl in line... .however, it's the more curious and more intelligent of the species that go and LOOK at what's in the brush.... sometimes it's a new food that allows their genes to propagate... sometimes its a lion. .law of averages..but the point is the "conservative" members of the tribe will cower in fear of the rustling, while the "liberal" members are the ones who innovate.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

Liberalism would only be defined as a willingness to share scarce resources in a specific and limited context. Why does flewkget a response but not me? Seems there's something personal against flewk.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

Seems there's something personal against flewk.nothing personal against him, or you.... feeling left out are you?Why is the fact that more intelligent people tend to be more creative (not only in value acquisition) enough to support eugenics?this was your opener?eugenics?i evoke Godwin's law
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

Yes, eugenics is my opener. The title of the debate, "People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized", coupled with the definition of eugenics, "a science that tries to improve the human race by controlling which people become parents", makes it a reasonable opener. Your post was clearly in support of the title. While you presented an interesting enough position, you failed to persuade. You never actually stated why intelligent people tending toward creativity (in value acquisition) justifies sterilizing less intelligent people (eugenics).
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

Your post was clearly in support of the title.now i see your confusion.... my post was the "you first" part.if that seems supportive to you, then i'm not sure where to go from here.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

Whose post was the "The Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis" part?The part that seems supportive is at the bottom where it says "agree".
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

just an astute observation by someone who knows what he's talking about on the subject of evolutionary psychology.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

An astute observation posted on the "agree" side of a eugenics debate, though not meant to agree with the debate at all. Perhaps the confusion was yours. Or perhaps you do, in fact, agree as your post suggests and you would like to go back and respond.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

or, perhaps you are taking this way to seriously.you seem to be the only one taking the polling stats to heart... i was dis waded off that idea back when i only had 30 pts.or a you simply picking at nits in a vein attempt to intimidate?either way, may i suggest a hobby of some sort would benefit you spare time energies better than this.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

I don't take the polling stats to heart, I take the position one takes in a debate about a given subject to be representative of an actual position and I assume it is relevant to the subject at hand. If you weren't interested in debating this topic, you might have said you changed your mind, or got bored. i was dis waded off that idea back when i only had 30 ptsFor all I knew you were still fully waded of this position 2 days ago when you posted it...and when I responded to it.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

For all I knew you were still fully waded of this position 2 days ago when you posted it...and when I responded to it.take your irony pills.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

take your irony pillsSolid finish to a substantial debate.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Disagree

well, if you bothered to look it up you would know that liberalism is defined as a willingness to share scarce resources, which is not something you would do if "survival of the fittest" is your only criteria.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberalism No. You are talking about social development. Willingness to share resources is not a genetic trait, unless if you can show a source indicating otherwise. From the evolutionary stance, the preference for companionship could be considered a genetic trait. In order to maintain communal relationships, social structures will develop which are human constructs. Human constructs are not genetic.as for religion, it has an evolutionary function to help explain the unknown (rustling in the brush) and generally keep ppl in line...Religion is also a human construct. In addition, explanation of the unknown does not necessitate religion.Science also explains the unknown. Basic observation and reasoning can explain what is rustling in the brush.There is nothing to suggest that unknowns lead to genetic religion.however, it's the more curious and more intelligent of the species that go and LOOK at what's in the brush.... sometimes it's a new food that allows their genes to propagate... sometimes its a lion..law of averages..but the point is the "conservative" members of the tribe will cower in fear of the rustling, while the "liberal" members are the ones who innovate.You do not seem to understand what law of averages means. If the lion and berries average out, then there would be no selection potential for looking at the brush.Curiosity is probably an evolutionary trait, but curiosity has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism.Intelligence has been shown to be genetic, but that still has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism.They are human ideologies.From what I can tell, you are just projecting your personal liberal ideologies onto the mechanism of psychological evolution without even understanding the almost-pseudoscience.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

Curiosity is probably an evolutionary trait, but curiosity has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism.this is where you are going wrong.it certainly IS a trait of liberalism.... in fact one of liberalism's driving forces.a willingness to try new things is what DEFINES liberalism.btw, your personal "observations" about me are meaningless.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Disagree

it certainly IS a trait of liberalism.... in fact one of liberalism's driving forces.a willingness to try new things is what DEFINES liberalism.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberalism Which part of the definition shows that curiosity is a trait of liberalism?
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

probably the 4th one comes the closest.it is evolutionarily novel to devote a greater portion of private resources to benefit genetically unrelated individuals.or as some might say "tax and spend".that was a "new thing" when our founders thought of it.... and for some it seems to still be a new and strange idea.i call those ppl conservatives.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Disagree

probably the 4th one comes the closest."a movement in modern Protestantism that emphasizes freedom from tradition and authority, the adjustment of religious beliefs to scientific conceptions, and the development of spiritual capacities."How does that interpret as "curiosity" to you? It is regarding Protestantism, a branch of Christianity.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

freedom from tradition and authoritycuriosity drives this.... i guess you have to be a liberal to understand that.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Disagree

freedom from tradition and authoritycuriosity drives this.... i guess you have to be a liberal to understand that.Progressiveness drives this.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/progressive http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/curiosity I guess you have to speak English to understand this.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

I AGREE. If there is another Adolf Hitler, he would agree with this. Get in the line you all Low IQed citizens for your forced sterilization.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

Agree!! It's even gone so far as killing stupid people. We have way too many people anyway - agree ? Or if killing them too harsh we could make stupid people SLAVES.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

Meh? I don't want kids anyway.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

Would be good in the long run, but it's unethical and "mean", and lots of people have idiots in their family (even thought not that much since idiots are usually members of the same family).If only...Lmao at the amount of 2 digit IQ's making "arrogant ego you're a big jerk" "arguments" that don't make any sense, proving once again how dumb and worthless they are.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Disagree

This is not a good idea since it would lower your IQ score.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

This statement is what renders such course of action direly necessary.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Disagree

When would you stop? IQ scores would go down for everyone and you would always have a new group of low IQ people.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

I understood completely what you meant. Intelligence has a threshold, which is what makes such statement patently false. You should've known this (or at least had an idea).Perhaps I shouldn't have presumed that everyone would understand such a simple statement.