The Instigator
Mikal
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
AnDoctuir
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

On balance Caucasians have a Higher IQ than African Americans

Do you like this debate?NoYes-15
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 5 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,246 times Debate No: 67443
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (75)
Votes (5)

 

Mikal

Pro

Resolved - On balance Caucasians have a higher IQ than African Americans

Terms

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

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

IQ - intelligence quotient

African Americans - an American that is African and especially of black African descent. Black people, Of or possibly born in or descent from Africa. Typically dark skin

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 white people tend to have a higher IQ than African Americans.

BOP is on me to prove this is normatively true

Apply in comments
Debate Round No. 1
Mikal

Pro

Disclaimer : I do not actually believe in this resolution. This is merely used as shock value to undermine and challenge the criteria by which intelligence is measured.

We are debating per the resolution, about whether or not Caucasians on balance have a higher iq than African Americans. This is not stating African Americans are less intelligent than Caucasians but that they do in fact have a lower IQ on average.

Double Note : I am not racist, I am doing this to spark discussion. My fiance is half black, and I love chocolate because it tastes amazing. Now on to the debate



C1) IQ test results

The IQ test itself stand for the Intelligence quotient.

Intelligence quotient - an intelligence test score that is obtained by dividing mental age, which reflects the age-graded level of performance as derived from population norms, by chronological age and multiplying by 100: a score of 100 thus indicates a performance at exactly the normal level for that age group. [1]

There are different statistics and studies that show different results from this test in general but they do have a general theme. This debate is about a normative basis of said results when compared to ethnicity. 3 of the major trends we see in these tests are that Asian Americans tend to score the highest, with Caucasians being in the middle, and African Americans at the bottom of the chain[2].

The issue at hand is not whether there is an IQ gap, but why there is a Gap. We are not debating the factors that lead up to the gap or why the gap exists, but this is a debate about acknowledging the fact that a gap does exist. There are varying factors that could contribute to the gap itself. Genetics, socioeconomic situations, and many other factors have been put out as a reason for the gap existing. The one thing we have to acknowledge though, is that these objections about why the gap exists validates the fact that the gap does actually exist thus affirming the resolution.

Professor Arthur Jensen professor of educational psychology at the University of California , Berkeley has devoted a great deal of time and work into finding out why this IQ gap exists between Caucasians and African Americans. Again the fact that people are trying to find out why the Gap is there, just furthers the fact that the Gap exists thus affirming the resolution that there is a generally a gap and that Caucasians have the higher IQ on balance.

Professor Jensen acknowledges this in quite a few of his studies

"Despite staggering advances in genetic technology, the dispute between hereditarians and environmentalists over the causes of the average fifteen point IQ difference between blacks and whites' is stalemated " [3]

This belief is not just held by Jensen but by a quite a few other professors. Jensen studies focus on the genetic causes of the IQ gap and other professors such as J. Philippe Rushton and Richard Lynn also hold the same view about the genetic causes of the gap.

So since we can acknowledge there is a gap (this study was a few years back), I have show there is still a gap as of now. There is good news regarding the GAP and that is African Americans have reduced the gap by a small margin over the past few years. The problem is that reducing the gap does not negate the fact that a gap exists. The gap still remains between 1.1 to 1.5 and is shown and verified by multiple studies including the wechsler and stanford-binet IQ tests [4]

IQ, test scores, SAT scores, etc all factor into an achievement gap as well. See graphs below






NAEP-longterm-Black-math-ss09-13.gif








On balance there is no debating that tests that are used to measure intellect are significantly higher for Caucasians than African Americans no matter what we attribute the cause too. In the past this led to quite a few controversial discussions, one of which was the Bell Curve debate which was sparked by the book, The Bell Curve[5]. The book itself verified there was an IQ gap between Caucasians and African Americans and led to a massive debate over the factors that contribute to the gap and if there was indeed one at all.

This led the American Psychological Association to respond with a report called Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns [6]. The APA then acknowledged that there was a gap in one of the most controversial admissions ever written about the issue, but then clarified that they were not sure why the gap existed.





Conclusion

There is a gap that exists, but the factors that cause the gap are still unknown. The gap itself also does not measure knowledge in general but the results from the test which is labeled as IQ results. This by no means states that Caucasians are smarter than African Americans but it does affirm there is a significant gap in the IQ difference between both races.

Thus the resolution is affirmed





[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] http://www.princeton.edu...
[3] http://www.mmisi.org...
[4] http://www.brookings.edu...
[5] https://www.aei.org...
[6] http://www.gifted.uconn.edu...
AnDoctuir

Con

It looks like, once again, I have accepted an already lost debate, just as with my last debate pertaining to interracial relations ".and one specifically tendered to me, too, no doubt, though our glorious leader Mikal did hum and haw. I don"t hold it against him, though. In fact, it"s almost an honour to take part in this debate, hopeless though it may seem, which strikes a chord with my very being.

Gap Inc.

