The Instigator
TryingToBeOpenMinded
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

On balance Asians have a Higher IQ than Caucasians

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 6 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,222 times Debate No: 67486
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (6)

 

TryingToBeOpenMinded

Pro

Resolved - On balance Asians have a higher IQ than Caucasians

Terms

On Balance - In general, with all things considered. On the Norm

Asians - A person of Asian ancestry

Caucasians - White People, White Skinned possibly of European Origin.


IQ - intelligence quotient

This is a pretty clear debate. No trolling, no semantics, and no arguing this is a truism so it can not be debated. I am affirming the stance that asian people tend to have a higher IQ than Caucasians.

BOP is on me to prove this is normatively true

Apply in comments
Wylted

Con

I accept, burden of proof is on pro. If I merely negate his assertions, I should win this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
TryingToBeOpenMinded

Pro

TryingToBeOpenMinded forfeited this round.
Wylted

Con

I really wanted to show how the statistics that demonstrated this was flawed. If not here then maybe some other time. I urge my opponent to post his arguments if he returns.
Debate Round No. 2
TryingToBeOpenMinded

Pro

TryingToBeOpenMinded forfeited this round.
Wylted

Con

Awaiting My opponent's case. Until he presents one the burden of proof has went unfulfilled.
Debate Round No. 3
TryingToBeOpenMinded

Pro

Con wants the opportunity to debate so I decided to present some ideas for discussion.

IQ (intelligence quotient) specifically refers to a test score that attempts to measure intelligence. And, Asians have scored higher than Caucasians on these tests. So, it's irrefutable that Asians have a higher IQ than Caucasians. It's simply a fact.

However, we can question the validity of the IQ test as a measurement of intelligence. Although I think there is some merit to this argument, I still think that IQ has a high correlation with intelligence although a high standard deviation due to environmental factors.

Tests are culturally biased. I agree with this that the test is culturally biased. For example, if you're exposed to the concepts tested in the IQ test, you're going to be able to solve such problems when the IQ test is administered. Additionally, even language ability might be a huge factor. For example, a 100 years ago when Jewish immigrants started to come here in mass, many Americans considered them retarded. This is the same view that many Americans have with current immigrants. When you don't know the language, it's a huge hinderance in development at home.

Intelligence can be learned. Research done by Flynn also suggests that intelligence is learned. In his research, Flynn has found that IQ has increased over time. What's interesting is that if we take the average person a 100 years ago and test his IQ today, his IQ would be 80. That's on the cusp of being considered mentally retarded! Flynn's research indicates that advancements in education has really increased intelligence over the decades. Then, we also consider how age comes into the picture. As people age past their adult peak, their IQ goes down. Age itself might be a factor as nueral connections start dying but my hunch is that the Flynn effect is at work here. As adults start doing the same job over and over, they don't work out their brain. As a result, they actually become dumber and dumber. It's an actual decrease in intelligence. When they get to 80, they actually can't comprehend complicated arguments because they simply don't work out their brain.

Adopted asian children and genetic intellectual ability. Studies with generally adopted children have found that IQ correlates stronger with the biological mother than with the adopted mother. So, there is a definite genetic component to intelligence. However, adoption studies also show that the environment of the adopted child also has a huge effect. Adopted children in wealthy families lead to higher IQ's. What's really enlightening is one study of adopted Korean children. It was found that these kids had IQs that were about 20 points higher than the average American. This strongly suggests that genetically Koreans are smarter by at least 20 IQ points.

Conclusion. My theory is that the brain is like a muscle. It's obvious that races differ in type of muscles they have. For example, it's been found that African Americans have higher density of white muscle fibers. But, someone who might genetically come from less athletically inclined parents can overcome this. They can work out and easily exceed in strength for someone who might inherently be stronger but hasn't worked out. And, then as people age, they work out less so the brain like muscles atrophy. Both genetics and environment comes into play. I guess the real question is what is the extent for each? If I had to make a wild guess, I would say genetics can increase or decrease your IQ by 20 points (given the asian adoption study) and environment can also increase/decrease this by another 20 points (given the Flynn study).
Wylted

Con

I agree that intelligence is genetic but there are some huge things my opponent is overlooking, which I'll point out in the next round.

I think since My opponent skipped 2 rounds, I'm entitled to skip wrong.

My assertion is that his numbers are just plain wrong. I'll show why in the final round.
Debate Round No. 4
TryingToBeOpenMinded

Pro

Please take your time with coming up with your points. I think it's more important to have an intelligent debate that exposes the truth than determining who wins one debate on a debate site.

To be honest, I think you're going to have a tough hurdle to jump over. But, your main weapon is to attack the reliability of the tests.

