The Instigator
Pro (for)
10 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points


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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/28/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,219 times Debate No: 75700
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (24)
Votes (2)




I had so much fun debating this idea when I first joined this site, so I thought that I would try this again.
Resolved: Geniocracy is a good political system.
The Burden of Proof is shared between pro and con, so both sides must prove that geniocracy is a good or a bad system.
I set voter ELO to 2500, just so we have a good selection of voters.

Geniocracy: a framework of a system of government which advocates problem-solving, general intelligence, creative intelligence and ability to make decisions as criteria for governance. Those who are meet at least one of these criteria over a certain threshold are given more rights than someone else (ability to run for office, ability to vote on very serious matters, etc).
Political System: A political system is a system of politics and government. It is usually compared to the legal system, economic system, cultural system, and other social systems.
Good: The benefits outweigh the harms

Note: this debate will be covering the theory of geniocracy, so technicalities such as "what happens in case the leader dies?" are irrelevant to the debate. Questions such as "what are the criteria for intelligence" are allowed since they directly relate to the resolution at hand.

Round Structure:
Round X: What pro will do | What con will do

R1: Outline debate | Constructive case
R2: Constructive case | Rebuttals
R3: Rebuttals | Defense to rebuttals
R4: Defense to rebuttals | Crystalization, tell why they are winning
R5: Crystalization, tell why they are winning | Waive

1. Being civil is necessary

2. No kritiks/deconstructional semantics/trolling/forfeiture
3. You are not allowed to take the position that the harms and the benefits are equal. As con, you have to prove that the harms outweigh the benefits.
4. Follow round structure.
Failure to follow these rules will result in a full seven-point forfeiture.

**You are allowed to condense all sources into one link (preferably
**Please, if you have an issue with any definitions or would like to add any prior to round one, please tell me in the comments so I can edit this round.

I opened this debate to the first person who wants to accept. Thank you to whoever my opponent becomes.
(Remember, round one is for arguments.)


Hello J

The resolution. Resolved: Geniocracy is a good political system.

Definitions so graciously provided by pro.

Good: The benefits outweigh the harms.

As I thought myself once, this seems like a fabulous idea, borderline utopia. However upon deeper reflection there are grave flaws with such a hypothetical system of government where the most intelligent rule.

The crux of the issue itself doesn’t seem to be a practical one, such as how could we possibly determine who is most intelligent or what if a leader dies, rather it’s the whole concept of being ruled by the most intelligent.

In summary my argument is as follows, any just or good political system, must be for the benefits of the ruled. That is to say it must at the very least make attempts to further the interests of the governed not the ruling party. Thus any just and good political system must be selfless, it must operate on a utilitarian principle, further the interests of the majority and not of the elite ruling party. In, conclusion for reasons I will elaborate on, such a political system is in direct opposition with one ruled by a highly intelligent elite ruling party.

1. Smarter people are more likely to be selfish and to further their own interests.

2. Geniocracy is a system in which the most intelligent of the intelligent would rule.

3. The ruling party in a geniocracy would ultimately further their own interests rather than the majority


Such a system would eventually spell rebellion by the subjugated due to grave injustice. Hence not a good system.


Fear not voters I have evidence.

1. In a series of experiments led by the Yale psychologist David Rand, people’s actual choices fluctuated based on whether they had time to think. When they had less than 10 seconds to choose, more than 55% gave. But when they had more time to reflect, giving rates dropped, with fewer than 45% giving. This follows a pattern that Rand and colleagues call spontaneous giving and calculated greed. When our decisions are governed by emotion and instinct, we act generously. When we have time to rationally analyze the options.

This seems to suggest that smarter people are the more likely they are to take rather than give.

This makes sense. Our emotions and instinct we discover are often irrational when held up to the light of reason, thus we ( the nerds) tend to act on our reason rather than our primitive instinct and emotion.



Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting and giving your opening arguments. Looking forward to a great debate!

