The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Intellectual Differences Exist Between Races

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 690 times Debate No: 83257
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)




First Round is for agreement and definition only.

Due to the fact I am making a very controversial and politically incorrect argument, I want to first state that my argument is primarily based on the fact I have done research on both sides of the story and I feel that the evidence is overwhelmingly one sided. I hope that whoever debates me will refrain from using offensive slurs because of my viewpoint, and I hope they will offer constructive, intellectual arguments to the alternative viewpoint, not fueled by emotion and anger, but by fact and reason.

My predominant argument is that racially, there are very definitive differences between the intelligence of different races. Jews, Asians, Whites, Hispanics, Blacks is the hierarchy.

I will define race as a group of people who can be defined by physical differences. The main races I will be using in argument are as follows:

White - A group of people who are of European descent, with white skin and round eyes, and diverse hair and eye colors.

Asian - When I use the term Asian, I am specifically referring to East Asian (e.g. China, Japan, and Korea), and this is defined as someone who originates from said countries and has the distinct physical features (eye and skin) that define that race.

Black - People of African descent, with the darkest skin color

Non White Hispanic - I am defining Hispanic as a race, not an ethnicity, and it is used to encompass all people who originate from South American and Central American countries

Jews - I classify Jews as a race. While Judaism is a religion, Jewish people can be distinctly defined as a race due to several thousand years of segregation and exclusion. They have distinctly different noses and hair texture from ordinary white people, and can be easily distinguished from an ordinary European.

Other Defintions:

Intelligence - While I understand Intelligence is an incredibly complex and poorly understood subject, I will argue that we understand enough about intelligence for it to be observed. If you choose to accept my debate, I will go into further detail, but I will refrain from that in the introductory debate.

Race - Even harder to define than intelligence, but I would say that race absolutely exists, it is the construction of tens of thousands of years of geographic (and therefore genetic) isolation of groups of people. Race is a spectrum, and it is not absolute, but that does not change the fact that it is a fairly accurate use of determining intelligence.

I also hope that whoever so chooses to debate me refrains from using individual examples. In other words, if you know an intelligent person who is black, do not use them as an example that proves me wrong. In my argument I am talking about groups of people who number in the 100 millions (with the exception of Jews, who number at about 15 million), I am not, in anyway talking about individuals.

Lastly, whoever accepts my debate, I hope they will truly finish it to the end.


I'd like to first thank the opponent for creating this debate and making it publicly acceptable. This is an interesting and controversial topic and while many others might be prone to approach this subject emotionally, I fully agree with the opponent's proposition that this topic should be combatted in a logical, reasonable manner.

I would like to acknowledge that the Burden of Proof rests on Pro's shoulders, as he is making the affirmative claim and since there was no first round specification that BoP will be shared. This means, in order for Pro to win, he must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that "intellectual differences exist between races".

I will also discuss the definitions, but first something must be addressed regarding resolutional interpretation that I think my opponent will find reasonable.


It is an established fact that intellectual differences exist in all people. No two humans share the exact same brain, meaning there are marked differences in their individual intelligence. However, this debate cannot be won by simply pointing this out. The opponent must prove that there exist intellectual differences inherent to the race itself, rather than some other factor that does not uniquely belong to that race, such as gender, education, socioeconomic conditions, etc.


Intelligence - I agree with the opponent that intelligence is a complicated concept. A large portion of my argument will concern the very nature of intelligence, so I would like my opponent to thoroughly explain his understanding of intelligence and how it relates to his arguments. The Meriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines intelligence as, "the ability to learn or understand things or to deal with new or difficult situation." This seems like a somewhat reasonable overarching definition of intelligence, but it does not describe how to measure it. I would also like my opponent to expand upon how he will measure intelligence and why that measurement is objective and preferred.

Race - I'm in agreement with the opponent's definition of race. There are physiological differences that exist between peoples, a result from "geographical and ... genetic isolation".


I look forward to the opening arguments! Since we have five rounds, I will assume that R2 is for opening arguments only, that R3 and R4 are for rebuttals and that R5 is a summary round, in which no new arguments or evidence may be provided.

Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you, Con, for accepting the debate. I hope we can finish in an intellectual manner.

I am glad that you accept my definition of a Jew. I will start my argument with the fact that the Jewish people, while only consisting of 0.5% of the population of the world are responsible for 25% of nobel prizes, 25% of turing awards, 25% of fields medals, and 50% of world chess champions. Whereas only 1 black person has achieved any of these feats. Once again, this is not something I wish to site, simply because quick research will prove my point.

It just so happens that African countries are the least hospitable, while Japan and South Korea are some of the most hospitable (China will join the club soon).

The only race suffering right now is African Americans... Is that because white people are racist? The Asians and the Jews have seen nothing but success in this country, and they have been equally discriminated against.

My argument to you, Con, is that since you accept my definition that Jews are a race separate to whites, how come they are so dominate in all of the intellectual fields?


I'll start out by making a brief observation. At the end of last round, I mentioned that I would be assuming that R2 was just for opening arguments. However, the way in which the opponent structured his argument (by posing a lot of questions directly toward me) it seems that he wishes me to respond.

As such, I'll be rebutting the arguments made by the opponent, then mention something about a request I made regarding intelilgence.


Contention 1: Jewish vs Blacks; Nobel Prize

My opponent first contends that the Jewish people are responsible for "25% of nobel prizes, 25% of turing awards, 25% of fields medals, and 50% of world chess champions. Whereas only 1 black person has achieved any of these feats." The opponent did not cite any evidence to support this, instead claiming that it is easily verified.

While it is correct that neither the Fields Medal or the Turing Award has been given to an African American, nor has any African American ever been a chess champion, there have been 15 African American Nobel Prize winners. While this does not drastically alter the opponent's point, it would be a diservice to African Americans not to correct the facts on this issue.

Regarding the other achievements my opponent pruported as some measure of intelligence, one must note that only 56 Fields Medals have been awarded, only 62 Turing Awards have been given and there have only been 16 world chess champions since that title has officially existed, with 10 of these champions from USSR/Russia.

The point here is that the awards in question have been given to so few people that it would be hasty and intellectually dishonest to conclude that this tiny sample set is any way reflective of intelligence by race. There can be no doubt that the men and women who have accomplished these feats (namely the last three) are intelligent, but this does not speak to the intelligence or lackthereof of other people.

You could take a random sample of 50 people from a population of 6 billion, but you'd be very unlikely to learn anything interesting, barring except average height, simply because the variance inherent in such a small sample size destroys its statistical usefulness. And that's exactly what my opponent's argument is -- an outrageously small sample size that he is trying to draw statistically meaningful conclusions from, when that's simply not possible.

Lastly, it's important to note that there exist many socioeconomic barriers that hinder the successes of minorities. For instance, a black college student is less likely to get a job than a white high school drop out, simply because of race. [1] This is largely due to negative cultural overflows from a time when African Americans were not considered equal to Caucasians. With this in mind, one can see how a negative socioeconomic position works against minorities and how this might affect a minority's ability to become as successful as his majority equal.

In summary, the opponent's argument uses incorrect statistics, a too-small sample size and neglects other possibilities as to why minorities are less likely to be academically successful in the status quo.

Contention 2: Stability of Countries By Racial Majority

In this argument, the opponent claims that "African countries" are the least hospitable, as opposed to Japan and South Korean countries, which are "some of the most hospitable [countries]."

While the opponent does not actually state any conclusion for this, it seems he is implying that a country's political state is in some way tied to the intelligence of its citizens. This implication must be proved, with evidence, before it can be considered relevant to this debate. The entire idea that political health is tied a country's race's intelligence is ludicrous (and unsubstantiated). We see in nature that many other non-human animals (who are no doubt less intelligent that us) are capable of living in a state of peace and cooperation, which seems to defeat the idea that intelligence signficantly impacts a country's political well-being.

Again, the opponent will need to provide evidence to back up the implicit claim.

Contention 3: Jews and Asians are not discriminated against, Blacks are.

