The Instigator
jamccartney
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
CJKAllstar
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Geniocracy

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 3 votes the winner is...
CJKAllstar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,574 times Debate No: 52436
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

jamccartney

Pro

Hello to all who wish to accept this debate. In this debate, my opponent and I will be arguing about the idea of a Geniocracy. I, Pro, will be arguing that many of the ideas of a Geniocracy are good ideas and should be implemented into society, while my opponent, Con, will be arguing the point that a Geniocracy is not a good idea.

Here is the definition of 'Geniocracy':

Geniocracy is the framework for a system of government which was first proposed by Raël in 1977 and which advocates problem-solving and creative intelligence as criteria for regional governance.

Basically, it prefers intelligence over age. Here is a good example:

1. In modern society, an 18 year-old idiot is allowed to vote while a 16 year-old genius is not.
2. In a Geniocracy, the 18 year-old idiot would not be permitted to vote, while the 16 year-old genius would be allowed to.

Now, I will lay out come rules:

1. This is a serious debate. Do not accept this debate if you cannot commit.
2. Proper spelling and grammar must be used at all times.
3. All sources, if any, must be properly cited using MLA format.
4. Arguments must be intelligent.
5. Personal examples are indeed okay, due to the topic of the debate. Examples are good for a debate like this. However, do not overuse them.
6. Use logic.

Those are all the rules I wish to lay out, so I will now go over the rounds:

Round 1: Acceptance only.
Round 2: Arguments only. No Rebuttals!
Round 3:
Rebuttals and any remaining arguments.
Round 4: More rebuttals and conclusion


I look forward to this debate and hope to debate someone who is willing to debate this topic with me. Remember to not accept if you cannot commit.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
CJKAllstar

Con

I accept this debate and your rules. I do question however your inclination for MLA citing, as it isn't necessary as long as I can cite my sources. To be honest I do not know what it is, and would request you allow me to cite my sources as normal or at least send me a guide if you are militant about MLA citing. Other than that, I am ready to debate.
Debate Round No. 1
jamccartney

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent, CJKAllstar, for accepting this debate and deciding to debate this topic with me. I will break my arguments up into 3 parts:

1. What is a Geniocracy?
2. Why is a Geniocracy a good idea?
3. Intelligence over age

First, however, I wish to talk about my opponent's question about MLA citations. I will ammend my rules and state that he is not required to use MLA format if he does not wish to do so. Notwithstanding, if he wishes to comply with that format, he can learn about the particular format on this site: https://owl.english.purdue.edu....

Now, I will begin my arguments.

What is a Geniocracy?

The government style, Geniocracy, was first created by Claude Vorilhon (Raël), who "[proposed] a system that is designed to select for intelligence and compassion as the primary factors for governance." The basic idea is this:

1. Now, an 18 year-old who knows nothing about politics is allowed to vote, while a 16 year-old who knows more about politics than the average adult is not.
2. In a Geniocracy, the 16 year-old, who knows more, is allowed to vote, while the 18 year-old, who knows nothing, is not.

It is based on rights by intelligence rather than age. In this debate, I shall be arguing that it is better to give people more rights when they are capable of handling them rather when they reach a certain age.


Why is a Geniocracy a good idea?

Throughout my life, I have met adults who are not the brightest or the most responsible. These are adults that I am higher than when it comes to intelligence. Yet, they have the right to buy a house, work as long as they wish, drive, drink alcohol, buy dry ice and propane, vote, have sex, control what doctors are allowed to do to their bodies, etc., while I, on the other hand, do not have any of those rights, desipte my higher intellect.

Many children do not care about their rights until a certain age, however the ones who do feel like their civil rights are being taken away. Looking at my opponent's profile, he supports freedom, for he said it is one of his 'highest values', so I wonder why he does not support a Geniocracy.

Here is a personal example:

Throughout my day, I come across people who I can tell are smarter than me and people who I can tell are not as smart as me. Because I support a Geniocracy, I treat these people as they deserve to be treated. Now, I happen to be someone who does not like to feel inferior, however I still treat people as they should: I 'look down' upon the people who are inferior to me and 'look up' to the people who are more capable than I am. People deserve to and should be treated as they are.

I truly believe I should have the rights I mentioned in the first paragraph (the right to buy a house, work as long as they wish, drive, etc). I believe I am capable of 'handling' the responsibility of those kinds of rights. In my opinion, age restrictions, in a way, resemble Fascism, meaning adults have total power over children until they are 'of age'. I find this wrong and I do not see how anyone could not.

When refrencing 'Fascism', I am using the definition "the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism", 'fascism' meaning: "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power." Child age restrictions resemble fascism in the way that children are helpless when it comes to rights.

