The Instigator
Sieben
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points
The Contender
SuperRobotWars
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points

Race does not influence the individual

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 9 votes the winner is...
Sieben
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/13/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,319 times Debate No: 14380
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (9)

 

Sieben

Con

SWR has been trolling me a lot. Let's see if I can get him to shut up.

His main thesis is... I don't know. But it seems to really bother him when I insinuate that race and genetics might influence individual achievement levels.

My position on this topic ranges from adamant to agnostic, depending on the attribute in question. For example, I believe there is insufficient evidence to rule out a genetic or racial component to intelligence, since ceteris parabis studies are nigh impossible.

I'd type more, but I'm not really expecting a coherant response. Just a lot of links and ". . ."

More broadly, SuperRobatWars is a total joke, and I may consider attempting to pull off a win based entirely on ad hom arguments.

SuperRobotWars

Pro

Since my opponent has only partially shown his standpoint I shall decide and elaborate the points of this debate . . .
I am pro for this my argument is that race is not the sole factor that intellect is based. My opponent's ideas upon this subject is that race is the primary factor upon intellect and that even if the research shows that majority of blacks are educated they remain inferior.
Race: subspecies: (biology) a taxonomic group that is a division of a species; usually arises as a consequence of geographical isolation within a species
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
Intellect: mind: knowledge and intellectual ability
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
Sole: lone(a): being the only one; single and isolated from others
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
Factor: anything that contributes causally to a result
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
He is to prove that race is the sole factor in intelligence, and I am to prove that it is not.

My first statement shall be that it is only partially due to heredity, you have a brain and the brain would not be their if it was not part of your genes, so in that sense you can also include instinctual curiosity of young ones, But the majority of your intellect is influenced by your environment and what there is to learn around you. If intelligence is solely linked to genetics it would imply genetic memory to massive degrees (not just simple child curiosity) and that when children are born they already contain the knowledge of their parents at birth but this has not been seen (and if ever seen not to significant degrees in both manners of knowledge and population). If this genetic memory were real then how come we spend time and money on schools and other such educational facilities. The simple fact of the matter is that the environment influences what you learn such as if you are raised in a poor neighborhood in which the most common means of survival is to join a gang then you are likely to join a gang, if you live in a rich neighborhood with rich people then you are more likely to behave and think like those rich people, now there are exceptions to the rule but remember that exceptions are always an minority. Remember the influence that's displayed by the quality of education for you can only learn from the information given, rich people tend to have more money spent on the curriculum they receive whereas people in poor regions tend to receive lower education, and generally used, outdated teaching tools from the richer areas. It is predominately matter of environment not genetics.

http://www.edu-cyberpg.com...
http://www.planetofsuccess.com...
http://www.molwick.com...
http://www.brainskills.co.uk...
http://kamekish.sulekha.com...
http://wilderdom.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://social.jrank.org...
http://www.halfsigma.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.guardian.co.uk...

Intelligence is part genetic part environment . . .
Debate Round No. 1
Sieben

Con

=== Prestandards ===

In debate, an “abusive” argument is one where one side cannot win no matter what. For example, bringing up new arguments in the last round is “abusive” because the other debater cannot respond to them.

Evidence! Consider that if linking evidence were sufficient condition for advocacy, rounds could be technically won by spamming evidence. Debaters could link entire books, and so long as the opponent did not address every argument made in hundreds of books, the spammer would win.

This is a display of trollery. Debate skill should be prioritized over spamming because anyone can spam evidence.

Therefore, evidence must be tagged explicitly to have an impact. Debaters ought not to be responsible for unexplained sources.

=== Framework ===

Pro writes: my argument is that race is not the sole factor that intellect is based

While the resolution is “Race does not influence the individual”. So his discourse about peripheral influences like education, nutrition, etc, don't matter. He has to directly show that race has no impact on the individual.

He hasn't done that, so his whole case is non-topical. It should also be clear from my opening post that “agnosticism” is sufficient condition for Con victory.

Pro writes: “He is to prove that race is the sole factor in intelligence, and I am to prove that it is not.”

The resolution says nothing about intelligence. Pro is just picking one of many attributes and focusing on it. Even if he wins all his points, as long as I extend one piece of Con advocacy, I win.


=== Pro Arguments ===

1) Other factors of intelligence

Pro writes: “But the majority of your intellect is influenced by your environment and what there is to learn around you.”

This doesn't matter. As long as race may play some role, even 5%, Pro has failed his burden.

2) Genetic memory

No race has genetic memory. Therefore, race does not influence genetic memory. You can replace “genetic memory” with “magic superpowers”, or something crazy that no human has. Pro's arguments are just a semantic exercise.