Contention I. Political gains

Money out of politics

In the current state of politics, those who have the biggest chequebook are those who most often win elections, or those with the largest chequebooks are able to buy elections completely. In the 2008 election, Barack Obama was the person with the most money raised, a staggering $745 million USD, where his main opponent only raised $368 million USD. And the winner of this election was Barack Obama, by a margin of 192 electoral college votes [1][2]. The proportion of money raised by Obama to the money raised by McCain was just over two dollars raised by Obama per McCain dollar. Interestingly, the proportion of electoral votes for Obama to McCain was, surprisingly, just over 2 electoral votes for Obama per McCain electoral vote. We can deduce from this information that the amount of money raised nearly directly correlates to the amount of electoral votes that a presidential candidate will acheive.

Now, you may be asking yourself "how would a geniocracy really fix this problem?"
When a person is running for a position of power (e.g. the Secretary of Agricultural position), it is expected of them that they actually know about the topics that they will be faced against. However, as we can see from the Presidential election, people will not actually vote for the people that understand the issues that they will face, but instead who gets the most funding. In a geniocratical style government, the person that understands the topics and can solve the issues that these topics bring with them will be the person in power, where a person that is more of a figurehead or a puppet will not be able to acheive leadership. Monetary funding will not be what is the deciding factor, rather the intelligence and true knowledge of the individual will be.

"How is this a good thing?" would be a question that I would anticipate from my above argument.
The truth is, we need actual leaders in a society, not a puppet that the super rich (Koch Brothers, I am looking at you) are able to control and will control. This will lead to an increase of personal freedom for the people because they are able to have positive changes that will benefit them, as opposed to a business that does not care for them or their beliefs.

B. Reduces gridlock
In the current political system, extremist thoughts are able to make their way around to the average person and corrupt their minds because people vest an unnecessary amount of belief into non-reputable sources. An easy example is that nearly a quarter of Americans believe that global warming is not an issue, and this is easily attributable to sources that don't rely on fact, rather money from rich donors [3]. When we allow only intelligent or those with high knowledge to seek governmental positions, we are allowing likeminded people to pass laws that are based on the truth. In the example of climate change, 97% of climate scientists agree that it is a real thing, so we are able to have a large pool of scientists that would be making a positive impact [4].
When we allow the facts change policy instead of misconceptions, we are opening the world to a better future. This is simply because the truth will shine above all else and will allow people to make the correct decisions.

Contention II. Upholds the ideas of representative democracy.
The idea behind a representative democracy is to have an educated group of people make decisions that the general electorate either: a. doesn't understand due to lack of intelligence or knowledge, b. can't be bothered to care about, or c. cares about but doesn't feel exerting energy voting on these issues.
  • P1. A representative democracy is made because of a lack of intelligence in the general public
  • P2. A geniocracy is made because of a lack of intelligence in the general public.
  • C1. A geniocracy and a representative democracy uphold the same values and try to solve the same problem.

Those that are against geniocracy generally believe that a democracy is better, and that the US's version of democracy is a better idea. But when you actually look at it objectively, geniocracy and representative democracy are not too different.

Now, how is this a good thing?
Well, in a geniocracy there is a law that mandates that there be a general intelligence level for a person to be able to run or participate in government. In a representative democracy, there is no such law, and thus anybody is able to run for a legislative body. In fact, because of this disparity in a law, there have been some people that have won state legislative seats, not because they are actually good politicians or know what they are doing, but because the area is an echo-chamber for suppressed knowledge and thoughts. A perfect example of this is Saira Blair, an 18 year old that was elected to be a state lawmaker. If we had an intelligence requirement imposed, then we would have a much better and much more wise canididate than her [5].

As we can see, there are many benefits to having a geniocracy. It helps solve the problem that representative democracy was trying to solve, but in a better fashion, and there are major politican gains that are to be had when we have a geniocracy.




7Alan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


I will not argue if my opponent doesn't have a chance to, extend.


Hello :)

My opponents opening case is easily refuted by looking at my opening case.

Contention A.

We know from my opening case that the leaders in in such a hypothetical political system would likely be unfathomably selfish and sly, although they perhaps may not present themselves to be as such.

Thus it follows that the leaders in Geniocracy would certaintly figure out some means of obtaining vast amounts of power if not by money, then by other means due to their selfishness.

