The Instigator
mongeese
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
mrsmooth27
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

Disability checks and welfare checks go against the concept of natural selection.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
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 7 votes the winner is...
mrsmooth27
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,676 times Debate No: 7866
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (7)

 

mongeese

Pro

To start with, some definitions:

disability check - a welfare check sent to the parents of a child who is born with a disability

welfare - aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

natural selection - a natural process that results in the survival and reproductive success of individuals or groups best adjusted to their environment and that leads to the perpetuation of genetic qualities best suited to that particular environment
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

My contention is that for natural selection to work, those who are better-suited to their environment have a higher chance of succeeding than those who don't. With disability checks, the chance of anyone being born with a disability surviving increases, when natural selection requires them to have a lower chance of survival. Welfare checks are sent out to those who are failing in their environment (the economy) out of the pockets of those who are succeeding, and are thus more fit for their environment.

Thanks to whoever agrees to accept this debate.
mrsmooth27

Con

Thank you, Mongeese, for starting this debate. I have thought about your contention and have come to the conclusion that you are incorrect.

A. Victory in this debate for Mongeese, due to the topic, requires for my opponent to convince you that both disability checks *and* welfare checks go against the concept of natural selection; if I can convince you that disability checks *or* welfare checks do not go against natural selection then I have won the debate.

B. Disability Checks - Definition of Disability vs. Darwinian Definition of Fitness
Your contention, as it relates to disability checks, is dependent on a "disabled" person's being "genetically unfit." According to information on the US Government's internet domain at the http://www.ssa.gov..., a person is eligible to receive disability benefits if and only if "You cannot do work that you did before, [the US Government] decide[s] that you cannot adjust to other work because of your medical condition(s), and your disability has lasted or is expected to last for at least one year or to result in death."

Genetic disabilities, which are the only ones that contribute to speciation and natural selection, are present from birth; disabilities that will cause one to be unable to do work that he or she could do before becoming disabled are not genetic disabilities and are completely unrelated to natural selection, and are not covered by disability benefits.

B. Welfare Checks - No ties to genes.

1. Welfare is given based on one's economic situation.
Although welfare qualifications are constantly changing and vary from place to place, so universal qualification standards do not exist, welfare is generally awarded to people who do not have enough money to support themselves and who do not have the means to improve their economic situation.

2. One's economic potential depends on the economic situation of his or her father and/or mother, and economic potential is required for economic well being.

One's economic potential is dependent on one's inheritance. Education requires money. To get money, a student must borrow money from one's family, friends, or other "friendly" sources that are interested in the wellbeing of the student (such as one's father or mother), or borrow money from "unfriendly" sources such as banks that are interested solely in profit and have no objection to financially crippling a student (if I am wrong here, please let me know. I don't want to go to college overlooking a golden financial possibility); getting out of a good college with money requires being born into wealth. Education and financial freedom yield well paying jobs, which yield money. If one breaks it down, the conclusion is that money yields money.

3. Economic well being is not indicative of genetic superiority.

A person with wealth is not necessarily genetically superior to one without wealth. Many billionaires (Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Ingvar Kamprad) wear glasses because their sight is not 20 20; however, there are people with less than billions of dollars who do not need glasses because they are more fit than Bill Gates. Hemophilia originated from Queen Victoria and was passed down to her very rich descendants.

C. Natural Selection requires both overpopulation and genetic diversity.

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu...
This diagram summarizes natural selection. Reproductive ability's causing a geometric increase in numbers yields competition. Without the ability to have unfit organisms in a population, natural selection can not occur. If disabled/welfare checks benifited the unfit, they would make natural selection possible, not hinder it.

D. Even with welfare checks we will overpopulate beyond capacity.

http://books.google.com...
In short, we can and will make more babies than we can support even with welfare and disability checks.

D. Conclusion
Neither eligibility for welfare nor eligibility for disability checks indicates poor genetic fitness, and even if one did, poor fitness is necessary for natural selection. The affirmitive's contention is completely false.
Debate Round No. 1
mongeese

Pro

Thank you, Mr. Smooth. This debate is going to be good. I can feel it.

"A. Victory in this debate for Mongeese, due to the topic, requires for my opponent to convince you that both disability checks *and* welfare checks go against the concept of natural selection; if I can convince you that disability checks *or* welfare checks do not go against natural selection then I have won the debate."
Yeah, I guess.

