The Instigator
Lexus
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
gingerbread-man
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Geniocracy

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 1 vote the winner is...
gingerbread-man
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/28/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,133 times Debate No: 67580
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (1)

 

Lexus

Pro

This is going to be a debate on [RESOLVED: GENIOCRACY IS A GOOD POLITICAL SYSTEM, IN THEORY]. I will be standing in pro, which means that I will be saying that geniocracy is a good political system, and my opponent will be the opposite. Burden of Proof is on both of us, I have to prove that it is a good political system, and my opponent has to prove that it isn't.

Here is how the rounds are going to go:
Round 1: Pro offers definitions and outlines basic debate structure, Con accepts/rejects definitions and creates a constructive case.
Round 2: Pro creates a constructive case and refutes some of con's case, con refutes pro's case
Round 3: Pro answers some refutations brought by con/crystalizes points/tells the judge why to vote for them, con crystalizes points they made/answers some refutations/tells judges why to vote for them.


DEFINITIONS:

  • Geniocracy: Rule by the intelligent[1]
  • "In Theory": with regard to fundamentals although not concerning details; "in principle" [2]
  • "Political System": A political system is a system of politics and government. It is usually compared to the legal system, economic system, cultural system, and other social systems. [3]



SOURCES: (I would like it if you used MLA citations, but it's not necessary or anything)
[1]: LrSullivan. "Geniocracy." Collins Dictionary. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Dec. 2014.
[2]:"In Theory."The Free Dictionary. Farlex, n.d. Web. 27 Dec. 2014.
[3]:"Political System."Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 27 Dec. 2014.
gingerbread-man

Con

I will be taking on the con position of GENIOCRACY IS A GOOD POLITICAL SYSTEM, IN THEORY.

I accept the definitions put forward by Lexus.

Geniocracy is not a good political system, although it appears to have a noble and pragmatic goal of effective governance, by its nature it excludes the greater majority of the population from the political process. The system is a completely unproven one in practice, that is of course if one excludes its use as a highly recommended system of government by an advanced race of space aliens.

If we ignore many of the issues in relation to how to measure intelligence, whether it is IQ, EQ or a combination of both, geniocracy appears to favour potential intelligence, rather than acquired knowledge, or dare we say wisdom.

Rael, the leader of the International Raelian Movement who first proposed this system of government appears not to have had a thorough understanding of human history. If he had he may have seen that transitioning an alien system of government upon another race of humanoids would have dire consequences.

Arbitrary measures to exclude individuals from the political process and representation are doomed to ultimately fail, especially in a Western democratic context. In the past - and indeed in the present - a variety of different measures have been used to determine the "value" of individual"s contribution or worth such as:

Blood lines,
Racial heritage
Religion
Skin Colour
Wealth or Class

Sometimes the above may be legislated, or they may simply eventuate as a result of discrimination, both intentional or via unconscious bias.

If a select minority of individuals make the grade to rule, and a larger minority are able to elect them, the silent majority will be left without a voice, platform or means to change the status quo. The only option left to them will be civil (or not so civil) disobedience.

It defies belief that a political system that is proposed by the "intelligent" totally ignores what occurs when the politically powerless majority attempt to have some input into the electoral process. It can become quite hazardous to the health of the ruling class and has been known to cause an onset of acute - though not long lasting - neck pain. Let them eat cake indeed.

The other quality sought in a geniocracy is that of compassion. Unlike measures of intelligence " attempting to evaluate for compassion would be difficult due to the ease of the test subject being able to provide the results the tester would be seeking. With the more intelligent test subjects being considerably deft at swaying the outcome to their benefit.

When one considers that outcomes from any such intelligence or personality tests will be heavily influenced by the education attained, the cultural background and the socio-economic standing of individuals there is a significant potential for highly intelligent people to be omitted from "selection". Instead those from backgrounds with greater available resources can be coached to ensure improved results.

There is an invalid assumption that the election of intelligent individuals by a pool of slightly less intelligent individuals will not result in some level of popularism. Just like we see today, the wealthy (let"s assume they are intelligent) do not like to vote for someone that is going to raise progressive taxes. In a geniocratic society where so much value is placed on intelligence, those same people will have potentially a lot more to lose personally if policies were put forward that would limit their social or economic standing.

