The Instigator
jimtimmy
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DanT
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

An IQ Debate

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/24/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,805 times Debate No: 18456
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (2)

 

jimtimmy

Pro

This Debate is About this Line of thinking:


1.) IQ is an Good, albeit Imperfect, Measure of General Human Intelligence


2.) IQ is significantly (40% to 80%) Genetic


3.) Group IQ Differences are both Genetic and Environmental (as opposed to just Environmental)


4.) IQ Differences explain Social Problems like Crime and Poverty better than Differences in Environment


5.) Intervention Programs, like Head Start, are not effective in significantly raising Long Term IQ

6.) Therefore, we should make the following policy conclusions


a.) Restructure or Keep Welfare Programs from incentivizing low income, and low IQ, women from reproducing more than they naturally would


b.) Affirmative Action should be reduced, restructured, or eliminated in light of genetic effects on Intelligence


c.) Immigration should be restricted to keep too many low-IQ immigrants from entering countries and worsening social problems





I will be arguing for this line of thinking. I also ask a couple things of my opponent:


1.) No Ad Hominem attacks on me or any of the Research I present in this debate.


2.) Related to 1.), Consider the word Racist banned. If your approach to debating is to call your opponent a racist, please to not accept.


3.) Try to avoid moral arguments. (e.g. "Affirmative Action should stay because it woulld be unfair to Minorities if we were to get rid of it")


4.) Saying that "that sounds like Eugenics" is not an argument. Eugenics may be a relevant topic here, but simply using that buzzword is not acceptable.


5.) Basically, just try to approach this sensitive topic like an intelligent adult.





Here is debate structure:



RD 1: Pro sets Structure and Debate. Con makes Initial Case.


RD 2: Pro makes case and responds to Con. Con responds to Pro.


RD 3: Pro responds to Con. Con responds to Pro.


RD 4: Pro makes final case. Con makes final case.





Feel free to ask any questions in comment section.



READ ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS!!!







EDIT: Con does not have to disagree with all statements, they must simply disagree with the line of thinking...
DanT

Con

As my grandfather (who had a genius IQ) has always said, "an IQ is not capable of measuring one's intelligence, only one's ability to take IQ tests". My IQ is 128 on the Stanford Binet scale, which makes me "Gifted" with "Very superior intelligence", an IQ of 128 on the Stanford-Binet Scale, is comparable to an IQ of 142 on the Cattell Scale, so when you talk about specific IQ's you must include the specific scale; because IQ are not standardized, there is much confusion when talking about specific IQ's.

As stated before IQ tests are not a real measure of one's IQ. IQ tests do give a good "range" of one's intelligence, however cannot be considered accurate at all.

Intelligence is not mostly genetic, it is 100% genetic. Knowledge on the other hand is 100% environment. One who has a High IQ, but has an environment that dumb them down, will test lower on an IQ test, than they would in a more intellectually stimulating background.

I agree with my opponent that, "IQ Differences explain Social Problems like Crime and Poverty better than Differences in Environment" as well as the fact that, "Intervention Programs, like Head Start, are not effective in significantly raising Long Term IQ"

Welfare Programs should be restructured, they should be eliminated, and Immigration should not have IQ as a factor, because an IQ test cannot correctly measure one's Intelligence.

Welfare is a drain on society, and there are many with high IQs on welfare. The Government was instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; for the Government to favor one by their level of income, or by their IQ score, would be tyranny, and a perversion of their authority. The government should work to benefit the entire nation, rich or poor, intelligent or dull, because all men are created equal.
Debate Round No. 1
jimtimmy

Pro

I thank my opponent for responding.



First, let me say that we obviously have to compare IQs on the same test. Otherwise, we would be comparing apples to oranges. The most mainstream IQ test is the Stanford Binet. So, when I speak of IQ, I am speaking of this scale.

Of course, other IQ tests can have the scores adjusted to Stanford Binet Scores, meaning that they are not useless.



My opponent says:

"As stated before IQ tests are not a real measure of one's IQ. IQ tests do give a good "range" of one's intelligence, however cannot be considered accurate at all."


He does not explain why this would be. And, of course, people with bad environments would do somewhat worse on IQ tests. But, as I discuss later, they do not do substantially worse. IQ tests are a pretty good, albeit imperfect measure, of the genetic quality of General Intelligence.