"B. Disability Checks - Definition of Disability vs. Darwinian Definition of Fitness
Your contention, as it relates to disability checks, is dependent on a 'disabled' person's being 'genetically unfit.' According to information on the US Government's internet domain at the http://www.ssa.gov......, a person is eligible to receive disability benefits if and only if 'You cannot do work that you did before, [the US Government] decide[s] that you cannot adjust to other work because of your medical condition(s), and your disability has lasted or is expected to last for at least one year or to result in death.'"
Alright, my definition for disability check for this debate is "a welfare check sent to the parents of a child who is born with a disability". This is the type of check that parents receive to help care for their disability-burdened children, such as the payments Nadya Suleman receives to "make up for" the fact that three of her children are disabled. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Now, naturally, the chance of your survival goes up if you have more money. Thus, disability checks increase the chance of any disabled kid surviving. For natural selection to work, the unfit (disabled) have to fail to survive and reproduce more often than those who aren't disabled. With the chance of their survival going up, the process of natural selection is slowed down by these disability checks; thus, disability checks go against the concept of natural selection.

"B. Welfare Checks - No ties to genes."
Actually, they're indirectly connected.

"1. Welfare is given based on one's economic situation.
Although welfare qualifications are constantly changing and vary from place to place, so universal qualification standards do not exist, welfare is generally awarded to people who do not have enough money to support themselves and who do not have the means to improve their economic situation."
Welfare is given to those who are unable to survive on their own. Although your genes do not directly affect your success, they play a huge part. Those who have spectacular strength, stamina, and physical greatness have a higher chance of being in sports. Those who lack speech impediments become TV show hosts or public speakers. Those who are highly intelligent work as scholars, inventors, and engineers. Those who look and sound great become actors and singers. Those who lack genetic "spectacularness" are less likely to be any of these things, and thus are more likely to have low-paying jobs or be unemployed.

"2. One's economic potential depends on the economic situation of his or her father and/or mother, and economic potential is required for economic well being."
Your genes are also dependent on those of your father and mother.

"One's economic potential is dependent on one's inheritance. Education requires money. To get money, a student must borrow money from one's family, friends, or other "friendly" sources that are interested in the wellbeing of the student (such as one's father or mother), or borrow money from "unfriendly" sources such as banks that are interested solely in profit and have no objection to financially crippling a student (if I am wrong here, please let me know. I don't want to go to college overlooking a golden financial possibility); getting out of a good college with money requires being born into wealth. Education and financial freedom yield well paying jobs, which yield money. If one breaks it down, the conclusion is that money yields money."
This is irrelevant; a family that has a poorer gene pool is more likely to reach such an economic situation.

"3. Economic well being is not indicative of genetic superiority.
A person with wealth is not necessarily genetically superior to one without wealth. Many billionaires (Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Ingvar Kamprad) wear glasses because their sight is not 20 20; however, there are people with less than billions of dollars who do not need glasses because they are more fit than Bill Gates. Hemophilia originated from Queen Victoria and was passed down to her very rich descendants."
There may be people more fit than those who currently hold economic power. However, natural selection is a long and tedious process. The best do not always end up on top; the worst do not always end up on the bottom. However, those with better genes have a slight advantage. Hemophelia originated from an accidental, unpredictable mutation, not connected to natural selection.
On a slightly different point, glasses are also against natural selection, and the ability of a royal man having the ability to choose his bride from among anybody in his kingdom contributes to royal families often having better qualities that most commoners.

"C. Natural Selection requires both overpopulation and genetic diversity.
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu......
This diagram summarizes natural selection. Reproductive ability's causing a geometric increase in numbers yields competition. Without the ability to have unfit organisms in a population, natural selection can not occur. If disabled/welfare checks benefited the unfit, they would make natural selection possible, not hinder it."
We already have overpopulation and genetic diversity. If there are no "unfit organisms" in a population, then there is no need of natural selection. By benefitting the unfit, we are allowing them to have a slight illusion of not being unfit, thus making them slightly less perceptible to natural selection. If you had one guy who had the ability to make a million dollars a year, and another guy who had the ability to make $100,000 a year, and another guy who made $50,000 a year, and another guy who made $2,000 dollars a year, and another guy who made nothing, and the government took $10,000 from the millionaire and gave $4,000 to the poor guy and $6,000 to the broke guy, then the poor and the broke have the same chance of survival, and a slightly higher chance than they should have, so they impede natural selection. Additionally, the millionaire lost $10,000, ever so slightly decreasing his chance of survival, thus making the most fit slightly less likely to survive, which slows down and is against natural selection.

"D. Even with welfare checks we will overpopulate beyond capacity.
http://books.google.com......
In short, we can and will make more babies than we can support even with welfare and disability checks."
If we removed welfare checks and disability checks, the disabled and poor would be more likely to die off, and less likely to reproduce, and our population will not overpopulate so quickly.

