Help Me with My Debate (2 Viewers)

Aug 1, 2003
17,678
#1
Okay, I don't know if this is considered cheating but what the hell. My competition is on Wednesday Feb the 4th so i need your opinions by then.

The topic for my debate is : " Examinations is no proof of a man's intelligence "

I am supposed to support that claim, but I can't find any points to affirm my stand, can anyone offer their points (to support that claim, of course)

thanks a zillion!
 

Asma

Doctor Asma
Oct 21, 2003
3,658
#3
*examinations donot proof how smart u r,its just to enhance the way in which u think and 2 test ur abilities
 
Aug 27, 2003
3,329
#4
yes exaclty as miss dubai said
well thye help u in improving really and tests are inteded to to determine their readiness to a subject
IQ tests cant even acuratley determine the smartness of one as it will differ in the age and maybe even if they were diffrent
 

Slagathor

Bedpan racing champion
Jul 25, 2001
22,708
#5
++ [ originally posted by sallyinzaghi ] ++
Okay, I don't know if this is considered cheating but what the hell. My competition is on Wednesday Feb the 4th so i need your opinions by then.

The topic for my debate is : " Examinations is no proof of a man's intelligence "

I am supposed to support that claim, but I can't find any points to affirm my stand, can anyone offer their points (to support that claim, of course)

thanks a zillion!
It's very simple really: Intelligence equals potential.

In order to pass an examination, you need to study the subject in question. If you have never received the chance to do so (for example, you live in a 3rd world country and schools are out of reach) then you will probably not pass the exam.

Why? Because you do not possess the knowledge.

That does, however, not mean that you're not capable of acquiring the knowledge.

That gives that the amount of knowledge possessed by a person does not automatically stand in direct connection with the intelligence of that person.

In other words: intelligence is what you are capable of remembering.

You can compare intelligence to a bucket. A very intelligent person has a bucket of 10 liters, a lesser intelligent person has a bucket of 5 liters.

However, if the intelligent person never goes to school, he cannot fill his bucket. If the less intelligent person DOES go to school and he fills his smaller bucket completely than any IQ test or examination will apoint the latter person as the most intelligent when this is really not true.

Conclusion: IQ tests and examinations are, despite what their name suggests, NEVER tests of intelligence, they are tests of possessed knowledged.

Does that make any sense or should I provide you with a more detailed explanation?
 
OP
OP
sallyinzaghi
Aug 1, 2003
17,678
#6
excellent, Erik!
However, I do need more points, and I need to rebutt my opposition's points, but I do not know what they will come up with ... :scared:

WHY OH WHY AM I ELECTED TO BE IN THIS TEAM?! I prefer public speaking better !!
 

Slagathor

Bedpan racing champion
Jul 25, 2001
22,708
#7
Hm well, if we can get someone in here who doesn't agree AT ALL with what I just said above, then maybe we can simulate a debate here to help you going ;)

Martin, where the hell are you? :D
 

Henry

Senior Member
Sep 30, 2003
5,517
#10
there are IQ tests that do a pretty good job of testing intelligence. the questions are not based on knowledge in most cases-they are based on how well you can think, say geometrically, etc. the only type that I think is completely biased towards knowledeg are the so called "verbal IQ" tests. most of the other ones aren't too bad
 

Asma

Doctor Asma
Oct 21, 2003
3,658
#11
if disagree...

no,examinations are closely related to intellegence becoz if u do well it means u r smart if u dont it means ur stupid

P.S:this also includes yr preperation 4 the exam,how good u prepare 4 an exam..it doesnt mean that if u do well ur smart,maybe ur stupid but u prepared well...:D
 

Mac

Senior Member
Jul 11, 2002
1,411
#12
Examinations do prove a mans intelligence in the said subject, however they dont prove a mans intelligence overall.

Also i did something like this 2 years ago. i cant remember much of the details but do some research on types of intelligence etc. I remember for example that skills in a pysical activitie also could to overall intelligence. So David Beckham is quite intelligent after all :howler:
 

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,857
#13
++ [ originally posted by Matto ] ++
Hm well, if we can get someone in here who doesn't agree AT ALL with what I just said above, then maybe we can simulate a debate here to help you going ;)

Martin, where the hell are you? :D
No I agree, well said. :)

++ [ originally posted by McFarlando ] ++
Also i did something like this 2 years ago. i cant remember much of the details but do some research on types of intelligence etc. I remember for example that skills in a pysical activitie also could to overall intelligence. So David Beckham is quite intelligent after all :howler:
That's true, Mac. :)
 

mikhail

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2003
9,575
#14
I was at a presentation by the president of Mensa last night (he was in the college here as a guest of one of the societies), so you'd imagine I'd have something to contribute. The thing is, I think that Erik mad a good deal of sense. I'll try to pick holes though. :)

++ [ originally posted by Matto ] ++
It's very simple really: Intelligence equals potential.
Potential what? The potential to aquire knowledge? No. It's the ability to understand something.

