The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

People high in American government must take an I.Q. test

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/31/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,088 times Debate No: 16796
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




Round 1 will be for accepting the challenge and to ask any questions or any concerns.

Pro must say: People high in American government (such as the president and congress) must take an I.Q. test.

Con must say: People high in American government (such as the president and congress) must not take an I.Q. test.

Not high as in drug high, but high in position of leadership.

Good luck to my opponent.


I accept the debate. My opponent failed to give definitions so I shall do it.


Intelligence Quotient - a number representing a person's ability (measured using problem-solving tests) compared to the statistical norm or average for their age, taken as 100.

When my opponent refers to high positions I believe we can sum all those positions up in one word Politicians.

Politician - a person who is professionally involved in politics, as a holder of or a candidate for an elected office.


To my knowledge I will be defending that politicians such as a president, senator's etc. Should not require an I.Q. test before taking his/her position in office.

Good Luck to my Opponent hope this debate is of benefit to us both.
Debate Round No. 1


I will use the definitions my opponent posted in round one.

To my case, which consists of 4 major points
1. Already major problems
2. Allows big choices
3. It should be publicized
4. There should be a minimum

=1. Already major problems=
The ability to hold life or death in a persons hand requires a lot of responsibility and intelligence. It is this power that these politician hold everyday, they could choose to give life, help America, or give death, hurt America. Decisions are made everyday like what shirt am I going to ware, or what a I going to have for breakfast, but some of the decisions are made by politicians. For example the Obama Medicare plan, it started to drag America into deeper debt. Everything that help America get into debt was decided by a politician, or some one high in American government. People high in American government should prove if they are intelligent enough through an I.Q. test before making a life or death decision.

=2. Allows big decisions=
Like I said in my first point, people high in American government, or politicians, have the power to help or hurt America. The American people deserve to know that the politicians are intelligent enough to make the big decisions that could help or hurt the American people. I think that people high in the American government must take an I.Q. test because the American people don't know if they are even smart enough to make the big decisions that would run their life. Intelligence is needed to make the big decisions.

=3. It should be publicized=
After these people high in American government taken this I.Q. test, it should be shown to the American people, so it can bring reassurance that these people know what they are doing. It would also give the politicians support from the American people knowing that these people are in charge of their county.

=4. There should be a minimum=
After the politician has taken the I.Q. test, if the politician has lower then a set minimum then they shouldn't be in office. This would show that the politicians are intelligent enough to make the decisions.

Life, death, two outcome of serious decisions, the decisions made almost everyday by people high in American government. I stand Pro that they need the intelligence to make the laws and rules that would tell the average American what to and don't do. If you vote for Pro then you would get smarter decisions and more support to Americans politicians.

Vote Pro!


I would like to take this brief moment to thank the opponent for this great debate, I hope to persuade him to believe that Politicians shouldn't be required to take an I.Q. test since they have already proved their intelligence. I would first like to rebut the opponent's cases and then present mines.

Rebuttal I.

I will summarize the opponent's first case which is "Already major problems." He let's the audience and me know that politicians hold the Americans people future in their hands, which none of us can deny. He talks about the Obama Medicare plan that dragged the United States into a greater debt. He then ends telling us that they should prove their intelligence. First I'd like to state that all Politicians attend College, I will take Barrack Obama for example he attended the University of Harvard. Not only did he attend it but he graduated from it, I don't know what my opponent believes that Barrack Obama and all the other Politicians learn in school, but I know for a fact that they learn how to make those decisions that my opponent believes they need to prove to him that they can make. I would also like to tell him something about Barrack Obama Medicare plan, every single person in this world can make a mistake wether he is the most intelligent person in the world or the dumbest. Everybody makes mistakes, is part of our nature.

I believe that the opponent repeats himself in his case #2. Therefore the same rebut I present in paragraph one the same goes here.

In case #3 he believe the I.Q. test should be publicized. I will tell this to the opponent we live in a Democratic society therefore when the people want someone out of government, they will take him out. Now the problem here is that the American citizens are lazy, they don't take the time to know what there voting for nor take the time to learn the Politician's history and work ethics, which the United States government enforces that they show and tell the public before elections.

In case #4 he states that the public should have the final decision in the removal of the Politician according to the test results of the I.Q. test that the Politician took. I tell this to the opponent should we really, depend upon an I.Q. test to put a Politician into office or take him/her out? I know many students that are super intelligent yet may fail a test because there not feeling up to it, or at that time have a lot going through their mind hundreds of reasons. The opponent somewhat desires a country in which the Politician's are assigned to office by the results of a test, to be quite honest that would be a country I wouldn't like to be a part of.

Case I.

I believe one of the reason why the voting age is 18 is because, the government believes that at this age a person has enough intelligence to make thoughts and ideas for himself and not with the thoughts of others. Therefore at the age of 18 a citizen can bring forth the thoughts of the politician and his and make a voting to his liking and favoring. Which is why this country is by far compared to the rest of the world a country in which you're voice can be heard and where true democracy lives. I believe this is the best way to bring a Politician into office or take him out. My opponent obviously believe that an I.Q. test will be a better judge of character and intelligence then the millions of citizens that vote.


My conclusion is simple, the people vote for who they believe will best represent them and their neighbors and friends. What will an I.Q. test prove? That a Politician can study for a test and get a 100.00% and all of a sudden that makes him fit to run a country or a job in the government? A good Politician is one who has dedicated their entire life to their studies, and believe that with their knowledge and the help of the public they can make a better country. My opponent desires to take those crooks and twisted Politicians out of office, I believe we should but not with an I.Q. test but by showing the country and It's citizens that he/she is not fit for that job nor is he doing the job a Politician is supposed to be doing. Then we will have a better country.

Thank you cote Con!
Debate Round No. 2


I am going to forfeit this debate, I do not have the time for this debate. I am sorry if you had serious interest in debating this resolution, but feel free to completely slaughter my argument or debate your self. You can re-post this debate if you want to debate this topic. Maybe we can debate something else later. I am sorry.


I will accept his forfeit and thank him for at least notifying me and the audience, maybe somewhere near the future we can finish this debate or have another.
Debate Round No. 3


surpy forfeited this round.


KiwiJudas forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit by Pro.