azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Disagree

I understood completely what you meant.No, you didn't. Otherwise, you would have answered my question.Intelligence has a threshold, which is what makes such statement patently false. You should've known this (or at least had an idea).You only raise more questions by responding. How do you know that you are measuring intelligence properly? How do you know that you are evaluating the IQ score properly? Perhaps I shouldn't have presumed that everyone would understand such a simple statement.No, you should have presumed that people weren't homicidal maniacs like you and would find reasons to not kill people.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Disagree

You do realize that sterilization is not "killing people" right?
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

Yes. The person I was talking to is a homicidal maniac and I figure only homicidal maniac would think sterilization is a good thing.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

I am assuming you don't know that IQ tests are normalized. Half of the population will always be below average.Well, can't expect too much since you didn't know that IQ scores are more nurture than nature either.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

That is erroneous in its entirety... As stated previously.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Disagree

You should read something before you cite it.Well, I guess another possibility is that you simply did not understand it; if that were the case, you should avoid debating topics that are beyond your understanding.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

You point was invalid and erroneous... what do you not understand. And wasn't it you who claimed peacocks appreciate human language, and because of that, knows how to speak it? I understand that you withdrew from the topic once you say imminent defeat, but to even ponder such a claim speaks volumes of your intellect...Perhaps you should take you own advice, flewk.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

You point was invalid and erroneous... what do you not understand.Then quote the part of the review paper you cited that proves I was wrong.I have already shown that your own citation supports my claim. Refute those points.All you have done is claim I am wrong without showing why.And wasn't it you who claimed peacocks appreciate human language, and because of that, knows how to speak it? I understand that you withdrew from the topic once you say imminent defeat, but to even ponder such a claim speaks volumes of your intellect...What debate are you talking about? I have no recollection of debating about peacocks.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

Parrots I mean.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

Still no clue what debate you are talking about.I am not sure why you are disputing with a clarification.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

Interesting. You are the expert. You are saying that the average IQ is 100 by pure coincidence?
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Disagree

Certainly a Harvard graduate would understand the concept of normal distribution...
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Disagree

You need stupid people to do the crap jobs in society.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Disagree

I agree with you on this. Slavery has never gone completely.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

In the future and maybe even the near future most of these jobs would cease to exist perhaps creating more poverty and promoting the unequal wealth distribution. Why would these jobs cease to exist? Because technology. Tech innovation provides with labour for a smaller amount of energy than it would take to feed a human. Think about the huge surface area required for growing crops solely to feed the animals we eat and even if the future presents us with an entirely vegan world the exponential growth of humanity would still be a heavy burden on this planet. Therefore technology gives us the means to keep everything balanced in a future society.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Disagree

IQ is genetic, but inheritance does not seem to be the main factor. Nurture vs Nature.Monozygotic twins tend to show the least variance in IQ which suggests a genetic relationship. However, parent and child tend to show fairly large variances, similar to those of parent and adopted children.I think your debate title would make more sense as: "Bad Parents should be Euthanized."
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

Genes play the largest role in determining IQ, so sterilization would still be the most effective for the progression of mankind. Since it would be very difficult in practice to distinguish bad parents from good ones, as apposed to an individual taking an IQ test, the low IQ method would be the best solution, as stated previously.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Disagree

Genes play the largest role in determining IQNo.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

