The Instigator
TheDarkMuffin
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
The_Analytical_Chick
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Political Psychometrics

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/17/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 774 times Debate No: 34821
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

TheDarkMuffin

Con

Debate

My opponent and I have both thoroughly discussed and agreed upon a resolution for a debate: "Requirements ought to be instated in regards to being a valid candidate for the President of the United States of America through psychometrics or, more precisely, intelligence quotients."

Resolutions

My opponent, Pro, will be arguing
that a certain IQ level is necessary to be a valid Presidential candidate.

I, Con, will be arguing that a Presidential candidate of any IQ, in confines of requirements not regarding psychometrics, should be valid.

Conduct

As my opponent and I have a strong, pre-existent familiarity with each other, we both already have an understanding of each others necessities and expectations in terms of Conduct and we both forfeit our Conduct points.

Definitions

My opponent and I have both agreed that IQ scores as they are established today are assumed as accurate in their area of evaluation.
The President of the United States of America is the elected manifestation of the executive branch and the Commander in Chief of the United States Army.
The_Analytical_Chick

Pro

The claims of my argument are as follows:

1) The American people ought to choose the BEST POSSIBLE candidate for the presidency, so as to attain and sustain the well-being and prosperity of our nation.

The President of the United States serves an important role in both the nation and the world. The president is not only an influential voice in the law-making process, but he/she also represents our country in foreign affairs and directs military operations. All of these duties, when put into the right hands, can lead our nation on the path of success, while when put into the wrong hands can quickly escalate into a downward spiral of war, terrorism, crime, poverty, and economic disaster.

2) In order to choose the BEST POSSIBLE candidate, it is beneficial to eliminate as many poor candidates as possible.

Simple statistics, here. You"re less likely to grab a bad apple out of the bag if you throw out most of the bad apples first.

3) Candidates with low IQ scores may be considered poor candidates for the presidency in comparison to candidates with higher IQ scores.

- A low IQ constitutes insufficient skills in critical thinking and problem-solving, which are crucial in making correct decisions in the realms of strategic military defense, reviewing the pros and cons of a potential law in the sign-or-veto process, and anticipating and adjusting to the cultural norms of another world leader when acting as an ambassador to the United States (decorum). Of course, a person of a higher intelligence level could potentially make these mistakes, but given that their cognitive functioning gives them the edge in foresight and analytical examination of these situations, they are far more likely to avoid them.

- If you don"t believe me, just look at the stats. On the whole, smarter presidents do a better job.

"Assessed intelligence has a positive correlation with the performance of U.S. presidents (Simonton, 1986c, 1988, 2001b), where performance was based on surveys of presidential experts, including both political scientists and historians. In fact, out of more than two dozen individual-difference variables examined, intelligence was the only one to display consistently positive correlations with all available measures of presidential greatness (Simonton, 1992; cf. McCann, 1992)."

- Political Psychology, Aug 2006, Vol. 27 Issue 4, p511-526, 16p



In summation, so as to eliminate as many poor candidates as possible, the President of the United States ought to be chosen from a selective pool of candidates based on their IQ scores.
Debate Round No. 1
TheDarkMuffin

Con

Against my usual debating style, I will be addressing my opponent directly, and possibly more informally, as it certainly doesn't feel natural addressing someone I know as Con or Pro. If this is off putting to anyone, I don't suppose there's much you can do about it but complain in the comments. Anyways, this will be the last second in which I'll be directly addressing the audience, so I'm going to make it worth it by confessing that I hooked up with all your mothers. That was my drop of YOLO attitude, that dead trend from...what was it, six months ago? Enough rambling (I sure am going to miss it), time for some SERIOUS DEBATING! BEGIN! *ding ding ding*

Counterstatement with Citation Conversing

I predicted your reply as such and have prepared a graphic with an intention to depict some sort of correlation between Presidential IQs and their effectiveness.

The graph uses an "aggregate of all polls up to USPC 2011 using Copelands method."[1] The complementing axis would be IQ estimations from Poltical Psychology.[2] As in the same source you used for your data. To reiterate that in a binary scenario so that the debate may proceed smoothly, you have a dilemma between two choices: Accept my data; Admit that your source of data is negligible.