Mikal is playing it very simply. He would but bring it straight down to hard statistics, supposedly to definitional norms, completely bypassing the inspection of his definitions as meaningful. This is hardly acceptable, however, given the grave relevance of what we are debating, how absolutely HUGELY the consideration of intelligence plays into our social structure. If the resolution were that English people, on balance, spoke English better than French people, then that might be acceptable. But not here. Not with so much on the line. And so we are left with the question, "What does intelligence quotient actually mean?"

Note:
In the opening round Mikal states that "this is a pretty clear debate", and that there is to be "no semantics"; but are my objections really and truly just semantics; though obviously semantics, should they be considered cheating? What is the meaning of intelligence to the average person but with regard to ability, potential, and, primarily, mental dexterity? Who truly reads "intelligence quotient", with complete emotional detachment, as referring merely to some certain test or tests which some certain group or groups or one singular individual has devised? Nobody: that is the absolute truth of it. And it is the same with many such words " "communism", for example; are there not many amongst you who would simply define "communism" as "death"? " or any other sort of stereotype rests upon the exact same thing. In truth, it is enormously difficult to have a "pretty clear debate", so infused with emotion as words tend to become. Instead, there will always be breakdowns in communication " and, indeed, concerning something such as intelligence, we might as well be throwing out such words as "terrorist", or "Islam", and expecting everyone to just converge on some specific reality; which is, of course, absurd " and so hard semantics become practically essential when trying to hammer out anything " anything " with any real meaning.

What is intelligence, then, and how should we measure it? Is IQ testing at current justified in its nomenclature; should not each test deal its merit in extreme specificity; are we justified in gauging from trends that such-and-such " say, that black people should score lower on average than white people " should always be the case? These are all incredibly weighty questions, but go almost completely unconsidered, though as if granted, on the large, behind the weight of the results themselves. Should one simply concede that there is a gap between black and white people in this thing which calls itself the "intelligence quotient" by the results of some mere tests? And concede to some so vile as would wish to relegate the other to an animal, vicious Cain who would slay Abel? ".One should wonder what that would leave us with. And of course, should we change the name of it, the same stigma gets attached to the new name, and the same old rigmarole begins again, people becoming so agitated by a word, or words, as to lose all reason".. But then it should just be denied again. Revamped again. Let us not think for one second that this is just how it is.

Now, " that might sound cheesy or whatever; I know it does " it does to me anyway " but there is actual meaning behind it nonetheless. Generally, we"re all going to fit ourselves into absolutely ridiculous niches " deeply psychological niches: the Irish as sadly singing, merry war-makers; Canadians, " as I"m very easily perceiving by my ridiculous aunt home for Christmas " ridiculously P.C., in attempting to tame their sister nation the U.S. no doubt; Aussies are a nation of autists trying to pretend the Chinese don"t exist; women go for the womanly jobs; men, the providers; and so on; and so on; and so on. --R.L. Stine----Frankenstein-----wrote horror books. This is how ridiculous we are. We"re all trying to fit ourselves into this strange f*cking existence (excuse my French " what"s that about though? The French as perverts? There"s more of it probably), and, uh, "well, you can see how absolutely and precisely we will conform to stereotypes; to our perceptions of what we are "at least I hope so! And then what comes of telling black people they are inherently dumber? "we all know that spiel about teachers telling kids they"re dumb; how the kids will live up to the charge in a sort of defiance " as if to own it. If you"re afraid of dogs, dogs are going to act the dog with you ---Yes, this is getting ridiculous; but it"s true"".We"re all fitting together in crazily complex, yet ridiculously retarded ways, and you are most likely being an absolute sh*t in your conceptions of people. F*ck, even victim blaming is a much trickier topic of discussion than most people give it credit for being. They say that faith can move mountains, and it can; but people never think that maybe it might work against you " that faith might pick the mountain up and drop it on your head for you"..Well, it does. And it"s because we"re retarded gods, basically.

".I don"t even care. F*ck formality, and f*ck winning this debate. But I"m right, and I know I am. And I"m probably not going to post anymore rounds after this; but I don"t need to do that either. The videos are my argument.

And I'm not reformatting from Word either. Mikal if you want another round out of me, you're going to have to post within the hour probably.

PEACE, homies!!!
Debate Round No. 2
Mikal

Pro

So from badgers round we can tell two things

A) He concedes that my charts and studies are indeed accurate, and that Caucasians have an Higher IQ than African Americans

B) He then challenges the criteria by which intelligence is measured, saying that the goal of the Intelligent Quotient is to measure intelligence.

R1 ) Intelligence =/= IQ

Since all of my points remain conceded I will leave those there and accept the concession of those. I will now address the next point which is IQ is a bad way to measure intelligence. I would in turn agree to an extent, but then badger takes it a step further to say that the IQ test is supposed to be used to measure intelligence and since since it's sole purpose is to determine intelligence we can dismiss my points because it fails at doing that.

