CreateDebate


Debate Info

191
214
Agree Disagree
Debate Score:405
Arguments:332
Total Votes:432
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Agree (144)
 
 Disagree (151)

Debate Creator

Harvard(659) pic



People With Low IQ Scores Should Be Sterilized.

Agree

Side Score: 191
VS.

Disagree

Side Score: 214
4 points

I completely agree with this because once this has been accomplished the human race will cease to exist. Those people only the highest IQ's and Harvard should be kept alive. In a couple of years when their egos are deflated, so will the food supply. Those left will feed off their comrades still boosting about how smart they are, while eying the weakest member of the group. Finally the last of them will fall and be rewarded for his great IQ as a vulture rips out his heart. The world at last will be a better place, for animals don't boost how great they are.

Side: Agree
Harvard(659) Disputed
4 points

In a couple of years when their egos are deflated

Why are you conflating IQ with ego? I understand this is a simplistic piece of rhetoric, but for it to be meant to establish a point, it is entirely inefficacious.

for animals don't boost how great they are.

Take a look at the male peacock, lion, various insects, etc., and come back and look at this statement.

It was a nice try, but sometimes the best thing to do is to not try. Though I do apologize if you felt insulted (perhaps your IQ wouldn't fit the criterion for 'High'), this was entirely theoretical.

Side: Disagree
Thewayitis(4071) Disputed
3 points

Why are you conflating IQ with ego? I understand this is a simplistic piece of rhetoric, but for it to be meant to establish a point, it is entirely inefficacious.

I don't conflate IQ with ego, but you do. This is in direct response to arguments that you have stated in the past and the debates in which you start like this one. It is your claim of superiority and the claims you've made in regard to you deeming yourself as intelligent that one write this rhetorical. The claim is not mine, but yours.

Take a look at the male peacock, lion, various insects, etc., and come back and look at this statement.

Yes, take a look at those animals in which you listed and prove to me that it is boosting and not basic instinctual functions of that species. What you are basically attempting to claim is that the male rabbit has intercourse to prove he has a penis worth showing the gals and not that it is basic instinctual behavior. What a crack pot!

It was a nice try, but sometimes the best thing to do is to not try. Though I do apologize if you felt insulted (perhaps your IQ wouldn't fit the criterion for 'High'),

I would only be insulted if I ever agreed with you on anything, and this will never happen.

Side: Agree
flewk(1192) Clarified
2 points

Are you talking about this peacock debate?

I still have no idea what you are talking about. Are you going to respond to my posts on the other side or do you admit defeat?

It seems pretty obvious by now that you did not understand your own citation at all.

Side: Agree

I see merit in your proposal, but democrats won't be too happy; it would eliminate their voting base. ha ha ha

Side: Agree
2 points

Education is obviously overrated. Many of the recent graduates come from the liberal environment that colleges and universities are saturated with. These institutions are notoriously liberal and therefore turn out liberal-minded people. These kinds of "studies" are often a concoction of the left designed to stroke their minions and make them think they are smart for voting democratic. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are many of these faux studies put forth by the left to try to convince their followers to stay the course. I'm sure after a few years of paying taxes and footing the bill for the bottom half, most will see the light of day and become more conservative and they mature.

Nice try, though. The fact that they vote liberal undermines the study. ha ha ha

Side: Agree
2 points

Eugenics was legal in 1929. We did it before, we can do it again.

Side: Agree
DKCairns(869) Disputed
2 points

The North Carolina law was repealed in 2003 and the "victims" compensated in 2013.

The law was related to only mentally defective individuals and this debate is about low IQ which does not identify a score or mental deficit

Side: Disagree
1 point

mentally defective individuals vs low IQ

We are splitting hairs now.

Side: Disagree
PotEU(3) Clarified
1 point

It would be best to not only look at IQ alone, rather someone's genetic chances of having children with high or maybe even average IQs. Now I've read that IQ has a bit more to with nurture instead of nature. In that case there has to be looked into someone's ability to raise a child instead of genetics or some combination of those two in a ratio based on proper research and theory. This law in North Carolina was on the right track of realising this but the execution was not based on proper research since we still lack knowledge on the causes of low IQs.

I tried to expand here on the relevance of IQ and the rational motives behind the application of this law on mentally defective individuals without regarding the ethics.

Side: Agree
2 points

you first.

The Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis,

derived from the logical conjunction of the

Savanna Principle and a theory of the evolution

of general intelligence, suggests that

more intelligent individuals may be more

likely to acquire and espouse evolutionarily

novel values, such as liberalism, atheism,

and, for men, sexual exclusivity, than less

intelligent individuals, while general intelligence

may have no effect on the acquisition

and espousal of evolutionarily familiar values.

Side: Agree
Amarel(4909) Clarified
2 points

Why is the fact that more intelligent people tend to be more creative (not only in value acquisition) enough to support eugenics?

Side: Agree
flewk(1192) Disputed
1 point

liberalism, atheism,

and, for men, sexual exclusivity

These attributes are not evolutionary qualities.

Side: Disagree
skyfish(276) Disputed
2 points

yes, they are.

that's the whole point behind evolutionary psychology.

evolved humans no longer need to cling to tradition, religion or disperse their "seed" as widely as possible in order for the species to continue.

in fact these things all become a detriment to a species population at some point.... i think we are AT that point now.

Side: Agree
2 points

I AGREE. If there is another Adolf Hitler, he would agree with this. Get in the line you all Low IQed citizens for your forced sterilization.

Side: Agree

Agree!! It's even gone so far as killing stupid people. We have way too many people anyway - agree ? Or if killing them too harsh we could make stupid people SLAVES.

Side: Agree
2 points

Meh? I don't want kids anyway.

Side: Agree
1 point

Would be good in the long run, but it's unethical and "mean", and lots of people have idiots in their family (even thought not that much since idiots are usually members of the same family).

If only...

Lmao at the amount of 2 digit IQ's making "arrogant ego you're a big jerk" "arguments" that don't make any sense, proving once again how dumb and worthless they are.

Side: Agree
7 points

This is not a good idea since it would lower your IQ score.

Side: Disagree
Harvard(659) Disputed
5 points

This statement is what renders such course of action direly necessary.

Side: Agree
Cartman(18192) Disputed
5 points

When would you stop? IQ scores would go down for everyone and you would always have a new group of low IQ people.

Side: Disagree
flewk(1192) Clarified
4 points

I am assuming you don't know that IQ tests are normalized. Half of the population will always be below average.

Well, can't expect too much since you didn't know that IQ scores are more nurture than nature either.

Side: Agree
4 points

Certainly a Harvard graduate would understand the concept of normal distribution...

Side: Disagree

You need stupid people to do the crap jobs in society.

Side: Disagree

I agree with you on this. Slavery has never gone completely.

Side: Disagree
PotEU(3) Disputed
1 point

In the future and maybe even the near future most of these jobs would cease to exist perhaps creating more poverty and promoting the unequal wealth distribution. Why would these jobs cease to exist? Because technology. Tech innovation provides with labour for a smaller amount of energy than it would take to feed a human. Think about the huge surface area required for growing crops solely to feed the animals we eat and even if the future presents us with an entirely vegan world the exponential growth of humanity would still be a heavy burden on this planet. Therefore technology gives us the means to keep everything balanced in a future society.

Side: Agree
3 points

IQ is genetic, but inheritance does not seem to be the main factor. Nurture vs Nature.

Monozygotic twins tend to show the least variance in IQ which suggests a genetic relationship. However, parent and child tend to show fairly large variances, similar to those of parent and adopted children.

I think your debate title would make more sense as: "Bad Parents should be Euthanized."

Side: Disagree
Harvard(659) Disputed
4 points

Genes play the largest role in determining IQ, so sterilization would still be the most effective for the progression of mankind.

Since it would be very difficult in practice to distinguish bad parents from good ones, as apposed to an individual taking an IQ test, the low IQ method would be the best solution, as stated previously.

Side: Agree
flewk(1192) Disputed
3 points

Genes play the largest role in determining IQ

No.

Side: Disagree
3 points

For flip's sake! Why in the flippin' heck would you do something as low and as pathetic as that? It's their life, so stick your noses out of it!

Side: Disagree
2 points

There are consequences for the right to freedom of speech and such a statement is an incitement for discrimination

Side: Disagree
2 points

Well.. He have argued many times that animals have a different sort of intelligence that is not measured accurately by IQ tests. It similarly follows that some humans also have intelligences that is not measured by IQ. I think it is important to note this. Anyhow...

I have an uncle that has an IQ of around 80. He spends every week day packing boxes in a factory. He rarely takes day off sick and is a very efficient worker. He contributes a lot to his employer. Do you think you could do what he does? Spend your whole life packing boxes? I couldn't.

Quite frankly, he is a lot more use to society than someone such as yourself.

Side: Disagree
Harvard(659) Disputed
3 points

he is a lot more use to society than someone such as yourself.

