Race and Intelligence
Debate Rounds (3)
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!
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.
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.
2.http://en.m.wikipedia.org... (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.
jimtimmy forfeited this round.
Shifter forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by jm_notguilty 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.