Yes.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Disagree

You should read your own citations.I don't know why, but most people never bother reading them."second law of genetics for complex traits and common disorders: All traits show substantial environmental influence, in that heritability is not 100% for any trait. Acceptance of the importance of both genetic and environmental influences leads to interest in the interplay between genes and environment, such as their interaction (moderation) and correlation (mediation) in the development of complex traits"Both are important. Let us keep reading to find out which one is most important to the variation of intelligence."It would be reasonable to assume that as we go through life, experiences—Shakespeare’s ‘whips and scorns of time’—have a cumulative effect on intelligence, perhaps overwhelming early genetic predispositions. However, for intelligence, heritability increases linearly, from (approximately) 20% in infancy to 40% in adolescence, and to 60% in adulthood. Some evidence suggests that heritability might increase to as much as 80% in later adulthood"The effect of nurture seems to increase linearly over development. This means without the proper environment, variance increases. Let us keep reading to find out why."Increasing heritability despite genetic stability implies some contribution from what has been called genetic amplification.57 This has recently been supported in a meta-analysis of 11500 twin and sibling pairs with longitudinal data on intelligence that found that a genetic amplification model fit the data better than a model in which new genetic influences arise with time.58 Genotype-environment correlation seems the most likely explanation in which small genetic differences are magnified as children select, modify and create environments correlated with their genetic propensities. This active model of selected environments—in contrast to the traditional model of imposed environments—offers a general paradigm for thinking about how genotypes become phenotypes.""Heritability of intelligence increases dramatically from infancy through adulthood despite genetic stability"Let me refer to my original comment: "IQ is genetic, but inheritance does not seem to be the main factor. Nurture vs Nature."My source noted how environment was a larger factor than genes where variance becomes 0 with low socioeconomic status (you probably did not read mine either).You chose a review article to dispute my claims without actually reading it. It notes that the amplification of gene expression by the environment leads to the largest variances in intelligence which directly supports my point.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

Genetics plays the largest role influences a child's drive to learn, how well they learn, and influences their settings in which they wish be. And since you say environment plays the largest role, and one's genetics heavily influences their environmental attraction through which their IQ is molded, it would follow, then, that genes play the largest role in determining IQ.I read my own citations. If you fail to understand what is meant by them, well... I don't know how else to help you really..
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

I read my own citations. If you fail to understand what is meant by them, well... I don't know how else to help you really..Then counter the points that I have presented. It should be easy since you understand them.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

Your points points to environmental effects. And as previously stated, genes influence the environment in which a child wishes to be, and hence genes heavily determine the outcome of one's IQ.Now you countered by reducing to 'well not that much study has shown [...]' when plenty of study has shown the effect that genetic makeup has on the influence of a child environment. Then you issued red herring saying, well the child doesn't choose his/her environment. Though this may be true, this line of reasoning would entail a slippery slope. Perhaps i should've said, "assuming the child was not born in a Nazi concentration camp".Perhaps your not exactly sure of the type of environmental stimuli a child needs to develop her IQ?
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Disagree

Your points points to environmental effects. And as previously stated, genes influence the environment in which a child wishes to be, and hence genes heavily determine the outcome of one's IQ.Now you countered by reducing to 'well not that much study has shown [...]' when plenty of study has shown the effect that genetic makeup has on the influence of a child environment.It seems like you are confused about this too. It is just a supposition used to explain large variances during development. There has been no study done to verify this supposition, at least none that I have seen.Maybe you should cite one of the "plenty of stud[ies]".PS: The review paper you cited earlier actually refutes that explanation and uses the genetic amplification model (which supports my original point).Then you issued red herring saying, well the child doesn't choose his/her environment. Though this may be true, this line of reasoning would entail a slippery slope. Perhaps i should've said, "assuming the child was not born in a Nazi concentration camp".Obvious Nazi strawman aside, you have misinterpreted my earlier statement. A child does not choose his/her environment, not because the parents are fascist, but because children are under the care of the parents. Like I already pointed out several times, the socioeconomic status of the family is out of the control of the child. Just because the child is predisposed towards a specific environment does not mean it will be available to the child.Kind of weird how you use a the accusation of a red herring as a red herring.By the way, you still have not responded to my previous argument which was supported by scientific papers.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Disagree

Just clicked on the link. Looks like you gave up trying to understand actual scientific studies/review papers. That is just a magazine article that tried to interpret the study for the reader.It seemed to have failed the first try: "*Correction, 7 October, 12:20 p.m.: This item originally stated that 62% of academic achievement could be attributed to genetic factors. In fact, the research showed that 62% of the differences between individual students' GCSE scores were attributed to genetic factors."
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