Now that I have spoken of child rights, I will now speak of adult rights. As I mentioned before, I have met some very intelligent adults and some very idiotic adults. Both of those adults have the same rights, despite the fact that one of them is incapable of handling some of them. They both have the right to comsume alcohol, yet one of them may be an alcoholic and is inclined to drive after drinking. Why should the less responsible individual have the right to drink if he cannot handle it? The responsible person should be able to enjoy this right because he is responsible. Of course, I support Prohibition, so this does not really relate to me, however it is a great example to think about.

While I am at it, I should also mention weapons. People with an IQ od 70 are allowed to own a firearm, as well as a person with an IQ of 150. The 70 IQ person is more likely to abuse this right, while the more intelligent person is more likely to hide it and only use it for self defense. In certain recent school shootings, the shooter responsible had a very low IQ. Again, there is a direct correlation between violence and exceptionally low intelligence. Don't you think these people should not be permitted to own a firearm if they cannot use it correctly?

Intelligence over age

Who would you rather have leading you? An individual with a high comprehension level or an individual with a low comprehension level? Here is an example:

1. George Walker Bush, previous president of the United States of America, was obviously a bad president. He also had an IQ od 91.
2. Barack Obama, the current president of the United States of America, is a great president. He has an IQ of 130.

As you can see, there is a direct correlation between great leadership and intelligence. Not only that, but there is also a correlation between responsibility and intelligence, common sense and intelligence, and logic and intelligence. One cannot simply deny that they would rather be led by an intelligent person than an unintelligent person.

It is simple logic that the more intelligent, the more likely you are to be great. Honestly, a person with an IQ of 60 would make a bad president, congressman, or leader of any kind. A person with an IQ of 160 would make a great president. To me, this seems obvious. I wish for my opponent to tell me why this is not obvious to him and why he does not support a more fair system of government and law.


Conclusion

I have stated all the arguments I wish to state for now. I will continue my arguments in round 3. For now, it is time for my opponent to give his arguments. I look forward to reading them.


MLA Citations

"Geniocracy." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 13 Apr. 2014. Web. 14 Apr. 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org...;.

"Claude Vorilhon." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 14 Apr. 2014. Web. 14 Apr. 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org...;.

"Famous IQs." Famous IQs. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2014. <http://archure.net...;.

Archard, David William. "Children's Rights." Stanford University. Stanford University, 16 Oct. 2002. Web. 14 Apr. 2014. <http://plato.stanford.edu...;.

"Fascism." Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com, n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2014. <http://dictionary.reference.com...;.
CJKAllstar

Con

Thank you for your points.

I. Geniocracy is Impractical

A) Intelligence is not objective.

Intelligence is not objective, but rather relative. Intelligence itself can only rely upon someone to perceive first of all, and the way in which things are perceived are through a perceptual set. Everyone perceives things differently and there can be no object perception. Factors that affect one's perceptual set are[1]:

(i) bodily needs (e.g. physiological needs)

(ii) reward and punishment

(iii) emotional connotation

(iv) individual values

(v) personality

(vi) the value of objects.

And also culture, bringing up and lifestyle. Now we have already fallen into issue number one, intelligence is dependant firstly on this, so it can vary. Somebody fatigued, suffering from a state of emotional decline and depression, may be normally intelligent, but could not be intelligent during this. And if it lasts for years, that is the connotation of intelligence stripped from him. But any chemical or physical aspect towards intelligence such as zinc/copper in your hair could remain. Aspects in your perceptual set such as personality, culture and emotional connotations can change thus ways you perceive things change.

An example would be somebody who is deemed intelligent, which is a tricky ground I will get to later, might be a mathematical genius. He enjoys maths, practices it everyday and uses more of his brain than others. He is intelligent, but now add a hypothetical mentally-scarring incident to do with maths, which would decrease the value and amity he had for maths, as well as his view that it was a reward. Now it is a punishment. He would now not do as well and wouldn't be viewed as a genius in maths if this was the case. If he enjoyed it his brain would have put more into maths. But because of the changing of his perceptual set, his "intelligence" fades. So why is this relevant, because it leads me to a later point I have about the testability, but before then, I have another argument.

B) Intelligence is not definite.

What is intelligence anyway? Is it the dictionary definition of the ability to acquire, utilise or retain information? Because acquiring information is something everyone can do, it is simply a matter of interest. Retaining information is simply also a matter of practice and effort. Anyone can do it unless mentally impaired. The utilisation of information is reliant upon context and comes with practice and interest, again anyone can do it. What actually counts as intelligent, there is no definite. Somebody may be adept in remembering information, but not so much at utilising it. There are an abundance of thinking styles, and people are good at some and not good at others.