IQ Does Measure Intelligence and is Largely Genetic



The best available research on the heritability of IQ is twin studies. Using these, we find that, by the time people reach their adolescent years, IQ, as measured by IQ tests, is about 75% to 85% heritable [1]. This result has been confirmed from numerous reports, meta studies, and studies from non partisan sources. It is less at younger ages (closer to 50%), but gene effects get stronger as people get older.


Given that these are the best available studies, it is reasonable to assume that these estimates are accurate. Since IQ is measured by tests in these studies, it is also reasonable to assume that IQ tests measure a genetic intelligence (g), relatively accuratley.


The next question is whether or not IQ measures a Genetic Quality that matters. There is reason to believe it does. First, we have already established that IQ is heavily genetic. We can add to this that IQ is also very predictive of life outcomes [2]. People with high IQs make higher incomes, perform better in their jobs, are less likely to get pregnant out of wedlock, and are less likely to commit crimes.


Given these two realities, there is reason to believe that genetics are a major factor in many of societies social problems.


I would also like to say that, given that IQ tests can accuratley measure intelligence, we should restrict immigration more based on IQ. This would keep low-IQ immigrants from coming in and increasing poverty, crime, and unwed child birth, while siphoning off resources from the welfare state.




I look forward to my opponents response.



[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...


[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
DanT

Con

My opponent claims "people with bad environments would do somewhat worse on IQ tests.", but that is due to a degradation of knowledge not Intelligence. When one takes an IQ test , the higher IQ is always the right one, no matter which order the tests was taken in; this is to account for lack of knowledge, and proves the unreliability of IQ tests.

Intelligence does not change, knowledge does. Someone can be highly intelligent and also highly ignorant.

This again is why IQ tests are not a real measure of one's IQ, yet IQ tests do give a good "range" of one's intelligence, without be considered at all accurate.
One could get a good feel of the range of one's Intelligence through an IQ test, but they could get an even better feel through and interview.

When a child is an Infant of course they will have a 50/50 chance of inheriting their family's IQ "score", their brains have not yet developed enough to significantly absorb knowledge. As they get older, they are more capable of soaking up knowledge which is the x factor in taking IQ tests. If children has a 75% to 85% chance of inheriting IQ scores, than that just means that 15% to 25% of the IQ score is effected by Knowledge rather than Intelligence.

All the arguments about IQ changing with age, and IQ variations among Incomes is again proving my point, about the impact of knowledge on IQ tests as compared to Intelligence.

When you talk about IQ you are talking about this formula;
IQ = 100 x (Mental Age / Actual Age)

For example and IQ of 129 = 100 x (14.19 Mental Age / 11 Actual Age)
A decade later the same IQ if maintained would be 129 = 100 x (27.09 Mental Age / 21 Actual Age)

The Mental age is defined as a person's mental ability expressed as the age at which an average person reaches the same ability.
According to Gilbert supporters of the Gifted, "Mental age predicts the amount of knowledge (a child) has mastered, the rate at which the child learns, sophistication of play, age of true peers, maturity of the child's sense of humor, ethical judgment, and awareness of the world."

In other words, if a 11 year old year old has an IQ of 129 than they could do the work of a child 3 grades ahead of them in school.

Notice the part where they say, ""Mental age predicts the amount of knowledge (a child) has mastered"

Intelligence is defined as the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
Knowledge is defined as Information and skills acquired through experience or education

Those with higher incomes generally have higher levels of education, or educated experiences.

Intelligence does not change, knowledge does, and both factor into IQ tests.

"an IQ is not capable of measuring one's intelligence, only one's ability to take IQ tests".
Debate Round No. 2
jimtimmy

Pro

jimtimmy forfeited this round.
DanT

Con

A IQ test is not a measure of one's IQ... Knowledge is the x factor in the equation. Unless you can eliminate the unknown variable(knowledge) you cannot accurately measure one's intelligence.

Knowledge is a result of intelligence
IQ tests treat intelligence as a result of knowledge
That is why they fail at accurately measuring one's Intelligence

Intelligence does not change, knowledge does; one can be highly intelligent and extremely ignorant.

Because you cannot measure intelligence, you cannot use IQ tests to reform government policy.
Debate Round No. 3
jimtimmy

Pro

I thank my Opponent for responding.



My opponent argues that knowledge is a better predictor of success, and that IQ tests measure knowledge.