CONCLUSION:
With welfare and disability checks slightly increasing the survival chances of those with poor genetic traits, natural selection is slightly slowed down. Thus, disability checks and welfare checks go against the concept of natural selection.
mrsmooth27

Con

1. "Alright, my definition for disability check for this debate is "a welfare check sent to the parents of a child who is born with a disability". This is the type of check that parents receive to help care for their disability-burdened children, such as the payments Nadya Suleman receives to "make up for" the fact that three of her children are disabled. Now, naturally, the chance of your survival goes up if you have more money. Thus, disability checks increase the chance of any disabled kid surviving. For natural selection to work, the unfit (disabled) have to fail to survive and reproduce more often than those who aren't disabled. With the chance of their survival going up, the process of natural selection is slowed down by these disability checks; thus, disability checks go against the concept of natural selection."

First of all, quotation marks go outside the period. (*puts on his grammar police sticker*)
Second of all, according to my source, the US Government, that is not what a disability check is.

2. On the octuplet mom, my opponent's source reads "Suleman did not want to disclose the nature of her children's disabilities or the nature of those payments." My opponent's source does not indicate that any said disabilities were genetic, and provides no evidence, only a purportion (which is contradicted by the fact that she "didn't want to...disclose the nature of those payments"), that the said mother actually gets disability benefits. Furthermore, as indicated at http://www.ssa.gov..., children must meet the same requirements as adults that I listed in round one.
3. On my opponent's statements on the nature of natural selection: a population must overpopulate and create competition. For more detail, see my rebuttal to your answer to C.
4. On my opponent's rebuttal's pertinence to my main point: My conclusion in "B" was that the definition of "disability" is not "genetically unfit" as my opponent's contention requires for it to be. My opponent, by default, conceded my point; therefore, disability checks are unrelated to genes; therefore, they are unrelated to natural selection; therefore, they do not go against natural selection; therefore, my opponent's contention is false.

5. "Those who have spectacular strength, stamina, and physical greatness have a higher chance of being in sports."
People who make a living playing sports are few; those few are negligible. According to my source at http://www.expertclick.com..., .03% of high school seniors are drafted by an NBA team, .5% of high school seniors are drafted by MLB, and .09% of high school seniors are drafted by NFL. This leaves other 99.38% of seniors unaccounted for.

"Those who lack speech impediments become TV show hosts or public speakers."
This is a major generalization. They can become show hosts or public speakers. A speech impediment would block out this job sector, but leave many others opened, such as programming, engineering, and countless other career opportunities.

"Those who are highly intelligent work as scholars, inventors, and engineers."
Intelligence has yet to be solidly linked to genetics; furthermore, my source at http://iq-test.learninginfo.org... concludes through experimentation that intelligence is not dependent on genetics but on one's upbringing.

"Those who look and sound great become actors and singers."
Again, a generalization. And a very large one. It is extremely unlikely to become rich from a career in acting or in music. Also, there are great actors with less than great looks. Looks are subjective, so I won't press this as solid evidence, but Kate Winslet might change your (the voter's) mind. http://www.imdb.com... Also, my opponent has failed to solidly link this to genetics.

"Those who lack genetic "spectacularness" are less likely to be any of these things, and thus are more likely to have low-paying jobs or be unemployed."
See above.

6. "Your genes are also dependent on those of your father and mother."
As theirs theirs, but getting money into one's family does not necessitate genetic superiority, but luck. Going over to the hemophilia point, hemophilia was inherited with royal money.

7. "However, those with better genes have a slight advantage."
See above.

8. "Hemoph[i]lia originated from an accidental, unpredictable mutation, not connected to natural selection."
...and stayed in the royal bloodline in a society without disability / welfare checks.

9. "On a slightly different point, glasses are also against natural selection..."
I would consider it more of a use of the main genetic "spectacularness" in humans. (Completely unrelated, though.)

10. "the ability of a royal man having the ability to choose his bride from among anybody in his kingdom contributes to royal families often having better qualities that most commoners."
That's sexual selection. King Albert did choose to marry Victoria.