Then I can come back to saying how intelligence is relative. Somebody who can name all monarchs in England may be smart if he/she is working at an archaeological dig, but put him in a law firm and he is an "idiot". Idiocy in itself does not make any sense. A baby it theoretically an idiot, but they do not have that connotation attached to them because they aren't expected to know. But the expectation of knowledge doesn't make any sense. It is completely skirting the fact that people are individual. People perceive things differently and think things through differently. If someone can not use a basic syllogism to deduce something, then he is not necessarily mentally deranged. Rather, he may use a completely different paradigm, but the only reason he would be called stupid is because it does not fit with the societal norm. But the societal norm is only a collection of subjectivity, made objective via teaching and indoctrination. It isn't intrinsically objective. Being able to use algebraic equations is expected, but it relies on a very specific method of logic that one may not be used to or like. Does it mean he is stupid? Yes. Is it fair? No, because we create these values of stupid and not stupid.

There is no specific intelligence. It does not make sense because it is relativistic, subjective and relies on context, and any objective form of intelligence is only so because society has attached these values towards them and taught everyone that they are intrinsically this, or that, but in the end intelligence in society is simply adhering to certain paradigms which fit with what the country wants. This is why there are studies which show that left wing people are more intelligent. This is why religious people and young earth creationists receive backlash. There is nothing wrong about having beliefs, bet when the beliefs counter the logical societal norm, then they are deemed stupid. Intelligence in itself can not be put countrywide, that is nonsensical because there is no obvious definitive intelligence quotient, which leads me onto the next point.

C) Intelligence is not testable.

You simply cannot test intelligence. IQ is an awry system because it relies on the societal norm as well as trying to boil it down into one test and one area of focus. You cannot have "tests", because as I said firstly, depending on the person's state he may fail or not. You cannot look at school data because they rely on tests, and people may not just be good at retaining information but have brilliant reasoning skills. A child may not be able to reason, induce or deduce, but have a knack for electronics and parts. Somebody could be a pure natural linguist, and not skilled at everything else, but not only are they all stupid or not depending on where they are. You place them in a test at the right time, right place and on the right topics they could all succeed. If there is no set definition and it is relative and contextual, you really cannot test it.

The impracticality does not stop there. Even if there was a perfect test scenario, it would need to firstly so regularly updated as intelligence fluctuates. It would also need to not focus on any sort of knowledge, as that will lead to people just revising for it and people only trying for that test. It would however need to focus solely on people's reasoning and deducting, similar to the LNAT test for law, but then that does not help those who just haven't been taught that. Unless you observe people all the time, Geniocracy can only be done via testing, which as I have explained, is not fair, but even it it could, it is irrelevant.


II. Geniocracy is irrelevant and anti-democratic.

It simply is not needed. Considering there is no actual basis for intelligence, all that is needed in electing is knowledge of policies and the people who are running. A Geniocracy implies that there is a problem now with a lack of intelligence with voters, but that can only be viewed by seeing what is voted for, which once again is subjective. The country is the sum of its people under a united state, the focus is on the people, not on the state. Everyone has a right to vote, and those who aren't mentally impaired has the ability to find out all the information it needs. You do not need a genius to understand the tax system, but rather research should be expected by those who want their own leader. It is expected for people who want a leader to put some effort into it.

Geniocracy will not cause a change politically, because views will remain. As long as there is political influence and indoctrination, as long as people are brought up in a certain style, no amount of intelligence will beat bias, especially confirmation bias. Intelligence may equate to leadership, but policies as well as character is just as important, and Geniocracy will only end up placing a value on intelligence that will ruin the lives of many who are slightly challenged. It will deter people from manual labour and place such a high importance on intelligence that is bordering social-Darwinism, only leading to the lack of freedom of many as well as the upset of many. Thank you.

Sources:
http://www.simplypsychology.org...


Debate Round No. 2
jamccartney

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for giving me his arguments for not instating a Geniocracy. As this is round 3, it is time for rebuttals. In this round, I will refute my opponent's arguments as well as state any last arguments I may have.



First, my opponent said that "intelligence is not objective," meaning the definition differs among all people. However, I believe Vorilhon uses IQ to establish intelligence. Con later spoke about IQ, but I will get to that later. Con made a list of things that he feels defines intelligence, which are:



1. Physiological needs

2. Reward and punishment

3. Emotional connotation

4. Individual values

5. Personality

6. The value of objects

7. Culture, upbringing, and lifestyle



I agree with some of what Con said, however not all. I agree with 3, 5, and 7. 1, 2, 4, and 6, however, are objectionable. Here is why:



1. The needs of the body have nothing to do with intelligence. Stephen Hawking cannot move, yet has an IQ of 160 and is one of the most respected scientists alive today. Bodily needs are irrelevant to this particular topic.

2. 'Reward and punishment' somewhat makes sense, but Con did not fully explain it enough for me to fully understand. I believe he is talking about one may be intelligent one day, which he finds great. However when something unfortunate occurs, it is no longer great, but bad. I do not fully understand this and wish for my opponent to elaborate on this in his next argument.

4. Individual values also do not have much to do with intelligence. I am an Atheist and my opponent is a Christian, but that does not mean I am more intelligent than he is. Furthermore, I, being a moderate psychopath, may not have the same amount of empathy as my opponent, but that does not make one of us more intelligent than the other. Individual values does not have to do with intelligence.