It is true that African Americans are perhaps the most discriminated upon race in America (though this may be shifting toward Middle Easterns). However, I'm not sure how this relates to the resolution. For one, it's simply untrue that Asians and Jews have been discriminated against as much as African Americans (in America). And while a few subsets of people do still discriminate against Asians and Jews, the largest subset is that of people who discriminate against African Americans.

Again, this is likely due to a residual cultural effect from when blacks were legally discriminated against, enslaved, etc. The opponent doesn't seem to have much of an argument here.

Opponent's Closing Remarks

Before ending, the opponent asks me "how come [Jews] are so dominate in all of the intellectual fields?" First, I'll point out that I have no actual need to explain this. Rather, since the opponent has the burden of proof, it is necessary for him to explain how Jewish success in intellectual fields is indeed a result of innate intelligence, rather than any of the other possible factors. In other words, the opponent needs to find data that manages to remove (to a reasonable extent) all other factors and look simply at intelligence, by race. (My opponent will find this difficult, since it's hard to find a dataset of people that haven't been affected by cultural, economics, politics, etc.)

In fact, I will now contend that it is fundamentally impossile for my opponent to prove his point. There is simply no way to separate the variable of "intelligence" from all of the other variables except race. There simply is no way to measure the two without drastic interference from other factors.

For instance, the opponent may offer IQ scores or standardized test scores by race, but these scores would fail to adjust for the economic statuses of its participants. Blacks, who are economically worse off, on average and who are less educated, on average, would clearly show lower test scores. But is this because of intelligence, or is this because of the economic situation? Or perhaps the culture? We don't know and the opponent doesn't know, so the evidence simply isn't valid.

I took this debate mainly because it seemed that my opponent had some amazing evidence regarding this issue, but it seems as if there is not any evidence at all. The opponent needs to find evidence that demonstrably proves that intelligence is tied directly to race, otherwise he simply has no leg to stand on.

A Bit About Intelligence

As the opponent mentioned in his opening speech, intelligence is a very complicated issue. In my opening speech, I agreed to this and urged my opponent to provide a detailed explanation of what he defines to be intelligence, as well as mention what standards of measuring intelligent are the best and why.

The opponent failed to do this. In fact, he did not provide any intuition on what intelligence is or how it should be measured, despite my request. I can only assume that the opponent does not know how intelligence should be defined and additionally does not know of any good ways to measure it. Perhaps I am wrong, though, and the opponent wil discuss this next round. I will save the brunt of my "intelligence" argument until that time, as it is necessary to know where the opponent stands on the concept of "intelligence".

Closing Remarks

The opponent seemed to think he had some sort of trump card with the Jew arguments and, as a result, failed to discuss anything else. This was a mistake, as the arguments did little to uphold the resolution. I have demonstrated that the opponent uses a too-small sample size for the one substantive argument made. Additionally, I have showed that it is near impossible for my opponent to uphold the resolution, as there is no statistically possible way to separate race and intelligence from other variables that can affect a person's intellectual growth.

To do this, the opponent would need to find a person of each race that has had the *exact* same life experiences, then compare their intelligences. The opponent will have a difficult time doing this.

I look forward to my opponent's response and I look forward to his detailed description of what intelligence is, how we measure it, and why that measurement is an accurate representation of intelligence.


1 -

Debate Round No. 2


Con, you seem to be making the false assumption that I am specifically speaking of African Americans, I am actually speaking of all Africans. I am speaking of all Jews. I am speaking of all Asians. This is about intellectual differences between races, worldwide.

Defining Intelligence
As for my definition of intelligence, as I have already said, it is an incredibly complicated thing to describe. I would say that the dictionary definition "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills" fairly accurately represents it. And I believe that IQ tests, and other standardized tests for that matter, while unable to capture a person"s intelligence completely, are accurate measures, regardless. To prove this, much of my argument will consist of the correlation of IQ and traits, that I believe both of us can agree, are desirable " success, crime, education, etc.

All in all, I believe that while discrimination and socio economic status are very influential in a person achieving all that I have just mentioned, innate intelligence is still a very important genetic component that is often overlooked.

