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

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][1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...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 25Mild 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'. [2] . http://behavenet.com...[3] . http://www.aafp.org... 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. [4] . http://samhi.mimh.edu...[5] . https://www.census.gov...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. [6] . http://www.gallup.com...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. [7] . http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com...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. [8] . http://psychology.about.com...Ultimately, my opponent's claims are self-contradictory and remain unverified.