6. The personal value of objects has nil to do with intelligence. If I am interpreting his statement correctly, he means having objects with emotional or personal value creates intelligence. I do not concur. My opponent may have an object that means a lot to him, while I may not. I do not see how this could effect intelligence in any way.



Now that I have refuted those particular points, I will move on to his next argument: 'Intelligence is not definite'. I disagree with this, because Vorilhon used IQ as a basis for intelligence. "Idiocy in itself does not make any sense. A baby it[sic] theoretically an idiot, but they do not have that connotation attached to them because they aren't expected to know." This is incorrect, because my opponent does not seem to understand what 'idiot' actually means:

95-104 - Average

85-94 - Dull

75-84 - Borderline

50-74 - Morons

25-49 - Imbeciles

0-24 - Idiot


I will admit that I used 'idiot' incorrectly in my argument as well, however I just wanted to clear that up: 'Idiot' is an IQ classification.

I see Con's reasoning about intelligence being relevant. I agree with that statement to a certain point, however it seems my opponent is confusing knowledge with intelligence. Contrary to popular belief, knowledge and intelligence have very little to do with each other. Of course, one must be intelligent to know a lot of knowledge, but that is not always true. I just wanted to clear up my opponent's mistake.

Next, my opponent wrote "Intelligence is not testable". Again, IQ is a great measure of intelligence, despite what many people say. It measures one's ability to comprehend and process information, as well as simply understand more. I consider myself to be a very intelligent person, but I do meet people who are smarter than me. When working with them, I can see that they are capable of processing information faster than I can. They can understand what they are reading and solve the problem before I do. These people have a higher IQ than I do. I would also trust these people more than other people. Everyone else I know feels the same way, for they trust the smarter person more than other people.

My opponent also says that it would be a problem if everyone would have to take and IQ or mental competency test. He says, "Geniocracy can only be done via testing, which as I have explained, is not fair, but even it it could, it is irrelevant." I do not concur. Yes, it is done via testing, but I do not see how it is not fair or irrelevant. Intelligence is very relevant and is a very fair way to classify people.

"Geniocracy is irrelevant and anti-democratic"
Yes, it is anti-democratic - It's a Geniocracy. It is a new system of government. I do not see why my opponent is referring to a democracy you we are debating about a Geniocracy. Now, I do understand what he's getting at. He says that the point of a Democracy is that all people get to vote, which is true. However, I cannot stress this enough: Children cannot vote, even the ones who are brilliant and should be allowed to. It is not true democracy when children cannot vote. We should use a Geniocracy to create a more fair system, which allows the capable people to have the rights they deserve.

"Geniocracy will not cause a change politically, because views will remain."
I disagree, because when you have very intelligent people in charge, they do a lot of thinking. This thinking allows them to create much change. If I were in charge, I would create laws based on logic rather than what I believe should be done. One of the problems with Democracy is the fact that the people elected are not always smart, which limits their ability to make smart choices. They tend to make choices based on what they want rather than what the people want.

This must change. This must be reformed. Government officials must be able to get past what they want and think of the people. That s why we need a Geniocracy. I look forward to my opponent's response.


MLA Citations



"Famous IQs." Famous IQs. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2014. <http://archure.net...;.



"IQ Classification." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 15 Apr. 2014. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.


CJKAllstar

Con


"First, my opponent said that "intelligence is not objective," meaning the definition differs among all people. However, I believe Vorilhon uses IQ to establish intelligence. Con later spoke about IQ, but I will get to that later. Con made a list of things that he feels defines intelligence, which are:





1. Physiological needs


2. Reward and punishment


3. Emotional connotation


4. Individual values


5. Personality


6. The value of objects


7. Culture, upbringing, and lifestyle





I agree with some of what Con said, however not all. I agree with 3, 5, and 7. 1, 2, 4, and 6, however, are objectionable. Here is why:





1. The needs of the body have nothing to do with intelligence. Stephen Hawking cannot move, yet has an IQ of 160 and is one of the most respected scientists alive today. Bodily needs are irrelevant to this particular topic.


2. 'Reward and punishment' somewhat makes sense, but Con did not fully explain it enough for me to fully understand. I believe he is talking about one may be intelligent one day, which he finds great. However when something unfortunate occurs, it is no longer great, but bad. I do not fully understand this and wish for my opponent to elaborate on this in his next argument.


4. Individual values also do not have much to do with intelligence. I am an Atheist and my opponent is a Christian, but that does not mean I am more intelligent than he is. Furthermore, I, being a moderate psychopath, may not have the same amount of empathy as my opponent, but that does not make one of us more intelligent than the other. Individual values does not have to do with intelligence.


