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

People with very low IQ's should not be allowed to vote.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/28/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,914 times Debate No: 51143
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)




Recent scientific research has conclusively proved that most retards are racists who vote Republican and, similarly, most Republican voters are racist retards. [1] This will come as no surprise to you, I'm sure. After all, how else could a frothing half-wit like George "Dubya" Bush be elected President of the United States of America? And how else would blatantly racist Republican representatives such as Loy "If slavery were so God-awful, why didn't Jesus or Paul condemn it?" Mauch get elected? [2]

The science behind this discovery is based on the fact that bigoted right-wing ideologies appeal to people who lack the cognitive ability to comprehend complex notions (i.e. retards). As Dr. Brian Nosek explains, "ideologies get rid of the messiness and impose a simple solution. So, it may not be surprising that people with less cognitive capacity will be attracted to simplifying ideologies." [1]

That's also why so many right-wing mental cases like Christian fundamentalists reject the theory of evolution and believe some deity created the universe by magic.

I hereby submit that voters with every low IQ's are incapable of disseminating fact from fiction, myths from reality or right-wing propaganda from the truth.

In many democracies around the world retards are, quite rightly, disenfranchised: New Jersey"s constitution, for example, clearly states that an "idiot or insane person" is forbidden from voting. [3]

Here is the standard IQ scale:

Over 140 - Genius or almost genius
120 - 140 - Very superior intelligence
110 - 119 - Superior intelligence
90 - 109 - Average or normal intelligence
80 - 89 - Dullness
70 - 79 - Borderline deficiency in intelligence
Under 70 - Feeble-mindedness

It should be easy enough to ask people to complete a simple IQ test before they cast their votes and those who score less than 90 should be turned away.

Thank you.

P.S. I have made it impossible for any retards to accept this debnate.



I would like to thank my opponent for starting this thought-provoking topic. I will begin by presenting my arguments and will include my rebuttals since this is only a 2 round debate.

Mental Retardation: subaverage intellectual ability equivalent to or less than an IQ of 70 that is accompanied by significant deficits in abilities (as in communication or self-care) necessary for independent daily functioning, is present from birth or infancy, and is manifested especially by delayed or abnormal development, by learning difficulties, and by problems in social adjustment. [1]


I. Mental Retardation can be divided into four levels or sub-sections of retardation.

While my opponent may loosely throw around the term 'retard', it is important to note that Mental Retardation is not such a black and white subject. In fact, Mental Retardation, in it's modern context can be divided into four different sub-sections. [2] According to the Diagnostic Criteria for Mental Retardation in the DSM IV-TR the Code based on degree of severity reflecting level of intellectual impairment is:

317 Mild Mental Retardation: IQ level 50-55 to approximately 70

318.0 Moderate Mental Retardation: IQ level 35-40 to 50-55

318.1 Severe Mental Retardation: IQ level 20-25 to 35-40

318.2 Profound Mental Retardation: IQ level below 20 or 25

Mild mental retardation (IQ 50–69) may not be obvious, and may not be identified until children begin school. People with mild intellectual disability are capable of learning reading and mathematics skills to approximately the level of a typical child aged nine to twelve. They can learn self-care and practical skills, such as cooking or using the local mass transit system. As individuals with intellectual disability reach adulthood, many learn to live independently and maintain gainful employment.

Moderate intellectual disability (IQ 35–49) is nearly always apparent within the first years of life. Speech delays are particularly common signs of moderate MR. People with moderate intellectual disability need considerable supports in school, at home, and in the community in order to participate fully. While their academic potential is limited, they can learn simple health and safety skills and to participate in simple activities. As adults they may live with their parents, in a supportive group home, or even semi-independently with significant supportive services to help them, for example, manage their finances. As adults, they may work in a sheltered workshop.

