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

No race is smarter than any othe race

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/28/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 538 times Debate No: 98491
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




I will argue that certain races are smarter than others.

Examples of races: african american, white, asian, jewish, etc.

No new arguments in R4. Forfeiting round=auto-loss


I believe, in saying one race of people can be smarter than another race, what my opponent was really saying is that one group of people can be smarter than another group, which is true, to some extent, but let's extend the argument, past that extent.

Most nations have a leader, and most natives follow their leader and go as far as their leader takes them. Just as a student is likely to have as much knowledge as their school provides for them, a native is likely to have as much information as their nation provides for them, and some nations provide a better education system than others, meaning that the majority of some natives would, therefore, be better educated than the majority of others. Although one's nationality does not have to equal one's race, oftentimes, it does, which is where I believe my opponent is coming from.

However, saying a race is smarter than another race is like saying Paul McCartney's fanbase is smarter than Justin Bieber's fanbase, point blank, without mentioning that this is due to the fact that the majority of Bieber's fans are teenage girls, who have the potential of McCartney's fans but have not had the time to fulfill it, meaning their lack of intelligence has nothing to do with Bieber but simply has to do with their lack of existence and experience.

It sounds like my opponent is saying a race is smarter because of their race, rather than because of the circumstances their race tends to fall into, which is what I believe my opponent was trying to say, but, my opponent, you came across as discrediting one's race itself and one's race alone, while nothing more, because, after all, you didn't say anything more. A statement that provides such little context can be taken out of context. I only got it because I find you to be a sensible person, and so I took the time to make sense out of it, figuring some was there, and, although it was, I had to fill in the blank spaces, which is not in order for me, as your opponent, to do.
Debate Round No. 1


As you can see, my opponent is creating a strawman and arguing against that. In fact, he even concedes that my original argument is correct, "I believe, in saying one race of people can be smarter than another race, what my opponent was really saying is that one group of people can be smarter than another group, WHICH IS TRUE, TO SOME EXTENT..."

In other words, my opponent is trying to put words into my mouth and argue against that. The statement was very clear. "No race is smarter than any other race." This statement is FALSE as pro has conceded.

The argument is not about WHY races are smarter than others, simply that they are.



My opponent's argument was invalid, which is why I'm arguing with it.

It's like someone arguing that airplanes run on batteries, without explaining that they're talking about toy airplanes. Whether airplanes run on batteries is neither true nor false until you specify what type of airplanes you're talking about. Because my opponent claimed some races are smarter any others without specifying under what conditions, the claim is just as false as it is so. Statements that are made unclear can be made false until they are made true.

Without saying how or why some races are smarter than others, it's like my opponent is saying they just are, which is false. I don't agree with my opponent's statement because it was stated incorrectly. I agree with my elaboration of his statement, but I don't agree with his statement itself.

"No race is smarter than any other" in itself, but if you want to take a certain race of people and educate them beyond another, then that race should be smarter, at least, by an educational standpoint.

Otherwise, as Pro, I agree that no race is smarter than any other, for no race is born smart and would have to be made smart to be smarter than another, and since any race can be made just as smart as any other, no race is smarter in itself, like my opponent argued, point blank, in the opening round.
Debate Round No. 2


Ah, but now you are arguing a strawman. When you say airplanes, it is ASSUMED that airplanes are being talked about, and not toy airplanes, because putting the word TOY in front of it clearly changes the meaning into a different word. In no way in my argument am I trying to deceive or "trap" anyone; the statement was clear. Race was defined. Intelligence obviously occurs to MANY factors, some of which obviously include IQ, ability to gain knowledge, education, etc. You can argue whichever one you like, because NO race is equal in ANY of them. Argument Debunked

As for your argument, some races are smarter than others due to a concept called evolution. It's obvious to anyone who understands evolution, but creatures are shaped greatly by their environment. Humans, of course, are no exception. Here are some links that may help you understand it further:

If you would like even more sources, just do a quick google search; there are plenty because it's a rather obvious concept.

Therefore, it makes perfect sense that some races are smarter than others. After all, races evoloved in different areas. African americans evolved in africa, a hotter climate, where athletism was a favored trait. Asians evolved in asia, a colder and harsher climate, where intelligence is a favored trait. To survive in Africa, one needed speed and strength to be stronger and faster than the predators. However, in colder and harsher climates, intelligence is FAR more useful; to survive in the cold takes intelligence.

This explains why there are so many more black people in sports related careers. It's not because they got "lucky;" it's because they evolved in different environments and are therefore different than other races. Or are you now going to claim that all races are also equally athletic as well?



"Certain races are smarter than others."

Such statements sound like half-truths, and such arguments sound like trick questions, which makes this debate sound like an invalid one.

It's like you've created a game and are disqualifying your opponent for breaking rules you didn't confirm to them. You can't fault someone for not knowing what you've failed to tell them.