It was a credible science article... You're now telling me articles aren't a valid source of reference... Though the source you issued was also an science article, perhaps inadvertent hypocrisy? I could also reduce to such fallacies by saying no site on the internet is a valid source of reference, perhaps even no reference, including the scientists behind the study, is valid until we both see the results ourselves with our own eyes (and not through fallible video). But, it doesn't stop there, as our own senses are highly fallible and therefore we mustn't....I'm sorry, flewk, I have no intentions delving into Descarte's Meditations 1 & 2.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Disagree

It was a credible science article... You're now telling me articles aren't a valid source of reference... I could also reduce to such fallacies by saying no site on the internet is a valid source of reference, perhaps even no reference, including the scientists behind the study, is valid until we both see the results ourselves with our own eyes (and not through fallible video). But, it doesn't stop there, as our own senses are highly fallible and therefore we mustn't....I never claimed it was not a credible magazine article.I just pointed out that it was not a paper published in a scientific journal.I used that point to mock your previous misinterpretation of a "complex" review paper.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Disagree

Furthermore genetics plays the largest role influences a child's drive to learn and influences their settings to which they wish be in. And since you say the environment plays the largest role, and one's genetics heavily influences their environmental attraction through which molds IQ, it would follow, then, that genes play the largest role in determining IQ.You are referring to the hypothesis that certain genes might predispose a child to specific environments or methods. There has been no significant objective study on this topic. The reason for this is mentioned below.The environment that a child wishes to be in or is predisposed to does not just magically appear around them. The environment that a child is exposed to depends on the parents and their socioeconomic status (a lot of other factors as well). As indicated by my first source, socioeconomic status can completely "zero out" the heritability of intelligence.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Disagree

For flip's sake! Why in the flippin' heck would you do something as low and as pathetic as that? It's their life, so stick your noses out of it!
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Disagree

There are consequences for the right to freedom of speech and such a statement is an incitement for discrimination
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Disagree

Well.. He have argued many times that animals have a different sort of intelligence that is not measured accurately by IQ tests. It similarly follows that some humans also have intelligences that is not measured by IQ. I think it is important to note this. Anyhow... I have an uncle that has an IQ of around 80. He spends every week day packing boxes in a factory. He rarely takes day off sick and is a very efficient worker. He contributes a lot to his employer. Do you think you could do what he does? Spend your whole life packing boxes? I couldn't. Quite frankly, he is a lot more use to society than someone such as yourself.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

he is a lot more use to society than someone such as yourself.Why do all your arguments come from the presumption that you know me? Surely you can debate someone without assuming that half of your [mis]perceptions of them are true... or is that the only way you can even debate someone such as me?
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Disagree

And why is it you only reply to things like this and never my actual arguments? It may actually be the only way as your arguments usually lack a basd and you change what you meant retrospectively.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

Most of your arguments are only meant for abasing me and not actually debating. This is understandable as when we do debate intellectual matters, you seem to be incapable of comprehending my points. You assert thing such as "murder is objectively wrong because most people in the world agree with this" fallacies such as this are typically made by individuals lacking the intellectual ability to comprehend what would follow from such statement. Or the dispute a physical 's' that daver had to politely explain to you what was meant by my statement, it took him for you to tacitly concede that you were wrong; it also took amarel for you to understand that your statement regarding murder was semantically flawed.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Disagree

You still haven't replied to my actual argument. I guess this means you concede. Do you ever actually win an argument on this site?
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

I have an uncle that has an IQ of around 80. He spends every week day packing boxes in a factory. He rarely takes day off sick and is a very efficient worker. He contributes a lot to his employer. Do you think you could do what he does? Spend your whole life packing boxes? I couldn't. I didn't see this as being worthy of a response. However, a high IQ society would surly be innovative enough to have machines pack boxes for them; actually, most factories do that now. Essentially all I received from this statement was that low IQs seem to be reverberated down your families bloodline, and that your uncle works for a company with presumably low productivity, since its manufacturers' still use humans for tasks that machines can do speedily.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Disagree

I didn't see this as being worthy of a response. However, a high IQ society would surly be innovative enough to have machines pack boxes for them; actually, most factories do that now. Oh right they should use machines!!! Right. I will tell them that right away. Thank you so much for telling me.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Disagree

