CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
The notion of Trial by Competency, I am in support of. However, intelligence--as, IQ is a (failed) proxy for intelligence--is insufficient in-it-of-itself to demonstrate clear superiority. There are a great many attributes that make a person what they are, spanning various domains such as mental strength, physical strength, and otherwise. In order to determine a person superior, or inferior, one must take all such attributes into account.
Consider, as means of mental imagery, the example of video games with character attribute bars/meters displaying the strength, or weakness, of specific traits. Then, with this information, one can calculate averages for specific broad categories based on sub-traits, as well as a total average. Map this onto our world, and understand that each person has this bar graph template inherently attached to them as well, and it is exceedingly useful to decipher so as to be wielded as a powerful tool in the kit when evaluating the state of things.
However, intelligence--as, IQ is a (failed) proxy for intelligence--is insufficient in-it-of-itself to demonstrate clear superiority. There are a great many attributes that make a person what they are, spanning various domains such as mental strength, physical strength, and otherwise
Agreed. There is a great deal more towards being superior than IQ. While it is remarkably beneficial it is not the single most important attribute. While he was alive Steven Hawking could have made a great leader; he had the IQ, the motivation and the passion it would take to lead, however his physical capabilities could have been seen as a drawback or distraction to others.
Agreed. There is a great deal more towards being superior than IQ. While it is remarkably beneficial it is not the single most important attribute.
Yes.
For instance, a quick list of other relevant attributes could include, though not limited to (in no particular order):
-Perseverance
-Courage
-Verbal Fluency/Command of Language
-Integrity/Strength of Character
-Discernment
-Wisdom
-Composure/Remain Calm Under Pressure
-Order/Organization
-Creativity
-Strength of Physical Health i.e. Immune System, Maintenance of Physical "Youth"
-Admired/Naturally Respected by Others
-Strong Physicality & Ability to apply Strength in "Battle"
-Honesty
-Loyalty
.
.
.
etc.
There is quite a list of character traits to consider, putting all of the weight on any one in particular seems misplaced, to me. Although, some attributes may in fact be, and likely are, more relevant than others. For instance, "integrity" would seem to be high up on the list in my view.
I would likely put integrity over IQ. Loyalty is good but too much of it is detrimental, there have been too many people throughout history who were doing the wrong thing out of loyalty.
Yes, there’s a wide mix of things to consider a person competent. But just as an easy filter, I think a minimal IQ base would better than what’s going on now. Just saying.
Also dude, if you want to influence or come across to the general population- you need to use PLAIN ENGLISH lol. I have an IQ of 130+, but I don’t go out of my way to use huge words and talk over people s heads. Just a suggestion
Also dude, if you want to influence or come across to the general population- you need to use PLAIN ENGLISH lol.
The suggestion being my former post is undecipherable to the vast majority? I find that exceedingly doubtful.
Also, I am able to speak across intelligence ranges rather well, actually--and can adjust according to the audience. The key is to find a window into their (i.e. the audience's) world, and utilize analogies, symbolism, poetic-styled language, story, etc.
IQ is a majority nonsense measure, as stated previously and discussed briefly in prior posts on CD. If you want to ball-park a person's intelligence, analyze their ability to create or destroy, the difference hinging upon morality or immorality.
For instance, I do not need to see an IQ score for Leonardo Da Vinci to gather his exceptional level of intellect, as he was able to objectively produce so much. Likewise, I do not require the knowledge of Voldemort's (from Harry Potter) IQ points as he displayed a remarkable ability to destroy.
The suggestion being my former post is undecipherable to the vast majority?
The suggestion being that your job as a writer is to accurately communicate your ideas to others, not to purposefully complicate the things you write to sell the idea that you are intelligent. If the person you are conversing with does not understand what you mean then that is a failure, not a success.
The suggestion being that your job as a writer is to accurately communicate your ideas to others, not to purposefully complicate the things you write to sell the idea that you are intelligent.
