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

Race and Intelligence

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: 10/24/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,358 times Debate No: 18964
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (1)




I argue that:

1.) IQ Measures a Substantially Heritable trait in the United States

2.) Different Populations that Are Typically Called Races Have Different Average IQs

3.) There is a Signigicant Genetic Component to the Different Average IQs betwen Races in the United States

With respect to #3, I am arguing that the Racial IQ gaps are partially genetic... Con would be arguing that it is not genetic at all.

Now, I am going to set a don'ts here:

1.) I will be citing respected scholars like Jensen and Rushton. If you have an issue with their, or anyone I cite's, work, you must EXPLAIN what is wrong with their work. Ad Hominem attacks and saying things like "their work is known to be unreliable" will simply not be acceptable. That is not the type of debate I am looking for.

2.) In the same vein, saying that something was funded by an organization like the Pioneer Fund will not be seen as a legitimate argument.

3.) In other words, you must criticize work by pointing out what you think is wrong with it... Saying that it seems "unreliable" or that you don't like the author are not arguments.

4.) The existence of Race is not relevant to this debate. I am talking about populations or groups that we define as races, which indisputably exist.

Feel Free to ask any questions!


Hello, and thank you for creating this topic of discussion, and now let us commence.

1st: Well...this is an highly disputed topic for something with so little evidence, but it has been shown multiple times that a mentally challenged (retarded) parent or parents have had perfectly normal children (since normal is highly disputable, I am going by an average child).

2nd: In ancient times, Europeans were building mud shacks and holes to live in and store things, while Africans, due to their immense wealth, had schools, towns and temples made out of gold, and even a giant palace; now, they have switched places essentially. Later on, Anciernt Rome had a early sewage system and libraries (including the Great Library) filled knowledge and stories, etc. And Europe a few centuries later, was throwing it's waste into the streets, which caused the Black Plague. So it would suggest that while race may have a factor, it is proportionate to the type of environment and the resources available.

3rd: This is mostly based on data gathered where subjects lived in different towns, and they might as well be on opposite sides of the world, while two races in similar neighborhoods tend to score closer than those not. This suggests that the environment plays a larger part than race itself.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting this debate.

I will now counter my opponent's points.

1st: This is an irrelevant point in my view. Con needs to explain why this would be relevant for this to be a point.
2nd: No evidence to support claims. I don't believe that this is true..... But, if am wrong, I need evidence to contradict me.

And, I am talking about modern IQ differences in America... So, my opponent needs to explain the relevance of this.

3rd: I am only talking about modern America. Con has yet to make any points that have relevantly put a dent in the resolution.


Well, for 1, there is evidence for both sides, making it nearly impossible to bring up a point without it having a counter-point. The example I gave was points used for non-heredity, however it can be pointed out that just as many are challenged, making it moot. Because of this, it is apparent there is an unknown variable in this process, and it can not be debated properly until we find out said variable(s).

2. (If you want a more "trustworthy" source, many history books contain it also). As for the European Empire, well that one is more widely accepted. Some lived in caves due to their continent having no gold like all the other richer countries, and thus no money. This was also the reason their first words when landing in North America were "Where is your gold?" after hearing of Spain's success story in South America. They soon learned, however, that North America was just as gold barren as they were. I can't remember how they became rich (Think it had to do with conquering everyone else).
Also, your stance is that race determines ones knowledge. To only accept a certain time-line would in itself be acknowledging that environment has a part in it.

3. Number 2 and 3 are different in the comparing in IQ of races and what makes up the IQ, and 3 is Modern America...People in 'ghettos' are bound not to do nearly as well as someone in the suburbs, no matter what race. It depends on the area the subjects are raised for an I.Q to get comparable results. Besides that, I.Q's tend to focus on certain areas, while completely ignoring others; and not to mention they do change as you get older.
Debate Round No. 2


jimtimmy forfeited this round.


Shifter forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jimtimmy 4 years ago
Thanks for understanding
Posted by Shifter 4 years ago
Dude, I understand, same here...well, minus college part. We don't do that till...well I don't know when, in the long run you may be the winner lol. I had a lot of fun man.
Posted by jimtimmy 4 years ago

I am sorry, but I am not sure if I will be able to post a third round before time expires. If I do, it will probably be short. I have got numerous tests and projects due tomorrow and, more importantly, College Apps are due tomorrow (and I have not written any essays yet). I have two debates right now, and I have already gotten part of the other one done. This one, unfortunately, I have not started yet.

Obviously, if I am unable to post my next round in time, you get the win. I am sorry if this ends up being the case, but I can also say that it has been a pleasure debating you and that I will try to post a round.
Posted by Shifter 4 years ago
Thanks man, you're doing very well too. I can see where you're going with this too, because in my school they showed our PSSA results by race and afflicted illnesses and can imagine.
Posted by jimtimmy 4 years ago
Lol, its fine... Plus, your second round was solid...

Behaviorism is very relevant to this debate, so I find your arguments interesting
Posted by Shifter 4 years ago
Thanks, wasn't trying to be harsh, just kinda sarcastic in a joking way. Sorry I'm not using the type of argument you were hoping for...but hey, behaviorism is kinda like egalitarianism....kinda.....
Posted by jimtimmy 4 years ago
Don't worry about what I said there.... 000ike was just being a diick... It had nothing to do with you or your arguments
Posted by Shifter 4 years ago
Wow...I don't feel inadequate at all..
(Curse the lack of a sarcasm button)

Also, my arguments conist of predominantly behaviorism standing, not egalitarian.
Posted by jimtimmy 4 years ago

first, fuk you... You are stalking me and being a total asss...

No offense to Con, but his arguments were extremely weak... This is the third time I have tried to debate this...

The first time, I debated somebody who made literally no valid arguments... The second time, I debated DanT.. DanT did a fine job, but it was not really the type of debate I was thinking of...

So, 000ike, stop being an asss...

This debate was up for plenty of time for you to accept and make the arguments that you think are appropriate... So, put up or shut up...

And, at some point, I will report you for this harassment
Posted by 000ike 4 years ago
What a lame debate, its not Con's fault though. I think we should boycott this debate. Nobody vote on this.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by jm_notguilty 4 years ago
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: CON made more convincing args which PRO failed to refute, he just sat there and made a reply claiming irrelevancy and accuracy.