This negates Contention A. Infact contention A adds to my case, since leaders of a Geniocracy would be more selfish they would likely figure out a way to amass more money in even more secrecy due to their intelligence.

B. So what. The leaders in a Geniocracy would be incredibly selfish and thus would also prevert the truth and distort it. Infact since they are more intelligent than current leaders they would be BETTER at distorting the real truth for their means thus making it even more difficult for others to discern.

Too much of a good thing isn't a good thing. It's better to allow some idots and some half witted fools to be politicians.
Debate Round No. 3


Thank you to my opponent for responding quickly.
I'll have to revise debate structure: there will be no crystalization, we will just leave it at defense of rebuttals and con will waive R5.

Benefits for the ruled must be upheld.
Yes, I totally agree with this type of thinking. The people that are ruled by the above class (be it democratic law, a king, representatives, artistoracy, whatever) must be able to have some kind of benefits that they wouldn't have if they did not live under this type of government but instead under anarchy.

However, my opponent has a very black-and-white dichotomy that he presents to the reader: either the majority of the rule benefit or the elite (referencing the intelligent) class will. Are the interests of the 'elitist' class different than the average person? Well, they have the interest of keeping morality and ethics, the interest of valuing human life and valuing governmental legitimacy, which the average person does as well. The average person values all of these things and have an 'interest' in them.
This said, the implementation of these core values may differ. The average person may say that in order to decrease global warming we have to completely ban all cars that exist at a moment's notice. But a more practical thinker (see: intelligent) may say that this is too drastic, and instead we need to go down the line of perhaps reducing car emissions, but not getting rid of cars as a whole. This is a much more thoughtful response and allows for what the majority wants to stop to at least be partially stopped (global warming).

What I am trying to get at in the above example is that the values may be the same, the implementation of the ideas may differ from 'elitist' class to the majority.

Personal interests.
Con brings up an article saying that people, as a whole in this study, tend to make hasty decisions that benefit others in a moment's notice, while the average person if given more time will be less cooperative. However, he makes the hasty generalization that only intelligent people have this phenomenon, which was shown false in the study, because the study concluded that people, as a collective whole, experience spontaneous cooperativity.

However, even if this was true (that only intelligent people are stingy), it has no actual basis for opposing geniocracy. Being able to make informed decisions that are not based upon emotion and impulse actually are able to help you out in the future more than impulsitivity.
An example of this has been shown from a subreddit known as 'personalfinance', where they have the mantra of "do not make financial decisions while emotional or have to make them in a moment's notice". This is because we are more likely to make bad decisions (like selling the house for less money than it is worth) while emotional or are quick to make a decision.
If intelligent leaders are the only people that make this kind of decision (less cooperativity), we should see it as a good thing, because they are less persuaded by emotion and impulsitivity than what is best for the people as a whole.

Back to you, con.


7Alan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


By forfeiting, my opponent drops my rebuttals against his case, leaving it entirely in ruins. In this round, I will defend against my opponent's refutations and my opponent will waive, as previously said.

Defense of Contention I.

A. My opponent claims that the intelligent are more likely to take a bribe or to be selfish, although this was successfully refuted in previous rounds. Again, the study that he linked to in which he claims that the intelligent are more likely to act selfishly isn't only attributable to the intelligent class -- and even if it was, then this is a positive thing for society.

I said in my arguments that if an election is not able to be boughten by the rich it will effectively benefit society. My opponent, however, makes a bare assertion without logical reasoning that this will lead to an increase in selfishness. I urge the gentle reader to seriously consider what my opponent is saying. He is saying that because money won't be a factor in elections, money will be a factor in elections.

B. My opponent's refutations against reduced gridlock in congress is another bare assertion without any sorts of reasoning. In my argument, I proved that under a geniocratical system of government there would be reduced gridlock, which effectively benefits society as a whole. However, my opponent makes a wild claim that "the leaders in a Geniocracy would ... prevert [sic] the truth and distort it". This is completely unrelated to any of my arguments, as he is just trying to further his own arguments and not refute against any of mine.

Defense of Contention II.
My opponent *completely* drops all of my arguments about the upholding of representative democracy. He does not even attempt to refute against my arguments that I made. I automatically win these arguments due to a lack of refutation.