11. "We already have overpopulation..."
False. Overpopulation, as it relates to natural selection, is a critical point at which a population can no longer support its numbers. There are no indications that reproduction is slowing down; humans are reproducing more quickly than ever before (http://www.beltramiswcd.org...). Eventually, there will be too many people for all our organization and technology can not sustain everyone. Then, and only then, will there be competition, and the fittest should survive.
12. Now, as a small counterpoint, I would like to point out that money will, at that time, be unevenly distributed and, as it is now, and, again, as it is now, genes will not correspond to richness. Until the collapse of society, those with more money will have an advantage of the others introducing a non-genetic selection, an artificial monetary selection which palpably goes against natural selection; Queen Victoria would have a palpable advantage over a peasant with the Delta-32 mutation, 20 20 vision, and clotting blood. Because welfare checks minimize monetary differences, not only do welfare checks not go against natural selection, but they support it.

13. "By benefitting the unfit...against natural selection."
You're assuming that the millionaire has better genes than the broke guy. If everyone got 1/3 million dollars, the one with better genes would inevitably survive to reproduce. Even if the one with better genes had a greater chance to be the millionaire, there would be a chance that the millionaire would have, and make continue, myopia, sickle cell, hemophilia, and HIV.

14. "...the disabled and poor..."
Neither of those are genetic; the statement doesn't support the subject.

15. "...our population will not overpopulate so quickly."
Our population needs to overpopulate to have competition and, ultimately, a bottleneck for natural selection to work. Slowing overpopulation will stall natural selection; therefore, removing disability checks slows down natural selection; therefore, said checks support natural selection by supporting overpopulation.

15.5. I would like to clarify something; my source at http://books.google.com..., Charles Darwin's famous book *On the Origin of Species* indicates that natural selection is not constant but periodic; it requires reproduction beyond capacity, competition, and reproduction of the fittest, who will continue the cycle.

*We do not have reproduction beyond capacity. We need reproduction beyond capacity to take place before we can have competition and elimination of the unfit.*

Conclusion:
Not only do welfare checks and disability checks not go against natural selection but, as I have proven, they support it.

Awesome; I used all my
Debate Round No. 2
mongeese

Pro

Thanks for such a... long and lengthy response... oh, geez.

"First of all, quotation marks go outside the period. (*puts on his grammar police sticker*)"
Ah, but that only applies to a direct quotation, not an embedded one.

"Second of all, according to my source, the US Government, that is not what a disability check is."
Well, the disability checks in the resolution are limited to the disability checks defined by my definition.

"My opponent's source does not indicate that any said disabilities were genetic, and provides no evidence, only a proportion (which is contradicted by the fact that she 'didn't want to...disclose the nature of those payments'), that the said mother actually gets disability benefits. Furthermore, as indicated at http://www.ssa.gov..., children must meet the same requirements as adults that I listed in round one."
Okay, the mere fact that they are taking money away from the successful and giving it to the unsuccessful is against natural selection, as I will define later. Also, those with poorer genes are more likely to become disabled, because a person who lost his arm to a machine might have been able to pull it away in time, had he had 20-20 vision instead of 20-150. A person with better hearing might have heard the police officer yelling for him to get out of the way of the speeding truck. These are examples of how poorer genes increase your chances of becoming disabled, even if it is very slight. Therefore, gaining a disability could have a connection to genes, countering your #4.

To your arguments about how I listed jobs that having better genes increases your chances of getting them, you didn't refute the point that being more physically fit increases your chance of getting such and such a job. Just because so few people get into major sports or acting, doesn't mean that genes are irrelevant. Michael Phelps, for example, has the perfect build of a swimmer (http://en.wikipedia.org...) and had a better chance of succeeding as a swimmer than a person in a wheelchair. Better genes increase the chances of you getting a job. Your entire body makeup is reflected by your genes; thus, your voice, your throwing arm, and your brain are impacted by genes. To counter your little source about intelligence (http://iq-test.learninginfo.org...), it said in the conclusion, "At birth, every person is dealt a hand of card - his genetic makeup." Genes have a slight impact on intelligence, and thus it is connected to your genes, and to natural selection.

So, now I have established that your genes impact your entire life and having better genes gives you an advantage at quite literally everything, with the exception of luck, which is one of the things that make natural selection take so long, but is still part of natural selection.

To counter your hemophilia point, this gene was passed over to the Russian royal family, and then one of their members' hemophilia triggered the Russian Revolution, which brought about their death. Thus, natural selection removed some hemophiliacs from the gene pool, because they carried the bad gene. http://www.writing.com... (5th paragraph)

Just because having better genes doesn't directly give you more money, doesn't mean that it doesn't have an indirect effect. A family of people with very poor genes is more likely to never have a family member succeed, and thus they continue to live their life in poverty, living off of the welfare checks that save them from disappearing from the gene pool, which is a part of natural selection.

