- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Can Someone be Really Smart, but So, So, So Dumb at the Same Time?
Yes, absolutely. Generally, there are about 3 general groupings with 2 components each for which people fall into, when considering overall 'intelligence'.
-'Dumb' & Low IQ
-'Smart' & Low IQ
-'Dumb' & Moderate IQ
-'Smart' & Moderate IQ
-'Dumb' & High IQ
-'Smart' & High IQ
Does Home Schooling Turn Kids into Weirdos?
Difficult to answer, as the question is centered around the quality of the learning environment available at the particular home, due to the parents, guardians, ect. If done correctly under the supervision of reasonably intelligent, informed, level-headed adults, then home schooling is far, far superior to the public school program. However, it could also be disastrous, if the parents are extreme ideologues of some sort, unbalanced, doltish, ect. ect.
There is no hope in talking to you, as you are delusional in the extreme. You have failed to master high school level grammatical structuring and are approaching this conversation as though you are of high academic & intellectual superiority.
I would encourage you to join Quora, Stack Exchange, & PhysicsForums, as posting there like there like this should give you a sufficiently strong smack in the face to bring out the matrix and back into reality. Though, some people are particularly dense, and even such a failed project may not be enough to 'wake them up'; which certainly seems possible (or even likely) in your case.
Best of luck.
That is your assumption. The reality is, half the population does not choose to participate in presidential elections (I believe it is even less participation rates for the 'local' elections). Then, it is reasonable to think there is a desire for other voices to be given a platform in US politics.
You clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, your only counter-argument is "wrong" and "because I said so"
Actually, I provided about 1/2 page long argument. Stating 'wrong' in the beginning is simply to 'plant a flag' in regards to the position I was adopting.
You try and use vocabulary that's on a higher level than your thinking capacity, i.e. with the terms "hyper-rare"
In your view, 'hyper-rare' is a highly advanced technical term? Then, it is clear why you were unable to follow the argument, as well as why you are under the (false) impression that your 'argument' was 'scientific'. Also, this explains your inability to make proper use (or any use) of paragraphs.
Also, we aren't chimpanzees
We are closely related to chimpanzees, are apes ourselves, and share many overlapping characteristics; tribalism & territorial behavior/displays amongst them.
What a clown you are. I hope you have the pleasure of meeting the member Nomenclature, as you two are 'made for each other'. I would encourage you to pair off, form your own debate community and slug away at each other until the two drunks have had enough--while leaving the 'smoking free'/'sober' section alone in peace.
This is very untrue.
Looking at religious history or current events even briefly will show that religion plays a huge role in most peoples' ability to determine right from wrong.
Religion is but one amongst many ideological maps to view the truth/false value of the world from; you are putting far too much emphasis on this. Also, one could simply point out that, like chimpanzees, humans are territorial & 'protect' their territories/tribes by force, often in over-reaching and irrational manners. Hence, so much for the religious argument.
As for 'moral fiber', it is indeed (largely) independent of peoples political & religious views, as this reaches the 'core' of the person's 'moral backbone' (or lack thereof), while political & religious ideologies are more toward the surface level.
Consider, in a 'Twilight Zone' scenario, if you woke up tomorrow as the Elephant Man, Quasimodo, a Leper, ect., then you would be treated indistinguishably from such people/characters. The number of people who would have any real empathy and/or respect for you would be hyper-rare, approximately between 1 in 100 to 1 in 1000. The rest would 'instinctively' behave like sociopathic chimpanzees, with perhaps a few percent in the 'grey' area (moral ambivalence). What you would find is that where people fall on that spectrum is independent of their professed political and/or religious views--even if they way they behave contradicts those stated views. As, again, true 'moral fiber' is in reference to the 'core' of a person, not the more surface level manifestations in the form of any particular ideologies.