What badger fails to realize is that the IQ test itself is literally devoted to measuring a persons mental aptitude with tests, and varies from the traditional SAT and ACTS. It tries to account for a verity of factors to determine someones mental capacity.

Intelligence - the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

Intelligence by definition is not just limited to tests, but also practical skills. It's an accumulation of everything and anything in a persons life. How they adapt to situations, how they do in school, what they can learn, how fast they can learn, what skills they know, etc. Intelligence is not measured strictly with mental capacity, and tests but with practical skills as well.

I agree with badger in the sense that the IQ test is used to measure a certain area of a persons intellect, but you cannot say its primary goal is to measure intelligence on a general level. It's goal is to weigh someones mental capacity and determine it via testing (which does not account for practical or other relative skills)

Note the following source

" IQ testing does not measure creativity, leadership, initiative, curiosity, commitment, artistic skill, musical talent, and social skills " [1]

It then goes on to state that it's goal is to measure intellectual potential. It even states further down that it's goal is to measure intelligence but since intelligence is profoundly hard to define, it will not accomplish that on practical levels. It then continues on to state that the IQ test itself is a measure of that test in a effort to gain and test mental capacity and potential intellect in the best way possible. It also says intelligence cannot be measured by this test because of social factors. [1][2]

What we can take from this is that the goal of the test may be to measure intellectual and mentally capacity, but even the people that work and created the test have stated that this is nearly impossible because intelligence cannot be defined by that test alone. An IQ is not a measure of a persons intellect, and while the test may aim to do its best to get an idea of what that intellect is, it will always fall short for the aforementioned reasons.

Iq =/= intelligence

If the resolution were Caucasians are smarter than African Americans and I cited the sources I used, then badgers refutation would be valid.

That is not the case, the resolution is that Caucasians have a higher IQ than African Americans which badger concedes to in his round. IQ in it's simplest state is a way to try and gauge intelligence, but is measured by a score which does not accurately depict intellect. So the resolution is based on the scores of the Intelligence Quotient and not someones actual intellect.

Since badger concedes this point, and I have shown IQ=/= Intellect or knowledge, the resolution is affirmed.


[1] http://www.minddisorders.com...
[2] http://sitemaker.umich.edu...
AnDoctuir

Con

AnDoctuir forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
AnDoctuir

Con

Forfeit. God bless us all.
Debate Round No. 4
75 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
IQ....... A measure of intelligence, invented by stupid tyrants. Period.
Posted by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
I voted for obama
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 2 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
I thought this was going to be an interesting read but I'm rather disappointed with Pro.

First off, creating a forum thread titled "Resolved : Caucasians are smarter than Blacks" when the position you plan to defend is that "On balance Caucasians have a higher IQ than African Americans." The latter is more easily defended in a debate than the former yet you use the former statement which creates a false illusion that you are defending a harder position. It is a poor method of grabbing attention.

My second issue is your disclaimer. You admit that the debate is meant for "shock value." I'm not against an academic discussion of IQ gaps with respect to race but your motives seem to be to shock people, to present yourself as a rebel, and in some way "cool" that you would argue such a position.
I find it neither funny nor entertaining, just disappointing.

Third, you commit the common fallacy that racists often do: "I have a black friend, therefore I'm not racist." It shows a lack of understanding of what racism is in all its depth and trivializes it. Perhaps you are aware of it but suggesting you are not a racist and referring to your black fiance is tasteless as is your crack about chocolate which I don't find funny in the slightest.

That just killed my motivation to read the debate in depth. But I really hate it when people make claims to be above racism while not truly understanding how racism develops. Having a black friend or fiance does not preclude you from being a racist. In fact, it is disrespectful to use them to display how non-racist you are. And please understand that race-related matters and jokes used to shock people aren't going to be taken well by everyone and reflect badly on the instigator.
Posted by BLAHthedebator 2 years ago
BLAHthedebator
Lol, it was kinda called for.
Posted by AnDoctuir 2 years ago
AnDoctuir
BLAHthedebator -----what a vote lol
Posted by AnDoctuir 2 years ago
AnDoctuir
BLAHthedebator -----what a vote lol
Posted by AnDoctuir 2 years ago
AnDoctuir
lol
Posted by AnDoctuir 2 years ago
AnDoctuir
lol
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
" I do not debate; I inject my soul into others."

@Badger, you misspelled sperm
Posted by AnDoctuir 2 years ago
AnDoctuir
I do not debate; I inject my soul into others.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 2 years ago
Paleophyte
MikalAnDoctuirTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit by Con
Vote Placed by TK57 2 years ago
TK57
MikalAnDoctuirTied
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 should of brought up points on how poor parenting attributes to this.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
MikalAnDoctuirTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by BLAHthedebator 2 years ago
BLAHthedebator
MikalAnDoctuirTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeits, makes many grammatical errors, and ultimately concedes. Also, pro used eight quite reliable sources, while con used none.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
MikalAnDoctuirTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF