The Instigator
Masterful
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
CosmoJarvis
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Black people will slowly turn into a sub-species.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Masterful
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/14/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,097 times Debate No: 99894
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (26)
Votes (1)

 

Masterful

Pro

All humans are currently Homo-Sapiens. It is my belief that black people will devolve (depending on how you look at it) into Homo-Africanis. This does not mean they will be gay Africans, but rather they will become a new species of ape.

This has a lot to do with natural selection taking place in Africa, where many people are dying from lack of food. Therefore those that can survive while only eating very little will live to pass on their genes.
This will make any gene that benefits survival on low amounts of energy recessive. Thus leading to a change in the population and causing, over many thousands of years, a visible and biological change in the African population.

Don't use the race card on me, because I'm not racist. I'm just a realist.
CosmoJarvis

Con

My opponent argues that black people will slowly turn into a sub-species because of what he describes as evolution. Nevermind the blatant racism clearly visible in his argument and his belief in white supremacy, but let's focus on how my opponent says that "black people will devolve into Homo-Africanis. This does not mean they will be gay Africans, but rather they will become a new species of ape."

My opponent believes that African Americans alone will devolve. This would be true if all African Americans were both isolated in one area (to isolate and cultivate mutations in genes through inbreeding) and if there was a dramatic change in these people's environment which requires them to adapt to maintain homeostasis. Additionally, evolution is a slow process that may take approximately millions of years. My opponent failed to incorporate any reasoning into his argument, but it is blatantly clear that his only "reasoning" is his belief in white supremacy, as shown by his previous debates where he advocates using black prisoners as slaves.

Because nations such as the United States are both very populous and mixed in races, it is virtually impossible for African Americans to cultivate mutations so much so to devolve into a sub-species.

I await my opponent to bring up realistic evidence and reasoning, rather than enforce his ideas with ridiculous poppycock.
Debate Round No. 1
Masterful

Pro

Hi Cosmo. I hope you put more effort into this debate than you did our last.
http://www.debate.org...

You state:
"My opponent believes that African Americans alone will devolve."

I never said African Americans, I said Africans. This would indicate that my opponent thinks African Americans are the same as Africans.
This shows a degree of ignorance on his behalf and a great deal of racism.

My opponents argument is based around African Americans, thus making his argument void.
I would also like to point out that my opponent has not touched upon my actual argument which I shall quote:

"This has a lot to do with natural selection taking place in Africa, where many people are dying from lack of food. Therefore those that can survive while only eating very little will live to pass on their genes.
This will make any gene that benefits survival on low amounts of energy recessive. Thus leading to a change in the population and causing, over many thousands of years, a visible and biological change in the African population."

My argument rides of the fact that Europeans have evolved white skin, therefore Africans may evolve and adapt to their hunger crisis. (it didn't take millions of years for us to evolve white skin.)
We as humans, are amazing animals, in such that we will adapt very quickly. Adaptability normally is the result of recessive genes which in turn are responsible for evolution.
For a species to evolve, it doesn't have to be completely isolated. However being isolated speeds up the evolution process.

This is heavy source showing Evolutionary adaptations through dietary changes:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

If my opponent is saying that "humans can't evolve" then he is ignorant, and I want to say that no organism is ever beyond evolution and evolution is constant in everything.
CosmoJarvis

Con

Ah, so my opponent has failed to explain his ideas,and instead has literally posted my entire reasoning on his argument for the second round, only providing one link about evolution. Additionally, my opponent assumes that I don't believe in evolution, at least in humans. I simply explained that, because it is hard to cultivate mutations and evolutionary genes in such a populous and mixed society, it is very unlikely for African Americans to dramatically change into a sub-species.

My opponent's rebuttal, or a lack of one, is merely a link regarding evolution. I would like to clarify this though: I do believe in evolution. But as I said earlier, the chances of one entire race dynamically changing into a different subspecies is virtually impossible in my opinion. Of course, my opponent failed to explain why any sort of race or group could change to a subspecies, and why specifically African Americans would. I at least assumed that my opponent would bring in illustrations created during the period of slavery created by highly biased sources to at least attempt to provide any evidence, and my opponent has failed to do that much. Instead, he claims that I don't believe in evolution and provides one article explaining evolution in humans, and doesn't give the time and effort to even explain the article. For my opponent's lack of evidence, I indeed assume that this is no more than blatant racism. So, my opponent, who claims to be a "realist," is truly nothing more than some biased hypocrite.

My opponent made baseless claims without any evidence regarding why African Americans would specifically evolve into a different subspecies. Vote con!
Debate Round No. 2
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 11 months ago
CosmoJarvis
No problem. I'm pretty sure that you're just trolling and all, and never took this racism seriously.
Posted by Masterful 11 months ago
Masterful
I want to apologise for this filth. I am not a racist.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 11 months ago
CosmoJarvis
Great debate, Masterful.
Posted by Masterful 11 months ago
Masterful
Statistical speaking, Africans have AIDs more than any other race on the face of the planet, so my argument is perfectly reasonable.

