i'm probably one of top ten smartest persons in terms of iq on this site

"if general trend exists amongst "smart" and "IQ" then there's a direct correlation. you might not understand "direct correclation"" Fine. I retract the term "direct correlation" and substitute "exclusive correlation". My argument still stands and you've wasted your last response attacking a useless point. "so your evidence that IQ isn't the same as "smart" is just evidence that you don't have to have a high IQ to be smart. i never disputed this, but in fact said i blieved this in my last post." The problem is mainly that you did not dispute this, as this is the crux of the debate. Your claim is that you are one of the top ten smartest in terms of IQ on this site. I have separated having a high IQ from being smart. This means you currently have no valid evidence saying that you are smart *at all* "actually we're just talking past each other because of your misunderstanding of "direct correlation". if we assume that you're saying smart can exist without high IQ then you're right. if we assume you said there's no direct correlation, then you're wrong as i said, and to assume there's a difference between smart and intelligent is flawed." This argument has nothing to do with the other. Your argument was that intelligence could be measured purely because the test is called an "intelligence quotient" test. Please do not randomly string things together and pretend you know what you are talking about. This has nothing to do with the prior discussion on the definition of direct correlation. "we'd have to do a study on this, cause i believe there are more than you think. and i point out stronger that a lot of stupider people post a few times and leave, making it more like the normal population." The reason why I state it is negligible is that in comparison to your statistical measure of 99.9%, or rather, being in the top ten, the number of stupid people would have little to no bearing. Your argument is that out of 3000 people, you are among the 3 smartest (percentage wise). You give yourself a cushion factor of 10. If the number people dumber than you is anywhere from 0 to 2990 (or rather, 3738 by precise calculation), then you have lost this debate. If the number of people dumber than you is above that, then you will have won. The probability of this occurring is extraordinarily slim. "i never disputed that the bell curve is a normal curve. in fact, the fact that i mentioned that there's a cushion factor indicates that i acknowledged that. i acknowledged it in the initial writing of the poll too, fyi, even if it was not explicit." The cushion factor is irrelevant. Being in the top 3 is being in the top 99.9% so being in the top 10 would be roughly being in the top 99.6%. Your statistical conclusion is outrageously flawed and has absolutely no semblance to anything that would be categorized as probable. "well my humility might say i agree with you. but, then again, i've got some pretty profound novel original etc ideas whereas most else posts the same old rhetoric. my sloppy writing and lack of capitalizations etc doesn't mean i'm not smart... it usually just means my from experiece that there's poser wanna be's who think they're great cause they capitalize and put a lot of effort into their posts when other's don't. i'd argue the smartest position is to find the right balance. but anyway, a tangent cause there's no way to assume given my some of my prolific ideas that i don't give a run for the money." Good. You concede that point, meaning you concede the debate. If you're going to base your intelligence on your writing skills, it should undoubtedly cover the massive amount of grammatical errors. I would argue that your point is void because you run under the assumption that proper spelling and grammar causes others to spend massive amounts of time proof-reading their responses. I've been typing essays before Instant Messaging came about so I instinctively type correctly. I can also critique your debate style. I can tell that the ideas are in your head, but you have sufficient trouble getting them out. Your arguments are disjointed, unorganized, and often incomprehensible. I cite the debates on the Bare minimum for salvation debates. Many of your opponents cannot even understand your arguments because they lack the grammatical structure found in English. In addition, you stated that you were prolific. Agreed. However, whether or not you are novel in the debates you churn out is another story. Starting 7 debates on one topic and 5 debates on another is not novel. It's repetitive, redundant, and irritating. "i've shown your assumptions are one sighted, and proven your grasph of mathematical concepts inadequate." Incorrect. I myself had to point out all the flaws in your numbers. "i've posted facts that indicate what i said is true, so really the presumption is on everyone else to show why it shouldn't be the case." I have done so by categorically dismissing and pointing out the inherent flaws in each proof you provide. "you can't just say "this is a debate forum where people would be smarter" and expect that to be a rebuttal of my presumptive facts." Actually, yes I can. Especially when your presented information hinges on the assumption that the normal curve for intelligence is situated at the same average as it would be nationwide. This is obviously not the case for a debate forum. "all i would have to do is say what i said, returning speculation for speculation. we'd both have to agree a study would need done as this is in no way objective ideas we're talking about. the only obejctive things right now is the scores that i got." And this was the first thing I attacked. You have casually danced around and ignored my assertion and citation saying that IQ cannot be the only deciding factor for intelligence. This invalidates your IQ scores (which may I say, are twenty points lower than the standardized class average for my high school) ************ My opponent started this debate to brag. First and foremost, an IQ of 140 is not something to be proud of. I'm sure we've all taken an IQ test or two in our lifetimes and scored well over that. Having attended a magnet high school respected throughout the country, I can honestly say that those of us on this site who dedicate a good amount of time to intellectual pursuits can unhesitatingly say that our IQ is greater than 140. However, I have already shown that IQ cannot be the only deciding factor, so my opponent's IQ scores are set to the side. My opponent then cites her novelty and prolificity, which I have also responded to. My opponent's self-defense on how terrible her spelling/grammar are hinged on the notion that she spends her time on content, not presentation. I emphasize that only "dumb" people would even have to THINK about balancing the two because writing well and writing correctly should go hand in hand. It shouldn't take you hours to do both. That makes you either a foreigner or an idiot. To bring things back full circle, my opponent cites flawed statistics. She says she is among the top 10 intelligent people on this entire site. Off the top of my head, I can name 10 people. LogicalMaster. Brittwaller. Beem0r. Yraelz. Myself. DarthGrievous. Justcallmetarzan. Tatarize. Logos. Handsoff. This is just off the top of my head. If any of you wish to add yourselves, please comment with a statement and vote for me.