Can you truly define the intelligence of others?
Debate Rounds (1)
The intelligence of others can not be defined. In today's society, humanity uses a standardized grading system in order to define the intelligence of students. However it fails to do its job as grades only judge how well a person can take a test as the current school system is based around standardized testing. Many people fail at these tests not because they are stupid. It is because they have test anxiety. They may be able to list all the elements of the Periodic Table, but if there is a test involved, they automatically freeze up and fail. Not only that, intelligence extends much further than simply book smarts. There is social intelligence which is knowing how to establish relationships, state information in a persuasive way, and use others to your advantage. There is survival intelligence which is knowing how stay alive in dire situations and dangerous environments. There is emotional intelligence which is knowing when to control one's emotions when necessarily, knowing how to notice others emotions, and knowing how to cheer others up. There is systematic intelligence which is knowing how to insert, remove, and understand parts in order to get a system to work and stay working. There is sense intelligence which is knowing how to get information using logic and reasoning. There is strategic intelligence which is knowing how to create and execute a course of action. And this isn't even the end of it! There are so many other types of intelligences in which I haven't listed or have even been classified yet that it would take forever to name them all. If there are so many aspects of intelligence, most of which we haven't even noticed yet, how can we say that a person is smart or stupid. We don't even know what goes on in their head. Heck, we have so little information on what intelligence is, it would be safe to say we don't even have the right to judge the intelligence of non-human animals. For all we know, your dog could be playing out hundreds of scenarios in his/her mind in order to find the best plan in getting your attention.
Before I move on to my arguments as to why this belief is in fact valid and true, there are some things I would like to point out and rebut from the CON side of this debate.
First and foremost, the CON side has provided us with a picture of how society currently categorizes or identifies the intelligence of students. His argument has focused on the school system, and its standardized testing. With this, he has stated that grades that result from this standardized testing is considered by society to be the basis of any individual's (or for this matter, student's) intelligence. He has pointed out that "intelligence" from a contemporary point of view only refers to passing or acing said exams that solely test the memory of the participants of these exams. He has even brougth up the example of memorizing and listing down the elements of the Periodic Table as a way of determining what "grade" a student will get and then branding him with the appropriate "level of intelligence" he so deserves, all of which are based on this "standardized testing."
He tries to convince us that this modern way is flawed. With him, I completely agree. Every point that he has made so far regarding this is, I would say, correct. Standardized testing is in fact limited to memorization. Also, he has brought up the concept of test anxiety, which most students have and causes them to "freeze" during the exams, rendering them with lower scores than they were supposed to obtain without these test anxieties. So, to summarize, this house agrees that standardized testing DOES NOT guarantee knowing the level of intelligence of a person because (1) it is limited to memorization ONLY, and (2) its way of implementation can cause its participants (in this case, students) to freeze and therefore not do their best.
But, there is a problem with his argument all in all. The motion asks "Can you truly define the intelligence of others?" And his argument convinces us that we CANNOT simply because the contemporary way of "defining" intelligence is erroneous or incomplete. Of course, if we were to focus only on this method of analysis of one's intelligence, then we might come to conclude that it is THEREFORE IMPOSSIBLE to define someone's intelligence. However, there is more than one way to cook an egg. That said, there is more than one way of defining someone's intelligence.
And how do we know that there are other ways? Well, the CON has actually provided that for us. The CON has stated that "intelligence extends much further than simply book smarts." TRUE. Intelligence does go beyond the teachings within a classroom. He has presented to us social intelligence, survival intelligence, emotional intelligence, systematic intelligence, and so on and so forth. He has put into classes for us all these types and defines them appropriately. So, what does this mean? This only comes to show that intelligence for one, can be classified, and with classification comes definition. Therefore, if one were to take all of these classified intelligence(s) from a specific person, and assess them appropriately, individually, and accordingly--for example, social intelligence is to be tested by how well one can communicate with another through grammar, through eye-contact, through expressiveness of oneself, through understanding of another and being understood by another; survival intelligence can be assessed by taking an individual into "dire situations and dangerous environments" and seeing how well he can fare--then we could come close to a general approximation or definition of how intelligent a person actually is.
With that said, it can be concluded that the belief of this House that "the intelligence of others" can truly be defined is feasible, possible, and factual.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Balacafa 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: Pro could not be refuted due to the fact that there was 1 round.
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.