I made assumptions where there were no elaborations. I filled in the blanks. You do understand that, by not saying what you mean, your opponent has no way of knowing what you mean, which left me to assume. The only way to know what you meant without assuming would have been to ask, and it was not an order for me, nor may it had been in my best interest, as your opponent, to spare my argument asking you to further enhance yours.

Wanting me to argue without identifying the argument would be wanting me to do the impossible, for you have to identify what something is before you can oppose it, and there's no identification where there's no specification.

I would like to argue that certain races are not smarter than others, in general, because you didn't specify in which way, so one could guess you meant in general. With that said, you're not eligible to estimate someone's overall intelligence, because you don't have that kind of access to anyone else's mind but your own, and even one's own mind, one has limited access to, so any estimation you want to make about the entirety of another's capability is an assumption you would not have the supremacy to make.

This is why I didn't agree with what you were saying. Saying one race is smarter than another is like saying I'm smarter than you. Maybe I'm smarter than you at, let's say, Bingo, but until I specified that, it sounded like I meant in general, which wouldn't have been fair of me to say, nor was it fair of you to say, about certain races being smarter than others, without specifying in what way, making it possible that you could've meant in all ways.
Debate Round No. 3


The statement was very clear. "No race is smarter than any other race." Since no other information was said to elaborate, e.g. education, knowledge, ability to pick up information, the statement clearly meant "in general." Any other assumption would have been putting words into my mouth.

Intelligence clearly has many factors, some of which I stated above. Regardless of which of them you argue, blacks, for example, would be at or near the bottom, with asians and jews at or near the top. That's just reality. It was caused by having the races evolve from different environments, as I stated above.

Moreover, saying one race is smarter than another is NOT the same as saying I'm smarter than you. If you understood statistics, you'd know that the chance of an estimation error with EXTREMELY large races is practically 0. There is plenty of evidence that blacks are not as smart. Here is just a sampling:

Now, we can argue the CAUSES as to why blacks are dumber, but that wasn't the debate. The debate was whether or not they were dumber, which I have proven they clearly are.

You have yet to show evidence of even ONE area where blacks are smarter than average, and the only one I could even THINK of being possible would be "street smarts," but even that is HIGHLY debatable. Given that blacks have at MOST one area they accel in and a plethora of areas they are extremely far behind, it is only logical to assume that all races are not equally intelligent.

And why would they be? They evolved from different places; they are different. It wouldn't make sense for them to be equally intelligent.



Just because something has evolved differently doesn't mean it's less evolved.

It's like saying lemon flavored water is more flavored than cherry flavored water. While it might be more lemon flavored, it's not more flavored, and if you love lemons, you might say it's better flavored, but it's still not more flavored, and it's only better flavored in your opinion.

If thoughts are information, then to say someone has more information than another would be to say they have more thoughts than another, when a running thought process runs nonstop, and if two runners are running, simultaneously, nonstop, it's impossible for one to fall behind.

Unless you're saying a race has had less observation, they would not have less knowledge, for observation equals perception and perception equals information, which would equal knowledge, in one way or another, making your statement about Black people an understatement, being that Africans were one of the first races, and therefore, one of our specie's first observers, if not the first.

The only way a group could have more thoughts than another group would be for one group to be older, and therefore, have had more time to think, which would result in more thoughts, but that would have to do with age, as oppose to race.

What you're doing now is arguing your opinion. You need to understand the very reason you think someone is smart is the very reason someone else may think they're not. While one may think it's smart to work as much as possible, another may think it's smart to work as little as possible, if, say, they had a heart condition. You may automatically think going to college to become a doctor is smart, but really, it's only smart if one wants to become a doctor.

Whether one is more advanced than another depends on one's opinion of advancement, making your argument an opinion, in which I didn't argue with, but you presented it as a fact, and that is what I have argued with.

Thank you for the debate.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Sidex 1 year ago
Intelligence is actually not based on race, but in fact, and I'm not being hyperbolic, is based on religion. Christianity causes the greatest intelligence because of the perfect logic it brings. It's white people that tend to be smarter and more creative because they carried Christianity throughout the ages more than any other race. Even though Christianity was essentially diluted throughout time, the families created traditions around Christianity thus establishing their power across the world(Europe did a lot of imperialism.) It's actually the belief in God(honestly it's not about the Christian God either) that truly defines the intelligence of the person. We tend to keep asking questions like, "Why is this happening to me?" in which our intelligence literally increases when we find answers to such similar questions. That being said, anyone of any race can be smarter when they convert to Christianity. I can't believe how people think they're better than other people simply because of the amount melanin in their system. There is a lot of work that needs to be done. I know that I sound pro-Christianity, but if you take my logic and apply to compare all of the religions objectively, then you can build an argument that Christianity(Judaism included) is the most logical religion. I believe Buddhism is second or third depending on how much you want to separate Judaism from Christianity.
No votes have been placed for this debate.