Gardner's Multiple Intelligences vs General Intelligence Factor "g"

Con's Case 1 - "Data Set 1: Wechsler (1997)"Con's data supports only the viewpoint that some factors of intelligence correlate. It does not show that intelligence as a whole can be generalised. Con's own study goes against his case. For example, One of his study's categories are Processing Speed, Working Memory, Perceptual Reasoning and Verbal Comprehension. Just because they all correlate, does not mean factor g exists because there could be a hundred more subcategories of intelligences. Put it this way, Imagine you have 100 dogs. You see that 13 dogs have 3 legs. Then you say, "I guess this means dogs, In general, Have 3 legs! ". When it comes to highly complex subject matters like con looks at, I can see why he's made this lapse in logic. In order for this study to work in con's favour, It must prove that their subcategories are all that exist. And that's impossible. It's why warned Con that he won't have good evidence, But he's ignored it and put in a whole bunch of studies. It's better to find negative evidence for MI if he wanted to win this debate. But I knew that he won't be able to, Hence, Why I think I've already won this debate. Con's case 1 - "Data Set 2: Spearman (1904)""Spearman (1904) found that the scores of schoolchildren’s different academic subjects were all positively correlated and that this positive correlation was almost entirely due to differences in g, Not due to differences in separate abilities. "Excuse me? How does this support your argument? Even con's own researcher admits to differences in intelligence. The readers don't have time to read a 100 page report to understand this theory. Con fails to make a comprehendible argument. Con's case 1 - "Data Set 1 Neisser et al. , (1996)"Con commits ad populum fallacy. I don't think any of the readers would be fooled. Con's argument here is basically: "other scientists says so, So it must be true" and is a weak argument. Con's case 1 - "Data Set 2: Snyderman and Rothman (1987)"I don't understand why con continues to provide evidence that goes against him. Con's own study says: "58% favoured a general intelligence factor". Which is in direct contrast to the argument/study above. "Only a marginal minority believes that intelligence is best understood as separate faculties. Therefore, It can be concluded that there is a general acceptance of the evidence (see Argument 1) in favour of a general intelligence factor while there seems to be little (as pro conceded) argument in favour of Gardner’s multiple intelligences. "Ad populum/ appeals to authority arguments are not good arguments. Don't appeal to authority. You're only suppose to use these kinds of arguments to manipulate gullible people. The readers are smarter than that. The reader should ignore these faulty arguments. What con is left with are weak arguments at best. Con's case 2 - "Gardner’s multiple intelligences do not exist, Dataset 1: Visser, Ashton and Vernon (2006)"Con finally debates properly and gives negative evidences for MI (Gardner's theory of multiple intelligence). "A g factor can be derived from the markers of Gardner’s multiple intelligences which correlated by 0. 76 "Again, Con's own argument works against him. What markers are you talking about? That means your study didn't even take intoacocount all the markers. So what if some of the factors can blend? That doesn't mean they can't be each their own type of factor. And your correlation wasn't perfect it was only at 0. 76. That's enough to subdivide the factors. To remind the readers, The factors were:1. Musical-rhythmic, 2. Visual-spatial, 3. Verbal-linguistic, 4. Logical-mathematical, 5. Bodily-kinesthetic, 6. Interpersonal, 7. Intrapersonal, 8. Naturalistic. "And, In some cases, [they blend with] non-cognitive abilities or of personality characteristics". So? Other unknown factors could exist, But that doesn't mean Gardner's factors don't. I don't understand how Con thinks this negates the theory. "Hampshire has published over 90 studies, Please provide the name/date of the study that you are referring to for my rebuttal in round 3. "Con criticises that I was not specific in my study. But neither has he. I don't understand why he made that criticism. Also, Con fails to give a rebuttal. This is only a part of the scientific research: https://scottbarrykaufman. Com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Hampshire-et-al. -2012. PdfIf you want to know more just look it up, 'adam hampshire 100, 000 people study', And you'll see a dozen news sites talking about it. DDO crashes if it gets too many links. At the end, In the discussion, Hampshire writes: "The results presented here provide evidence to support the view that human intelligence is not unitary but, Rather, Is formed from multiple cognitive components. "Con seems to like throwing a bunch of studies. I think this confuses readers and impairs their judgement when they are hit with a bunch of jargon. I want to remind readers to keep a logical and focused mind. Thank you.