Highly intelligent individuals currently operate in governments that span the entire political spectrum of views, be they conservative or liberal. Removing the less intelligent amongst them will still leave a wide range of leanings that will be potentially even more difficult to bridge through consensus as the respective sides will be even more abstinent in their views. Each one is a state verified genius, voted into office by thousands of intelligent individuals, how could their perspectives be possibly wrong?

Finally do we really want all the most intelligent people wasting their gifts within the halls of government where the political process stymies their productivity and contribution to society? Great politicians and leaders successfully sell their vision to the populous, surround themselves with the best minds in their fields, excel under pressure, and broker compromise with their adversaries to implement positive change. That skill set is certainly not limited to the top percentile that would be considered electable under a geniocracy.

I will leave the last word in the round to a genius that one would expect to be on "the list"

"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."

R13; Albert Einstein*

*There is no substantive evidence connecting Albert Einstein to the above quotation
Debate Round No. 1
Lexus

Pro

I want to thank my opponent for a lengthy, quick response, as well as having knowledge not only about geniocracy, but the person who first brought forth the idea. I also want to thank them for not making a case based only on how intelligence is measured, because I don't think that's the essence of this debate. I'm going to start by presenting my own constructive case, then going on to refute some of what my opponent has said in their case.
-----
Contention One: Our greatest leaders have had high intelligence. By looking at examples of James Madison, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson, we can conclude that our best leaders have had high intelligence, while looking at examples of Andrew Johnson, (George W. Bush), Woodrow Wilson and Warren Harding, we can see that the worst of our presidents have been those that are not gifted with high intellect. As a nation, we want to excel in the role of being the world's greatest superpower, but if we have someone that is not qualified for the position of being a leader, then we are not doing what is best in the name of the nation. We have had one of our best presidents, Woodrow Wilson, come to the Presidency with a PhD, while we have had one of our worst, Andrew Johnson, had absolutely none. I am not saying that education is directly associated with higher education, but I believe that it is a good indicator of it.
Contention Two: Those who are intelligent ought to have more power in decisions. This is a pretty simple point, but it's so monumentally important that I believe that it deserves its own contention. We should not have the public, who is not informed on matters of international fishing laws, vote on something that directly pertains to fishing laws. In response to this, I believe that my opponent would say something along the lines of "well, the intelligent people won't either", and that's only a little bit true. Having intelligence would mean that you are more inclined to study and care and wonder about the things that are going on around you, so I would counter with the fact that more intelligent people would have higher incidences of being informed on these kinds of policies. (And this point isn't just about international voting laws, it could really be about anything).
Contention Three: It is logical to allow those who are more intelligent to have more power in governmental policies.
P1: Majority doesn't want a specific change
P2: This specific change would benefit society
C1: Majority does not want to benefit society, mostly due to lack of understanding, intelligence, or conflict of interests.
C2: Change would be good, so we must break the majority's opinion by allowing those who are intelligent to enact this change.
-----
Rebuttals:
"The system is a completely unproven one in practice"
True, but at one point in history, democracy was an unproven system, which you are advocating for. Just because it is not proven in practice does not mean that it, in theory, does not work.


"...geniocracy appears to favour potential intelligence, rather than acquired knowledge..."

How exactly is that a bad thing?

"Rael, the leader of the International Raelian Movement who first proposed this system of government appears not to have had a thorough understanding of human history. If he had he may have seen that transitioning an alien system of government upon another race of humanoids would have dire consequences."
This argument against Geniocracy isn't valid. Just because the person who introduced it is not well versed in history does not mean that his ideas and teachings are invalid. You say that it would have dire consequences, yet this is not a debate on whether the execution of geniocracy is a good one, but rather if it is good in theory.


"...a variety of different measures have been used to determine the "value" of individual"s contribution or worth such as [and then a list of measures]..."
I'm not saying that those measures were good, at all, but I'm saying that letting those who are intelligent have more power in government than those who are not is a good political system and would lead to good things.

