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

He clearly knows how to read, otherwise he wouldn't be able to form words or coherent sentences.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

I was exaggerating because I think he's going too far but I agree with his general position and he makes a good point. I should not have said he didn't know how to read none the less.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

NO I think you're proceeding egomanatically and then proceeds with physical harm, once again I can compare you to hitler, having labor camps for stupid people. People can learn on colleges, that if they have will power etc. The problem mostly in America is the media, the media nowadays focuses much on Popularity, Talents that has nothing to do with making a society better, but less on education. Therefore we must cut-off every illiterate celebrities and dumb music, then voila! problem solved.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

Of course, blame the media. As if there isn't loads of media that provides educational sustenance.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

Yes, because the MODERN media nowadays promote stupidity nicki minaj and other ridiculous hip-hop stars who promote retardedness. Its obvious, Hollywood.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

Smart people are not any more selfish than normal or dumb people. Actually juvenile (dumber) mind set is often very selfish (like kids are not selfish?). A smart person may be less likely to let someone take advantage but not take advantage of others.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

Children are actually more intelligent than adults. Their rate of learning is far above them. What they lack, in comparison to adults, is capability to use that information in a coherent manner.IQ and age are not parallels as you have suggested.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

Yes, but studies have proven that the more intelligent a person is, the more likely he has a socio-psychotic tendencies.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

What studies? Statistical evidence please.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

Another essential question that was posed in the description was: Should we live in a democracy where the average American reading on a 7th grade level?
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

Erm, isn't "7th grade level" defined by what is the average for a 7th grader? You are saying there is no difference between an average adult's reading level and an average 7th graders level? No one improves?
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

I don't think it is defined as what a 7th grader can read, but what a 7th grader should be able to read. Once you get out of school you can lose your skills. It is a combination of not improving much and going backwards. Harvard is not the one who determined it is a 7th grade reading level.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

I see. Perhaps they should change the standards if no child in 7th grade is achieving the standards that they label as a 7th grade reading level. I am not sure if it means much at all. We could just call it a 7/12. Most American don't read at a 7/12 level. Suppose it isn't as catchy.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

You want to lower the standards so Americans seem smarter?
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

How does that relate to who is running the country? Isn't that more a comment on the education system and not our leaders?
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

No since the people run the country (hence, democracy).
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

True, but it is individuals, and since the average person is not a politician, I think it is inaccurate to say that the government is made up of the same kind of people as the average citizen.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

1.) The people run the govt. so it is irrelevant with whom the govt. is comprised.2.) The individuals in the govt. are mainly average people with formal education. I am suggesting that the govt. should be comprised of high IQ individuals, and following that, the idea that people run the govt. should desist. You can be a politician with an average IQ, but my point is that high IQ individuals should switch from being nuclear-physicist, and become important governmental leaders.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

In case you ignored my argument on the other side, intelligence is actually proportionally opposed with social ability and proneness to empathy.You and I both agree that people below average intelligence should certainly not run the country for obvious reasons, where we beg to differ is the geniuses actually suck at politics, they do not comprehend irrational morality and do not know how to speak to people in a 'roundabout' way when delivering anything but good news.Geniuses are good at whatever it is that they do, politicians are good at what they do too. A political mindset is not an intelligent one, it's a communication-driven one where you organise several fairly intelligent people into ranks and roles so that they can do the work for you. You would be wasting talent, if anything, by putting really intelligent people in such semi-menial roles.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

Sorry but I am not in favor of a political facade. If high IQ individuals proffer a rational morality to society, and they choose not accept it, then they should be faulted.Moreover, your argument is neglecting the fact that a genius can be/become well versed in politics. Further, if I am not mistaken, your argument implied that intelligence and psychopathy have a positive correlation- which is absurd. [...] geniuses actually suck at politics [...]This is your presumption that has no objective warrant, whatsoever. Your stigmatized thinking on what a genius actually is causes you to construct your argument in a way that not only implicitly vilifies geniuses, but also limits their capabilities-, which that in it of itself would be an unmitigated absurdity as the very thing that makes a genius a genius is their ability to learn to do things expeditiously and execute their learned abilities with efficacy higher than that of the average person under the same conditions.Comprehensive recapitulation: A genius majoring in political science, and an average person majoring in political science: What are the outcomes? The genius will advance further and faster than their average counterpart, resulting in political genius and a non-genius politician. The former being more of an efficient politician, the latter being the average ill-suited politician.(NOTE: My argument was not entirely based around politicians. The crux if it mainly dealt with governance.)Geniuses are good at whatever it is that they do [...]Which does not exclude politics.A political mindset is not an intelligent one [...]It should be and can be if the mind is that of a genius. You would be wasting talent, if anything, by putting really intelligent people in such semi-menial roles.No, we would have a better governmental structure if we placed geniuses in highly essential roles.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

The scientist is more essential to humanity than the politician. Until you understand this, you will never win this debate.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

