The fickle-minded should not be concentrated on more than the 'intellectuals.'
Debate Rounds (3)
You argue it will "create an entitled thinking that causes underachieving." Gaining stature, from your personal experiences with regards to your education. Ultimately underlined by you, quitting "school at 16, because what mattered" to you was your IQ. Now correct me if I'm wrong,but that's the foundation to my argument.
My argument by core: more emphasis on the intellectuals, to act as preventive to underachieving. Now, the fact you were treated as "special," warranted your decision to leave (from what I understand). If there was more emphasis and structured education directed at your mentalities, that may not happen. As you're not special, you're by fact the same in reflection to the hypothetical "scheme."
But, the fact you're now "struggling with bills," could be as a dire consequence of a lack of emphasis on the intellectuals.
"Now correct me if I'm wrong,but that's the foundation to my argument."
You're wrong. The special attention on me gave me a big ego and hurt me in the long run, it was better spent helping somebody who needed it.
" The repercussions are irrelevant e.g, because it's conjecture. Humans are inherently bias, so who am I to take your words, as "Gods," without evidence."
You've provided no citations either and common sense dictates the people who need more attention should get more attention.
The less intelligent are more likely to end up in poverty and prison. http://www.vulnerablegroupsandinclusion.net...
If we want a safer society with less poverty and crime, than we should put most of our focus on making the fickle minded employable. Since they require more effort to make employable than higher IQ people that is where the focus should be. The intelligent, overachiever needs no push, to learn. they often find learning fun.
You haven't formulated your argument strongly to directly assess, the actual argument despite you holding validity in regards to the repercussions and effects. You're absolutely correct, but you're not. You're not rebutting the root problem, similar to answering a question with everything besides the 'actual answer.'
So let me sound this out for you...find evidence that contradicts reasoning and logic and you'll win. Then the argument, will actually begin.
2. My opponent has dropped my argument that paying special attention to low IQ students reduces the chances of failing grades and thus unemployment. Having a significant and positive effect on poverty and crime.
3. My opponent has attempted to shift the burden of proof, and just metaphorically sits there with his arms crossed and his hands covering his ears singing "la la la".
The proposition clearly has the burden of proof here and no judge will disagree with the fact that he atleast splits it with me. The proposition has failed to competantly present a single argument and doesn't even attempt to make any rebuttals. I'm sorry pro, shifting the burden of proof, making nonsensical statements and ignoring your opponent's arguments, is not only a sign of being fickle minded, but a recipe for the loss I just handed you. I want to remind voters to consider the source vote.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sarra 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: I believe people with higher IQs naturally gravitate to sites like this. Maybe they are like me - having no real, intellectual stimuli in their day-to-day lives. I feel that Pro did not meet BOP. Sorry.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.