Money will always be unevenly distributed. However, the better your genes are, the more likely you are to have succeeded in life and become a millionaire, and be in the upper class. HIV is not a genetic disorder. And I'm not saying that all rich people are genetically superior to all poorer people; I'm saying that the average upper-class member has better genes than the average lower class.

To counter 14, the poorer your genes, the poorer you are likely to be.

If we do not support the people who cannot sustain themselves, and they all die off because we never sent them welfare checks, then they will have been rid from the gene pool, the overall gene pool will have been improved, and natural selection will have worked.

Natural selection can be both periodical and constant. The Darwin Awards are an example of how by people slowly removing themselves from the gene pool due to stupidity (slightly connected to genetics) or possibly due to a disease or accident that wouldn't have happened had they had better genes, natural selection occurs. http://www.darwinawards.com... This is constant. Even without overpopulation, natural selection can occur; it just doesn't occur so rapidly.

Finally, you did not disagree that having more money increases your chances of survival, so it has been conceded.

CONCLUSION:
People who have poorer genes are more likely to be disabled. People who have poorer genes are more likely to be poor. Both of these groups are kept alive by disability and welfare checks. Therefore, their genes are removed from the gene pool at a slower rate than they would if these two systems are abolished. Because the removal of poor genes from the gene pool fuels natural selection, disability checks and welfare checks slow down natural selection. Thus, disability checks and welfare checks go against the concept of natural selection.

Now I get to put on my grammar police sticker. When you have a quote within a quote, you replace the ""s with 's.

Thank you, and I didn't use up all of my characters!
mrsmooth27

Con

My opponent can not stipulate a definition during a debate.
"Well, the disability checks in the resolution are limited to the disability checks defined by my definition."
My opponent failed to stipulate your definition of disability check before I accepted your debate. He stipulated a definition (with no source to back it) after I presented one from a legitimate source and based an argument off that definition.
To enforce a stipulated definition added after one's opponent agrees to debate, argues a round, and bases an argument off said definition is palpably abusive.

My opponent's definition of "disability check" is unfounded.
He did not site a source. I cited the United States Government, from which disability checks come. If anyone has the right to define "disability checks" it is he who gives them.

"Also, those with poorer genes are more likely to become disabled...truck."
On the person who lost his arm to a machine: This situation is unreasonably unlikely. For this to happen, one with bad eyesight would have to be faced with an avoidable accident, and said accident would have to be aranged perfectly so that his eyesight made the difference between life and death. The said accident has ubdoubtedly not happened a significant number of times.

The same can be said about the one who was crushed by the truck; the probability of the truck's being the perfect distance (through time) away from said person so that he would be able to get out in time if he had good hearing but wouldn't if he didn't is unlikely. Again, this has not happened enough times to make a difference, if it has ever happened.

"Therefore, gaining a disability could have a connection to genes, countering your #4."
A quantum event also scramble the information on debate.org, changing all my arguments to "I concede everything."

"To counter...makeup."
My opponnent's quote from my source indicates that, and only that, genes are inherited. A more accurate summarizing quote from my source is the last sentence: "His ability to take part in the game of life satisfactorily, perhaps even successfully, will be determined...by the quality and quantity of education that he has enjoyed."

"Just because so few people get into major sports or acting, doesn't mean that genes are irrelevant."
True; however,due to their small numbers, the people are.

So now I have established that my opponent failed to reasonably establish that one's genes have a major effect on one's life, and that not having better genes does not significantly increase one's chances of becoming disabled or dependent on welfare checks.

"one of their members' hemophilia triggered the Russian Revolution, which brought about their death."
The link of hemophilia to the war is existent but isolated. Alexandria left Russia to take care of Alexis because Alexis was hemophilic, which allowed Rasputin's assassination. This is not an example of natural selection, but an example of unfortunate circumstances and poor choices on the part of Alexandria.

"A family...selection."
If such a family's living in poverty off welfare checks that save them from disappearing from the gene pool is a part of natural selection then welfare checks are a part of natural selection.
Also, the hierarchical arrangement of the capitalist economic system prevents a family with better than average genes from climbing classes without the aid of extreme luck.

"Money will always be unevenly distributed."
With, and only with, capitalism. A true socialism is the only way to evenly distribute wealth.

"HIV is not a genetic disorder."
In its lysogenic stage; HIV infection can be inherited and passed down in one's genes if one's germs are infected.

"I'm saying that the average upper-class member has better genes than the average lower class."
Perhaps that is true, but with even distribution of wealth there can be no outliers, and natural selection can run uninterrupted. If there was no factor like money to interfere with natural selection, the fittest would always end up on top. Money can either shelter a bloodline that would succeed inevitably or shelter a bloodline that would fail. Even if the latter is less likely than the first, the latter is significantly possible. Extend my 12. And enlarge it. And color it blue and yellow.

