Geniocracy

Rebuttal"I never stated a direct correlation between these and intelligence, or that these six are causes intelligence. I stated that these six are examples of things which affect the perceptual set of a person, and this is a uncontested psychological fact." I understand this, but it still makes my arguments pertinent to the topic. I pointed out how many of those six points are not relevant in almost every way and how they should not even be on the list. I believe I was correct and did not make a 'straw man argument'. Firstly, with the actual position, those six are negated. Because the main point is not that they will, but they can. Maybe the body does not affect Stephen Hawking, but it is still possible to affect a person, that that is the issue. Again, you picked yourself as an example but individual values can affect intelligence, if you follow the way in which I said it can. Individual values can affect one's perceptual set, which in turn affects perception, which in turns affects intelligence. For example, a factor which affects one's perceptual set is value. A nihilist will not have much value places upon anything, thus the way in which he perceives things such as strategic, succinct and logical thinking will be affected negatively, so he is less likely to be intelligent. This point is negated too. The last point is similar. Of course, if I for example love a car, it cannot directly affect intelligence. But the love for my car can affect the way in which I perceive automobiles, or similar vehicles, or other objects which may remind me of my car or have a similar meaning. This in turn allows me to perceive these things in a better light and have more of an incentive to study, focus or do anything relating to these, and if it is educational it only increases my intelligence. Now, this could be one random example, but it can happen. Do not forget the importance of can. The can relies again on other factors and the purpose.Having a generalised test which is fair implies that the only varying factor will be intelligence. After all, that is all you want to measure. But then what about people who have a fear of tests, or sick on that day, or panic in these situations, or have panic attacks randomly, or are in a period of depression, or are ill, or are going through a period of trouble, or are temporarily disabled and a myriad things could happen to offset this. Intelligence is affected by perception, obviously, it makes no sense to say otherwise or it is assuming that everyone perceives things the same. As I have proven, which I do not need to because it is basic psychology, once something is perceived or affected by perception it can be affected by one's perceptual set. And factors in it are too subjective to regulate. Too personal yet too drastic to generalise. Meaning so many people are going to lose the right to vote due to circumstances. This is the key factor of the injustice caused, people are so different in perception, evaluation and their life that testing something which is affected by lifestyle is unfair. This is a factor many school's don't do, "intelligence tests". It is the reason many subjects regularly track progress. Not even level of achievement, but progress because it is subjective. Rather than levels of achievement. Your system, which again is not specified, will only work to bring out the lucky. Not the smart who are in peril, but the idiot who is feeling great and tested it.Next, my opponent started talking about my points about IQ. Many of them were irrelevant because he was irrelevant. First of all, IQ does not change. It is a fixed number throughout all your life. Yes, whether a child is breast-fed as a child may change it three or so points and if a teenager consumes drugs, but besides those examples, IQ is a fixed number. My opponent does not seem to fully understand IQ.I do. And with practice and money, anyone can improve their level of reasoning. I do not even see the logic in saying that somebody will always have the same level of intelligence, unless you are implying that it is something psychological/genetic/biological. In which case this is bordering social Darwinism, and that would make sense, if it was the point you were arguing for."IQ tests are unfair"Not particularly, no. Yes, they measure teachable skills, but also comprehension and understanding level. Furthermore, Con stated that "those who are richer are more likely to vote." My opponent's argument here is backwards, because he seems to be making the claim that money effects IQ, which, in fact, it is the other way around: IQ can effect money. Con's arguments that include money and race are irrelevant in that case.The richer you are, the more likely you are to live in an area which appreciates intelligence and affluence. The more likely you are to attend a better school and the more likely you are to have parents who are intelligent thus have made use of their skills. This is a strange notion to have without any evidence. I never stated that those who are intelligent aren't more likely to be rich. I said that those who are richer are more likely to be intelligent. Both are logically the case, but with Geniocracy, one is injustice, for self-explanatory reasons. In short, Geniocracy is great for the rich, bad the the poor. The correlation was there in the graph and most graphs you will find."The purpose of a vote is that the majority are governed the way they want to. If you are saying that this is a better system, that implies that if only intelligent people vote, then the rest of the country will find that things are actually better off."Again, I will state why a Geniocracy is better. The intelligent people are more capable of making logical, relevant decisions. These people are more capable of handling their rights, which, logically speaking, they should be the ones to get the rights. Of course, I am not saying that average people (IQ of 95 - 104), will not be able to vote. I am mainly talking about the people who are, according to the chart I gave in my first rebuttals, borderline, moron, imbecile, and idiot. No. Firstly, you actually did not specify who will be deemed as incapable of voting in your first round, so technically you have changed your premise here. Secondly, anyone who is an actual idiot, they are less likely to vote anyway. You see, voting is not obligatory. It isn't. Not interested in all this politics stuff? Then don't vote, most likely with your resolved resolution, the absolute moron will not vote. There probably aren't enough absolute morons to affect anything, now that, in the fifth round you have actually specified. The floor, see it yourself. In round three, you just presented a list saying that I do not understand what you meant by idiot. No actual action. For you to take such a drastic action, you are implying that there is a drastic problem. Now, you have not specified why there is a need for Geniocracy, other than the fact that intelligent people will vote better. But we vote fine enough. Simply because it can be done better does not mean the current scene is bad. This is the fallacy of relative privation. "Finally, IQ isn't even needed"When looking at the source Con cited, nowhere on that page does it say 'IQ'. Furthermore, IQ is needed. If one had an IQ of 0, they would not be able to learn anything, have feelings, or do anything. So, my opponent is wrong: IQ is very much needed. Now, I understand his point about liberal vs conservative, but that does not mean IQ is not needed. As I just said, you do not want someone to have an IQ of 0.That page showed that political views are partly genetic. The relevance? Intelligence is not likely to change this. IQ isn't needed not because of the strange reason you said here, but because political views are likely to stay.Sorry, but your argument is colossally flawed. Firstly you did not specify how it is going to work, how it is going to be tested, and the issues now that requires this. Your only argument has been a long-winded form of, "stupid people now can't vote". Firstly, most won't, secondly, the population if idiots going by your standards is probably not high enough for anything to change, thirdly, you haven't explained how logical thinking will lead to a better outcome. People's politics are their politics. Also, whoever is in charge, whether that is good or bad is subjective, and you did not refute the serious issue which is that only those who vote will be happy. Not to mention is places a value on intelligence that is only going to mess with the workforce.Democracy is based around the happiness of its people. It is why a Sunni Muslim country would not like to be governed by Saudi Arabia. It is why the Government aims for stability, because it is beneficial for the people. Geniocracy, the thing you need to prove was why it is needed, why it will be better, how it will be better and how it works. You even admitted you failed the last one, you have not proved why it is needed over any situation now, and you did say it is better because it allows the country not to be governed by idiots effectively, but you need to explain how it works to do this and why it is needed.I urge the floor to side with Con.