Although I agree with the spirit of your comment, there was nothing complicated about my OP. In fact, it was rather straight-forward. Mint clearly comprehended the meaning I am quite sure you understood the meaning, and, further, it appears SlaveDevice, who is the thread-creator, grasped the meaning as well. Then, who is this invisible, intangible audience that I allegedly have wronged?
Although I agree with the spirit of your comment, there was nothing complicated about my OP.
It was written as a general opinion. I have not read the comment involved and so I cannot offer an opinion one way or the other.
I do believe that you sometimes complicate the things you write for the reasons stipulated. I am not necessarily judging you for it because it is an extremely prevalent problem in literature generally, and I am frequently guilty of it myself.
further, it appears SlaveDevice, who is the thread-creator, grasped the meaning as well.
He asked you to write in plain English, which actually implies the complete opposite.
I do believe that you sometimes complicate the things you write for the reasons stipulated.
There is truth in that only in-so-far as I am trying something new or playing around, to various extent. Consider, in basketball, for instance, one can stick to basics such as crossover, jump-shot, spin move, bounce pass, etc. as well as the relevant attributes leading to a stronger successful completion of these fundamentals, such as speed, strength, awareness, etc. Now, in sport, as in thought, I, in truth, very much stick to fundamentals as staples, and then creatively play around with new combinations as a means of expanding the tree trunk with few branches to new, varied branches and twigs that are sound in structure. That is what you may see from me, nothing more or less.
In truth, I detest the "And1" excessive flashiness in both physical domain as well as with thought. It misses the point, excessively postures, is a violation of the rules, and is generally inferior.
There is truth in that only in-so-far as I am trying something new or playing around, to various extent. Consider, in basketball, for instance, one can stick to basics such as crossover, jump-shot, spin move, bounce pass, etc. as well as the relevant attributes leading to a stronger successful completion of these fundamentals, such as speed, strength, awareness, etc.
I'm not sure I buy your premise that creativity and complexity are the same thing.
Creativity necessitates branching out, though further complexity in no way dictates corresponding level of creativity. One could, and people often do, fabricate a bunch of complex nonsense.
Then, you find nothing devious, underhanded, subversive, or generally passive-aggressive about your comment?
I find that doubtful. That is, I think you are well aware of intentionally, strategically implementing the snide remark and are now playing the innocent as a means of washing the blood cleaning after being seen with blood on the palms.
Remember, one never truly gets away with anything--the conscious will not allow it, as is beautifully illustrated in Edgar Allen Poe's tale of the "Tell-Tale Heart". You are hurting yourself with the collection of moral debt. The only who escape the weight of immoral baggage are 100% psychopaths, who are condemned to lead a cursed life.
Then, you find nothing devious, underhanded, subversive, or generally passive-aggressive about your comment?
Correct. But thank you for the list of synonyms.
I find that doubtful.
Your opinions are neither my problem nor my concern. Thank you.
Remember, one never truly gets away with anything--the conscious will not allow it, as is beautifully illustrated in Edgar Allen Poe's tale of the "Tell-Tale Heart".
Have you considered the possibility that this type of bizarrely irrelevant anecdote is precisely what prompted SlaveDevice to reprimand you for rambling in the first place?
Have you considered the possibility that this type of bizarrely irrelevant anecdote is precisely what prompted SlaveDevice to reprimand you for rambling in the first place?
It is entirely relevant to the point.
However, I have considered that I skip too many steps and should better show all my work as you, Slave, and others may have trouble keeping up with the pace--very much how solving a math problems breaks down actually. I will take that into further consideration in the future and attempt to adjust accordingly.
Obviously no it isn't. At best it is relevant to your own false assertion and at worst it qualifies as evidence that SlaveDevice's implication is correct. Edgar Allen Poe has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation and so you are very clearly namedropping for the same reason you complicate your language. I think you are probably a very insecure person who is anxious for intellectual recognition. My advice is simply to go to university.