6. The personal value of objects has nil to do with intelligence. If I am interpreting his statement correctly, he means having objects with emotional or personal value creates intelligence. I do not concur. My opponent may have an object that means a lot to him, while I may not. I do not see how this could effect intelligence in any way."

This is just a straw man argument. For those who do not know what that is, it is an argument in which you argue against a misinterpreted form of the opposition's argument, whether unintentionally, or intentionally as a means of tricking the crowd. I never stated a direct correlation between these and intelligence, or that these six are causes intelligence. I stated that these six are examples of things which affect the perceptual set of a person, and this is a uncontested psychological fact. The perceptual set of somebody affects their perception, so a change in one's perceptual set is a change in perception. And perception has the direct connotation with intelligence, clearly. Somebody who perceives knowledge as horrible, will not appreciate it. Somebody who loves logic, is more likely to be a logical person. The fact that the way people see things affect knowledge is obvious, and the point I'm trying to make. It is a slight difference, but important.

Accepting that perception has a direct connotation with intelligence is accepting that these six can affect perception, along with other factors. It is accepting basic psychology. So yes, Stephen Hawking is disabled, but intelligent. Well then there are other factors in his perceptual set that affect his intelligence, such as his upbringing with his parents who both went to Oxford University. Or his love for science which his mind deems as a reward. Or his personality and values relating to knowledge. All your points are irrelevant and an attack on something I did not even state, thus it now has been nullified.


"Next, my opponent wrote "Intelligence is not testable". Again, IQ is a great measure of intelligence, despite what many people say. It measures one's ability to comprehend and process information, as well as simply understand more. I consider myself to be a very intelligent person, but I do meet people who are smarter than me. When working with them, I can see that they are capable of processing information faster than I can. They can understand what they are reading and solve the problem before I do. These people have a higher IQ than I do. I would also trust these people more than other people. Everyone else I know feels the same way, for they trust the smarter person more than other people.


My opponent also says that it would be a problem if everyone would have to take and IQ or mental competency test. He says, "Geniocracy can only be done via testing, which as I have explained, is not fair, but even it it could, it is irrelevant." I do not concur. Yes, it is done via testing, but I do not see how it is not fair or irrelevant. Intelligence is very relevant and is a very fair way to classify people.!


IQ is a horrible system for so many reasons, especially if you make it a public test.

1) IQ can change. How often are you going to do this test? Every four/five years? Every week? The intelligence of a person can change if the person wants it to. You yourself have not made a convincing argument for Geniocracy because the details are so blurry. People can become more stupid as well, or the situation the person is in when they take the test can cause them to fail, as I said before. Depending on the state of that person's perceptual set, he can either vote as we wishes or spend an unspecified amount of time without the ability to choose your own leader, a basic democratic right.

2) A public IQ test is not practical Unless you are planning to have secret test for everyone, seeing as once again you have not actually made clear how your Geniocracy will work, the test will get out. It is impossible to control. So when things in the test get out, people will revise and succeed. IQ tests are done privately at a cost for a reason, to avoid them being in the pile of fake an unreliable IQ tests, where everyone has an IQ of 130+. The test will have to be so strung out relating to content that it is actually impractical to have. Idiots who revised and then do not proceed to care, or smart people who passed then gave up on everything will not work. And don't even mention having IQ tests sent to people, because it will become another black market fad and the likelihood of cheating is already high.

3) IQ tests are unfair. They only measure teachable skills, according to psychologist James Flynn. This means those who are richer are more likely to vote, and those in certain areas in which education isn't as good are at a disadvantage. Everyone with the right amount of time and money can be intelligent, but it is a matter of effort and interest, which are traits. I do not see how you can justify a system which supports certain characters, class types and people who live in certain areas.


And there is a correlation between IQ and wealth. And certain places, London in the U.K for example is more likely to increase IQ. IQ as a system is too reliant not upon the person but rather his birth, and I do not see how you can justify that.

4) The purpose of a vote is that the majority are governed the way they want to. If you are saying that this is a better system, that implies that if only intelligent people vote, then the rest of the country will find that things are actually better off. All Geniocracy does is make life better for those who agree with the majority of intelligent voters. Intelligence may affect some decisions, but not basic values. The majority has to like their leader, and if intelligent people choose a leader it doesn't mean it is best for the country. After all, a leader is for the country, and needs to be elected by the country. It is bigoted to think that whatever is best for the most intelligent is best for the rest. Intelligent or not, at the end of the day with policies, they are for the contentedness of the people. This is why I stated it was anti-democratic. To have a vote in the first place is democratic and for the people. Geniocracy makes no sense, why vote if you are only catering for some? As I said above, good for the intelligent doesn't mean it is good for all, and if so you have BOP.

5) Finally, IQ isn't even needed.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com...

