Should an IQ in the top 5% and passing a test be required to run for state/federal office
Debate Rounds (4)
Here is my opening argument-
What I am arguing for is a hybrid of meritocracy and American style democracy where anyone running for state or federal office should have an IQ in the top 2% and score at least 90% on a long and very difficult test designed to prove the test taker is capable of running our government , or have an IQ in the top 5% and get a perfect score on the test. Their will still be democracy as IQ will not be required to vote(maybe we could switch to the NPV, but that is a different argument). I have chosen the IQ test because it is the best indicator of someone's intelligence, and if someone can score high enough on that plus the quiz which would be written and updated by a committee consisting of a mix of people with a lot of political experience and people with an IQ of 160+ or top 2% that scored perfect on the test once it's created. If these qualifications are added to become a candidate for Federal/State government the United States or any other country that adopts this system will have a government which is better and more capable to govern successfully than any government in history. If an average person can't compete in the Olympics, why can someone with an IQ of 100(to be clear I'm not mentioning any candidate or current holder of any government position of having an average to below average intelligence) be allowed to run our government.
Sorry but I disagree.
1. While being in the top 5% (smart) doesn't hurt, I don't see how this makes someone...
-more in touch with the average person
-commonsensical (I'm sure you know some pretty smart people with no common sense.)
2. Most importantly, being smart doesn't make you a good and honest person, which should be the only requirement for state/federal office.
*See Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini
By the way, are you in the top 5%? Just curious.
Ben Shapiro Hero
You're not the hero Gotham deserves, but the one it needs.
Here are my rebuttals-
-Being in touch with the average person is not what should decide a leader for our country, the average person doesn't know how to run a country, and would do a terrible job at it, a good leader should be someone who is intelligent and capable of running a country.
-as for responsible and commonsensical, that is where the other test and then elections come in, just less people will be eligible to run in elections
2.A good an honest person should not be the only requirement, a good an honest person with mental disabilities should not have access to nuclear launch codes. Again their will be elections, but even a good and honest person with the average IQ of 100 wouldn't be able to govern a country, much like the average person couldn't compete in the Olympics, it doesn't make them inferior, it's just the average person isn't capable.
*Hitler was elected democratically, I'm not sure about the others, presuming he could pass the test and had a high IQ, this system wouldn't have affected his rise to power.
I'm top 2% but I choose top 2% as a separate category that top 5% because that's what Mensa uses, I like to keep my debates not personal.
Here we go again.
"-Being in touch with the average person is not what should decide a leader for our country, the average person doesn't know how to run a country, and would do a terrible job at it, a good leader should be someone who is intelligent and capable of running a country."
Being in touch with the average person is so important because this country is full of them. They know what's best, not the government. I know billionaires like you might not understand commonfolk like me, but trust me.
"-as for responsible and commonsensical, that is where the other test and then elections come in, just less people will be eligible to run in elections."
"2.A good an honest person should not be the only requirement, a good an honest person with mental disabilities should not have access to nuclear launch codes. Again their will be elections, but even a good and honest person with the average IQ of 100 wouldn't be able to govern a country, much like the average person couldn't compete in the Olympics, it doesn't make them inferior, it's just the average person isn't capable."
Ronald Reagan wasn't that bright, but he's arguably one of the best presidents of your time.
"*Hitler was elected democratically, I'm not sure about the others, presuming he could pass the test and had a high IQ, this system wouldn't have affected his rise to power."
Government officials are elected democratically also, so I don't know what you're trying to say here.
If you're in the top 2% congrats. But Gotham would never elect someone who takes the law into their own hands. ;)
By the way Mr. Wayne, I hope you're not in Mensa. I hear membership costs a lot of money (not that you don't have any), and you'd basically be paying to be told you're smart.
Tell Alfred I said Hi.
-top 5% starts at 124, Regans estimated IQ was 130
-the hitter argument was just to prove this system wouldn't have helped hitter or a similar person to rise to power
-I'm not in Mensa, I have just taken a genuine IQ test before and take pride in knowing i could get in if I wanted to. I don't brag about my intelligence very often beacuse I belive that people only have the right to brag about what they've earned not what they were born with, I only mentioned that beacuse you asked, and I don't think I'm superior to anybody else, and agian I never make my debates personal
For example, people in the top 5% are:
-more likely to be depressed
-likely to overthink things
-sneakier than most people
I don't know, I'd take a reasonably commonsense, ordinary guy over some unstable genius...
"-having a high IQ means someone better understands how to represent the needs of the people,"
Back up your claim Mr. Wayne. I want evidence.
In a crisis I would like to know the most qualified people are taking care of it.
Lastly, if the top 5% are as smart as you think they are, they could easily defeat any opponent of lesser intelligence through superior campaigning, and of course debates.
-Better than under thinking
-So basically politicians
-People with a high IQ have statically more common sense than normal people, and I don't know what you mean when you call geniuses less stable
-high IQ people understand things better, if not they wouldn't score highly on the test, if someone wanted to represent his people a more intelligent person would better understand how
-I'm going to presume you accidentally copy pasted the most qualified part
-Did you just question the intelligence of people with a high IQ? Trump won the republican nomination, and while I'm not calling him stupid, I promise you there were at least 3 republican candidates smarter than him, if not more, if have 3 in particular-Kasich,Rubio, Bush(Jeb is way more intelligent and capable of leading a nation than his brother)
Yes, it's completely relevant. Smart people are more likely to be unstable.
For example, I'm pretty smart.
I take that back- I'm very smart.
I've got a mental condition, and to be honest with you it would effect the way I govern, if I ever decided to.
There are plenty of other smart people that I can use as examples- Beethoven, van got, Edgar Allan Poe- ect.
I really would have appreciated it if you used examples of people in the top 5%, because you've provided no evidence for your claims.
Also, the three candidates may be smart, but I doubt their in the top 5%.
Thank you for taking time from your busy schedule of fighting crime. I tried not to post at nighttime, even tho daytime is probably your bedtime.
All the best
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate