Even if I lost 30% of my IQ, I would still be the strongest debater

RFV
I don't think Pro's logical points and conclusions make sense or follow from the claims.
I'm not sure IQ works as they implied.
Con, I think went with wordplay, but even if not 'defined in description, the implied meaning seems clear enough of what strongest debater is.
. . . Course, Pro has made joke debates before, so it is within possibility before their round 1, that they 'could have followed up with some type of strength argument.
1 round debate, neither side really criticizes.

Pro
I'm not sure IQ tests go up to 9000.
. . . I also sometimes wonder if there are limits to certain abilities, whether intelligence or strength.
. . Take math for example, there are various ways of doing an equation, but certain ways are best. One can max out their math ability, but for certain math tasks, the best one can accomplish is the ideal method.
Ideal method perhaps is attainable with average skill.
Speedrunners for example, are limited by the laws of the video game, even if some super fast Superhero were to speedrun a video game, the game is limited in such a sense that the max score is attainable even by the less able non superhero.

Strongest debater, smartest person assumes smartest person has greatest ability to win debates.
I glanced down, Con looks to be going for physical strength, I'm eh on wordplay.
. . Another angle would be to argue the effect of personality and achievements. Though one might be most able debater, they might not have chosen to 'achieve such, and from a certain point of view, would thus 'not be the strongest debater.

"P1. the only things I can perceive are those which are already part of my mind"
Hm, but we must 'sense the world to gain knowledge I think?
Playdoh does not have various shapes within it, though it has capability to become such by outside influence. Well, bit of nature and nurture, easier to mold playdoh than sand or a rock.

"P2. Parts of my mind cannot be greater or stronger or stronger debater than the whole mind, as they are already parts of mind"
I don't get it.

"Because other debaters cannot be proved to exist as independent minds, and I am proved to myself, I will always be the strongest debater."
Feels odd somehow. A fool could claim that others are not independent minds, doesn't make it true.

Con
Goes with the strength argument.
I just don't care for wordplay in debates, I think it is apparent 'enough what Pro meant by strength.

Pro starts off trying to explain how he will always be the strongest debater. Pro also makes many statement that don't seem to make any sense at all:

"Because other debaters cannot be proved to exist as independent minds, and I am proved to myself, I will always be the strongest debater."

Pro then seems to make some sort of "logical" argument:

"Strongest debater is also the one which can make a claim but cannot be proved wrong. I cannot be proved wrong, because statement 'I am wrong' is in itself logically flawed because I cannot contain myself and additional claim about myself."

But again, these arguments are hard to follow.

Con then comes and points out that having high IQ does not necessarily make someone strong at debating. I find this argument better since con is able to point out actual examples of this, while pro tries to speak on an immaterial conceptual level. Pro also provides accepted definitions, instead of making up definitions that don't work in real life.

Ultimately, con's argument was more coherent and easier to follow and made more sense in the real world. Pro's definition of strongest debater didn't really make sense and wouldn't be able to be measured. Con wins.

So before we get into the claim and bop, what is IQ? Neither side gives a definition or background, i include this information in my vote for the sake of determining bop and who met it.

https://grokipedia.com/page/IQ_classification

"The intelligence quotient (IQ) is a numerical score derived from a battery of standardized psychometric tests designed to assess an individual's cognitive abilities,

including reasoning, problem-solving, memory, and processing speed, relative to a normative population."

So IQ does NOT correlate to debating power, at least, not in the sense that instigator is asserting, because the contexts of the premises asserted has nothing to do with IQ.

If instigator asserted the possiblity of being strongest debater based on 6300 IQ (70% of 9000) and asserted it under premises of different conceptions, (ie IQ somehow justifying solipsism, "which is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist, and that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is uncertain. Solipsists argue that the external world and other minds may not exist independently of one's own consciousness."

Or at the extreme end of subjectivism)

Then i could take this debate more seriously, however there is no way a high IQ justifies such a premise.



That out of the way, lets look at title and description.

"Even if I lost 30% of my IQ, I would still be the strongest debater"

"In this debate, it will be assumed that my IQ is over 9000 and that everyone else has IQ 360 or lower."

So with 6700 instigator asserts they would be the strongest debater. But what does strongest mean? Instigator declares:

"thus, I will always be the strongest debater and it is not even possible to prove existence of something which isnt part of my mind.

Because other debaters cannot be proved to exist as independent minds, and I am proved to myself, I will always be the strongest debater.

Strongest debater is also the one which can make a claim but cannot be proved wrong."

So instigator defines strength based making a claim that cannot be proved wrong.
But again. IQ neither approves or disproves the ability to make a claim, instigator is asserting a claim based on premises that arent applicable to IQ.

So lets see what contendor says.

"Now it is impossible to make guesses or deductions about the strength level of Pro without them describing their weightlifting and workout routine.

Thankfully, Lucy provides us with a little insight about their current strength level from sites like DART.:


High sugar diet - most dangerous diet?


Having a sweet tooth as a source of nutrition doesn't give us any details or much information that suggests they are a musclebound debater and actually leaves a lot of room for doubt."


So.... contendor ignored instigator's defining of "strongest" and speaks of physical strength instead of addressing the subjectvism or even solipsism..... he neither affirms nor disproves.... nor does he acknowledged the supposed burden of proof.

That being said i must rule in instigator's favor as contendor failed to address the bop and the definition/standard of strongest.

Also contender used wrong link for oxford language again.... just a link to the front page. (Not weighed in vote)