You just backed my point by saying:
"it may not be common for people of other races to mate with tribal Africans"

Tribal Africans ARE Africans, therefore you've just backed my claim, that Africans will slowly turn into a sub-species. It doesn't have to be every last African.
Posted by kylet357 11 months ago
kylet357
Yeah, you can't be real. You must be a troll or extremely racist (or both). I'm going yo refute what you said and afterwards, I will not reply to any more comments from you.

My comment made no mention of white people at all, much less white tourists. It relies on the mixing of gene pools. So while it may not be common for people of other races to mate with tribal africans, i imagine that Africans from inner parts of a country (cities) do mate with them, and these Africans also mate with people of other races. AIDS is only endemic among urban Africans in specific countries. Also, "a child from a white parent and black parent is a hybrid, and are therefore sterile"? I don't think you understand how Evolution or Genetics work.

And no, i wasn't being "racist toward Australian Aboriginals", I simply mentioned that they had the best chance of becoming a sub-species of human due to geological isolation (they were isolated on Australia) and thus genetically isolated as well, and had limited gene pool mixing.
Posted by Masterful 11 months ago
Masterful
Kylet, your argument is flawed. It relies on the Africans mating with white tourists.
Firstly, if a white man wanted to mate with chimps, he'd go to a zoo, not Africa.
Secondly, no body wants AIDs, although I did disprove that in a debate.....So maybe people do.
http://www.debate.org...

Thirdly, children from a white father and black mother are hybrid, and therefore sterile, meaning they can't continue to breed. Thankfully.

And what, you trying to be racist toward Australian Aboriginals?
Posted by kylet357 11 months ago
kylet357
Pro doesn't seem to understand how Evolution works. A sub-species cannot come about if there is no major genetic isolation. If this was the year 1100 where there was hardly any way to connect yourself to the peoples of other places, then you might have an argument. But this is 2017, where we have thousands of planes crossing the world all at once throughout the days of the year. There is too much mixing of gene pools to ensure a sub-species of human will come about. The population that may have had the best chance of this happening were the Australian Aboriginals because they were geologically and genetically isolated. But that's not gonna happen now. Unless a population of humans splits off from the population here on Earth, it's going to be very difficult to see another sub-species population that has significant genetic difference. Even if we took your example of a population that had a genetic disposition to being more tolerant to starvation, that wouldn't be a sub-species. We have several examples of people with significant genetic advantages; people in the Himalayas and natives of the Andes who are more resistant to the effects of Hypoxia, white people of European descent who are more resistant to HIV, residents of Limone sul Garda in Northern Italy who are more tolerant towards HDL serum cholesterol and thus have little to no history of heart attacks despite their diets. These are significant advantageous mutations that have been selected over several generations in specific populations, but they haven't become sub-species.
Posted by Unstobbaple 11 months ago
Unstobbaple
Humans have been virtually the same for an estimated 200,000 years. During that short range on an evolutionary timescale minor changes have allowed us to process milk/alcohol better, 30% do not have wisdom teeth (they too many teeth for our mouths jesus) and fast changes have taken place in relatively small areas such as a propensity towards sickle cell anemia as this makes you immune to malaria.

Science... read it sometime b4 you open your mouths.
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: KnightOfDarkness// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con had a misunderstanding of pro's argument the entire time. Pro made the claim that Africans would devolve into another species, with providing logic in that they would evolve from the lack of food. Con only rebutted this by bringing up African-Americans which are not Africans. While pro's arguments do seem weak, as claiming that Africans will evolve from hunger doesn't show that they would devolve, con failed to point this out and argue properly against what pro brought up.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter clearly assesses specific arguments from both debaters and makes a decision on that basis. As such, the vote is sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: subdeo// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Masterful had better conduct because he did not resort to the (albeit relatively small) practice of getting dramatic and even slightly rude. based on a raw count of errors, Masterful spelled better. Personally, I think he also used better arguments. Also, CosmoJarvis cited no sources, and Masterful cited at least one.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Conduct is insufficiently explained. If rudeness was present in the debate, the voter is required to point it out specifically to award this point, and it must be clear that his behavior was insulting. (2) S&G is insufficiently explained. The voter is required to do more than simply compare the number of spelling errors made " they must show that one side"s arguments are more difficult to understand. (3) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both debaters. Awarding points based on what the voter thought was personally better is not sufficient. (4) Sources are insufficiently explained. Even when only one debater cites a source, the voter is still required to explain how the sources of that side were reliable.
************************************************************************
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by KnightOfDarkness 11 months ago
KnightOfDarkness
MasterfulCosmoJarvisTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had a misunderstanding of pro's argument the entire time. Pro made the claim that Africans would devolve into another species, with providing logic in that they would evolve from the lack of food. Con only rebutted this by bringing up African-Americans which are not Africans. While pro's arguments do seem weak, as claiming that Africans will evolve from hunger doesn't show that they would devolve, con failed to point this out and argue properly against what pro brought up.