The Instigator
ben-gurion
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points
The Contender
Xer
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points

IQ Tests Cannot Assess a Person's Intelligence

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 7 votes the winner is...
ben-gurion
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/16/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,802 times Debate No: 8665
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (7)

 

ben-gurion

Pro

I will argue that IQ tests cannot assess a person's intelligence, in high/low measurements. Having taken one myself, I can attest to my statement.

Assess-"to determine the importance, size, or value of:"
Webster's Ninth New Dictionary pg. 109.

Intelligence-"the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations:","the skilled use of reason:","mental acuteness:"
Webster's Ninth New Dictionary pg. 629.

Seeing as I have not presented any arguments to rebut, the first argument should be more of an opening statement. Good luck to whoever accepts!
Xer

Con

"I will argue that IQ tests cannot assess a person's intelligence, in high/low measurements. Having taken one myself, I can attest to my statement."

IQ = intelligence quotient
tests = evaluate knowledge

By the basic definition of IQ tests, they do in fact assess a person's intelligence, because IQ = intelligence quotient. And they do so in high/low measurements because tests measure knowledge on a scale, and scales are high and low.

Resolution negated.
Debate Round No. 1
ben-gurion

Pro

Thank you, Nags, for accepting this debate.

"By the basic definition of IQ tests, they do in fact assess a person's intelligence, because IQ = intelligence quotient. And they do so in high/low measurements because tests measure knowledge on a scale, and scales are high and low."
I am not arguing about what the IQ tests claim that they can measure, but rather about their credibility regarding those measurements. To this I will bring my contentions.

Contention 1:
Someone who is credited as a genius can be a genius in a certain aspect, and yet be quite mediocre in other areas.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
If that said genius were to take a typical IQ test, he would score highly in his strong area, yet fail in his weak area, thus bringing his score down and making him look average. Possible Situation: A prestigious engineering university who will look for logical students, will reject the 115 IQ student who is in fact a logical genius and yet has a very poor memory.

Contention 2:
The IQ test is, after all, a test that one has to sit down and do, and as I'm sure we all know, the performance during a test can be highly swayed by emotional and physical aspects. Examples: If a person's leg is giving him shooting pains, or that person has not slept well for a week or so, or if there is tremendous pressure on that person to do well on the test, he will be less likely to do as well as he would normally do. Human nature dictates that there is usually something bothering us.

Contention 3:
Much of the IQ test's testing tools, such as memory games, solving mathematical problems, etc. are areas that with practice one can improve. Thus I cannot see how performance in these areas can possibly prove anything other than how good that person is at that specific game, type of problem, etc. Someone can take an IQ test, score X, practice, go back and score higher than X.

To conclude, little value can be attributed to the IQ test. While I concede that a hopelessly simple-minded person will score low, and an all-around genius will score high, an accurate evaluation of relative intelligence cannot possibly be determined.

Resolution affirmed.
Xer

Con

"I am not arguing about what the IQ tests claim that they can measure, but rather about their credibility regarding those measurements. To this I will bring my contentions."
-That is not what you said.
-You said: "I will argue that IQ tests cannot assess a person's intelligence, in high/low measurements. Having taken one myself, I can attest to my statement." in the very first round.
-You can not change the resolution/debate half-way through.

Since my opponent can not counter my point: "By the basic definition of IQ tests, they do in fact assess a person's intelligence, because IQ = intelligence quotient. And they do so in high/low measurements because tests measure knowledge on a scale, and scales are high and low." The Resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 2
ben-gurion

Pro

I am not arguing about what the IQ tests claim that they can measure, but rather about their credibility regarding those measurements. To this I will bring my contentions.'
-That is not what you said.
-You said: 'I will argue that IQ tests cannot assess a person's intelligence, in high/low measurements. Having taken one myself, I can attest to my statement.' in the very first round."

Once again: Assess-"to determine the importance, size, or value of:"
My argument is that the IQ tests cannot determine the importance, size, or value of a person's intelligence, as I have stated. So it goes without saying that whatever they glean from the IQ test is not credible as said determination. If the IQ tests claim that they can assess a person's intelligence, that says nothing about whether they can or cannot, which is the source of this debate.

"You can not change the resolution/debate half-way through."
I have just proved that both forms of my argument, while worded differently, come to stress the same point-the measurements are not credible as measurements of intelligence/ the measurements are not an assessment of a person's intelligence, whether they claim to be or not. Thus I have not changed my resolution.

"Since my opponent can not counter my point: 'By the basic definition of IQ tests, they do in fact assess a person's intelligence, because IQ = intelligence quotient.' "
If, say, I am teaching a history class, and at the end of the semester when I test them on the learned material I decide to call the test "An Evaluation of Your Memory Skills". By the basic definition of my test, my test is supposed to assess memory skills, and yet who's to say that it does in fact assess memory skills and not "paying attention in class" skills or whatnot. So too, IQ tests are supposed to assess a person's intelligence, which I have never argued against, but they cannot.
"And they do so in high/low measurements because tests measure knowledge on a scale, and scales are high and low."
My very argument disproves the whole high/low measurements argument. A scale is comparison, with an average center. The scale's entire existence is based on relativity, and since I have proved that an accurate evaluation of relative intelligence cannot be determined, the "knowledge" measured on the scale is not credible.

