The Instigator
owen99999
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
16kadams
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Michael Gove is an idiot.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 2 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/17/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,212 times Debate No: 20443
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (2)

 

owen99999

Pro

Idiot: A stupid person.

First round acceptance, second round arguing for or against, third round rebuttals on arguments.
16kadams

Con

bad policies =/= lack of intelligence. I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
owen99999

Pro

I would like to point out that bad policies can but not always mean lack of intelligence. Also stupidity doesn't necessarily mean lack of intelligence.
The points I'm going to raise are a recent decision he made which was clearly stupid; rendering Mr gove, stupid. I will also be raising my concerns about a recent statement he made which the majority regarded as stupid.
Mr Gove decided to send a bible to every school in Britain which would cost �375,000 of tax payers money. This clearly is a stupid thing to do and he was stupid for suggesting it. It's preaching religion belief to children and wasting tax payers money.
He also made a recent statement that he wants to spend �60m of the taxpayers money on the yacht for the queen. Stupid.
16kadams

Con

R1 policy

My opponent fails to show why he is stupid, just uses his words and policies. Clinton had bad policies but was smart, bush the father = smart despite his failures. Also Nixon had a high iq despite his scandal and words. Words and policies =\= idiocy.

My case:

C1: iq

Michael gives iq is 156 higher then the 100 average. He is smarted then 91% of brits. (1)

C2: education

He attended the Roberts GordOns college to which he had a schlardhip. (2)

You need to be smart to get a college degree.

C3: his job

He is a politician and is the secretary of education in the conservative party. (2)

You cannot be dumb and in this job. Politicians cannot be dumb and stay in office.

Sources in comments due to limit.
Debate Round No. 2
owen99999

Pro

Here are my rebuttals, sorry about the limit.

C1: The source you found that from is wrong. A) It's a scam website that gets �5 from your phone to receive 'your IQ' (the test on there doesn't even have enough questions to be a real iq test). B) It could be any Michael Gove.

C2 Roberts Gordon's college is a private college. He only got a 20% scholarship. The school didn't care how old he was because so long as his parents paid the other 80% the college still made money.

C3 I pretty much reckon every tory politician is stupid. I certainly think politicians can be dumb and in office. Look at David Cameron and Tony Blair. Both priministers; both idiots.

Bush had an average IQ for his age and time (111). Clinton and nixon a bit higher.
Thanks
16kadams

Con

R1: challenge of the source and the IQ

Making you pay =/= scam. Amazon makes you pay and it is not a scam. Also at least my info is sourced, all of what you say is un- sourced. So I deserve sources.

R2: Education

A private college means what? Also even a 20% scholarship means you have smarts. Schools do not give out scholarships whilly nilly, only to the best.

R3: political career

My opponent is calling people idiots with no proof and all of what he is saying is illogical. Let me prove politicians are smart:

Lincoln- 128
Al Gore- 134
Benjamin Franklin- 160 (1)

All of them have higher IQ's.

You proved those presidents had high IQ's yet both had bad policies, so bad policies =/= dumb. This debunks your whole case.

source=comments
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
Yes in their minds bad trumps none. But I agree with you.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
Yeah my IQ was that when I was 3 I do not have recent results. Actually one of the people that voted for me (Angelo) is one of the first arthroscopic surgeons in the world.
Posted by owen99999 2 years ago
owen99999
Yeah mate I'm still right and just tp let you know I have an IQ of 156 so nice one. I don't care that you won there are a lot of idiots out there not just michael gove so I'm sure they're the ones that voted for you. Bad sources don't beat no sources.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
Bad sources trump no sources. Also I won get over it.
Posted by owen99999 2 years ago
owen99999
I know he used sources but they're not reliable sources one of the websites was a scam for gods sake! I mean seriously though I think I had just as good conduct and wasn't rude or intimidating so I don't get why you wouldn't vote tie on conduct. Though at least I can sit back and know that if you think Michael Gove isn't an idiot; then you're an idiot.

By the way for those who want my sources? I've met the guy three times.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
also I did as it was implied, also all of your points where his policies = he is dumb. I debunked the case, so chill. Also insults make you that much more non credible.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
@owen

chill out.
Posted by owen99999 2 years ago
owen99999
God you are quite ignorant aren't you. In your last point you kept contradicting points I hadn't even made! For example; I'm not saying making you pay on it's own is a scam (because OBVIOUSLY it's not); I'm saying making you pay for nothing/something of very little worth is a scam.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 2 years ago
THEBOMB
owen9999916kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con disproved that bad policies =/= lack of intelligence Con was the only one with sources. Although, I have to question the entire debate...there is no black and white in politics its all shades of grey.
Vote Placed by Angelo 2 years ago
Angelo
owen9999916kadamsTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: con had sources, pro didn't, also conduct for the challenge of sources. Also pro's argument was logically false and all of his statements where fallacies and blank. Plus his analysis was all opinion. Also con proved con's arguments didn't even relate to intelligence, yes it is true. Also con had real tie examples disproving everything. Con won.