Your kid is NOT "smarter" then you. Unless you believe smart phone savvy is smartness,

I took this debate because I am interested in debating. In light of my opponent's lack of argument thus far, I will present a single argument and await my opponent's response. Alright, I will begin. Let me begin by defining my terms and discussing the parameters of the debate. Burden of proof will be on me. The discussion in this debate is whether or not a child is more intelligent than their parents, which I will assume refers to biological parents as guardians. I am unsure whether or not my opponent actually desires a causation between modern technologies (such as smart phones) and the likelihood of a parent to be less intelligent than their child. I will therefore assume that the initial assertion made by my opponent of 'Your kid is not smarter than you' is the assertion being debated. The word 'smart' is often used interchangeably with the word 'intelligent'. There is an important distinction between these words, however, of which I'd like to make note. Being smart, as I will be discussing it, is the result learned inferences. [1] Intelligence is the natural ability of a person to learn and process. Which was meant by my opponent, I am unsure. I will use the word intelligent for simplicity's sake. Tackling Intelligence - The Flynn Effect Looking at intelligence first, we are strictly viewing the relationship of parents' intelligence and the intelligence of their children. The benefit of using intelligence as our measure of who is "smarter" in the context of this debate is that intelligence is something that has been standardized in the form of an IQ (or Intelligence Quotient) test. I will be using these tests to demonstrate that the tendency must be for children to be more intelligent than their parents. There is a principle known as the Flynn Effect: "The Flynn effect is the substantial increase in average scores on intelligence tests all over the world. When IQ tests are initially standardized using a standardization sample the average result is set to 100. By convention, the standard deviation of the results is set to 15 points. When IQ tests are revised they are again standardized using a new standardization sample and the average result set to 100. However, if the new sample is tested using older tests in almost every case they score substantially above 100."[2] -Psychologists revise the test every couple years in order to maintain this numerical average. Almost invariably, new samples of test takers record average scores of well over 100 when administered an older version of the IQ test.[3] I will choose an arbitrarily long period of time; 50 years. If people take an IQ test and score an average of 100 and then have children so that those children take an IQ test 50 years later, then by necessity they also average 100 on the IQ test, but by the Flynn Effect, those IQ scores are necessarily higher in context with the tests from 50 years prior to that. IQ tests are intended to have an average score of 100. Since the timescale is such that only parents were taking part in the first IQ tests and only their children would be taking part in the tests 50 years later, the children are necessarily more intelligent than their parents. [1]http://www.differencebetween.net... [2]http://www.princeton.edu... [3]http://dujs.dartmouth.edu...