" It can become quite hazardous to the health of the ruling class and has been known to cause an onset of acute - though not long lasting - neck pain"
Errr, what? This isn't an argument that is against the theory of geniocracy... or anything even relating to the theory of geniocracy. That's more about execution, which we are not debating, so that is not valid.

"When one considers that outcomes from any such intelligence or personality tests will be heavily influenced by the education attained, the cultural background and the socio-economic standing of individuals there is a significant potential for highly intelligent people to be omitted from "selection""
Thanks for bringing up this point. As you said earlier, the theory of Geniocracy relies more on the ability to acquire knowledge, as opposed to knowledge that has been obtained. You say that intelligence tests rely on the socio-economic standing of individuals, but tests would be given by the government itself, so it would not have to be paid for by the people receiving these tests. In modern culture, this may be true, but if geniocracy was to appear in the U.S., then it would no longer be that way.

"Just like we see today, the wealthy (let"s assume they are intelligent) do not like to vote for someone that is going to raise progressive taxes. In a geniocratic society where so much value is placed on intelligence, those same people will have potentially a lot more to lose personally if policies were put forward that would limit their social or economic standing."
People already, in a mostly democratic society, vote against policies that would hurt their social or economic standing. You cannot say that all of the rich people of the world are intelligent (just look at Alfonse Capone!), because that is not the case. The rich would vote their way, the poor/middle class their own. In the end I believe that the poor/middle classes would offset the rich class and would pass progressive reforms on taxes, but who knows.

"Highly intelligent individuals currently operate in governments that span the entire political spectrum of views, be they conservative or liberal. Removing the less intelligent amongst them will still leave a wide range of leanings that will be potentially even more difficult to bridge through consensus as the respective sides will be even more abstinent in their views. Each one is a state verified genius, voted into office by thousands of intelligent individuals, how could their perspectives be possibly wrong?"
Yes, it would still leave a wide range of opinions that would differ widely, but you can expect to see that in any sample group. I don't believe that you are correct in saying that these views would be more difficult to bridge, since having fewer people in the sample size would be much easier to bridge the differing opinions than having 316,000,000 people with differing opinions. Their perspectives can't be wrong, since opinions cannot be wrong or right, but I believe that the intelligent have a moral obligation to vote in the way that would benefit society, as opposed to themselves.

"Finally do we really want all the most intelligent people wasting their gifts within the halls of government where the political process stymies their productivity and contribution to society"
Political offices are the best way to contribute to society and local communities. Are you implying that it is better to have those with low intelligences to hold office? That's a bold claim.

"I will leave the last word in the round to a genius that one would expect to be on "the list""
We're not judging people's intelligence by their ability to run laps around the state capitol, we're just making sure that they are informed enough to make good decisions that would positively impact themselves and society.


I'd also like to point out the lack of sources on my opponent's end, although this is a very hard subject to source.
-----
Sources:
"Brainz." The 15 Smartest and Dumbest Presidents of the United States. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Dec. 2014.

"America's Most Wanted: The Hunt For Al Capone." NPR. NPR, n.d. Web. 29 Dec. 2014.
"Geniocracy." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 29 Dec. 2014.
gingerbread-man

Con

I will begin the second round by rebutting the three contentions that my opponent has brought forward and then complete the round by re-visiting first round arguments and rebuttals

Contention One: Our greatest leaders have had high intelligence.

In the first instance I totally agree with this statement, as can be seen from what I previously stated in the first round. One has to be incredibly intelligent, quick witted, an inspirational orator, a keen negotiator and an effective used car salesman to gain office in a democracy.

What I do want to highlight is that the most intelligent are not necessarily the greatest leaders " and that is what one wants in Government, and indeed the highest offices. With such a relatively tiny proportion of the population eligible to gain office there is a very real chance that the most effective leaders would not be "clever" enough to be eligible compared to those that excel via purely intellectual pursuits.