Well, the reason you are losing this debate is because of your refusal to consider rational alternatives: You can have high IQ individuals be both scientists and politicians (both mutually distinct). There are plenty candidates to consider.I will also like to note that the govt. controls most of the scientific advancements as most of them require govt. funding (e.g. NASA). So if you have govt. officials who lack the intellectual capacity to understand the importance of scientific advancement, then a highly intelligent scientist is rendered useless.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

Geniuses have better things to do than bullshit their populace into thinking it's safe and all is well.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

I agree. They should be actually making all well and safe thereby not 'bullshitting' their populace.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

1.) The people run the govt. so it is irrelevant with whom the govt. is comprised.What do you mean by "the people"? I'm somewhat confused on how this statement counters my previous point. 2.) The individuals in the govt. are mainly average people with formal education.If they have formal education, then they most likely do not read at a 7th grade level, as your description suggests.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

My point with govt. officials is that they should have a high IQ. Simple. This system only works, though, if we change our democratic system. Also, you know what was meant by me writing that the average American reads on a 7th grade reading level. I'm not interested in petty debating about particulars.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

Well, as I said in my original post on this debate: a) IQ is not a completely reliable measurement of intellect and more importantly, leadership abilities. I am fairly certain a person with a low IQ may still have excellent leadership skills. I am uncertain how much a low IQ would influence once ability to run a government/nation.b) Ideally, a government should be able to get input from the majority of it's people. Since 'high' IQ implies that it is a greater IQ than the majority, that means that no members of the majority will be running the nation.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

Essentially you are neglecting how much this role requires critical thinking and problem solving skills- both of which take precedence over leadership skills and are essential to leadership skills. You can hire a puppet to utter a speech written up by the intelligent person. What is more important is that government bodies need to make important decisions- this requires an intellectual community who can satisfy that role.Did you even watch the video in the description?
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

Essentially you are neglecting how much this role requires critical thinking and problem solving skills- both of which take precedence over leadership skills and are essential to leadership skills.Are critical thinking and problem solving skills equivalent to intellect? It's certainly not what IQ measures.  What is more important is that government bodies need to make important decisions- this requires an intellectual community who can satisfy that role.Agreed. But that is not the only purpose of a government. Hence my argument that we need both; we definitely need those with high intellect involved in major decisions and leadership, but there are tons of other requirements. And if you exclude average people from leadership positions, how can the leaders represent the people?
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

Are critical thinking and problem solving skills equivalent to intellect?Yes...It's certainly not what IQ measures.Those two aspects are most certainly what IQ measures. IQ measures reasoning- which includes both problem solving and critical thinking.Hence my argument that we need both; we definitely need those with high intellect involved in major decisions and leadership, but there are tons of other requirements. And if you exclude average people from leadership positions, how can the leaders represent the people?You are presupposing that there can be no highly intelligent leader... The solution to leadership is: assess numerous potential leaders, and choose the one with the highest IQ. Simple.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

So, is your argument just: The people leading us should be those who are best equipped to lead us?
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

With 'equipped' meaning genius level IQ scores- and making that attribute a prerequisite to run for office.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

I don't know. As I said already, I don't think the IQ test is a reliable measure of the skills required to run the nation. I do agree that those in charge should have high intellect.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

An IQ test proves that an individual is highly intelligent, and therefore opens the opportunity to easily instill the skills necessary to run the nation. These skills are easily acquired as any highly intelligent individual can learn new skills relatively easily and quickly.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

Are you going to keep ignoring me you pathetic waste of space?
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

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

(1) Hardly... democracy is largely an illusion of choice with the added of opportunity for exceptional individuals to operate beyond the constraints of more authoritarian regimes. (2) Probably more accurate to say that they are above average but not necessarily exceptional. Given that average means above the 50th percentile and that most government employees would be in occupations which are above that percentile. Given that there are decently functioning nations which appear to have above average but not exceptional leaders (e.g. Sweden, Norway, etc.) it follows that exceptionally high IQ persons are not necessary for a functional government. Their abilities might arguably be better applied elsewhere, either where they are actually required or towards ends of greater value than governance. (3) I suspect that we will also diverge on this subject with regards to the value of ends, given our other exchange on the merits of utilitarianism versus egoism (as of yet unresolved; I believe I posted but am unsure if you received notice of that post). You clearly seem to be giving the former preference in this context, which still strikes me as indefensible; I see no reason why the highly intelligent should sacrifice their interests or desires to run the nation as opposed to anything else they might like to do instead.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

(1)I concede that essential compartments of democracy have been (and is being) rendered figuratively obsolete, and it's proclamation was never intended to be followed to its full extent upon inception. However, even in this group-run society- those in powerful positions should be intellectually elite (on the newtonian scale).(2)The point is that those functional nations would probably be more optimal if they had supreme intellectual leaders making rational prognostications and decisions.(3)Are we to infuse the two philosophies in this debate?My arguments in certain debates do not always reflect my personal beliefs (my position in this debate is utilitarian despite me being otherwise). The pretext of this debate is rationality. If most individuals want to optimize the economy, etc., then the rational action would be to assign critical positions to those, not just intellectually capable, rather intellectually optimal and superior (esp. those such as Langan who are utilizing their cognitive resources unproductively).Sure, the guy who graduated second in his class from harvard business school would be a worthy candidate for a CEO in x company, but he who graduated 1st in his class would be the optimal choice (adjusting for extraneous variables).---Postscript: I did not receive a notice of your response but will gladly respond to both of your responses re: egoism, and intelligence causing creativity; I will also respond to your previous response re: animal experimentation.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