Reliability of the Data. I think this is a big issue. Unfortunately, researchers do lie and fudge the data. Long ago, I used to work in a research lab and I saw firsthand how data was tweaked so the findings would point towards a certain direction. A lot of research is based on grants that will be rewarded continuously if there are some findings. If no statistically signficant findings are found, then grant money dries up. So, there is a definite stress on professors to find something meaningful. So, when you find data that doesn't seem to go against your theory, I've seen people conveniently cross out data points, saying that there was a dirty sample pool or some other excuse. When I was an idealistic student at the time, I was dumbfounded. But, it's reality. That's why I think it's very important that multiple studies are done that support the same conclusion. Unfortunately, we do find some conflicting results with respect to adoption and intelligence. Some studies point to a strong correlation with environment among adopted children - wealthy familes who adopt have a profound impact on intelligence as opposed to genetics. However, from what I can see, adoption studies still do point towards a genetic component to intelligence. For example, the studies done by the Korean adoptees is pretty compelling (the sample size of 43 is small but not that bad. Minimum sample size depends upon the volatility of the data but generally anything less than 20 is not reliable.)

I wish there were more studies done in this field but it's such a politically taboo topic.
Wylted

Con

My opponent hasn't really argued anything and if you want to vote for me do so but the debate is pretty much canceled.

He made a bare assertion that Asians have higher IQs on average without substantiating it in any way and I should win on negation alone.

As far as the stats in the Bell Curve are concerned they used IQ tests on just the upper middle class Asians which flaws the study and it left out Asians from low IQ areas like Thailand.

Do a no vote or vote me.
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TryingToBeOpenMinded 2 years ago
TryingToBeOpenMinded
Wylted, I thought you wanted to have a legitimate debate on intelligence. Made me waste my time and provide an argument. You kept stalling after each round and then just made a BS excuse at the end so you could win the debate on a technicality.

That's what's wrong with this debate system. Lacks any depth into the real issues. Even the debaters with high win percentages rarely bring up good points and rarely delves deeply into the subject. It's all superficial arguments that lack any in-depth knowledge. Disappointing....
Posted by wrichcirw 2 years ago
wrichcirw
Hmm...would recommend you host "no scoring" debates if you're more concerned with the discussion than the score. I've been doing this for a long time here, it works very well, IMHO.
Posted by TryingToBeOpenMinded 2 years ago
TryingToBeOpenMinded
Yeah, agree with you and that most intelligent people would agree with you as well. What's sad is that a lot of media implies the opposite (IQ is a faulty test that has no value) which makes the situation worse since misinformation is spread.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
IQ is directly related to intelligence .
Posted by TryingToBeOpenMinded 2 years ago
TryingToBeOpenMinded
I guess I asked to suggest that no one likes to feel that their IQ is lower than others. And, this is why this topic is such a hotbed issue.

However, Vaj has a point. It's indisputable that blacks have scored lower on these IQ points. What is disputable is what that means.

What is really alarming is the amount of misinformation that media as well as certain scientists have spread. The media has gone one way by suggesting that blacks haven't scored lower or that the tests were faulty. And, then we get these racist scientists that fudge the data to suggest that blacks are most likely genetically inferior (just like Vaj did).

The bottom line is that there are differences in IQ scores between racial groups. Evidence strongly suggests that there is a genetic as well as environmental component with genetics likely playing a strong factor. But, nothing can be definitively proved.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I'd imagine he won't honestly answer that question on IQ. It is most certainly in the retarded range.
Posted by TryingToBeOpenMinded 2 years ago
TryingToBeOpenMinded
1. I"m not disputing that white people actually scored 100 on the IQ test and blacks scored 84. I don"t think anyone ever disputes that. When I said "accuracy of the iq test", I meant the accuracy of the iq test in truly measuring intelligence. Maybe I should have said validity?

2. Referring to blacks as African Americans does make sense no matter how many generations they may have been here since the "African" refers to the ancestral origin, not the place of their birth or culture. Additionally, a lot of African Americans dislike the term, "black" because it reminds them of a time of racism and oppression. Similarly, asians dislike the use of "orientals". Although it doesn"t have any explicit negative meaning, it harks back to a time when orientals were mocked and ridiculed. So, if a certain group doesn"t like a certain word because of specific personal reasons, why use it?

3. With Lynn"s research, admittedly, I haven"t directly read any of his work but reading reviews of his stuff, it looks like he uses some poor science. Also, I have a big problem with how he establishes a causal relationship between a nation's success with the nation's IQ when there is only a correlation. I mean isn't it possible that a country's culture on education can lead to both the nation's economic success as well as high scores on the IQ test? But, he seems to dismiss this possibility.

4. It"s not good business to just hire 10 morons to work for you. In order to be successful, it"s essential to find the best people to work for you. This is business dogma. But, my point is that despite this dogma, I still think that a business's structure and organization is more important than finding the best people. Most people would disagree with me.