James Buchanan, considered by many historians to be one of the worst US presidents graduated with honours, and was a member of the bar. In his time and place he would have been in the small minority of individuals that had obtained such distinguished qualifications. This is a clear example of why education and intellect alone does not give any guarantee of the quality of leadership in the highest office.

Contention Two: Those who are intelligent ought to have more power in decisions.

As my opponent has mentioned, education is a good indicator of intelligence. One would expect those members of society that had the resources for the best education; both primary, secondary and tertiary would graduate to become part of the ruling class or voting classes in a geniocracy.

Those individuals that due to resources or geographical isolation do not have the same opportunities afforded to them would find it much more difficult to attain voting rights. To ensure an equitable society so that everyone can reach their full intelligence potential, such a country would have to supply a full free education to every citizen so they are not unduly disadvantaged by this arbitrary measure.

Unfortunately as these measures are relative, even as the population and individuals grew in intelligence you would still not be guaranteed a seat on the bus as everyone is rising along with you.

Women also may be unfairly represented as they take time from study to pursue raising a family as their primary goal.

But from a purely practical sense, will these decisions be any better under a Geniocracy? The electable officials are still totally dependent on votes from a population whose rated intelligence is at least only ten percent greater than the mean " this will not eventuate in any kind of enlightened result. If they value their office, and had any political sensitivity they may well still pander to this electorate to ensure tenure at the next election.

So the question remains, is it "good" to depriving the vast majority of the population"s democratic rights, not because they are totally mentally incompetent, but just because they are only mildly less intellectual than their next door neighbour? I suggest not.

Contention Three: It is logical to allow those who are more intelligent to have more power in governmental policies.

The concept of affirmative action is hotly contested as some see it as giving individuals an unjust head start just because they are from a minority or disadvantaged group. Geniocracy can be akin to affirmative action on steroids as it gives the most gifted of the population an advantage, when really they should not require any help at all if they are so darn clever.

If you are a group of highly intelligent individuals that wish to make positive change in a nation you should already be equipped to formulate solutions, sell them to the voting public (intellectuals and imbeciles alike) and then implement them. If you are unable to do this in the current framework and succeed, blessed with all of your intellect, one has to wonder why you would be any more likely to be successful when given an affirmative action meal ticket to do so.

Those that are more intelligent already have more power in government policies and they do this by using their intelligence by lobbying and having input into government policies. It is dumbfounding that the most gifted believe that they need a legislative hand out to make the most positive impact rather than relying on their superior intellect to subdue the morons.

Taking my opponents summary, with a slight twist"

P1: Majority doesn't want a specific change
P2: This specific change would benefit society
C1: Majority does believe it will benefit society, mostly due to lack of understanding, intelligence, or conflict of interests.
C2: Change would be good, so we must use our superior intellect to attain office, educate, persuade, negotiate and legislate for positive change.

Rebuttals of the rebuttals".

A number of my opponent"s rebuttals have dismissed one of my main contentions off hand, so I think it is worth repeating.
Geniocracy "in theory" involves the removal of the right to self-determination of not just the mentally incapacitated, but of all those citizens with average intellects, and affords most of their electoral muscle to a sample size only marginally more intelligent than the mean.

No matter what the good intentions or the justifications of the cleverest ones have for the betterment of society this denial of rights will ultimately be the downfall of this government structure. This can be seen in the south of the United States, it can be seen during the French Revolution and every popular uprising where the government was not representative of the people.

Not only is geniocracy unproven in practice, but this type of selective system has proven not to work. If a theory cannot be successfully executed it is not a good theory.

"...geniocracy appears to favour potential intelligence, rather than acquired knowledge..."
"How exactly is that a bad thing?"

Knowledge and experience are often more valuable than potential. I would much rather be in a plane with a pilot with 10000 hours under his belt than with a gun rookie who is great on the flight simulator.

"but tests would be given by the government itself, so it would not have to be paid for by the people receiving these tests"

The argument was not related to the costs of taking the test itself, but the even larger cost of a lifetime of education to ensure that individuals were able to obtain and maintain their standing amongst the chosen few.

. "The rich would vote their way, the poor/middle class their own. In the end I believe that the poor/middle classes would offset the rich class and would pass progressive reforms on taxes, but who knows."