This is incorrect. IQ tests measure a general mental ability. This mental ability is genetic in nature.


Of course, people can have bad days where they do abnormally bad on an IQ test... but that does not change what the IQ tests measure



Now, we know that IQ is about 75 to 85% heritable. This measure is gotten by using IQ tests.


This means that IQ tests MUST measure some genetic quality. Otherwise, it would not be heritable at all.


Knowledge, as my opponent mentions, is not genetic. It is true, however, that those with high IQs typically have more knowledge, because they are more curious and more able to learn.




My opponent's key flaw is that he mistakes imperfection uselessness (IQ tests do not measure intelligence perfectly, therefore they are useless).


Sure, environment affects IQ, but it is 75 to 85% genetic. This means that IQ, while imperfect, is the best measure of general mental ability.


And, as mentioned above, IQ correlates heavily with life outcomes. This means that genetic ability has a lot to do with life outcomes.


In order to rebut my opponents case I needed to prove that:


1.) IQ is heavily Genetic

2.) IQ is a pretty Good Measure of Intelligence

3.) Intelligence is a heavy predictor of Life Outcomes

4.) IQ tests measure IQ pretty well



These are the points my opponent challenged me on.


I have successfully rebutted all of these points.


Vote Pro!






DanT

Con

My opponent has misunderstood my stance on intelligence;

A.) Intelligence is 100% genetic
and
B.) IQ tests rely on knowledge to test intelligence

My opponent claims IQ scores is 75-85% genetic, that means 15-25% is knowledge based.

An IQ of 140 is genius
140 • 75% = 105
An IQ of 105 is average
http://wilderdom.com...

An IQ of 110 is superior Intelligence
110 • 75% = 83
An IQ of 83 is Dull
http://wilderdom.com...

This goes to show that IQ scores is highly dependent on knowledge
Because IQ scores is so heavily depended on knowledge, it cannot truly measure one's Intellect.
Because IQ scores are depended on environment, it should not be used to determine immigration, or government services.

I have disproven all my opponent's claims.
IQ tests don't measure true Intelligence; vote con.
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Godsconvervativegirl 5 years ago
Godsconvervativegirl
although I can't vote yet, this is how I would vote if I were to vote:

Who did you agree with before the debate? DanT
Who did you agree with after the debate? DanT
Who had better conduct? DanT
Who had better spelling and grammar? DanT
Who made more convincing arguments? DanT
Who used the most reliable sources? DanT

I know I strongly agree with DanT, the score for DanT would be 11. but I can't get my confirmation code yet :(
Posted by jimtimmy 5 years ago
jimtimmy
F!ck,

Internet went out like 2 hours before debate expired... very sorry
Posted by Godsconvervativegirl 5 years ago
Godsconvervativegirl
I like this debate. :) it's well done, I should say. :)
Posted by DanT 5 years ago
DanT
Gee thanx >.<
Posted by jimtimmy 5 years ago
jimtimmy
@Joseph_Mengele

Will do my best, ty
Posted by Joseph_Mengele 5 years ago
Joseph_Mengele
@jimtimmy

Crush him my friend.
Posted by vbaculum 5 years ago
vbaculum
@DanT
That's an interesting point, and something I had considered. I had just never seen the practice used to such an excess before.
Posted by jimtimmy 5 years ago
jimtimmy
vbaculum,

I know when to capitalize and when not to. I was just trying to emphasize certain words, as DanT said. I really didn't think it would matter this much.
Posted by DanT 5 years ago
DanT
One could Capitalize in order to Emphasize, a word. The founding fathers capitalized words in order to emphasize the, in both the declaration of independence, and the US constitution.
Posted by vbaculum 5 years ago
vbaculum
@jimtimmy
So did you learn about capitalization in school? I'm not really trying to be funny. I've seen people do this before so I'm actually entertaining the thought that schools have found it too difficult to teach capitalization.

Either way, take your opening statement.

"This Debate is About this Line of thinking:"

Why did you capitalize "Debate", "About" and "Line". Was their a purpose or was it random. And again, I ask in seriousness; not to mock you.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
jimtimmyDanTTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Dan T did show, in his terse arguments, that IQ tests scores were heavily based on knowledge, and therefore, since knowledge is only one of the several components defining intelligence, unreliable....
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
jimtimmyDanTTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed that iq=/=intelligence, pro forfeited thus giving conduct to con.