People with severe or profound intellectual disability need more intensive support and supervision their entire lives. They may learn some activities of daily living. Some require full-time care by an attendant. [3]

By classifying someone as a 'retard' without providing a clear definition of what 'retardation' necessarily implies, we are not providing the audience with a clear standard of the limitations of a retard. I would argue that individuals with mild levels of mental retardation are capable of understanding and conceptualizing their environments enough to make certain informed decisions. Unless my opponent clarifies the precise point where mental retardation would cause someone to fail at comprehending politicians or their ideas, I see no reason why such a claim would even be considered admissible. Learning disabilities do not necessarily deem someone as 'too retarded to vote'.

Furthermore, according to these standards - not all people with low IQ's are incapable of disseminating fact from fiction, myths from reality or right-wing propoganda from truth. This claim made by my opponent is simply false based on his misunderstanding of the term mental retardation and his apparent generalization of all those deemed 'retarded'.


II. Most 'retards' are not racist.

My opponent has made the claim that retards are racists who vote republican. This is a completely unfounded claim because my opponent has failed to prove that most retards are racist. How is someone able to comprehend the negative connotations of racist ideologies, if according to my opponent, they aren't even capable of comprehending political ideologies? The argument is baseless and completely unfounded. Even if he could show that one or two mentally retarded individuals hold racist bias, this does not prove that most retards are racist.

According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Information Center, as many as 1 out of 35 Americans can be deemed mentally retarded. [4] Now, if we do some math and calculate the U.S. population at roughly 317 million [5] using 1/35 divided by 317,000,000 we will see that approximately 9,057,143 (rounded up) citizens can be deemed mentally retarded. Even if I give my opponent grace by saying that the term most can be used to include 80% of the total amount of mentally retarded people, he would still have to provide evidence showing that 7,245,714 of those retards are racist. Until my opponent does that - his statement remains baseless and unfounded.


III. Most republicans are not racist.

My opponent goes on to claim that most republican voters are racist. This claim is completely unfounded. According to recent surveys conducted by Gallup polls, roughly 42% of Americans are Republican (this includes *leaners). [6] If we use the same 317 million standard, this means that approximately 133,140,000 Americans lean more towards Republican values. My opponent would need to prove that: A) Most of those republicans are retards, which according to the math done in Point 2 is impossible in terms of an 80% standard for the term most, which was the term used by my opponent. B) That most republicans are racist, which at the 80% standard would mean that 106,512,000 of those republicans are racist, which my opponent has failed to prove. Therefore, that argument is also baseless and unfounded.


IV. New Jersey constitution banning idiots from voting.

My opponent has attempted to use the fact that the New Jersey's constitution clearly states that an "idiot or insane person" is forbidden from voting. According to current IQ standards, an Idiot is deemed anyone with an IQ score of below 20. [7]

Considering that anyone with 'mental retardation' includes anyone with the score of 70 or below, the New Jersey constitution is not necessarily banning retards from voting since mental retardation can extend all the way up to a score of 70 whereas the term 'idiot' applies only to those with a score of below 20. This argument serves no purpose based on the fact that individuals with mild to moderate mental retardation can still vote in New Jersey.


V. A score of less than 90 is not defined as 'very low IQ'.

The last argument made by my opponent states that anyone with an IQ score of below 90 should not be allowed to vote. Unfortunately, individuals are only deemed 'mentally retarded' if they score below 70. Therefore, my opponent has completely ignored the fact that his last argument negates his original ones in the sense that he is now deeming anyone who scores below 90 as retarded. This is simply not in agreement with the standards set by our scientific community.

Furthermore, a 'very low' IQ score is deemed as 55 or below. [8] This means that according to my opponents terminology, retards who are between 55-70 will still be allowed to vote. His arguments are contradictory to the very core and still allows the individuals between 55-90 to vote which also goes against his own arguments.


Ultimately, my opponent's claims are self-contradictory and remain unverified.

Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank Blade of Truth for accepting this debate.

My opponent makes some valid points about the definition of "retard" and the exact number of retards in the United States.

However, in my opening argument I merely stated that "most" retards are racist Republican voters, and vice-versa.