In a geniocracy where there is such an emphasis on the intelligence of individuals, the "test" would likely become a litmus test of all job interviews, government placements and the like and as a result the intelligent will become the wealthy class and there will be a huge lower class that does not have a political voice.

." Their perspectives can't be wrong, since opinions cannot be wrong or right",

If perspectives or opinions cannot be right or wrong, (or more or less beneficial) why do we need highly intelligent individuals to differentiate between the two?

"Are you implying that it is better to have those with low intelligences to hold office? That's a bold claim".

My claim is that we want the most politically astute individuals in office. There is no point having a rocket scientist in government aiming to increase NASA funding if he or she is incapable of passing the required funding. Such individuals would lead more productive lives in their chosen field than being caught up in a government bureaucracy. Politician"s skills should extend past making the best decision but also having the ability to get them enacted into law.

Sources:

"Geniocracy." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 29 Dec. 2014.
http://rationalwiki.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Lexus

Pro

  • Thanks for such a lengthy and quick response, looking forward to a great final round. I'm going to start by answering some rebuttals, giving some more of my own, then going on to crystalize my points and tell the judges why pro is winning.
-----
REBUTTALS OF REBUTTALS
"What I do want to highlight is that the most intelligent are not necessarily the greatest leaders"
That may be true, but it's kind of like a square-rectangle thing. A square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not necessarily a square; good leaders are smart, but the smart are not 100% always the best leaders (this isn't a concession, but just the plain truth. They may not be the absolute best leaders on earth, but they are better than any group to hold office).

"James Buchanan, considered by many historians to be one of the worst US presidents graduated with honours, and was a member of the bar"
That's a valid point that you bring up. I'm not going to sit here and say that every single smart person on earth is morally in line, and cannot be wrong or a bad leader. That's just absurd. But what I am saying is that they have more incentive to, they have more availability to being so. There are going to be bad leaders in a geniocratical society, but the appearance of these is going to be much less often than that of a normal society, which is why it is a good political system.

"One would expect those members of society that had the resources for the best education; both primary, secondary and tertiary would graduate to become part of the ruling class or voting classes in a geniocracy"
It's a good indicator of intellect, but not an absolute limiter. If someone has a PhD in Political Sciences, I think that they have some good intellect and thus should have the ability to have access to power. If someone did not finish High School due to a lack of intellect, I believe that they shouldn't have as much. If someone can not afford college but has the intellect for it, then I think they should still have the powers that all people of the upper class in a geniocratical society have.

"Those individuals that due to resources or geographical isolation do not have the same opportunities afforded to them would find it much more difficult to attain voting rights"
Intellect =/= knowledge. We're going to be testing more on things like problem solving ability, not "who was the 27th president and what was the economy like at this time?"

"To ensure an equitable society so that everyone can reach their full intelligence potential, such a country would have to supply a full free education to every citizen so they are not unduly disadvantaged by this arbitrary measure."
This isn't necessarily true. I think that having universal education is a good idea, but that is a different debate. As I said above, geniocratic society-based tests would not be based on knowledge, but much rather problem solving skills and things like that, as I illustrated in the rebut above.

"Unfortunately as these measures are relative, even as the population and individuals grew in intelligence you would still not be guaranteed a seat on the bus as everyone is rising along with you."
Not necessarily true, as I showcasde in the above rebut.

"But from a purely practical sense, will these decisions be any better under a Geniocracy?"
Yes. Societies where the smart are in power would result in decisions that would be more accessible. People that are not as gifted in intellect would vote for not-so-bright things that would result in the degridation of society and governments. People that are gifted with intellect would bring good change, and keep the good things, about society and make the society grow as opposed to degrade.

"So the question remains, is it "good" to depriving the vast majority of the population"s democratic rights, not because they are totally mentally incompetent, but just because they are only mildly less intellectual than their next door neighbour?"
Okay, this is a lot that I have to answer. First I want to address that your sources have only been saying 10% more intelligent people get privledge into government, but because we haven't debated about that, we cannot pinpoint an exact number. Because of that 10%, you are saying only midly intelligent, however if we make it 75% then it would be much more than mildly intelligent.
The answer to your question is yes, since it would lead to a better society that leads to better livelihoods.