Why do all your arguments come from the presumption that you know me? Surely you can debate someone without assuming that half of your [mis]perceptions of them are true... or is that the only way you can even debate someone such as me?

Side: Agree
Atrag(5448) Disputed
2 points

And why is it you only reply to things like this and never my actual arguments? It may actually be the only way as your arguments usually lack a basd and you change what you meant retrospectively.

Side: Disagree
2 points

Sterilizing people would insensitively suppressing the emotional side of intelligence. There are numerous ways to boost IQ scores in a society. Probably the most effective way would be advancing child care and pre-school programs as is now advocated by the democratic party. A lot of research has gone into this proposition. Sterilizing people would be unnecessary and ineffective because recessive genes are carried by intelligent people.

Side: Disagree
2 points

Calm down, Hitler. IQ has nothing to do with being sentient, loving, or the ability and right to live life just as everyone else.

Side: Disagree
PotEU(3) Disputed
1 point

You're talking from a purely emotional standpoint and not giving factual/rational basis for your argument. Still, who am I to decide emotion is inferior to factual logic.

Side: Agree
2 points

People can be smart and not work hard. People can be less smart and still make a profound impact on society. It truly depends on the person. I can see this argument revolves around the female race, too. Besides, how can abortion be claimed illegal by some while this isn't?

We live in the 21st century. Equality is what we strive for.

Side: Disagree
2 points

People who lack intelligence have definitely been proven to have an impact on society. People who have less intelligence tend to be more emotional and dramatic, therefore their drama tends to gloss over matters and blind people to logic, so many emotional and less intelligent reporters for example tend to create a false blind over logical matters across the world, so they need to be reduced in the population to stop them from blinding people.

Of course they need to be sterilised, they are the people who are in fact the most likely to blind other people who would usually be more interested in logic.

Side: Agree
StarryLight(109) Disputed
2 points

I believe that there is a difference between those who lack intelligence, and those who does not have an inherited intelligence. People who does not have an inherited intelligence have lower IQ scores, while those who lack intelligence is determined according to their behaviours and views that are already developed. They are the people who are in fact the most likely to blind other people, not necessarily those with a low IQ score. A person with a low IQ score can always improve and move forward.

Side: Disagree
StarryLight(109) Disputed
2 points

I believe that there is a difference between those who lack intelligence, and those who does not have an inherited intelligence. People who does not have an inherited intelligence have lower IQ scores, while those who lack intelligence is determined according to their behaviours and views that are already developed, but can still have a high IQ. They are the people who are in fact the most likely to blind other people, not necessarily those with a low IQ score. A person with a low IQ score can always improve and move forward.

Side: Disagree
2 points

No, its inhumane and wrong. Not to mention IQ isn't a reliable test at because the test is objective towards a certain kind of intelligence. You cannot test for every kind of intelligence making an IQ test pointless.

Side: Disagree
2 points

Oh, do tell us, what types of intelligence are you looking for?

The ability to remember where all the litter bags are put?

Side: Agree
WastingAway(340) Disputed
3 points

You misunderstand the point. Basically the idea is that everyone is intelligent in different ways, you can't just pin it all into one test, its the same idea as Einstein's quote: "Everybody is a genius, but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree it will live its life believing that it is stupid."

IQ tests are using an objective standpoint, they don't (and can't) test for every form of cognitive ability in a person making them fairly useless to accurately test a person's intelligence. Even for people that are intelligent in the selected areas.

Side: Disagree

No. Just. no.

Side: Disagree
2 points

Yes. Just. Yes.

I am correct.

You are very wrong.

Of course.

Side: Agree
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

You just volunteered to be sterilized.

Side: Disagree
2 points

I think the world would be a better place if people had to have a certain IQ score to have children.

Side: Disagree
2 points

I agree with you.

What should the limit be, though?

I believe it should be anything below 100, or possibly 120.

I can't decide.

Side: Agree
pastafarian(79) Clarified
2 points

100 is average so I'd say that's a good baseline. Anyone with 120+ should get a free college grant for their kids as a bonus lol.

Side: Agree
1 point

I disagree with the proposition, in that I disagree that worthiness to breed should be predicated solely upon intelligence. Nor do I believe anyone or any social construct such as government should have the authority to prevent reproduction.

Side: Disagree
2 points

People who are lacking in intelligence only damage society.

People who lack intelligence tend to leave a damaging imprint on society.

Intelligence is the pin of value. Even empathy is based on intellect.