Oh and while I'm at it I will also contact this long list of companies that are currently looking for packers: http://www.indeed.com/jobs?q=Warehouse+Packer Funny thing is... if I presented this to anyone else they would think "oh yeah whoops, that was a bit stupid of me. Of course an investment of millions of dollars in packing machines isn't viable for every business. My bad". But what you will probably do now is one of two things 1) decide that this wasn't what you meant a convince yourself, and maybe try and convince me too, that I have misunderstood. 2) Say that all these businesses are stupid and you, the zoology/psychology/general studies student has solved everyones production problems with saying "machines!!!!! stupid! Use machines!!!".
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

Actually, no. I will bring back the original issue which was your uncle packing boxes with a low IQ which therefore indicates that low IQ individuals have a significant importance to society. I just refuted that with if we had a high IQ society, [machines] would easily replace most manual labor through innovation by intelligent individuals. You went off on a tangent by trying to prove that companies still use workers for packing-a statement that I never disagreed with. All I am basically saying is that there is no need for workers to pack boxes as we clearly have the technology to do so, and much more quickly. Surely you can understand such a simple point?
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Disagree

All I am basically saying is that there is no need for workers to pack boxes as we clearly have the technology to do so, and much more quickly. Surely you can understand such a simple point?God you're a fuckwit. Look, it is extremely simple. Some jobs need hand packing. You agree with this.  I just refuted that with if we had a high IQ society, [machines] would easily replace   most   manual labor through innovation by intelligent individuals.. For example, one job my uncle was telling me about was putting bonnets on jam jars and putting them in to individual boxes. This company contracts the packing company to do. It is a fairly small order. Why would anyone invest in specialist machinery worth millions of dollars to do such a small job? How is that viable? You call yourself an entrepreneur.. you don't have a clue.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

With your line of reasoning half of the revolutionary innovations created for 'simple things' would have never been invented.You obviously refute the fact that technology is replacing manual labor even down to simplistic functions. To build one continuously effective machine that will replace an individual collecting a salary is not counterproductive. Now maybe his company cant afford such a machine but I will say, and it is quite obvious, that if it could afford such a contraption, it would purchase it (please do tell me if this company is garage-run or otherwise).I must say that it is quite comical that you're the first individual who thinks machinery will not replace virtually all forms manual labor eventually. Of course garage-run businesses will probably continue such an archaic form of labor, but when they enter the corporate level they will discontinue such concept.(Note: using the term "millions" is an exaggeration with respect to the theoretical machine. If the job is really so simple, a small machine programmed to do [your uncle's] task would most certainty not be worth 'millions'.)
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Disagree

My uncle worked for maybe 2 months of this jam jar thing. Then be was packing something else. To you the company should invest in robots every couple of months?We are getting off track. Even if my uncle was the person that loading the items from the lorry onto the machine... And never took a sick day and worked as hard as he could at it etc etc he would be worth as much as someone with a high IQ. It would be a job that someone with a high IQ would simply not do.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Agree

My uncle worked for maybe 2 months of this jam jar thing. Then be was packing something else. To you the company should invest in robots every couple of months?Ha, no. Just reprogram the robot to do different tasks as most factories do.We are getting off track. Even if my uncle was the person that loading the items from the lorry onto the machine... And never took a sick day and worked as hard as he could at it etc etc he would be worth as much as someone with a high IQ. It would be a job that someone with a high IQ would simply not do.Exactly, and my point is a company could purchase a small machine, and someone with a high IQ would just simply program the machine to do whatever task that need be done. It costs way less than paying someone a salary for reasons that would go off the topic even further (though if you would like an economical equation as to why this would be the case I will be more than happy to provide it).
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Disagree

Sterilizing people would insensitively suppressing the emotional side of intelligence. There are numerous ways to boost IQ scores in a society. Probably the most effective way would be advancing child care and pre-school programs as is now advocated by the democratic party. A lot of research has gone into this proposition. Sterilizing people would be unnecessary and ineffective because recessive genes are carried by intelligent people.
Debate: People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.
Side: Disagree

Calm down, Hitler. IQ has nothing to do with being sentient, loving, or the ability and right to live life just as everyone else.