The Instigator
Wylted
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
wouldnt_you_like_to_know
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Cops should be allowed to have high IQs

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 4 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/9/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 958 times Debate No: 66624
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (4)

 

Wylted

Pro

http://www.mintpressnews.com...

It's no mystery that cops are idiots (average IQ of barely over 100) but I see no reason why that should be the case.

Smart people should be allowed to be cops also. The resolution is as stated in the debate's headline.
wouldnt_you_like_to_know

Con

I understand that you believe that cops should have higher IQs. I mean everyone could be a little smarter but if a cop starts to think that he/she is smarter than everyone else, they will feel as if they rule everyone. Police now a days believe that they are in control anyways. If you add that idea of the power onto a smarter person then they feel like they are invinceable or cannot be stopped in any way. Could you imagine an arrogent cop with the idea that he/she is smarter than everyone? That will be one situation i do not think anyone else wants.
Debate Round No. 1
Wylted

Pro

PROMOTIONS

Most detectives are actually promoted from within and start as street level Law Enforcement officers. People with higher IQ's typically have higher IQs as a result of problem solving skills so even if the ideal IQ for an officer patrolling the streets is within the normal range it is still probably advisable to keep some people with greater problem solving skills around so that cases don't go cold as often.

You want the detectives to not only catch dumb criminals but smart ones as well who are a little bit better at creating puzzles and forcing the police to be smarter to get the answers.

These same problem skills that should be prominent among detectives can also be invaluable in the heat of the moment when coming to the scene of a hostile situation.

CONCLUSION

There really is no downfall to having smart cops and a bunch to gain. Given the extreme lack of a down side and the more than obvious plus side (better detectives so less serial killers roaming the streets), I think it's obvious we should allow smart people the opportunity to be police officers.
EMPATHY

Though both smart and average intelligence people can either lack or have great empathy it's far more likely that a person of extremely high intelligence can pick up on subtleties that others may miss. Subtleties that could to prove very important in confrontational situations or when handling potential victims of domestic abuse.
wouldnt_you_like_to_know

Con

okay you win. i have no response to this at all....
Debate Round No. 2
Wylted

Pro

Thanks for the concession. Maybe we can debate a more fair topic at a future point.

Vote Mikal
wouldnt_you_like_to_know

Con

maybe soon
Debate Round No. 3
Wylted

Pro

Moving on
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
Not to mention the propensity of the less intelligent to breed more. IQ may not be the perfect measure of intelligence, but it certainly correlates enough to represent those of higher and lower mental abilities, which is all that really matters. I read somewhere a few years ago, not sure where exactly, that the ratio is 70% genetic and 30% environment during fetal development until about 7-8, which it's then fixed and education comes into play. Sounds reasonable to me.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Malnutrition may contribute to the low IQs but race plays a large part as well. IQ is largely genetic.

I don't buy the cultural bias either. It's a bunch of puzzles basically. Pattern recognition shouldn't be affected by culture.

Race plays a bigger factor in IQ than what people like to admit. Hong Kong is certainly not more nourished than the United States and yet they have a larger IQ.

I'd also expect IQ to drop significantly in the U.S. With the influx of people from low IQ countries.

None of that actually contradicts anything I've said anyway
Posted by gordonjames 2 years ago
gordonjames
There is such a huge misunderstanding of what IQ is . . .
this site records the average IQ of different countries (I don't know or trust their research, as the way we measure IQ is also culturally skewed) http://www.statisticbrain.com...

Some interesting data points include.

Highest
Rank Country Average IQ
1 Hong Kong 107
2 South Korea 106
3 Japan 105

19 Norway 98
19 United States 98 (note tie for 19th place, not a math or statistical mistake)

Lowest
5 Guinea 66
7 Nigeria 67
8 Ghana 71
9 Tanzania 72
9 Sudan 72

the low scores may reflect malnutrition
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
Lmao, the leg comparison was hilarious Wylted.
"Most people don't want to hear this but having an average level IQ makes you dumb."
That sounds like debate material as it's a self-contradiction =p. Even if I agree with it.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
what you're thinking of is meen IQ not average. Average IQ is 100 but mean s probably above that
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Gordon most people would have an above average IQ. The average number of legs a person has is probably about 1.96 but most people have 2 legs. Bragging that you have an above average number of legs isn't really saying much.

Most people don't want to hear this but having an average level IQ makes you dumb.
Posted by gordonjames 2 years ago
gordonjames
I think you do not understand IQ

the system was set up so that the median IQ would be 100
50% of people higher.
50% of people lower.

if the average IQ of cops is just over 100, they are smarter than average.
they would be dumber than average (and possibly not understand IQ) if their IQ averaged 80 or 90.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Don't be so sensitive. They should know that people play devil's advocate.
Posted by wouldnt_you_like_to_know 2 years ago
wouldnt_you_like_to_know
Guys im not trying to be offensive... im just arguing this topic because no one else will..
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
No that would be the wrong title. I'm not saying low IQ people shouldn't be cops so saying cops should have high IQ's would not be the argument O'm after.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Wyltedwouldnt_you_like_to_knowTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Wyltedwouldnt_you_like_to_knowTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Con conceded the debate rather than forfeiting which is highly respectable, thus both had proper conduct. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar throughout the debate. Arguments - Pro. Con conceded the debate, leaving Pro's arguments standing unchallenged. Sources - Pro. Con didn't utilize any sources throughout the debate whereas Pro did. This is a clear win for Pro.
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
Wyltedwouldnt_you_like_to_knowTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: CONCESSION.
Vote Placed by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
Wyltedwouldnt_you_like_to_knowTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con concedes the debate. Pro wins.