Vote pro because of dual forfeiture and because my opponents arguments and refutations are in ruins.
(Remember, con, to waive this round. Thanks!)


Hello. Sry for ff was under the misapprehension I had more time.
Let's get to it.

The study I cited in round one, demonstrated that when ppl are given more time to contemplate and reflect they are more likely to further their own interests ( selfishness) rather than consider that of others... In the proposed system of gov, Geniocracy, since the leaders would be overly intelligent, they presumably contemplate and reflect more in a shorter period of time due to their increased intelligence, thus resulting in them considering and acting to further their own interests over that of others.

Therefore this would more likely than not lead to an array of problematic issues for the people.
In summary since the ruling class would be overly selfish they would further their own personal interests benefiting themselves and not the average citizen.

Thanks for the fun debate :)
Debate Round No. 5
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tejretics 3 years ago
I will vote on this in a couple of days.
Posted by bluesteel 3 years ago
> Reported vote: imsmarterthanyou98 // Moderator action: Removed<

1 points to Pro (conduct), 6 points to Con (everything else). Reasons for voting decision: Con had stronger arguments he showed how intelligence is correlated with selfishness and how that would not coincide well with a ruling party, further he had actual evidence and sources to back up his arugments unlike con and i also found him to be more eloquent and have fewer spelling mistakes however he did ff thus conduct goes to pro.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) S&G. No explanation for *why* the point was awarded. Merely repeating the point category ("Con had better S&G") is not sufficient. (2) Sources. Strategic vote. I counted the sources: Con used one, Pro used five. The RFD falsely states that Pro had no sources. (3) Arguments. Merely repeating one of Con's arguments is not a sufficient RFD. The RFD must explain *why* that argument was convincing.
Posted by Lexus 3 years ago
See you soon :)
Posted by 7Alan 3 years ago
Sry for the ff. It was by accident. I will be back lol.
Posted by 7Alan 3 years ago
Your up :)
Posted by Tucktovich 3 years ago
Is the definition of "good," as you're using for this debate open for discussion?
Posted by Kvasir 3 years ago

Due to study-related issues that have come up,I will most likely not be able to
accept any challenging debates until Friday the fifth of June, by which time this
debate is likely to be taken. A shame, as I would have liked to debate this issue.
Posted by Lexus 3 years ago
I'd assume voting by the intelligent people.
Posted by TheConservativeGays 3 years ago
That is what I was concerned about. Does geniocracy offer a selection method for this "leader?"
Posted by Lexus 3 years ago
There has not been one 'in reality', so it's impossible to say in reality if it is good or not. I guess in theory, but we should also consider how intelligence is measured.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 3 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: Conduct to Pro because of Con's multiple forfeits. I think the arguments point is a fairly straightforward one, though the debate was a rough read--not because of dense material, but because it was completely thrown off course by the forfeits. Con's case was made of one contention, that said smart people are "likely to be selfish", with David Rand as his sole source. But Pro completely deconstructs Con's argument by saying Con's interpretation of his source is based on vast generalization--the source also shows that those that are *not* intelligent are selfish, and technically, the study merely shows that everyone is selfish. This is thorough misinterpretation of the study by Con. Con's response to Pro's contentions was weak--the second contention was entirely dropped, and the forfeits hindered Con's ability to refute. This basically conceded all solvency and impacts of C2 with no refutations, and C1 was fairly non-refuted. Ergo, I vote Pro.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: This is pretty straightforward. Con really only presents one off case points and then cross applies it to Pro's case, making him fully reliant on its success. Pro puts down a rather large and effective response to it in R4, and extends it in R5. Con's forfeits preclude any response, essentially allowing Pro full solvency and impacts without any apparent harms. Sources go to Pro because she so soundly destroyed the only link presented by Con, and presented several of her own. Conduct goes to Pro because of the forfeits and because of Con's defiance of the rules (he should have waived the final round). Pro's case was far from unassailable, but Con's responses are just uninspired and don't go anywhere. Pro, if you want extra feedback on your case, just send me a message and I'll post some.