"If you are a group of highly intelligent individuals that wish to make positive change in a nation you should already be equipped to formulate solutions, sell them to the voting public (intellectuals and imbeciles alike) and then implement them."
When the general public is uninformed by biased media, they are not likely to vote in the direction that is actually good for society. We have to look at this as a harms/benefits thing. The benefits of not having every imbecile vote on very important piece of legislation outweighs the harms, so we say that it is a good idea. The benefits of not having every single average person vote on very important legislation, due to bias by the media, outweigh the harms that are presented so we must say that it is a good idea.

"C2: Change would be good, so we must use our superior intellect to attain office, educate, persuade, negotiate and legislate for positive change."
That is going to be hard in a biased society where media has more power than that of our own legislatures, and practically impossible.
-----
REBUTTALS OF REBUTTALS OF REBUTTALS
"If perspectives or opinions cannot be right or wrong, (or more or less beneficial) why do we need highly intelligent individuals to differentiate between the two?"
Opinions cannot be wrong, due to the actual definition of one, but they can be more or less beneficial. This, too, is a benefits/harms thing: the benefits of implimenting a geniocratical society outweigh the harms, so it must be beneficial for society. We need highly intelligent indivuduals to differentiate between the two since it allows for a society that has the people that actually want to make a beneficial society have power, and those that have an obvious bias from media to stay away from it. It allows those that have an interest in the world around them to benefit it, but those that wish to attack the world to not have power. It's very beneficial.

"My claim is that we want the most politically astute individuals in office"
We're not going to be forcing people to join office just because they are smart. They can still join NASA and make the Jupiter Landing I, as they already do. This would just make sure that only the intelligent of society have a way to make sure that important, beneficial legislation gets passed. More politically astute people (which I would debate is more intelligent people) would have more access to office, where not so-smart politicians would not have access (this would most likely solve the gridlock that we see in mainstream society in the United States).
-----
CRYSTALIZATION OF POINTS
A geniocratical society is beneficial because:
the best of our leaders have been intelligent, so we should follow this trend line
those who are intelligent ought to have more power
geniocracy limits the obvious influence that is had by media sources, but still allows for the sources to exist
allows for positive, beneficial change in the society
allows for gridlock to cease to exist (my last rebuttal of a rebuttal of a rebuttal)
it is logical for those who have more intelliect to have more power in governmental policies
-----
I AM WINNING BECAUSE
I have successfully fulfilled my Burden of Proof, as I have proved that Geniocracy benefits society and is a good political system, in theory. I have formed many rebuttals on my opponent's points that they brought forward. I demonstrated the harms and benefits that would occur, and how the benefits will outweight the harms. My opponent made silly points in an attempt to derail the debate (such as saying how Rael is not well-versed in history, while this is not related to the topic at hand). My opponent has not used many sources throughout the debate, while I have for most of the debate. Vote PRO!
-----
Thanks for this debate, gingerbread-man. Had a lot of fun, hope you did too!
gingerbread-man

Con

Thanks for a quick response, time for the final round.

Some of the rebuttals that my opponent has put forward relate to the difficulty of testing and ensuring that citizens get a fair go despite their back ground. The issue of testing is a given one in this debate and to be fair to the Pro stance, one I would prefer not to push as they have some other fundamental issues to deal with.

In the below link/reference (sorry having difficulty cutting and pasting into the document)

http://rationalwiki.org...

It graphically shows the relative intelligence of the electorate. As can be seen by this representation, the greater proportion of the electorate under a geniocracy is only marginally more intelligent than the mean. Yes the electables are cleverer, but they are still voted in by reasonably ordinary folk, and the blinding intelligence of the electables has a very good chance of being offset by social ineptitude.

CRYSTALIZATION OF POINTS

A geniocratic system is not a good one in theory because:

It disenfranchises the majority of the population giving them no political power. People without a voice tend to use something else to compensate " and it is often not that pretty.