People who lack intelligence actually damage businesses and families, they don't construct them, nor do they aid them.

Side: Agree
1 point

How in the hell can you oppose abortion as vehemently as you do, but support something as asinine and absurd as low IQ sterilization? That's ridiculous

Side: Disagree
1 point

No, because if there are no dumb people what's the point of a world with smart people. RIght?

Side: Disagree
1 point

Only dumb people enjoy a world of stupidity.

Intelligent people hate it.

Side: Agree
foil7(346) Disputed
1 point

I do not enjoy a world of stupidity. My IQ is pretty high (above average). However, without dumb people what's the point of being smart.

Side: Disagree
1 point

I am obliged to say heredity isn't working in a way that if both parents have gene X, that means their children will have gene X, neither will the next generation. Heredity is mostly criss-crossing the genes. You check it by yourself. If both parents will very low IQ, their children's IQ will be in proportion of 1:2:1, which means 25% of the children will be retarted, 50% of them will have above-level intelligence (not genius-like though) and last 25% will have average IQ.

Side: Disagree
1 point

First of, the stupid parent passes down stupidity genes, which passes down stupid brain connections.

Stupidity is caused by over-emphasis on brain connections that are very close to each other.

Connections within certain parts of the brain that happen to be deemed the most relevant to each other is the cause of stupidity. When two very close functioning parts of the brains meet, stupidity occurs and an unoriginal idea comes from it.

It's all about brain connections.

Then we have the intelligent parent. The genes of the intelligent parent causes the person to come up with more intelligent brain connections.

Intelligence is caused when brain connections happen that are relatively further away from each other. When two "irrelevant" parts of the brain connects, a more inventive and well mixed thought occurs, this is the cause of an original mind.

When two parts of the brain that are deemed the least likely to be irrelevant, then a new spin on the world occurs. This is how "Genius" is founded (Something which I suspect that I myself might actually be).

However, the thing is, when dumb brain connections and intelligent brain connections merge, something terrible occurs.

Since over-emphasis on the connections in the brain that causes idiocy happens simultaneously with the clever connections, the clever connections of the brain ends up getting pushed back in the hippocampus in memory form and comes out as incoherent nonsense as it starts to shoot the emotional parts of the brain through the hippocampus, causing a thought that is skewed and emotional in nature rather than being connected by logic and reason.

When an otherwise sensible connection in the brain is diverted to memory form and comes out the wrong way, it no longer enters the neo-cortex processing at all and is diverted from a brain connection and channelled into a mere memory. So in other words, when an intelligent connection happens, it ceases to be an intelligent connection and starts to turn into sheer memory and emotional diarrhea. This is what happens when an intelligent connection mixes with a stupid connection.

So when you say something intelligent to a dumb person, they dismiss it as stupid and place over-emphasis on the obvious and absurd, as opposed to understanding this clever idea. Say something clever to an idiot and it would go through the other end of their bums in their rear, as opposed to in their brains.

Also, what happens if over-emphasis is placed on the most close, or "relevant" connections in the brain, the brain will dismiss the more intelligent connections in the brain. The brain constantly gets rid of excess waste and mass waste in the brain and will only keep the connections it deems it needs in the brain in order to keep the brain clean and to clear the head up a bit, so to speak.

In other words, the brain will get rid of excess waste in the brain by getting rid of the connections in the brain that it deems irrelevant. However, after the brain clears up excess brain matter, it happens to allow the old connections to re-emerge as memory, or to go back in the head at an entirely different and unnecessarily arranged manner and ceases to hold the original idea that the brain intended on having.

When this happens, the brain will then place over-emphasis yet again on the dumb connection and the re-arranged and otherwise clever connection in the brain will get merged with the unoriginal connection and combine with the re-arranged connection actually going counter to what the original thought actually had said and the brain starts to make logical contradictions more often.

I have thought of this idea all by my self.

I am obviously intelligent.

Side: Agree
0 points

This would be highly problematic, even leaving the ethical concerns aside for the moment and continuing with this line of reasoning, considering we do not currently have knowledge of any one test capable of capturing a person's intellectual abilities and potential in any definitive format. We know of certain types of tests that can ball-park specific aspects of intelligence and knowledge, but this is light-years away from what you are suggesting here. Also, we know that a persons intelligence is not 100% inheritable but rather makes up about 50-80% of the puzzle. Therefore, how do you accurately determine who has the highest hereditary intelligence factor rather than nurtured abilities?

Do you have a solution to this predicament? Also, at what age would such a test be administered?

Side: Disagree