Somebody's politics can be affected by family, to cultural upbringing and brain. You educate a trade unionist durin1 980s England, and his views will almost certainly stay left. Educate an upper class child of the same era, and he will stay ineffably stay right. Politics is too cultural and parental for intelligence to do much. And what it can do is too subjective for anything to matter. Right now, I am a right-wing liberal conservative. That is almost libertarian, in that I am liberal on social issues, but conservative on political and economic. I am only fourteen, and I know for sure this could change as I grow up and become more intelligent. But what difference does that make to the fact that right now, I have my ideal world. The same applies for the population, some aren't intelligent, but they vote for what they want because we have a right to. Article 21 of the 30 international human rights we have is about the right to democracy.

We do not want to hinder this simply to make those who got lucky on a test happy. Geniocracy will not make the country better for all.

Sources:
http://www1.umn.edu...
http://www.smithsonianmag.com...
http://examples.yourdictionary.com...

Debate Round No. 3
jamccartney

Pro

Introduction

I would like to begin by thanking my fellow contestant for giving me his rebuttals and arguments towards why society should not begin using a Geniocracy. He has laid out many valid claims, but has also laid out equally absurd and irrelevant claims. When I come across a point that I agree with, I will state that. When I come across a statement that is incorrect, I will refute it in the best way possible.

Rebuttals

My opponent began by quoting a very large quantum of my previous argument. Then, he gave a few paragraphs talking about why I was incorrect. I disagree, however, because I believe my arguments were very viable and germane. According to my opponent, I made "a straw man argument." I did not use a straw man argument. I interpreted my opponent's statements the way they were written.

"I never stated a direct correlation between these and intelligence, or that these six are causes intelligence. I stated that these six are examples of things which affect the perceptual set of a person, and this is a uncontested psychological fact."

I understand this, but it still makes my arguments pertinent to the topic. I pointed out how many of those six points are not relevant in almost every way and how they should not even be on the list. I believe I was correct and did not make a 'straw man argument'.

Next, my opponent started talking about my points about IQ. Many of them were irrelevant because he was irrelevant. First of all, IQ does not change. It is a fixed number throughout all your life. Yes, whether a child is breast-fed as a child may change it three or so points and if a teenager consumes drugs, but besides those examples, IQ is a fixed number. My opponent does not seem to fully understand IQ.

"A public IQ test is not practical Unless you are planning to have secret test for everyone"

I understand my opponent's point here and will not deny that. My opponent wins that particular point.

"IQ tests are unfair"

Not particularly, no. Yes, they measure teachable skills, but also comprehension and understanding level. Furthermore, Con stated that "those who are richer are more likely to vote." My opponent's argument here is backwards, because he seems to be making the claim that money effects IQ, which, in fact, it is the other way around: IQ can effect money. Con's arguments that include money and race are irrelevant in that case.


"The purpose of a vote is that the majority are governed the way they want to. If you are saying that this is a better system, that implies that if only intelligent people vote, then the rest of the country will find that things are actually better off."

Again, I will state why a Geniocracy is better. The intelligent people are more capable of making logical, relevant decisions. These people are more capable of handling their rights, which, logically speaking, they should be the ones to get the rights. Of course, I am not saying that average people (IQ of 95 - 104), will not be able to vote. I am mainly talking about the people who are, according to the chart I gave in my first rebuttals, borderline, moron, imbecile, and idiot.

"Finally, IQ isn't even needed"

When looking at the source Con cited, nowhere on that page does it say 'IQ'. Furthermore, IQ is needed. If one had an IQ of 0, they would not be able to learn anything, have feelings, or do anything. So, my opponent is wrong: IQ is very much needed. Now, I understand his point about liberal vs conservative, but that does not mean IQ is not needed. As I just said, you do not want someone to have an IQ of 0.

As that is all Con stated, I believe I am done with my rebuttals.

Conclusion

I believe both my opponent and I have stated very valid arguments. However, I believe my arguments and rebuttals have been stronger. However, Con still must state his final rebuttals before we can know for sure. It is up to the voters to decide that. I have enjoyed this debate and hope to win. Thank you.
CJKAllstar

Con

Rebuttal
"I never stated a direct correlation between these and intelligence, or that these six are causes intelligence. I stated that these six are examples of things which affect the perceptual set of a person, and this is a uncontested psychological fact."

I understand this, but it still makes my arguments pertinent to the topic. I pointed out how many of those six points are not relevant in almost every way and how they should not even be on the list. I believe I was correct and did not make a 'straw man argument'.

Firstly, with the actual position, those six are negated. Because the main point is not that they will, but they can. Maybe the body does not affect Stephen Hawking, but it is still possible to affect a person, that that is the issue. Again, you picked yourself as an example but individual values can affect intelligence, if you follow the way in which I said it can. Individual values can affect one's perceptual set, which in turn affects perception, which in turns affects intelligence. For example, a factor which affects one's perceptual set is value. A nihilist will not have much value places upon anything, thus the way in which he perceives things such as strategic, succinct and logical thinking will be affected negatively, so he is less likely to be intelligent. This point is negated too. The last point is similar. Of course, if I for example love a car, it cannot directly affect intelligence. But the love for my car can affect the way in which I perceive automobiles, or similar vehicles, or other objects which may remind me of my car or have a similar meaning. This in turn allows me to perceive these things in a better light and have more of an incentive to study, focus or do anything relating to these, and if it is educational it only increases my intelligence. Now, this could be one random example, but it can happen. Do not forget the importance of can. The can relies again on other factors and the purpose.