Argument 1: Jewish vs Blacks; Nobel Prize
I do apologize for my error on that statistic. But you similarly made an error, of those 15, only 4 are African American1. The others are from different countries. Regardless, the reason I said 1 was because only 1 of those 15 won a prize in something other than Literature and Peace, I accidently failed to mention that. I left out the other 14 because Lit and Peace are both very subjective to the cultural perceptions at the time. I will post citations for the Jews responsible in these fields.

As for the overall argument of the validity of using this information as being reflective of intelligence by race, it is incredibly relevant. This is not a "random sample of 50 people", this is a very large sample size of 793 of some of the most intelligent people who have lived in the past century. The fact that blacks are completely unrepresented in this intellectual elite speaks volumes. Look at the black and white IQ distributions, as the chart would suggest, the chance of a black having an IQ above 130 is extremely improbable (Bell Curve, 279), and several sources I have read suggest that the IQ of a Nobel laureate is averaged to be 1402(although it is a very poorly measured and graphed statistic as far as I know). I use this argument as it proves that blacks are simply non-existent in the intellectual elite.

Argument 2: Stability of Countries By Racial Majority
I used the word "hospitable" quite loosely. I use this argument, because Asians, who are ranked well over a standard deviation higher on IQ tests only stopped facing severe discrimination quite recently. China suffered some of its darkest days because of the Opium Wars, the Sino-Japanese Wars, the Cultural Revolution, etc, and now, with little aid from the west, has risen to become the world"s largest economy3. Japan has revolutionized robotics4, and one of the best public transit systems in the world, (along with South Korea)5. Furthermore, Japan, Korea, and Hong Kong are all listed in the top 30 GDP per capita, whereas no African countries are, in fact, 24 of the 30 lowest GDPs per capita are in Africa, including all 10 of the bottom 10.6 Managing a successful economy and well-designed country absolutely requires intelligence, and I don"t believe any citation is needed to make that claim. I also believe this adequately counters your animal argument.

Argument 3: Jews and Asians were very discriminated against
I won"t spend much time on this one, but remember what I said about China, and don"t forget Japan and the west"s involvement in World War II. Also, the Jews have been historically discriminated against and persecuted for their beliefs for the past 2000 years. Remember, they supposedly killed Jesus. The Jews and Asians have been very heavily discriminated in both America and Worldwide, yet they have now put themselves in positions of great power, while Africans continue to flounder.

Argument 4: Pre-Contact Africa
As a matter of fact, I consider this to be my trump card. A simple analysis of ancient, pre-contact Asia, Europe, and Africa show an overwhelming disparity in technological achievements, science, philosophy, etc.

Due to the almost absolute geographical separation provided by the Sahara desert, the Africans for most of history were unable to receive any of the technological developments discovered in Europe and Asia. For most of these sub-saharan African countries, we know very little about their history prior to 800AD, predominantly due to the fact that no Sub-Saharan African nation created a written language, something achieved by the Ancient Europeans and the Ancient Chinese in 2000BC! In fact, written languages weren"t even created in Africa until the 1900s, when white people showed them how. The only ancient writing systems in Africa are in northern Africa, and are based off of Egyptian and Arabic.7

Another incredibly important and revolutionizing invention that Africans failed to create was the wheel and axle. This was possibly discovered independently by both the Chinese and the Europeans (however there is some debate as to whether or not it was shared between the two). The Xia Dynasty had horse drawn war chariots prior to 1600BC.8,9
The African"s also failed to create a single known ancient philosopher or scientist (at least I can"t find any), while one could name dozens from 3000 years ago in China, Europe, and the Middle East.

Anyhow, there are many more examples I can give regarding pre-contact Africa, but I will stop with those. This is incredibly important, because it shows that BEFORE oppression was even possible (they had never had sufficient contact), Africans were still intellectually behind Asians and whites by miles.