Now, I want you to do something, The. Or Analytical. Or Chick. I'm not inclined to call you by your full username, The. So I'll just be calling you by the first part. I guess I could call you by your real name, but I'm not entirely sure how you'd feel about that. Anyways, The, I want you to listen closely.

Are you? Are you listening closely? Do you hear that? Yep. It's exactly what you think it is. It's the sound of ABSOLUTELY NO correlation. The most reliable of those 3 IQ assessments would be the Cumulative one, but all three show extremely negligible correlation. John Quincy Adams is an outlier, so it's probably wise to disregard how he may affect the data.

So, I'm using your source, and in effect, your data and your logic.

This refutes your "Simple statistics." IQ testing our candidates to increase the likelihood of a nation being led by a capable leader would accomplish nothing. Sorry, The. Nothing you said holds any weight.

Applying Alternative Akinship


Now, we're looking directly at IQ. Let's find other things that IQ correlates with and see how those correlate with Presidential success? I don't believe I'll be making anymore graphs (the last one took a lot out of me), but I'll try to make correlations seem as intuitively easy to find as possible through the power of friendship and math.

What's something that IQ correlates with?

Memory![3][4]

Higher working memory means higher fluid intelligence and higher reasoning ability, which strongly correlates with higher IQ.

So, The. I know what you're thinking. "I could really have some ice cream right now." Maybe. I have autism so I just assume everyone is thinking what I am. But, related to the subject, you'd think that higher working memory would make a better President. But, the smarter you are, the harder you fall. The metaphor doesn't...work when I put it like that, but...I guess the higher your neuron density is, the harder you fall.[5]

I'll try again later.

The point is, if anything, a larger IQ might correlate with worse Presidential success. But now, you're thinking, "AHA! I'll make THAT my argument! Test for IQs so that if you're too smart, you can't be President."

Here's the thing, there is, and I can't stress this enough, NO CORRELATION BETWEEN IQ AND PRESIDENTIAL SUCCESS! LOOK AT THE GODD*MN GRAPH! LOOOOK AT IT!
Thank you, I patiently await your reply.





      1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
      2. http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu...
      3. http://uonews.uoregon.edu...
      4. http://trendingsideways.com...
      5. http://www.livescience.com...
The_Analytical_Chick

Pro

The_Analytical_Chick forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
TheDarkMuffin

Con

TheDarkMuffin forfeited this round.
The_Analytical_Chick

Pro

The_Analytical_Chick forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
TheDarkMuffin

Con

TheDarkMuffin forfeited this round.
The_Analytical_Chick

Pro

The_Analytical_Chick forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by TheShadowCupcake 3 years ago
TheShadowCupcake
If you object and refuse to correct your statement, explain your reasoning.
Posted by TheShadowCupcake 3 years ago
TheShadowCupcake
With the given aspects to which you're confined to vote in, I don't even have any clue as to how that's even doable.

Please correct and explain yourself. Conduct is forfeited. Grammar and Spelling has no prevalent existence or vice versa with our vernacular as DDO uses it. We're arguing with logic and statistics as opposed to rhetorical subtleties as we know each other far too well for such frivolities.

In layman's terms, or rather the opposite of the terms of a DDO layman as you don't seem to be up to standards, what you just said was total and complete bullsh*t.
Posted by ArgentStorm 3 years ago
ArgentStorm
Maybe go with the formal speech next time. Your current childish conduct would definitely lose you that point from me.
Posted by TheShadowCupcake 3 years ago
TheShadowCupcake
Violators may be reported.
Posted by TheShadowCupcake 3 years ago
TheShadowCupcake
This is TheDarkMuffin. Rounds are being forfeited due to glitches. There is an inability to log in due to an error. Please keep this Debate at a tie until that is fixed. The bug has been reported. This Debate will most likely be rescheduled.
Posted by TheDarkMuffin 3 years ago
TheDarkMuffin
A lot of things that I put Italics on aren't Italicized. Thanks a lot, DDO. Oh well, my point still comes across pretty clear, despite how much it bothers me.
No votes have been placed for this debate.