"If we do not support...will have worked."
Welfare checks also drain the money of the rich, bringing us closer to socialism and lessening the effects of uneven distribution of money.

"Natural selection can be...occur so rapidly."
The Darwin Awards list twenty-three (laugh out loud hilarious) deaths by stupidity, but only twenty-three. It is a commonly known fact that being struck by lightning is very unlikely, and the average number of deaths by lightning is 90 per year.

Also, you have said that making evolution occur more slowly means going against it. If natural selection works more slowly without overpopulation, that which prevents it works against natural selection. Make 12 even bigger.

Conclusion:

Money will be unevenly distributed as it is now, and, as it is now, genes will not correspond perfectly to richness. Until the collapse of society, those with more money will have an advantage of the others introducing a non-genetic selection, an artificial monetary selection which palpably goes against natural selection; Queen Victoria would have a palpable advantage over a peasant with the Delta-32 mutation, 20 20 vision, and clotting blood. Even if royals and millionaires have a greater chance to be genetically fit, there will be Queen Victorias as long as there are queens. Because welfare checks minimize monetary differences, not only do welfare checks not go against natural selection, but they support it.
Debate Round No. 3
mongeese

Pro

Alright, I'm not exactly sure what your first two paragraphs are supposed to mean, but sure, let's go with the government's definition.

Now, there was a time when wealth was evenly distributed: the dawn of man. Ever since human beings went into organized society, those with the most advantageous genes rose to the top, became economically successful, and survived.

Genes have an undeniable correlation with disabilities. Deaf people are more likely to get hit by a truck than people who can hear normally. If you can hear any truck coming, you get out of the road. A deaf person can't do this, and gets hit by the truck. A man who is quick on his feet is less likely to trip. A quick man is less likely to be chased down and ripped apart by a jungle cat. A quick man is less likely to be crushed by a boulder. A man with a weak leg is more likely to break it if he trips. If a man's heart is naturally weak, he is more likely to have heart disease. I can guarantee you that there are disabilities out there that wouldn't have happened if it weren't for their genetics.

Genes also have an undeniable correlation with money. The smarter you are, the more likely you are to succeed. Certain high-paying jobs look for specific, advantageous qualities (strength, good voice, humor) in people; the people with these qualities are more likely to succeed. And your source did make a connection between genes and intelligence; just because there are additional factors, doesn't mean that you can ignore the genetics behind them. Also, if there happens to be a person who is academically or physically great because of genetics, and had a poor upbringing, there is a chance for him to earn a scholarship and become successful.

"So now I have established that my opponent failed to reasonably establish that one's genes have a major effect on one's life..."
On the contrary, the job one has is a major effect on one's life. One's fitness has a major effect on one's life, which is connected to genes. One's genes could gain him popularity; one's genes could gain him ridicule and neglect. One could argue that a person's genetics has more effect on his life than any other factor. "Although genetics plays a large role in the appearance and behavior of organisms, it is the combination of genetics with what an organism experiences that determines the ultimate outcome. For example, while genes play a role in determining a person's height, the nutrition and health that person experiences in childhood also have a large effect." http://en.wikipedia.org......
I'm not denying the effect of childhood on a person, but you can't deny the effects of genetics on everything you do.

"Perhaps that is true..."
It is true.

"Also, the hierarchical arrangement of the capitalist economic system prevents a family with better than average genes from climbing classes without the aid of extreme luck."
False; capitalism allows for entrepreneurship, and promotion, and steady wealth gaining through trade.

"Welfare checks also drain the money of the rich, bringing us closer to socialism and lessening the effects of uneven distribution of money."
Socialism is bad; back to the point, the uneven distribution of money is our fairly accurate measure of a family's genetic success.

"Money will be unevenly distributed as it is now... there will be Queen Victorias as long as there are queens. Because welfare checks minimize monetary differences, not only do welfare checks not go against natural selection, but they support it."
Queen Victoria was just one occurrence, and the result of a mutation. The correlation between anything is rarely ever perfect; genes and richness do not correspond perfectly, but they correspond reasonably well. Also, money was not enough to shelter hemophilia. Read the deaths here: http://en.wikipedia.org......
Many royal family members died bleeding to death. Also, "Alexei's hemophilia was one of the factors contributing to the collapse of Imperial Russia during the Russian Revolution of 1917." Coincidence? I highly doubt it.