Having a generalised test which is fair implies that the only varying factor will be intelligence. After all, that is all you want to measure. But then what about people who have a fear of tests, or sick on that day, or panic in these situations, or have panic attacks randomly, or are in a period of depression, or are ill, or are going through a period of trouble, or are temporarily disabled and a myriad things could happen to offset this. Intelligence is affected by perception, obviously, it makes no sense to say otherwise or it is assuming that everyone perceives things the same. As I have proven, which I do not need to because it is basic psychology, once something is perceived or affected by perception it can be affected by one's perceptual set. And factors in it are too subjective to regulate. Too personal yet too drastic to generalise. Meaning so many people are going to lose the right to vote due to circumstances. This is the key factor of the injustice caused, people are so different in perception, evaluation and their life that testing something which is affected by lifestyle is unfair. This is a factor many school's don't do, "intelligence tests". It is the reason many subjects regularly track progress. Not even level of achievement, but progress because it is subjective. Rather than levels of achievement. Your system, which again is not specified, will only work to bring out the lucky. Not the smart who are in peril, but the idiot who is feeling great and tested it.

Next, my opponent started talking about my points about IQ. Many of them were irrelevant because he was irrelevant. First of all, IQ does not change. It is a fixed number throughout all your life. Yes, whether a child is breast-fed as a child may change it three or so points and if a teenager consumes drugs, but besides those examples, IQ is a fixed number. My opponent does not seem to fully understand IQ.

I do. And with practice and money, anyone can improve their level of reasoning. I do not even see the logic in saying that somebody will always have the same level of intelligence, unless you are implying that it is something psychological/genetic/biological. In which case this is bordering social Darwinism, and that would make sense, if it was the point you were arguing for.

"IQ tests are unfair"

Not particularly, no. Yes, they measure teachable skills, but also comprehension and understanding level. Furthermore, Con stated that "those who are richer are more likely to vote." My opponent's argument here is backwards, because he seems to be making the claim that money effects IQ, which, in fact, it is the other way around: IQ can effect money. Con's arguments that include money and race are irrelevant in that case.

The richer you are, the more likely you are to live in an area which appreciates intelligence and affluence. The more likely you are to attend a better school and the more likely you are to have parents who are intelligent thus have made use of their skills. This is a strange notion to have without any evidence. I never stated that those who are intelligent aren't more likely to be rich. I said that those who are richer are more likely to be intelligent. Both are logically the case, but with Geniocracy, one is injustice, for self-explanatory reasons. In short, Geniocracy is great for the rich, bad the the poor. The correlation was there in the graph and most graphs you will find.

"The purpose of a vote is that the majority are governed the way they want to. If you are saying that this is a better system, that implies that if only intelligent people vote, then the rest of the country will find that things are actually better off."

Again, I will state why a Geniocracy is better. The intelligent people are more capable of making logical, relevant decisions. These people are more capable of handling their rights, which, logically speaking, they should be the ones to get the rights. Of course, I am not saying that average people (IQ of 95 - 104), will not be able to vote. I am mainly talking about the people who are, according to the chart I gave in my first rebuttals, borderline, moron, imbecile, and idiot.

No. Firstly, you actually did not specify who will be deemed as incapable of voting in your first round, so technically you have changed your premise here. Secondly, anyone who is an actual idiot, they are less likely to vote anyway. You see, voting is not obligatory. It isn't. Not interested in all this politics stuff? Then don't vote, most likely with your resolved resolution, the absolute moron will not vote. There probably aren't enough absolute morons to affect anything, now that, in the fifth round you have actually specified. The floor, see it yourself. In round three, you just presented a list saying that I do not understand what you meant by idiot. No actual action. For you to take such a drastic action, you are implying that there is a drastic problem. Now, you have not specified why there is a need for Geniocracy, other than the fact that intelligent people will vote better. But we vote fine enough. Simply because it can be done better does not mean the current scene is bad. This is the fallacy of relative privation.

"Finally, IQ isn't even needed"

When looking at the source Con cited, nowhere on that page does it say 'IQ'. Furthermore, IQ is needed. If one had an IQ of 0, they would not be able to learn anything, have feelings, or do anything. So, my opponent is wrong: IQ is very much needed. Now, I understand his point about liberal vs conservative, but that does not mean IQ is not needed. As I just said, you do not want someone to have an IQ of 0.

