In the case of BF/GF, you would choose to save him/her because you have spent loads of time with him/her and you would also know that his/her family would get back at you/be upset if you let him/her die. However, squirrels won't hate you or get super upset over the death of their family member/friend, so you would be negatively affecting fewer lives.
Your point that humans have more value than animals is now as I understand it your reason for real life happenings ( happened because humans have more value) which is the complete opposite of what a debate should be (humans have more value because ). Great job, bruh. And giving completely different comparisons about cars and humans is totally off-point, because we are comparing two living things and not a human with a no living thing, so that argument is invalid. Lastly, just because humans are more advanced etc doesn't mean that they are more valuable than animals, because here value is undefined. An iPhone 1 has, I dunno, history value or whatever, but an iPhone 7 makes much more sense and is valuable in terms of practicality.
Conclusion: Your arguments don't make too much sense, so you better rethink and post another more reasoned post.
Think of it: the earth can survive fine without humans, nothing that much will change and things may even improve because no more humans are destroying the animals' homes and polluting their water. However, say all species of sharks disappear. The ecosystem will be imbalanced for quite a while, and may even just collapse. Humans are just animals that live not in a natural habitat, but in an artificial area.
IQ tests don't test math formulae. The legitimate ones (e.g. Mensa's) are mostly based on stuff like pattern recognition. Pattern recognition can be done by anybody, and excellence in this area points to a higher ability to link data which is what intelligence is mostly about. You can ask a child living on the streets to some simpler IQ test-style questions involving patterns and they should be able to give the correct answer, because humans were evolved to be able to link ideas (and in this case, pictures of patterns).
However, chess needs training. While it is quite true that people with higher intelligence tend to be good at chess even without training as they have higher reasoning/strategic skills, that doesn't mean that people who suck at chess the first time are dumb. People usually need to be trained to achieve grandmaster standard at chess as they need practice. And anyway, in a book written by a chess grandmaster, he says that chess grandmasters don't rely that much on calculation to calculate their next moves- instead they recognise situations they may have encountered before (in practice) and then know how to react with some genius queen sacrifice or whatnot.
While I don't think IQ tests are EVERYTHING to measure intelligence, they still play quite an important part. Competence in chess games, strategy games etc are merely a small part of it. Thus, IQ tests are more indicative of actual intelligence.
Assuming stupid people are those with low IQ:
Their ideas and the way they think about the world is what we call stupid. Other 'stupid' people cannot understand these views well because they don't have the cognitive skills to do so, however they may agree with them because they lack the ability to reason things sensibly. However, people who are 'smart', 'bright' etc are keen enough to understand even the stupidest of ideas because of their awesome analysis skills, but they don't necessarily agree with them.
Yes, you're right. Let's say one day scientists invent a microchip that can be surgically implanted in your head which stores all possible factual information in the world, and you will be able to recall any of it on cue. This way, you would be knowledgeable. But then, so what if everybody knew everything? The world would just continue running normally and nothing new, nothing revolutionary, can happen.
However, when the person has that microchip in their head and is also smart, that is a different story altogether. They will be able to use all that information and ask new questions to exciting new discoveries. The Wright brothers didn't invent the plane just by KNOWING things alone; and neither did any other great inventor.
What matters in this world is not the ability to memories, recall and know stuff- it is the ability to use a (sometimes limited) amount of data to try and weave new conclusions (isn't that what the scientific method does?). And these are the kind of people we should try to be.
The true smart people know they are smart. They have high levels of reasoning skills, empathy and whatnot, enough to be honest with themselves. Actually, they know they are smarter than the vast majority of people in the world, but they don't dwell on the fact- that's arrogance. They also understand that they have to use their inborn giftedness/whatever to do productive stuff, as opposed to strutting around proclaiming their intelligence.
However, these people are much rarer than the overwhelming percent of the population who think they are smart when they are actually just average/act smart, which is (maybe?) part of the reason why this debate was started.
So, I guess you could say it depends on a case-by-case scenario.