Furthermore, under my propsal, regardless of a retard's attitude towards members of ethnic minority communities, he or she will be allowed to vote for whichever candidate they choose, just so long as they can pass a simple IQ test - a test that anybody with an IQ of 90 or above should be able to pass.

Just to reiterate the evidence I provided in the opening round, despite my opponents assertion to the contrary, did indeed prove that retards can only understand simplistic political ideologies that appeal to base human prejudices. Examples of these may be the Republican mantras that "blacks and Hispanics are responsible for most crime"; "Christianity is under attack from Muslim extremists" and "illegal immigrants are taking your jobs".

These myths bandied about by Republican politicians are duly challenged by Democrats with statistics and facts but retards are not intellectually capable of digesting this information and that's why they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Thank you.


I will start this final round by first providing a rebut against my opponents argument in the opening round pertaining to the required completion of a IQ test to vote.

He stated that it should be easy enough to ask people to complete a simple IQ test before they cast their votes. The issue I have with this proposal is that my opponent never introduced a practical method for carrying out such a tremendous task. This reminds me of a similar controversy when a movement grew pushing voters to provide photo identification if voting. [1] To this day, only 34 states have adopted this policy and only a fraction of those 34 states are actually implementing a strict Photo ID only policy. My opponent failed to provide a reasonable way to enact such a requirement without inciting a massive nation-wide controversy. This also bring up the issue of cost for implementing such a requirement. We would need to figure in the cost of paper or computer terminals and programs, the cost of additional employees to manage this process, the cost of machines or additional man-power to calculate the scores, and the maintenance cost for the machines that would be used to grade the tests. As I shared in my previous round, with roughly 317 million Americans - I see no feasible way of implementing such a requirement without raising both a nation-wide uproar and an enormous amount of money, the burden would ultimately fall on the tax-payer.


I. "... in my opening argument I merely stated that "most" retards are racist Republican voters, and vice-verse."

My opponent is correct, he did indeed state that "most" retards are racist Republican voters, and vice-verse. Unfortunately, stating this once again does nothing in terms of validating this claim. He did say "most", and per my definition I presented in R1 my opponent has failed to prove that his original statement is valid. All that was required of my opponent was to prove that 7,245,714 retards are racists who vote republican (based on the standards I set forth in R1). My opponent had a perfectly good opportunity to prove the validity of his original statement but failed to do so.

II. "...regardless of a retards attitude towards members of ethnic minority communities, he or she will be allowed to vote for whichever candidate they choose, just so long as they can pass a simple IQ test - a test that anybody with an IQ of 90 or above should be able to pass."

My opponent once again fails to properly rebut my original counter-arguments. I pointed out previously that someone with a score below 90 is only deemed mentally retarded if they score a 70 or below. This leaves a 20 point window of people who aren't medically diagnosed as retarded and yet my opponent wishes to take away their right to vote. Furthermore, the original resolution states people with a 'very low' IQ score should not be allowed to vote as I also previously pointed out in another one of my counter-arguments. 'Very low' is only a score of less than 55. [2] This means that not only does my opponent misunderstand his own resolution in terms of what score is the cut-off limit, but also that my opponent - who has been arguing the entire time that retards shouldn't be allowed to vote - would let retards who score between a 55 - 70 to vote. It is a complete contradiction to his own arguments.


III. "...retards can only understand simplistic political ideologies that appeal to base human prejudices."

My opponent expects the audience to accept copy and paste quotes to be valid evidence for supporting the claim that retards can only understand simplistic political ideologies. Not only does he fail to cite the authors of such quotes to show how the authors are indeed Republican voters who are medically diagnosed as retarded, but he also fails to prove how such quotes are said only by retarded republicans and not by any of the other 7 billion people on Earth. Without evidence to support such claims, I cannot accept this as valid proof that racist retards are republican voters who only understand simplistic political ideologies.