But again, a narrow subset of all possible attributes. Insufficient to affirm the resolution

3) Evidence

Looking to the prestandards, we can ignore all of Con's evidence. Even if his links do support his big block of “arguments”, he didn't tag his arguments to source(s), so they remained “unexplained”.

4) Pro concession

Pro writes: “Intelligence is part genetic part environment . . . “

Which concedes that race DOES influence the individual. So the first piece of Con advocacy comes straight out of Pro's mouth. Thanks!

=== Con Case ===


1) Intelligence


No intelligence gene has yet been found [1]. So research has failed to disprove or confirm the influence of race on intelligence. Direct attempts to study the correlation of inter-generational IQ fail to isolate genetics, because the socioeconomic status and culture are inherited too [2].

This is where my “agnosticism” comes from. So it can't be said with any certainty that race does or does not influence intelligence.

With limited information, it might make sense to chalk up the differences to genetics, culture, environment, education, whatever. The genetic component has a degree of plausibility because other traits like skin color [3], blood type [4], and psychological disorders [5], are strongly genetic. So I don't think we should rule out genetics as a contributor to intelligence until all the tests are in.

2) Testosterone

Testosterone plays a daily role in our lives. A long list includes: Mental and Physical Energy, Risk Taking, Libido, and the Immune System [6]. So it makes a big difference.

It was found that Testosterone levels in blacks are 19% higher than whites [7]. I can't find any studies explicitly studying the racial dynamic, but there are good reasons to believe it makes a difference in people's lives.

Testosterone is genetic [8].

=== Conclusion ===


I win conduct because I've gone out of my way to tag my arguments. This makes it easier for readers to follow.


I win grammar and spelling because Pro wrote this:

“The simple fact of the matter is that the environment influences what you learn such as if you are raised in a poor neighborhood in which the most common means of survival is to join a gang then you are likely to join a gang, if you live in a rich neighborhood with rich people then you are more likely to behave and think like those rich people, now there are exceptions to the rule but remember that exceptions are always an minority. “

That is a huge run on sentence.

I win arguments because Pro arguments about intelligence are an insufficient condition to affirm the resolution. I have defended agnosticism on intelligence, and given a concrete case for testosterone differences between races.

Thanks

[1] http://minority-health.pitt.edu...
[2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[3] http://www.suite101.com...
[4] http://answers.encyclopedia.com...
[5] http://depression.about.com...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7] http://guywhite.wordpress.com...
[8] http://discovermagazine.com...

SuperRobotWars

Pro

It is a shame when my opposition does not read my full argument, I said genetics has some influence but it is not the primary influence and if you payed attention you could clearly see my evidence, and you consider it to be "trollery" (which is not a real word) when I post an argument and relevant information well than that means that "trollery" is a good thing in a debate so this has been refuted.

You never elaborated upon your point so I came up with one, it is that simple get over it accept the argument you must prove do not attempt to just now change the terms of our debate.

1) I already proved my point on this
2) So this has refuted your argument that genetics is the sole variable for that is our debate, for f you do not inherit all of your knowledge you can not inherit all of your intellect
3) Hmmm . . . I am quite certain that you could see the information's relevance to my argument and just do not want to
4) The argument is that intelligence is not solely founded upon genetics not that genetics does not play a role I went over this in the 1st round

To refute his arguments all I have to say is that my 1st round set up refuted this stating that it has a role but it is not the sole role, please read your oppositions statements before you make your argument.

Now to further add upon my primary arguments I shall add the following . . .

The point of this debate is for you to prove that genetics is the sole contributing factor, I made it this way for you failed to elaborate your standpoint on the first round so I defined and founded my argument (that genetics are not the sole factor of intelligence) and your argument (that genetics are the sole factor of intelligence), I proved my argument and you have in essence agreed with mine for all of your points so far that.

I see no need for further elaboration till you can found an argument that proves your point, till then: Intelligence is part genetic part environment . . .

http://iq-test.learninginfo.org...
http://kamekish.sulekha.com...
http://www.edu-cyberpg.com...
http://selfimprovementbase.com...

And To quote from somebody on http://forum.spore.com... I shall post this:
There is intelligence, which is likely to be heritable, and there is utilized intelligence - the presence of intelligence does not mean inherent wisdom or knowledge, but with the correct teaching and guidance there should be a greater capacity than those without the same level of intelligence. One could point at the arguments in many of these forums as intelligence vs lack of intelligence, whereas it would often actually be those of similar intelligence but differing environmental/educational backgrounds. It is easy to make the assumption that those of differing opinion/belief are merely stupid.

And if you want to get into a matter of semantics there is no true such thing as race due to the fact D.N.A. studies show no indicators of classifiable subspecies within the human specie.

http://www.scienceforums.net...
http://www.eurekalert.org...
http://www.nowpublic.com...
http://www.iol.co.za...
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Sieben

Con

=== Prestandards ===

Go totally unchallenged. So you can ignore Pro's untagged miscellaneous jumble of sources.