In order to pass an examination, you need to study the subject in question. If you have never received the chance to do so (for example, you live in a 3rd world country and schools are out of reach) then you will probably not pass the exam.

Why? Because you do not possess the knowledge.
True, but the debate is likely to be held in a school or a university, so this isn't going to be a great line of arguement. People will argue that what's being debated is whether the exams they have to sit are indications of intelligence.

Exams don't just test knowledge (at least good ones don't:D), they test your ability to reason, to calculate, to think.

How does a question that tests verbal reasoning constitute a knowledge test? How does a question asking you to solve a quadratic equation test mere knowledge? You might have memorised the formula - in fact, that's assumed - but the question is designed to determine if you can apply what you've learned to a problem.

That gives that the amount of knowledge possessed by a person does not automatically stand in direct connection with the intelligence of that person.
The knowledge is taught, then examined. The exam is to determine the pupil's ability to understand and apply the knowledge already directly taught. We're not talking about a table quiz here Erik.

In other words: intelligence is what you are capable of remembering.
That's what we call memory, Erik. I can train my dog to fetch the newspaper, but she can't read it.

Conclusion: IQ tests and examinations are, despite what their name suggests, NEVER tests of intelligence, they are tests of possessed knowledged.
Never is a nasty word. If I explain to two people the operation of a particular small program, then ask them to write a program is to do nearly the same thing as the first. They both know the same amount, but only one might solve my exam - the more intelligent one.
 

Slagathor

Bedpan racing champion
Jul 25, 2001
22,708
#15
++ [ originally posted by mikhail ] ++
I was at a presentation by the president of Mensa last night (he was in the college here as a guest of one of the societies), so you'd imagine I'd have something to contribute. The thing is, I think that Erik mad a good deal of sense. I'll try to pick holes though. :)
And you did! :thumb: My word, it's no good doing this in a third language :D I'll give it another shot though.

Potential what? The potential to aquire knowledge? No. It's the ability to understand something.
Evidently those two are connected. Have you ever tried remembering something you didn't understand? You'll find it's near impossible in most cases. But I agree, maybe (for clarity's sake) that should be added to the line I typed initially.

True, but the debate is likely to be held in a school or a university, so this isn't going to be a great line of arguement. People will argue that what's being debated is whether the exams they have to sit are indications of intelligence.
In my university, we nearly always have to take multiple choice exams. Such exams require solid knowledge, the rememberance of cold, hard facts. If you will.

In my opinion, such exams (and I had them in mind when I typed my post) hardly tell anything on a person's intelligence. It is merely a good indicator of how much the student has studied. Have you studied enough facts, you get a B or an A. Have you not, you get a lower mark.

If I were smart but I didn't study, then I would still fail these types of exams.

Exams don't just test knowledge (at least good ones don't:D), they test your ability to reason, to calculate, to think.
Read my above comment :)

How does a question that tests verbal reasoning constitute a knowledge test? How does a question asking you to solve a quadratic equation test mere knowledge? You might have memorised the formula - in fact, that's assumed - but the question is designed to determine if you can apply what you've learned to a problem.
I was never any good at mathematics - I lacked the feeling. I was good at languages, communication. I believe the reason behind that is that the communicative part of my brain is more developed than my mathematical part (those aren't the proper names but still).

Due to this, I always failed my mathematics exams. I was then put in another class where another teaching method was used.

We memorised the forumula AND every step one must take to come to the answer. I didn't understand why, because we weren't taught why. I just remembered how.

The knowledge is taught, then examined. The exam is to determine the pupil's ability to understand and apply the knowledge already directly taught. We're not talking about a table quiz here Erik.
An exam designed to do that will, in fact, measure the pupil's ability to understand and apply the knowledge, I agree. It is, however, rarely the case. As I said before, multiple choice questions are a very popular way of examination on the Continent. It doesn't require the students to understand, it requires them to know.

That's what we call memory, Erik. I can train my dog to fetch the newspaper, but she can't read it.
Your comparison is one sided. The dog remembers to get you the newspaper, because it understands what you want it to do. The two are intertwined. But I'll rephrase my initial line: Intelligence is what you are capable of remembering through understanding.

Never is a nasty word. If I explain to two people the operation of a particular small program, then ask them to write a program is to do nearly the same thing as the first. They both know the same amount, but only one might solve my exam - the more intelligent one.
Ah, but that's not what IQ tests are about. IQ tests and exams require you to answer certain questions but they don't give you any information prior to that (not entirely sure how to put this).

You see, if the person who is the most intelligent one in your example was never told how the programme was written then being the most intelligent one won't help him any bit, will it?

And, as always, you are required to KNOW. Not necessarily understand. As in the mathematics example I gave you earlier.
 

Dj Juve

Senior Member
Jul 12, 2002
9,597
#18
swimple. we all know that tests say how smart someone is atm. But tell them that the smartest people are the ones that cheat and dont get caught everytime.Those people are actually the smartest people in the school IMO
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)