Geniocracy

Thanks for such a lengthy and quick response, looking forward to a great final round. I'm going to start by answering some rebuttals, giving some more of my own, then going on to crystalize my points and tell the judges why pro is winning. -----REBUTTALS OF REBUTTALS"What I do want to highlight is that the most intelligent are not necessarily the greatest leaders"That may be true, but it's kind of like a square-rectangle thing. A square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not necessarily a square; good leaders are smart, but the smart are not 100% always the best leaders (this isn't a concession, but just the plain truth. They may not be the absolute best leaders on earth, but they are better than any group to hold office)."James Buchanan, considered by many historians to be one of the worst US presidents graduated with honours, and was a member of the bar"That's a valid point that you bring up. I'm not going to sit here and say that every single smart person on earth is morally in line, and cannot be wrong or a bad leader. That's just absurd. But what I am saying is that they have more incentive to, they have more availability to being so. There are going to be bad leaders in a geniocratical society, but the appearance of these is going to be much less often than that of a normal society, which is why it is a good political system."One would expect those members of society that had the resources for the best education; both primary, secondary and tertiary would graduate to become part of the ruling class or voting classes in a geniocracy"It's a good indicator of intellect, but not an absolute limiter. If someone has a PhD in Political Sciences, I think that they have some good intellect and thus should have the ability to have access to power. If someone did not finish High School due to a lack of intellect, I believe that they shouldn't have as much. If someone can not afford college but has the intellect for it, then I think they should still have the powers that all people of the upper class in a geniocratical society have."Those individuals that due to resources or geographical isolation do not have the same opportunities afforded to them would find it much more difficult to attain voting rights"Intellect =/= knowledge. We're going to be testing more on things like problem solving ability, not "who was the 27th president and what was the economy like at this time?""To ensure an equitable society so that everyone can reach their full intelligence potential, such a country would have to supply a full free education to every citizen so they are not unduly disadvantaged by this arbitrary measure."This isn't necessarily true. I think that having universal education is a good idea, but that is a different debate. As I said above, geniocratic society-based tests would not be based on knowledge, but much rather problem solving skills and things like that, as I illustrated in the rebut above."Unfortunately as these measures are relative, even as the population and individuals grew in intelligence you would still not be guaranteed a seat on the bus as everyone is rising along with you."Not necessarily true, as I showcasde in the above rebut."But from a purely practical sense, will these decisions be any better under a Geniocracy?"Yes. Societies where the smart are in power would result in decisions that would be more accessible. People that are not as gifted in intellect would vote for not-so-bright things that would result in the degridation of society and governments. People that are gifted with intellect would bring good change, and keep the good things, about society and make the society grow as opposed to degrade."So the question remains, is it "good" to depriving the vast majority of the population"s democratic rights, not because they are totally mentally incompetent, but just because they are only mildly less intellectual than their next door neighbour?"Okay, this is a lot that I have to answer. First I want to address that your sources have only been saying 10% more intelligent people get privledge into government, but because we haven't debated about that, we cannot pinpoint an exact number. Because of that 10%, you are saying only midly intelligent, however if we make it 75% then it would be much more than mildly intelligent. The answer to your question is yes, since it would lead to a better society that leads to better livelihoods."If you are a group of highly intelligent individuals that wish to make positive change in a nation you should already be equipped to formulate solutions, sell them to the voting public (intellectuals and imbeciles alike) and then implement them."When the general public is uninformed by biased media, they are not likely to vote in the direction that is actually good for society. We have to look at this as a harms/benefits thing. The benefits of not having every imbecile vote on very important piece of legislation outweighs the harms, so we say that it is a good idea. The benefits of not having every single average person vote on very important legislation, due to bias by the media, outweigh the harms that are presented so we must say that it is a good idea."C2: Change would be good, so we must use our superior intellect to attain office, educate, persuade, negotiate and legislate for positive change."That is going to be hard in a biased society where media has more power than that of our own legislatures, and practically impossible.-----REBUTTALS OF REBUTTALS OF REBUTTALS"If perspectives or opinions cannot be right or wrong, (or more or less beneficial) why do we need highly intelligent individuals to differentiate between the two?"Opinions cannot be wrong, due to the actual definition of one, but they can be more or less beneficial. This, too, is a benefits/harms thing: the benefits of implimenting a geniocratical society outweigh the harms, so it must be beneficial for society. We need highly intelligent indivuduals to differentiate between the two since it allows for a society that has the people that actually want to make a beneficial society have power, and those that have an obvious bias from media to stay away from it. It allows those that have an interest in the world around them to benefit it, but those that wish to attack the world to not have power. It's very beneficial."My claim is that we want the most politically astute individuals in office"We're not going to be forcing people to join office just because they are smart. They can still join NASA and make the Jupiter Landing I, as they already do. This would just make sure that only the intelligent of society have a way to make sure that important, beneficial legislation gets passed. More politically astute people (which I would debate is more intelligent people) would have more access to office, where not so-smart politicians would not have access (this would most likely solve the gridlock that we see in mainstream society in the United States). -----CRYSTALIZATION OF POINTSA geniocratical society is beneficial because:the best of our leaders have been intelligent, so we should follow this trend linethose who are intelligent ought to have more powergeniocracy limits the obvious influence that is had by media sources, but still allows for the sources to existallows for positive, beneficial change in the societyallows for gridlock to cease to exist (my last rebuttal of a rebuttal of a rebuttal)it is logical for those who have more intelliect to have more power in governmental policies-----I AM WINNING BECAUSEI have successfully fulfilled my Burden of Proof, as I have proved that Geniocracy benefits society and is a good political system, in theory. I have formed many rebuttals on my opponent's points that they brought forward. I demonstrated the harms and benefits that would occur, and how the benefits will outweight the harms. My opponent made silly points in an attempt to derail the debate (such as saying how Rael is not well-versed in history, while this is not related to the topic at hand). My opponent has not used many sources throughout the debate, while I have for most of the debate. Vote PRO!-----Thanks for this debate, gingerbread-man. Had a lot of fun, hope you did too!