"The Darwin Awards list twenty-three (laugh out loud hilarious) deaths by stupidity, but only twenty-three."
I quote from the website: "Within These Portals Lie 759 Enterprising Demises." Last I checked, seven hundred and fifty-nine was not twenty-three. Because a large number of stupid incidents do not occur with death, but from injury and disability, it can be said that their stupidity is what leads to their disability. Because there is also a correlation between stupidity and genetics, genetics correlates with disability in both physical and mental health.

Now, here are eleven steps that prove the resolution to be true:
1. People who are more genetically fit to their environment have a lesser chance of gaining a disability.
(Ex. A person gets run over by a car, but doesn't get out of the way, because he's deaf. A person can't run fast enough, and his leg is ripped open by a lion. A person is stupid, and shoots himself in the throat with a paintball gun. [True Story])
2. People who are more genetically fit will on average make more money than those who are less genetically fit.
(Ex. People who are naturally taller, faster, and stronger are more likely to get a sports profession. People who naturally speak clearer and stronger are more likely to be public speakers, TV Show hosts, etc. People who are more intelligent are more likely to be college professors, scholars, inventors, engineers, etc.)
3. Welfare checks and disability checks distribute money to the poor and the disabled.
(Definitions of welfare and disability checks.)
4. Having more money increases one's chances of survival.
(Conceded point.)
5. Welfare checks and disability checks increase the chances of survival for the genetically unfit.
(3 4)
6. In natural selection, the genetically fit have a higher chance of survival than the genetically unfit, and the gene pool improves over time.
(Definition of natural selection)
7. The greater the difference in the chance of the genetically fit surviving and the chance of the genetically unfit surviving, the faster natural selection will occur.
(If the difference was very small, it would take large amounts of random chance to remove the unfit genes. If the difference was very large, the genetically unfit would be eliminated almost immediately.)
8. Welfare checks and disability checks lessen the difference in the chance of the genetically fit surviving and the chance of the genetically unfit surviving.
(5)
9. Welfare checks and disability checks slow down the process of natural selection.
(7 8)
10. Anything that slows something down is against it.
(Ex. The wind slows you down; the wind is against you. The ice slows the warming of your glass of water; the ice is against the warming of your glass of water.)
11. Welfare checks and disability checks go against the concept of natural selection.
(9 10)
Now, I don't know exactly how you're going to attack this proof, so I'm going to have to anticipate your attacks and further pad my wall.
1. You have conceded this point, because you did not deny the correlation. You attacked its significance, but not its existence. It is much more significant than you actually realize; your genetics define your body and your mind, and your body and mind together determine your life. Genes that give you a more likely chance to get a disability are the genes that natural selection is working to remove. There is correlation.
2. I have stressed this point time and time again. At the beginning of time, the most genetically fit advanced economically, and this is reflected in current times. People who are born into a lower-class family, but have advantageous genes in either academics or sports, can get scholarships, so as to fully utilize their genetic advantage. You typically use your best genes to get your job, and if none of your genes are good, you get a poor-paying job. There is correlation.

Thank you.
mrsmooth27

Con

"False...through trade."
One needs money to start a buisness. This goes back to the friendly vs unfriendly loans.

"Socialism is bad..."
You failed to cite any sources or explain at all. I am a democratic socialist. This is, however, insignificant. Capitalism goes against natural selection, as you failed to deny. (See counterpoint)
"...the uneven...genetic success."
We don't need to measure genetic success; natural selection does that *for us.* Capitalism makes it possible for bad genes to be sheltered by money. The people with good genes don't need sheltering.

"I quote...mental health."
My bad; 2008 had 23 deaths. Compare that to the 53,400,000 (http://www.wholesomewords.org...) that die each year. Again, it is insignificant. Also, those that died never got a single disability check; they were dead, not disabled.

"Queen Victoria was...deaths here."
We are all the result of mutations. Genes and richness do not correspond perfectly.
"Also...highly doubt it."
If one looks at the circumstances, one can see that it is an isolated case.

1. "People who are more genetically fit to their environment have a lesser chance of gaining a disability."
Negligibly. I concede the fact, and only the fact, not the implications. I have demonstrated time and time again that the difference is negligible. (Extend all evidence that so indicates)
2. "People who are more genetically fit will on average make more moneythan those who are less genetically fit."
Concede.
3. "Welfare checks and disability checks distribute money to the poor and the disabled."
Concede.
4. "Having more money increases one's chances of survival."
Concede.
5. "Welfare checks and disability checks increase the chances of survival for the genetically unfit."
Wrong. 3 and 4 do not support 5 because neither 3 nor 4 relates to genetic fitness.
6. Concede.
7. False. The greater the peak difference between the genetically unfits' death rate and birth rate, the faster natural selection will occur. (Peak difference is important because a population boom will lead to a bottleneck; the rate wdwwwwwwevolution is increased by the bottleneck, but not decreased because of the boom.)
8. "Welfare checks and disability checks lessen the difference in the chance of the genetically fit surviving and the chance of the genetically unfit surviving."
False; no 5.
9. "Welfare checks and disability checks slow down the process of natural selection."
See my counterpoint.
10. Concede.
11. Nopez.

