Geniocracy

As this is round 3, it is time for rebuttals. In this round, I will refute my opponent's arguments as well as state any last arguments I may have. First, my opponent said that "intelligence is not objective," meaning the definition differs among all people. However, I believe Vorilhon uses IQ to establish intelligence. Con later spoke about IQ, but I will get to that later. Con made a list of things that he feels defines intelligence, which are: 1. Physiological needs 2. Reward and punishment 3. Emotional connotation 4. Individual values 5. Personality 6. The value of objects 7. Culture, upbringing, and lifestyle I agree with some of what Con said, however not all. I agree with 3, 5, and 7. 1, 2, 4, and 6, however, are objectionable. Here is why: 1. The needs of the body have nothing to do with intelligence. Stephen Hawking cannot move, yet has an IQ of 160 and is one of the most respected scientists alive today. Bodily needs are irrelevant to this particular topic. 2. 'Reward and punishment' somewhat makes sense, but Con did not fully explain it enough for me to fully understand. I believe he is talking about one may be intelligent one day, which he finds great. However when something unfortunate occurs, it is no longer great, but bad. I do not fully understand this and wish for my opponent to elaborate on this in his next argument. 4. Individual values also do not have much to do with intelligence. I am an Atheist and my opponent is a Christian, but that does not mean I am more intelligent than he is. Furthermore, I, being a moderate psychopath, may not have the same amount of empathy as my opponent, but that does not make one of us more intelligent than the other. Individual values does not have to do with intelligence. 6. The personal value of objects has nil to do with intelligence. If I am interpreting his statement correctly, he means having objects with emotional or personal value creates intelligence. I do not concur. My opponent may have an object that means a lot to him, while I may not. I do not see how this could effect intelligence in any way. Now that I have refuted those particular points, I will move on to his next argument: 'Intelligence is not definite'. I disagree with this, because Vorilhon used IQ as a basis for intelligence. "Idiocy in itself does not make any sense. A baby it[sic] theoretically an idiot, but they do not have that connotation attached to them because they aren't expected to know. " This is incorrect, because my opponent does not seem to understand what 'idiot' actually means: 95-104 - Average 85-94 - Dull 75-84 - Borderline 50-74 - Morons 25-49 - Imbeciles 0-24 - Idiot I will admit that I used 'idiot' incorrectly in my argument as well, however I just wanted to clear that up: 'Idiot' is an IQ classification. I see Con's reasoning about intelligence being relevant. I agree with that statement to a certain point, however it seems my opponent is confusing knowledge with intelligence. Contrary to popular belief, knowledge and intelligence have very little to do with each other. Of course, one must be intelligent to know a lot of knowledge, but that is not always true. I just wanted to clear up my opponent's mistake. Next, my opponent wrote "Intelligence is not testable". Again, IQ is a great measure of intelligence, despite what many people say. It measures one's ability to comprehend and process information, as well as simply understand more. I consider myself to be a very intelligent person, but I do meet people who are smarter than me. When working with them, I can see that they are capable of processing information faster than I can. They can understand what they are reading and solve the problem before I do. These people have a higher IQ than I do. I would also trust these people more than other people. Everyone else I know feels the same way, for they trust the smarter person more than other people. My opponent also says that it would be a problem if everyone would have to take and IQ or mental competency test. He says, "Geniocracy can only be done via testing, which as I have explained, is not fair, but even it it could, it is irrelevant. " I do not concur. Yes, it is done via testing, but I do not see how it is not fair or irrelevant. Intelligence is very relevant and is a very fair way to classify people. "Geniocracy is irrelevant and anti-democratic"Yes, it is anti-democratic - It's a Geniocracy. It is a new system of government. I do not see why my opponent is referring to a democracy you we are debating about a Geniocracy. Now, I do understand what he's getting at. He says that the point of a Democracy is that all people get to vote, which is true. However, I cannot stress this enough: Children cannot vote, even the ones who are brilliant and should be allowed to. It is not true democracy when children cannot vote. We should use a Geniocracy to create a more fair system, which allows the capable people to have the rights they deserve. "Geniocracy will not cause a change politically, because views will remain. "I disagree, because when you have very intelligent people in charge, they do a lot of thinking. This thinking allows them to create much change. If I were in charge, I would create laws based on logic rather than what I believe should be done. One of the problems with Democracy is the fact that the people elected are not always smart, which limits their ability to make smart choices. They tend to make choices based on what they want rather than what the people want. This must change. This must be reformed. Government officials must be able to get past what they want and think of the people. That s why we need a Geniocracy. I look forward to my opponent's response. MLA Citations "Famous IQs. " Famous IQs. N. p. , n. d. Web. 16 Apr. 2014. <. http://archure.net...;. "IQ Classification. " Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 15 Apr. 2014. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.