Contention 1: Socioeconomic Status and Oppression
Assuming you have the Bell Curve on you as I have mentioned would be wise, Murray compiled many studies that DO in fact isolate socioeconomic status and race, and the conclusions remain the same (pg. 288). As should be obvious, people with low IQs and intelligence will typically have poor socioeconomic status, and people with high IQs and intelligence will typically have very good socioeconomic status (a trend that is perfectly preserved when considering average IQ by race and average income by race).

Of scholars whose specialty"s gives them reason to have an opinion on this issue, 45% believe genetics and environmental issues combined effect intelligence and IQ differences between races. (pg. 295) This includes people like the founder of DNA, James Watson.

As for discrimination, when controlling for IQ, blacks are more likely to succeed than whites (pg. 320, 322, 323). For readers, these show that blacks are more likely to get a degree, have a high IQ job, and have similar wages to white people of the same IQ.

When controlling for a mother of average age and an IQ of 100, the child only has a 14% chance of being in poverty, yet 54% of black children nationally are in poverty (335).

Bottom line, as these many statistics should show, when socioeconomic status is controlled, blacks still have lower IQ"s than whites on average. And when IQ is controlled, blacks actually tend to be better off on average than whites. Therefore the reason such a vast majority of blacks on the planet are in poverty "must- have a genetic and intellectual component.

Closing Argument:
As human beings are animals, everything that makes us up must have some sort of genetic component. It seems readily acceptable to say that we inherited our parents" physical characteristics, or our parents sense of humor. Its acceptable to accept the fact that diseases and illnesses are inheritable, that allergies are inheritable. It is even acceptable to say that physical ability is inherited. Yet at the same time, many of these genetic components can be cultured and changed based on a person"s environment and socioeconomic status.

I would be surprised to learn if Con believed that intelligence was NOT inherited from a person"s parents. (However, if that is the case, next argument, I would be more than happy to develop this further). If he does accept that proposition, then why would intelligence not apply to race as well? A black couple who each have genetic immunity to malaria possess the risk of having a child with sickle-cell anemia. It just so happens that black people overwhelming possess this genetic characteristic (due to evolution selecting it because of high risks of malaria), and as a result, blacks are much more prone to be born with sickle cell anemia.10 I could provide countless examples of athlete families, where players have brothers, parents, sisters who are professional athletes. Yet at the same time, blacks as a race are overwhelmingly over represented in the NFL, NBA, long distance running, sprinting, etc. I could continue to show examples of traits that are passed down from father to son, and are also racial. Why would intelligence be immune to this effect? The races were isolated for 100,000 years after all, its almost as if each race is one giant extended family, they all have similar characteristics, intelligence included.

Will post links in comments.


Cobalt forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


As Con has forfeited the last round, I will let my previous argument stand. If Con does decide to respond to this round, I hope he/she will address the topics I discussed in the last round. Since I can still rebutt in the next round, Con should feel free to add new arguments.


Cobalt forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


Aurigae54 forfeited this round.


It is so unfortunate that these last few rounds have gone undebated. This was such an interesting topic and it seemed that neither me nor my opponent had time to truly combat the issues at hand.

Regardless, I believe my point stands. There is no true scientific way to connect intelligence and race outside of genetic arguments or brain-scan arguments, which the opponent didn't present.

The opponent presented IQ tests and historical evidence, neither of which truly stands. As for IQ tests, they only take place after an individual has been affected by socioeconomic influences. As for historical evidence, the opponent assumes that all cultures came about at the same time.

The opponent's arguments are well-founded on the surface, but upon investigation they hold no meaning. Vote Con on reasonable doubt, or vote none on lack of debate. Either way, thanks for reading.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by geho89 1 year ago
This would have been an interesting debate, but oh well. I have a question for Pro though. Since there is no real way to measure intelligence, do you find it biased in how it is defined? What I mean is, do you happen to know how the black community would define intelligence instead of exhausting all the possibilities into Nobel Prizes, science, and literature. Is it not possible for intelligence to be presented through actions and capabilities such as art, athletics, cooking, and music?