" The Resolution is negated."

Seeing as my opponent has not yet rebutted any of my contentions, my resolution stands.
Xer

Con

You simply don't understand. When you debate online, you have to mention specifically what you are debating. You did so, but then changed what you wanted to debate in the middle. You cannot do that. I have proved what you said originally as false, therefore the resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 3
ben-gurion

Pro

"When you debate online, you have to mention specifically what you are debating. You did so, but then changed what you wanted to debate in the middle. "
When I brought my claim/credibility comment, I was not changing my resolution- I was explaining my resolution. The entirety of my argument is based on my original resolution- I have proved that IQ tests cannot measure intelligence, which for the last time does not talk about their claims but about their measurements themselves-if their measurements are proved to not be correct, they cannot measure intelligence. If someone claims to be able to do X, and yet what he did is not X, then he cannot do X. If the IQ tests claim to be able to determine intelligence, and yet what they do does not determine intelligence, then they cannot determine intelligence, and as I have proved that what they do does not determine intelligence, then they cannot determine intelligence. None of this comes from my credibility comment, which was for clarification only.

"You simply don't understand."- Trust me I understand. This may be my first debate on debate.org, but it is in no way my first debate.

"I have proved what you said originally as false, therefore the resolution is negated."
All that my opponent has proved is what the IQ tests are supposed to do, which is not the same as if they can or cannot do it, as I have proved in round three.

Seeing as my opponent has not rebutted my contentions, and seeing as I have rebutted his claim that I have changed my resolution and that my resolution is false, the resolution stands.

Vote PRO
Xer

Con

ben-gurion has argued successfully this:
"I am not arguing about what the IQ tests claim that they can measure, but rather about their credibility regarding those measurements. To this I will bring my contentions."

But that is not the resolution/what we are debating about. This is:
"I will argue that IQ tests cannot assess a person's intelligence, in high/low measurements. Having taken one myself, I can attest to my statement."

Since he has not argued the second point successfully and I have successfully rebutted it, vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kefka 7 years ago
Kefka
Sorry if that came off rude, it's just what I felt.
Posted by Kefka 7 years ago
Kefka
Nags, I think, has successfully embodied what it means NOT to be a good debater, or carry out the true purpose of debating. Debating is not so you can sit there and say "resolution negated" because they didn't 'exactly' say what he was arguing; it's there for the trading of ideas, so that others can see different viewpoints that are backed well by logic and determination.
Before: Pro
After: Pro
Conduct: Although I didn't like Con's argumentation method, he didn't go out of his way to make sure he insulted Pro. Tied
Arguments: Pro

Sources: Pro
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
I don't know who to vote for. IQ tests do assess intelligence; they just don't do a very good job of it. All else being equal, someone who does better on an IQ test is more intelligent than someone who does worse.
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
I is not smart. Which points should I give to you and why.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
We are voting on who won the debate..... please don't just give 7 points either way, just because you agree.
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
If a high IQ was a measurement for intelligence how does one explain the total and complete incompetence of the federal govt? It is filled to the brim with people of high IQ's. Without common sense you are just hot air spewing mathematical and logic algorithms with no understanding of how to apply them making you in fact dumber than someone with a lower IQ with lots of common sense
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
"I'm actually curious Nags, do you think that IQ tests are a fair measurement of intelligence, change of resolutions aside? Or do you agree with me and you're only arguing the point of what I said?"
-I have no opinion really. I was just arguing what you said.
-I kinda feel sorry that I ruined the actual point of the debate, because I can tell you really care.
-Well... sorry for using semantics...
Posted by feverish 7 years ago
feverish
Being a UK user I can't vote on this site, but I occasionally like to enter RFDs as if I voted anyway.

Conduct: Pro. Was much more polite.
S & G: Tie. Both excellent.
Argument: Con. Semantics win again. Shame really in this case, could have been an interesting debate.
Sources: Pro. He used some.
Posted by Brock_Meyer 7 years ago
Brock_Meyer
C: Tie.
S&G: Tie.
A: Con. Con is right about Pro's mistake with respect to the structure of the debate.
S: Pro.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
"Um, I think so.. it was a while ago. This isn't coming because of me, my friend just scored really low, having lost it after 2 hours, and I realized that the tests just can't make sense seeing as she's not mentally retarded and yet the scores say she is... and before you ask I have no idea as to the details of her test."

Actually no. A standardised test has a specific set of standardised testing procedures - including what occurs during the tessting - like what happens when someone is distracted, up to the scoring. A score itself, and it should be a range, not a single score, says nothing until applied to the individual person's case history, which includes the testing itself. All it indicates is a void result for that testing episode, not the invalidity of the test itself.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Epicism 7 years ago
Epicism
ben-gurionXerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Vote Placed by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
ben-gurionXerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Vote Placed by slobodow 7 years ago
slobodow
ben-gurionXerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Vote Placed by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
ben-gurionXerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:07 
Vote Placed by Brock_Meyer 7 years ago
Brock_Meyer
ben-gurionXerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by threelittlebirds 7 years ago
threelittlebirds
ben-gurionXerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
ben-gurionXerTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00