Please don't spread falsehoods like numerous studies show it's indisputable that blacks are genetically inferior to whites. Even the bell curve won't claim that iq test score differences are based upon genetics.

what is your iq?
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
@TTBOM:
It's THE bell curves, not A bell curve.
I've had trouble with other Trolls or whatever, denouncing
"the outmoded Bell Curve" , as though there's only one.
As I've pointed out before, I'm well aware that there are various kinds of
"intelligence tests" , but I'd assume that the results of the STANDARD IQ
test is adequate for evaluation purposes.
Why not?
There are various other scientists working on IQ vs skin color, etc. , besides Lynn.
You really want to dispute that, for example, Whites tend to score
~ 100 on standard IQ Tests, while Blacks tend to score ~84 ???
Referring to Blacks who've been in this country for Generations as
African Americans doesn't make sense.
Reread the last sentence in my previous Comment.
From Herrnstein & Murray, 1997 to Lynn, to nowadays, has been 17 years.
Plenty of time for reevaluations, I'd say.
I find it interesting that you denounce us for basing our
conclusions on IQ differences found in one test, in one country.
In his 2006 book "Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis" ,
Lynn analysed 9 Global Regions, surveying 620 published surveys from around the world.
Your idea that how a business is set up is more important than
how intelligent the employees are doesn't make sense.
As LRH has stated, 10 Morons don't = a Genius.
Set up a business & hire 10 Morons to work for you.
DUH !!!
Posted by TryingToBeOpenMinded 2 years ago
TryingToBeOpenMinded
I agree with your point about eastern asians and just asians. I was actually going to bring it up but I thought it would just bring another complication. But, you're right that there is a difference. For example, the studies on Koreans are not representative of asians since they are just one country that has a unique history. They've been constantly fighting for survival (which I think has a huge effect) on both sides (china and japan).

With respect to bell curve, I think my opponent must have read about it. pretty much everyone has heard of it.

actually, I do think it's likely that there are variations in iq among races just like eye color, height, muscle density, stamina, etc. But, to say that it's indisputable is intellectually dishonest. lynn's research methodology has been heavily criticized, questioning the accuracy of the iq test. Additionally, lynn doesn't accept that iq test in itself might not be a valid measure of intelligence.

Lynn, like many others try to explain the correlation between iq and success among african americans. but there is a huge environmental component that he doesn't really give due weight. You can't just take a low iq test score of a certain country and then say that they are genetically inferior. The education system and wealth have such a huge factor in intelligence, a conclusions that's supported by numerous studies.

Look at the poverty that existed in asia for the past 100 years. on that basis, can you say asians are dumb? No, because the political system and wars in that part of the country had a devestating impact. That's why I'm such a big believer that how a business is organized is much much more important that how smart the employees are.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
You might want to concentrate on Northern / Eastern Asians, rather than just "Asians" .
Not really the same thing at all.
Check out Herrnstein & Murray, Psychology Professor Richard Lynn
of the University of Ulster, "The Bell Curve", "The Global Bell Curve" , etc.
Especially check out IMAGES.
The differences between the IQs of what might be called races are apparently indisputable.
Lynn, among others, has stated that, at least definitely in the Black/ White differences,
it's been scientifically proved that Blacks are Substantially Less Intelligent Than,
& Genetically Inferior To, Whites.
They've checked out factors like wealth, socioeconomic status, nutrition, neighborhoods,
schooling, etc. , & decided that they're negligible.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
TryingToBeOpenMindedWyltedTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Con. Pro forfeited two rounds in this debate which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar. Arguments - Con. Pro claimed that Asians have a higher IQ, yet provided no evidence to support the claim as Con pointed out. What Pro should have done was provide a supporting study for judges to use as verification of the claim. Other than that, it merely fell into assumptions and unverified givens from Pro including a literal guess from Pro in R4 and his own admission of the lack of reliability of these tests in the final round. To be quite honest, Pro did alot of the stuff that Con should have done and ended up defeating himself. Con was extremely lazy, and that bothers me, with that said though - he did negate the only argument given by Pro that truly called for negation. For these reasons, Con wins arguments. Sources - Tie. Neither utilized sources in this debate.
Vote Placed by Lexus 2 years ago
Lexus
TryingToBeOpenMindedWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side really made debate. Presenting a case without clash, and without responding to that clash, is not debate.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
TryingToBeOpenMindedWyltedTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments appear solid, but none of them are referenced! He/she could be lying about all of it. The voters are only able to vote upon what is in that debate, and since the sources are not provided, I do not think the BoP is met, so Con wins arguments by default. Conduct to Con for Pro's round forfeits.
Vote Placed by danhep 2 years ago
danhep
TryingToBeOpenMindedWyltedTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con avoided clash, Pro pretty much had an extended "case". Plus this resoltiuon isn't debatable. It is literally a fact. Thats like saying Resolved: I am a human... it doesn't work but I had to vote pro
Vote Placed by tonyrobinson 2 years ago
tonyrobinson
TryingToBeOpenMindedWyltedTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro skipped two rounds. Pro had some interesting points but failed to have a convincing argument. Con touched on the issue of having such a small data sample but did not expand upon it.
Vote Placed by Brian123456 2 years ago
Brian123456
TryingToBeOpenMindedWyltedTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Legit.