Just to flip this for the purpose of showing the audience how baseless such assumptions are, I will provide a few quotes from Democrats who say equally disturbing things: [3]

1. "A few years ago, (Barack Obama) would have been getting us coffee." - Bill Clinton to Ted Kennedy.

2. "(Harry Reid) was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." - Harry Reid's comments reported by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann.

3. “White people shouldn't’t be allowed to vote. It’s for the good of the country and for those who’re bitter for a reason and armed because they’re scared.” -- Left-wing journalist Jonathan Valania.

For the sake of the argument, it is clear that republicans aren't necessarily the only ones who say ignorant things with undertones of racism. I ask the audience to consider this when I say that my opponent providing quotes with no links or authors proves absolutely nothing.


IV. "These myths bandied about by Republican politicians are duly challenged by Democrats with statistics and facts..."

I have yet to see any statistics and facts from Democrats aside from the quotes I've listed above. This statement also disregards the fact that I have shown in R1 that individuals with mild retardation are indeed capable of performing basic mathematical abilities. Furthermore, it does not take statistics and facts to ask someone what values they appreciate in life, and then applying their values to whatever ideology or political candidate matches them best. My opponent has failed throughout the entire debate to provide any form of valid evidence to support such harsh assumptions.

V. The IQ test in not always accurate in determining levels of intelligence.

Cambridge University ran a study (which is still being continued today [4]) a few years back to determine the accuracy of the standard IQ test in determining levels of intelligence. The study, which was published in the journal Neuron confirms that IQ tests are not an accurate predictor of intelligence. In fact, the researchers say that no single test - at least none that has been devised already - can give an accurate assessment of all types of intelligence. Their findings are a result of the data provided by 100,000 people of various ages and cultures who completed 12 cognitive tests. The tests assessed memory, reasoning, attention and planning abilities. The test also included a survey that asked about participants' background and lifestyle.[5]

The study found that no single test explained the entire picture of intelligence. Differences in performance could be attributed to a wide variety of factors, including short-term memory and reasoning. They also found that lifestyle and personal background also accounted for a wide variety of the differences found in the test results. For example, while brain training did not help, aging did negatively affect memory and reasoning abilities. People who suffered from anxiety generally performed poorly on assessments of short-term memory. Similarly, smokers performed poorly on short-term memory and verbal tests. On the other hand, people who regularly played video games performed significantly better than other groups of people on both short-term memory and reasoning.[6]


I wish my opponent the best, thank you.

Debate Round No. 2
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by DeletedUser 7 years ago
@shneeba Pack it in or someone'll have to wash your mouth out with soap soon!
Posted by shneeba 7 years ago
Brian eggelston you might be the dumbest person I have ever witnessed. Not only are u a dumbass for being a clueless liberal fuckk but your profile pic may make you be classified as one of these "retards".
Posted by Aceviper2011 7 years ago
Yea take away the right to vote from people who have a hard time to learn. So the people who can learn very quick will put our country in the hands of a greedy person who doesn't care to much of its own people. spoken by a true ignorant person who made this topic. I cant wait to post my argument on our debate. lol this is going to be fun.
Posted by Cat_Lover 7 years ago
I have autistic friends, and their IQ isn't very high, that shouldn't stop them from having a right that people have died for.
Posted by brian_eggleston 7 years ago
Ha-ha! I made it so it was a minimum age 18 and minimum No. of debates 10! I might change it later...
Posted by CJKAllstar 7 years ago
I cannot accept this debate. So then according to you I'm retarded. Well, I would like to accept this debate because this is just abhorrent.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by CJKAllstar 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 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 better arguments in his second round, pinpointing the lack of detail and finding loopholes with Pro's resolution. He had better sources and managed to show a lack of sources and a lack of information that Con had, and overall I found had a more appealing argument.
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Convincing Arguments- Having a low IQ doesn't necessarily mean that you are incapable of making intelligent decisions. I agree with B.O.T. Con has more sources but since Pro had sources in the first round, I let that stay tied.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.