I feel there are many layers to this and the real hurdle is defining an objective intelligence that is valued by all races. The reason why I cannot accept your Nobel Prize premise to intelligence is because you have to have some sort of intelligence to have a Nobel Prize, but that does not exhaust the reality that you can be just as intelligence and not have a Nobel Prize.
Posted by Aurigae54 1 year ago
By the way Con, we go to the same University (I live close to Callaway and Castilian), I'd be interested to discuss this in person, send me a message if interested
Posted by Aurigae54 1 year ago
That bothers me that Con would forfeit two rounds and then rebutt in the final round after I assumed Con had dropped the argument and didn't reply myself.

"As for historical evidence, you assume all cultures came about at the same time"
This literally proves my point... If the cultures didn't start out at the same time, then some cultures may be more intellectually advanced due to genetics right now. Genetics can change (evolution) blacks could genetically become more intelligence if intelligence was naturally selected for.
If they DID start out at the same time, then environmental factors could have caused the differences. (Nomadic lifestyle vs agrarian lifestyle, cold climates vs hot climates, wet climates vs dry climates),

Essentially Con's only argument after two forfeited rounds and a 1000 character closing statement is:
"The opponent's arguments are well-founded on the surface, but upon investigation they hold no meaning."

Yet the depth of his investigation was: "The opponent presented IQ tests and historical evidence, neither of which truly stands. As for IQ tests, they only take place after an individual has been affected by socioeconomic influences. As for historical evidence, the opponent assumes that all cultures came about at the same time. "

Both which are things I addressed in my rebuttal.

I had more than enough time to respond to this debate, and I know Con did as he has been active constantly over the past few days. Whether or not you agree with Pros argument or not, Pro deserves to win simply based off of debate etiquette and a complete lack of effort on Con's part to actually create a thoughtful rebuttal.
Posted by Volkov 1 year ago
What an unfortunate debate conclusion, because there was no real conclusion at all. I'd like to see a rematch of this with full rebuttals. Maybe I'll vote on the rematch, but not this.
Posted by Aurigae54 1 year ago
I'll be posting my rebuttal tomorrow, just in case you think I might be giving up ;). And once again, I apologize for the shabbiness of the first argument I made, I was lazy and drinking, and I didn't think you would finish the debate anyways. I'm very pleased that you came back with some thoughtful arguments.

Furthermore, I am hoping you can read the questionnaire from Charles Murray about the Bell Curve done in 2014 (20 years after the book was published.) You only need to read questions 2 and 3, as those are the only ones that pertain to our argument, however if you would like to read the whole thing, its a great article.

I post the link, because I think it is an excellent example of scientific study being misinterpreted as bigotry by people who have never read, or only selectively read the book. (Only about 100 pages in the 900 pages discuss race).

I'll be citing that book (The Bell Curve) a lot in my arguments, and if you don't have a copy (i think a few free pdf's are available), I strongly encourage you to get it.
Posted by Aurigae54 1 year ago
Honestly, I was lazy when I posted that argument, very true. Last few times I've tried debating this, someone accepts the debate and doesn't reply. Didn't want to waste my time if that was going to be the case again. There've been times I've poured several hours into a very long and thought out debate. The Jewish thing is not really a trump card, its just one of the countless pieces of evidence for my case. And as for citations, that just goes to laziness, I don't mind cleaning up my act if it is that important to you, I've done all this research from thousands of articles, hours of manually pouring over different sources. And I think I said in my intro, I dont really care much about citations, if I find a fact debatable, I'll ask you in the comments for your citation, and I'll do research myself on it. I've heard all the counter arguments so many times now, that I know which ones are decently legitimate or not.

As for the structure of the debate, feel free to open up arguments in Round 3 as well, but Rounds 4 and 5 should just be rebuttals and closing arguments.
Posted by Cobalt 1 year ago
I was surprised when your argument was half as long as your introduction. We have something like 8k-10k characters. Feel free to use them.
Posted by Aurigae54 1 year ago
wwwwh, I advise you to read the book 'the Blank Slate' by Steven Pinker, it might potentially clear up alot ofyour argument.

iTziPocalyspe - I hope so, just need someone to take the bait
Posted by iTziPocalyspe 1 year ago
This will be awesome
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Vane01 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Less ff on pros behalf.