The Instigator
LiamKNOW
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Mikal
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

Are people who graduate from college before turning eighteen geniuses?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 784 times Debate No: 46048
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (6)

 

LiamKNOW

Con

I would like to have a friendly discussion on the intellectual capacities such a precocious educational achievement reflects. I will be arguing that graduating from college before turning eighteen is not sufficient to be considered a genius. In the first round, please state your case for disagreeing.
Mikal

Pro

I accept

Genius - (a) Extraordinary intellectual and creative power. (b) A strong natural talent, aptitude, or inclination [1]


Extraordinary intellectual and creative power

The definition explains itself, but someone whom graduates college before the age that everyone would normally graduate high school has went above and beyond the norm. They have exemplified the meaning of over achieving and have excelled past the norm.

Per the definition, they could be classified as genius.




[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 1
LiamKNOW

Con

I would hesitate to declare such a definitional win before carefully analyzing the definition itself. A person who graduates from college before turning eighteen certainly possesses "extraordinary intellectual" abilities. However, I do not believe that all such graduates possess extraordinary "creative power," since passing college classes requires the regurgitation of information more than original thought or creativity. Acing exams and writing term papers -- though indicative of intellectual capacity -- do little to demonstrate any creative spark, let alone an "extraordinary" one.
Mikal

Pro


Extraordinary - very unusual : very different from what is normal or ordinary [1]



Extraordinary intellectual abilities

conceded


Extraordinary creative power

This would also be pretty concise. Someone has to be creative in order to graduate college in general. It requires you to go above and beyond the norm in certain projects. Anything from public speaking to classroom presentations. You have to step up and break the norm. A person doing this at the age of 18 when most people do it at the age of 22 has demonstrated that he is extraordinary. Thus meeting the definition.


Conclusion

While the person most certainly meets the first definition I presented, even as the second definition states a genius can be someone who posses a strong aptitude or talent. Which someone whom has graduated college before the age 18 certainly posses.




[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 2
LiamKNOW

Con

As someone who has graduated from college before age eighteen, I believe you misunderstand the role creativity plays in undergraduate coursework. You claimed that both public speaking and classroom presentation require creativity, but PowerPoint templates and basic writing skills -- neither of which involve extraordinary creativity -- are sufficient to deliver presentations worthy of a passing grade. The idea that one must shatter preconceptions and embark upon the unknown -- armed only with one's extraordinary creativity -- to graduate from college is, to say the least, uninformed about the current state of our educational system.

You also claim that the second definition of a genius you presented applies to such precocious students. According to this definition, a genius is someone who has a "strong natural talent, aptitude, or inclination." Someone who graduates from college must neither display "strong" aptitude (average-level work is sufficient), nor must one's aptitude be "natural" or innate -- a good primary and secondary school education can equip a genetically unexceptional person with adequate skills.
Mikal

Pro

" You also claim that the second definition of a genius you presented applies to such precocious students. According to this definition, a genius is someone who has a "strong natural talent, aptitude, or inclination." Someone who graduates from college must neither display "strong" aptitude (average-level work is sufficient), nor must one's aptitude be "natural" or innate -- a good primary and secondary school education can equip a genetically unexceptional person with adequate skills."

This is my adversaries initial claim. Someone who graduates before the norm is displaying a strong or above normal aptitude.


"As someone who has graduated from college before age eighteen, I believe you misunderstand the role creativity plays in undergraduate coursework. You claimed that both public speaking and classroom presentation require creativity, but PowerPoint templates and basic writing skills -- neither of which involve extraordinary creativity -- are sufficient to deliver presentations worthy of a passing grade. The idea that one must shatter preconceptions and embark upon the unknown -- armed only with one's extraordinary creativity -- to graduate from college is, to say the least, uninformed about the current state of our educational system."

The first part about him graduating early is irrelevant and plays no part int his debate. When someone is able to do college level work 4-5 years before they are required to do so. This is breaking the norm. Them being able to accomplish school projects at a college level, at such an early age displays both a high level of intellect and creativity.


Creative - the ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships, or the like [1]


This is essentially saying the same thing. Someone who transcends above the norm in a specified area is creative. Creativity can be in traditional subjects, as long at it transcends the norm. It is taking thoughts and ideas and going above and beyond. Someone whom is able to take college classes at an early age posses both creativity and intellect. They are expected to operate at a higher level than what the norm is and they are able to achieve this. They go above and beyond the level most people are at. This is creativity all in itself. They have to be with the requirements before them Anything from writing essays and papers would require them to demonstrate a higher level of creativity than the norm.

Conclussion

Someone whom graduates goes above the norm and shows a higher level of intellect, creativity, and aptitude than anyone else their age. They are breaking the mold and per the definition could be considered a genius.


http://dictionary.reference.com...


Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by bluesteel 3 years ago
bluesteel
RFD:

Neither side says what is needed to win. Does Pro need to prove that he meets one or both definitions? Without it being argued, I default to the normal usage of the English language, which is that something is classified as a particular thing if it meets *any* of the definitions of that thing. For example, if a fan is either a paper decorative art piece often used in Chinese culture or an electrical air-blowing implement, Pro could prove that something is a fan by proving that it is either one. Since Pro proved definition #2 and Con did not contest this, I think it's a pretty easy win for Pro.

The entire debate is really about creativity. Con does not contest intellectual power. If I were forced to decide on definition #1, I'm not sure how I would decide. I don't personally consider it very creative merely to graduate 4 years early, but Pro takes the trouble to define creativity and says that this word includes the "breaking of patterns," which Pro definitely proves. So based only on the arguments in the debate (of which Con had few), I think I would vote Pro on definition #1 as well if forced to decide that issue.

Pro got the sources point for using definitions to advance his argument. Since this is primarily a definitional debate, I don't see the need to cite any other types of sources. Con made little attempt to contest any of the definitions and did not source some claims that probably needed evidentiary support, such as that a normal high school curriculum adequately prepares someone to graduate 4 years early from college.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by GodChoosesLife 3 years ago
GodChoosesLife
LiamKNOWMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro seemed confident in his argument and used the most reliable sources so he gets the points for convincing g arguments and reliable sources.
Vote Placed by bluesteel 3 years ago
bluesteel
LiamKNOWMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
LiamKNOWMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: A lot of this debate came down to semantics. While Pro proved the first half of the definition passed, I don't feel like he took the second half home with him. Pro had sources and better grammar and spelling, but Conduct was even. I don't like judging Semantic debates, and often vote against semantics, but both sides let this debate come down to that.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
LiamKNOWMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The question on my mind at the end of the debate is whether or not a majority of such college graduates being geniuses is sufficient to prove his case, or whether he must prove that it is inherent and therefore pervasive. I wish someone had argued one of these at the end of the debate because it matters. Con is winning the latter (since he provides some doubt), and Pro the former. So how do I decide? Well, I guess I'd have to go by the only person in the debate who mentioned what the burden was at any point, even if they didn't say it was a burden. Con said in R1: "graduating from college before turning eighteen is not sufficient to be considered a genius." In other words, Pro was given the burden of proving that anyone who graduates college before 18 is a genius, independent of the specific circumstances of their learning. Since we established that creativity is necessary, and since Con proved that, in some instances, getting passing grades is not creative, I vote Con.
Vote Placed by black_squirrel 3 years ago
black_squirrel
LiamKNOWMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: CON looses the argument about whether graduating early requires creativity. Con should just have given 1 definition, that of extraordinary intellectual capability and he would have won. I give sources to Con because Con provided the definitions.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
LiamKNOWMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro showed that graduating college before 18 fits the definition of genius.