That page showed that political views are partly genetic. The relevance? Intelligence is not likely to change this. IQ isn't needed not because of the strange reason you said here, but because political views are likely to stay.


Sorry, but your argument is colossally flawed. Firstly you did not specify how it is going to work, how it is going to be tested, and the issues now that requires this. Your only argument has been a long-winded form of, "stupid people now can't vote". Firstly, most won't, secondly, the population if idiots going by your standards is probably not high enough for anything to change, thirdly, you haven't explained how logical thinking will lead to a better outcome. People's politics are their politics. Also, whoever is in charge, whether that is good or bad is subjective, and you did not refute the serious issue which is that only those who vote will be happy. Not to mention is places a value on intelligence that is only going to mess with the workforce.

Democracy is based around the happiness of its people. It is why a Sunni Muslim country would not like to be governed by Saudi Arabia. It is why the Government aims for stability, because it is beneficial for the people. Geniocracy, the thing you need to prove was why it is needed, why it will be better, how it will be better and how it works. You even admitted you failed the last one, you have not proved why it is needed over any situation now, and you did say it is better because it allows the country not to be governed by idiots effectively, but you need to explain how it works to do this and why it is needed.

I urge the floor to side with Con.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by CJKAllstar 3 years ago
CJKAllstar
"Convincing arguments goes to Pro for two reasons: First, the wording of his debate particularly appealed to me. Secondly, it had a better format. Finally, reliable sources points go to Pro due to the fact that he used MLA citations and how he formatted his entire argument."

Wording of the debate? You are judging how convincing my argument is based on the wording? And "format"? The only difference was he had more spaces and did not underline, and that convinced you more? And how is MLA sourcing any more "reliable"? It is about the actual sources or if any. WilliamsP, I apologise for laughing at grammatical irony you made, or anything I have done to you. But please don't vote to spite me. That is low. If I hurt you in anyway, I apologise, but please remove your vote. You now full well it is unjust. You know it is not fair and is injustice. I don't want you to necessarily vote for me, but either remove the vote by putting tie for everything, or vote fairly. Don't strip the value of a loss or a win just because you are annoyed. It hurts the system and I have a massive post on it. Please WilliamsP, by doing this you are only hurting the system. Just don't.
Posted by L.D 3 years ago
L.D
I did not understand either the insistence of making MLA citations, other than to show off, it brings no additional value to the quality of debates. Other than that, why not allow for APA and Chicago style too? Moreover, there is a shortcut to MLA, APA and Chicago style citation of texts by simply an input of data here (www.easybib.com), and it will generate the citation for you, which I am sure Pro used.
Other than that, the straw man argument I think was unintentional, however present, and Con did a good job pointing it out.

And just something from my personal beliefs, age is most of the times strongly correlated to experience, which in turn, is correlated to intelligence. You can have an IQ of 200 as a 16 year old, but still make a worse choice in voting policies or political candidates than a 60 year old construction worker with an IQ of 45 (not implying that construction workers are less intelligent people by any means), simply because he has more experience under his belt and has experienced the effects of these policies first hand, rather than reading about them and hypothesising the effects of their implementation. Thus, the 60 year old would be able to make the better choice.
That is also the reason why the highest ranked universities and highly paid workplaces, or any workplace for that matter, values experience over education.
The same goes for winning a debate here. It will not make the world a better place. You need to go out and do something.

Thus, claiming that Geniocracy would be a good form of government, does not make you a genius (not you personally, just in general). Good topic nonetheless.
Posted by Fanath 3 years ago
Fanath
I would Google MLA if you don't know...
Posted by jamccartney 3 years ago
jamccartney
You may now do so.
Posted by CJKAllstar 3 years ago
CJKAllstar
I would like to accept this.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by WilliamsP 3 years ago
WilliamsP
jamccartneyCJKAllstarTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was rather close. First of all, conduct is tied because there were no forfeitures nor did I feel there was anything insulting or offensive stated. Spelling and grammar is tied for both debaters had great spelling and grammar. Convincing arguments are tied because of the sheer length, complexity, and intelligence of both arguments. Finally, reliable sources points go to Pro due to the fact that he used MLA citations. In my professional opinion, MLA is very simple and very professional. It is lazy for Con to not use them. You can go to websites such as Citation Machine and Easybib and you can make the MLA citation within a few moments. I give the reliable sources points to Pro because of MLA citations. The points would have been tied, but I feel that Pro utilized the sources more efficiently.
Vote Placed by RossM 3 years ago
RossM
jamccartneyCJKAllstarTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: A very difficult debate to vote for! Pro had some interesting points which were reinforced by good conduct, spelling and grammar. His definitions would make sense in an ideal world, but Con effectively argued his position and proved that Pro's arguments were impractical and immoral. An interesting debate that Con won, after Pro misconstrued Con's arguments entirely.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
jamccartneyCJKAllstarTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: con rebutted all pro's points.