Those that have voting rights are only marginally more intelligent than the mean

The most "intelligent" individuals in a country will not necessarily have the skill set to be effective leaders.

Geniocracy legislatively centralises power to a minority, further accentuating the privilege that they have been afforded from being gifted as intelligent.

I AM WINNING BECAUSE

My opponent has not been able to articulate how under a geniocracy the voiceless majority will be able to be subdued, placated or cajoled into giving up their electoral rights.

Systems of government that rely on a minority deciding what is best for all, without allowing input from all individuals have littered our history with failure. Once again my opponent has not adequately addressed this issue and considered this a silly point designed to derail the debate when it is actually central to why geniocracy is not a good theory.

My opponent has conceded that despite limiting the voting rights of the population, a very intelligent yet incompetent leader could still be brought into power in a geniocracy.

If genius"s are so clever and are supposed to exclusively make the best decisions in government, they should also be able to do so without the need for a legislative hand out or a structure that poorly negates the effect of media bias.

Do we really want to implement a system of government devised by an individual who from his account picked up the idea from a race of advanced space aliens?

Geniocracy is only marginally less silly than its stated source, and it is definitely not a good theory.

Vote Con " because what else have you got to do on New Years Eve?

Thanks Lexus for a fun debate!!
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
Well, con debated this 4 months ago so idk what you're talking about
Posted by TheConservativeGays 1 year ago
TheConservativeGays
Yes, "IN THEORY" it is a very good system and I'm not sure how Con is going to debate this. Of course, bought into reality, there are a multitude of specifications which need to be and are almost impossible to be clarified.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
Happy to expand on this later if asked (last minute vote, not much time to explain)

The central reason I'm voting in favor of Con is with regards to his argument of popular uprising. I never got a response to this from Pro, who just said that's not theory. But it is a part of the theory, and it's borne out in how things have actually occurred. With this sitting on the table, there's little to compete with it.

I buy from Con that intelligent people coming to the fore should be happening anyway. However, I would have liked to see that argument drawn out to its logical conclusion. This is the means why which we wean out intelligent individuals who don't have the knowledge and problem-solving skills we need in leadership. You could have argued that it's better than any test of problem-solving that Pro could possibly suggest, and that it tests for knowledge as well, something Pro eschews as unimportant. Nonetheless, this dents Pro's major impact, since it seems that intelligent people are more likely to get into office in status quo.

The sole major impact Pro provides is that a geniocracy results in better leaders overall, but she admits that this is only based on probability and not certainty, nor do I have a solid idea of what that means for society. Better leaders is a pretty vague impact. Maybe that leads to better legislation, but I need examples for how that benefits society. I would have also liked more elucidation of why gridlock would stop (I didn't really get it from what you wrote) and the implications of that change as well. The same's true for bias - I don't get a solid explanation for how intellectual individuals are less biased than the rest of society, more likely to critically evaluate what the media tells them, or even why solving for bias is actually beneficial. I can infer those things, and as Con doesn't respond to them, I grant what analysis you give, but it just doesn't stack up.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 1 year ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
@Lexus:
How does acquiring knowledge that can benefit society benefit society
BECAUSE you can use it to benefit society
but without your doing anything to benefit society ???
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
haha, thanks for that
Posted by gingerbread-man 1 year ago
gingerbread-man
Hi Lexus, If it is on the interwebs, it must be true. Thankfully we weren't arguing about Sarah Pallin - though I can't think of many people that would be biased towards her.
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
aquiring knowledge about how to benefit society benefits society because you can utilise it
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 1 year ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
@Lexus:
What does acquiring knowledge supposedly have to do with benefitting society ???
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
oh, gingerbread-man, your sources are super biased. just look at the sarah palin page on the rationalwiki.
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
more intelligent people have more oppurtunity to aquire knowledge that benefits society
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
Lexusgingerbread-manTied
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: Given in comments. I can't give Pro sources because I don't know where the sources she provides are actually cited or drawn upon in her arguments, nor would I call the sources of definitions (unless they were major points of debate) worthy of garnering source points.