Yes, but there really is no other way to compare the intellect of two individuals, is there? We could argue on this topic for some time and declare the person who makes a better case the smarter one, but that would qualify as a test. You see, there is this annoying thing called science which requires you to test your hypotheses about the world. Without the results of some sort of test/experiment, you have nothing to base your position off of. Which brings me to my point: at least I have some data to back up my claim of intelligence. It doesn't matter if IQ tests aren't the best way to measure intellect, at least I have some sort of quantifiable answer to the question "are you smart or dumb?" You have yet to provide me any sort of information with which to judge your worthiness as an adversary in debate (other than the fact that your brain has a statistically higher chance of being larger than my brain which doesn't mean that it IS larger, only that it is more likely to be.)
Ah, let's compare ratios! (Even though you don't think that it is important, a ratio is a much better comparison of two independent subjects. It's called standardization and I think you will find that it is used quite a bit in science, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that because your behemoth brain is probably made up of mostly the fatty material we smart people like to call myelin. You need more myelin because your neurons have to be longer to accommodate your large size, rendering them less efficient and more likely to misfire. Having a slightly larger brain doesn't mean you have more neurons, just that your neurons are longer and possibly less efficient at transmitting impulses than mine. Ha!)
I am 5'3" and weigh about 105 pounds. The circumference of my head is 23.5" (measuring over the frontal bone in the middle and over the occiput in the back.)
Let's see who's brain is actually more suited for this delightful argument!