Counterpoint:
My opponent has conceded my counterpoint;
1. Natural selection occurs more slowly without overpopulation and more quickly with overpopulation.
Conceded.
2. Welfare checks contribute to overpopulation.
Conceded.
3. To slow down is to go against, to speed up is go for.
Conceded.
4. Welfare checks cause natural selection to occur more quickly.
(1 and 2)
5. Welfare goes for evolution.
(4 and 3)
6. Welfare checks do not go against evolution.
(5)

Counterpoint 2:
1. Welfare checks minimize the uneven distribution of wealth by giving money from the rich to the poor.
(Definition of welfare checks)
2. Uneven distribution of wealth can shelter genetically unfit people.
(Conceded)
3. Genetically fit people do not naturally need sheltering.
(Definition of Survival of the Fittest)
4. Sheltering of genetically unfit people goes against natural selection.
(2, 3, definition of natural selection)
5. Welfare checks minimize sheltering of unfit people.
(1, 2)
6. Welfare checks minimize what that goes against natural selection.
(4, 5)
7. Minimizing what goes against natural selection is to be for natural selection.
8. Welfare checks go for natural selection.
(6, 7)
9. Welfare checks do not go against natural selection.
(8)
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mrsmooth27 7 years ago
mrsmooth27
Whooooo!
Posted by mrsmooth27 7 years ago
mrsmooth27
"wdwwwwwwevolution"
Wow. Didn't see that. My computer was being a gurrtard and switched windows while I was playing TF2. That lost me 2 backstabs.

"And enlarge it. And color it blue and yellow."
I'm simply saying that my counterpoint should be colored blue and yellow for emphasis :). A single joke in a debate isn't worth a voter issue. Excessive joking would prove that I don't take it seriously, but a single (and well placed) joke just proves that I'm interested in not drowning in my tears of boredom from reading my own debate.

"His avatar always adds to his case. =)"
Yeah. If I can get over my laziness and can find a decent picture of the butterfly knife, I will change that to my avatar. (For now, back to using it.)
Posted by Epicism 7 years ago
Epicism
lol

"if I can convince you that disability checks *or* welfare checks do not go against natural selection then I have won the debate."

You could just say "Nope I'M not convinced" if you wanted a lazy debate :P
Posted by McBain 7 years ago
McBain
His avatar always adds to his case. =)
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Kleptin is a genius.

Or maybe I only think that because of his avatar...
Posted by McBain 7 years ago
McBain
I'm so happy "pulling a kleptin" has caught on!
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Time to "pull a Kleptin":
Conduct: PRO
"Extend my 12. And enlarge it. And color it blue and yellow." CON is not taking this debate seriously.
Spelling and Grammar: PRO
"wdwwwwwwevolution"? In "friendly vs unfriendly loans," vs. needs a period. "My opponent has conceded my counterpoint;" Colon, not semicolon.
Convincing Arguments: PRO
"Wrong. 3 and 4 do not support 5 because neither 3 nor 4 relates to genetic fitness." This was explained through steps 1 and 2.
"The greater the peak difference between the genetically unfits' death rate and birth rate, the faster natural selection will occur. (Peak difference is important because a population boom will lead to a bottleneck; the rate wdwwwwwwevolution is increased by the bottleneck, but not decreased because of the boom.)" This is hard to read, and is neither clear nor convincing.
Overall, the final list of steps wasn't even countered.
Sources: TIE - Numerous sources used by both sides.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Yes, but this is about whether welfare is against it or not, not whether it is the strongest factor.
Posted by McBain 7 years ago
McBain
There are other factors that work against natural selection that are much stronger than welfare.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
That would be a good idea, no?
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
mongeesemrsmooth27Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by brycef 7 years ago
brycef
mongeesemrsmooth27Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
mongeesemrsmooth27Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
mongeesemrsmooth27Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by acer 7 years ago
acer
mongeesemrsmooth27Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Aziar44 7 years ago
Aziar44
mongeesemrsmooth27Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by mrsmooth27 7 years ago
mrsmooth27
mongeesemrsmooth27Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07