The Tell-Tale Heart is a relevant allegory to those who commit a wrong, that escapes the direct attention of others, though not themselves. Which, in time, brings about one's own self-destruction. I am pointing out to you, through making use of this story, that your snarkiness, manipulation, and deception is taking a higher toll on you than you may be consciously aware of.
Well, what do we do with our lo-IQ President that refuses to show his??? Impeach him for having his henchmen threaten officials if they don't "lock his up"??
Well, let's see:
#2 Adams, his IQ was 155
#3 Jefferson ……………..160
#4 Madison ……………...160
#6 JQ Adams …………...175
$13 Fillmore ……………..145
#16 Lincoln ……………...150
#21 Arthur ………………..152.3
#26 Teddy R. …………...153
#28 Wilson ………………..155.2
#32 FDR …………………….150.5
#35 JFK ……………………..159.8
#39 Carter ………………..156.8
#42 Clinton ……………….159
#45 Trump ………………..??? (sealed) For obvious reasons!
I agree, they should ALL be required to show their IQ … along WITH their tax returns, birth certificates, world wide "associates", etc. :-)
I noticed you upvoted your own shitpost three times using alt accounts.
I also noticed you are proliferating far right propaganda and hate speech on a number of different websites besides this one. For example:-
At 7/22/2016 9:09:04 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
The Saudis are a cancer. Let the Northern Shiites rid the world of them with short range balistic missiles, tacticle nucleur weapons and a bronto Bomber which drops unlimited pig snouts on the checkerboard headed goat sacrificing bastards.
And:-
99% of all global terrorism is carried out by Muslims
I dunno. Scratch that one, if you wish. The other thing is, his records show he was no dummy and obviously MUST have been a genius.
Same with Obama. Editor of the Harvard Law Review. That's an honor not given to anyone NOT outstanding, soooo I think there's a fair assumption there. Obama wasn't one to blow his own TRUMPet!
Your DUMB ASS comes along pukes up a figure and your DUMB ASS has no facts ! GRANDPAW you WACKOS live in a world where facts are a foreign thing to you!
When they check that out they'll likely find he owed $80M.
I definitely back a minimum IQ requirement, but the true issue I believe is one of morality and/or self-deception. Politicians aren't generally stupid people. It is more frequently the case that they are smart but also selfish and dishonest.
That's funny. I think love of country and the desire to protect and defend the Constitution would be more important. You don't need to be a genius to do that. However, a genius can neglect to do so.
Yeah. Trump THINKS he's a genius, and HE neglects to do so. He sides with Putin and Kim over OUR Intelligence Patriots! Protect and defend??? A Genius COULD neglect to do so, but we've never had one do it …. until NOW! But then, he hasn't shown U.S. that he's a genius, yet. He "locked up" the evidence!
That's funny. I think love of country and the desire to protect and defend the Constitution would be more important.
With respect, I think that's probably because you're stupid. Not only are there no reliable ways to gauge the parameters you mentioned, but "love of country" is the dying breath of the uncivilised and primitive "us and them" philosophy.
There's a reason they aren't. They are all intelligent enough to be but none are extroverted enough to want to. Aside from that, many unbelievably cruel leaders were geniuses. Bonaparte (cruel but fair), Genghis Khan (cruel and a lunatic), Hitler and probably Fidel Castro as well, I would estimate are four examples of geniuses (easily in the top 15% of humans but top 5% has never been in charge as they're always too introverted).
I am at the very least a top 20%er in my estimation and factoring in how much stupider I was when I was younger (yes, I believe my actual IQ not just knowledge-bank has increased with age due to active training of my brain). I reckon I'm a 142'er whereas my younger self was (officially tested multiple times) to be 124-127. I am extremely sure I have noticed enough genius alterations in me and my brain that I'd score that. Online tests support me on this notion but they are irrelevant and almost always shape (visual intelligence) obsessed whereas I am a systematic/numbers kind of genius but I still score high enough on the visuals-section.