(1) I think you misunderstood my point. Mine is not an argument of obsolescence at all. You argued that it is irrelevant who comprises the government because the people run the government. Unless you were referring to "people" in the sense that government is comprised of individuals, rather than to the democratic notion of "the people", then I do not think this statements holds true. I do not think democracy ever has or can live up to its conceptual ideals of being truly of the people, for numerous reasons that I could go into. I would, again, dispute the notion that we are truly a group run society. The group(s) is/are rather effectively managed by the powers that be, and arguably always have been. At any rate, I fail to see why this variable would validate or invalidate the premise in question.(2) I am not disputing that the government might be more effective if it were run by the intellectual elite, although I think that something of a tenuous claim. My point is that perhaps optimal governance is not actually to be preferred over optimized alternatives (e.g. science). You are assuming that governance should have priority over other potential applications. I think you are also assuming that the ends of government (whatever those be) would necessarily be the same as those of the intellectual elite (whomever they be).(3) I should think not. I find them utterly incompatible as philosophies, as I have elaborated upon at greater length in the other debate. My impression was that your argument on this subject was utilitarian in origin, although you had not stated it quite so explicitly. I confess I find it difficult to move beyond that premise since I become rather hung up on its inadequacy. As an egoist, the argument that highly intelligent persons should do anything to satisfy another's ends is entirely dissatisfactory (e.g. so long as Langan is satisfied it cannot be legitimately said that he is unproductive, or his abilities wasted). Postscript: Splendid. I anticipate your replies with pleasure, though certainly at your leisure.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

We saw what a low IQ "runner-in-chief" would do on 9/11, and for several years following, so yes, a high IQ like Obama is necessary.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

Obama's IQ is not particularly high. I will admit it is higher than Bush's but it isn't that high if his behavior is anything to go off.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

Although I can't decide which side to be on, here are a few Greek points.Plato had the idea that ancient Greece should be run by people called 'philosopher kings', who are people of high intelligence and ability to reason. He thought it would be best for a group of these people to run society as they would likely know what is best for the people.Aristotle, Plato's student, had three classifications of government, which were monarchy, aristocracy and polity. Monarchy being a nation ruled by one, aristocracy by a few and polity by the many. However, Aristotle saw that the perversions of these governments would be possible. When perverted, monarchy becomes tyranny, aristocracy becomes oligarchy and polity becomes democracy.I think that when deciding what would be best for government and society there will always be disagreements, so it can never be fully satisfying for the nation whether majority or minority.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

Doesn't it seem more sensible that we choose a leader that can reason well as they will be faced with critical, economic altering decisions?
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

That is basically what Plato was saying. He thought that people with an adept knowledge and ability to reason would be best to run society. I think it is a good idea to be honest, as long as these people do not pervert the government, as Aristotle said could happen. If the group of highly educated people were to run the nation they would have to take responsibility and not just use their power for personal benefit.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

What does that even mean, "pervert the government"? And why should more highly educated/intelligent people not use their power for their own personal benefit? Especially if stupid people allow them to do so?
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

Perversion of the government is when the leaders of society, as you say, use their power for personal benefit. I don't think that intelligent people shouldn't be allowed to run society if they have the capability to do so effectively, yet I don't think they should use their power to fuel corrupt and unfair regimes for the greater good of themselves and rich companies on their side.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

But why is that "perverse"? You are just reasserting your claim in support of itself, which is begging the question. The problem with egalitarian ethics is that it flies in the face of reality; it is an idealistic aspiration detached from what is. The powerful have always done as they will, and what is to say that is wrong beyond your unfounded sensibility?
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

I am just using the term that Aristotle is said to have coined. I agree that the powerful have used their power for themselves in the past, however I am not saying that it isn't possible for someone to lead with their people in mind before themselves.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

Not impossible, but rather improbable. No?
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

"when perverted polity becomes democracy"... I'm pretty sure if democracy is perverted it becomes trapped in mediocrity/stagnancy (no progress) is what he meant.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

I just stated what Aristotle wrote, to the best of my knowledge.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

They tend to better when deciding how a sequence of events will unfold. This will make it easier to avoid many bad decisions.
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

I'm so glad to see my topic getting action! I am very passionate about this and also about requiring a license to have kids. U see, stupid people (ones who don't continually expand their minds) cause pain and suffering for the whole population and it's not fair
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: No, they should not.

Stupid people are essential to the functioning of society as the latter evolved with a dependency upon an expendable population. More importantly, why should we care if their procreation does create more pain and suffering for the whole population? Why should we care about what is "fair"? What even is "fair"?
Debate: Should High IQ Individuals Run the Nation?
Side: Yes, they should.

Well, unless you want a bunch of idoits who dont know how to run a country to be myguest. I, for one do not. Its logical, simple logics.