Geniocracy

IntroductionI would like to begin by thanking my fellow contestant for giving me his rebuttals and arguments towards why society should not begin using a Geniocracy. He has laid out many valid claims, but has also laid out equally absurd and irrelevant claims. When I come across a point that I agree with, I will state that. When I come across a statement that is incorrect, I will refute it in the best way possible. RebuttalsMy opponent began by quoting a very large quantum of my previous argument. Then, he gave a few paragraphs talking about why I was incorrect. I disagree, however, because I believe my arguments were very viable and germane. According to my opponent, I made "a straw man argument." I did not use a straw man argument. I interpreted my opponent's statements the way they were written. "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'. 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."A public IQ test is not practical Unless you are planning to have secret test for everyone"I understand my opponent's point here and will not deny that. My opponent wins that particular point."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 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. "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.As that is all Con stated, I believe I am done with my rebuttals.ConclusionI believe both my opponent and I have stated very valid arguments. However, I believe my arguments and rebuttals have been stronger. However, Con still must state his final rebuttals before we can know for sure. It is up to the voters to decide that. I have enjoyed this debate and hope to win. Thank you.