=== Framework ===

Pro challenges the framework, writing: " The point of this debate is for you to prove that genetics is the sole contributing factor, "

This is obviously false. The actual title of the debate is "race does not influence the individual". In the opening post, I wrote: "race and genetics might influence individual achievement levels". So I don't have to defend the absolute genetic/race position. I have never defended it anywhere on this site or in my life.

In defense, Pro writes: I made it this way for you failed to elaborate your standpoint on the first round so I defined and founded my argument (that genetics are not the sole factor of intelligence) and your argument (that genetics are the sole factor of intelligence),

So Pro is willingly working outside the framework of the resolution, but defends it anyway. This is wrong on so many levels.

1) I am the instigator. Since the resolution was created by me, Pro has no right to join the debate and change it. This is "abuse" because there's no limit to what he can change the resolution to.

2) In the opening post, I explained that I was agnostic about some attributes and race. This implies that agnosticism is a sufficient condition for con victory.

3) Even if I have to defend the absolutist position, I am not confined to intelligence. Under this interpretation, you could still carry my Testosterone argument as Con advocacy.

=== Pro Arguments ===

Mostly just framework nonsense here. Pro gives no direct rebuttal. I'll just highlight argument 4, where Pro concedes that intelligence is part genetic. So Race DOES influence the individual.

=== Con Case ===

1) Intelligence

Again, I get no response. Since there is no direct evidence for or against genetic components to intelligence, we should remain agnostic. We should not rule out a genetic cause because many other traits are known to be genetic.

2) Testosterone

No response. Testosterone differs between races and has an impact on individual characteristics and behavior.

Remember, even if you buy Con's nonsense about how I have to defend "all nature no nurture", this point is still relevant.


=== Conclusion part 2 ===


Hmm

I win conduct because I've actually formatted and tagged my case... again.

I win grammar and spelling because Pro's is atrocious.

I win arguments because Pro has operated entirely outside the framework and failed to respond to my arguments and criticisms of his case.

Thanks again.

SuperRobotWars

Pro

My opponent still fails to recognize the fact that if you do not clarify your initial statement expect your opposition to create one for you and that is exactly what was done. What you may have meant to say is not what you said. It may have been in the title but it was not there in your opening giving me free reign upon the design o the specifics of this debate.

1)Your resolution was not clear hence not valid.

2) Your agnosticism has nothing to do with your argument's you did not clarify the terms so I did

3) Your arguments have been refuted as well as your failure to elaborate the effects of testosterone upon intelligence, and your consequential agreement with my point upon this subject

My arguments showed a direct rebuttal from everything posted in the first round which refuted any arguments you come up with as well as the adding of new points to further refute your stance, also my stance pointed that it played only a part not the sole role so your argument still bears zero weight.

I shall now conclude with the fact that my adversary has in fact failed to prove the point given (that genetics are the sole factor for intellectual levels) and he is still clinging to the fact that it was not his intended argument but that does not change the fact that he failed to elaborate in the beginning and due to that failure I elaborated for him.
I would also like to mention that the last argument I had made in the second round showed that there are no races within the human species due to the fact DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. So in the light that race does not exist both the argument given, and your wanted argument are refuted hence still proving my point. Also my original arguments stating it only plays a part and is not the sole role further prove my point.

- Sources for race not existing -

http://www.iol.co.za...
http://www.topix.com...
http://www.eurekalert.org...
http://www.nowpublic.com...
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com...
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://ianramjohn.wordpress.com...

- Sources for heredity not being the sole factor -

http://wilderdom.com...
http://social.jrank.org...
http://genealogy.about.com...
http://www.molwick.com...
http://www.education.com...
http://www.sparknotes.com...
http://www.mindfocus.net...
http://www.udel.edu...
http://www.libraryindex.com...

I would like to thank my opponent for this great debate . . .
I urge you to vote Pro . . .
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kalalification 4 years ago
Kalalification
The intellectual dishonesty and gaming of the system by Sieben is detestable. The framework you constructed may carry some of your points across, but you should not set out in a debate to "win". The primary purpose of argument is education, followed by persuasion. Simply achieving your objectives does not entitle you to the support of anyone.

I really hate it when people treat policy like a game.
Posted by indiscerniblepig 5 years ago
indiscerniblepig
Ultimately, it is our environment that solely influences us. Inherent differences in human physiology and intelligence (when speaking from more of an evolutionary standpoint) all derive from our differing environments. We were all once part of a single common species, until we began to spread to other continents that possessed drastically different climates/ecosystems, resulting in the gradual adaptation and change of entire species. Although there are inherent psychological differences and racial characteristics that are not directly acquired in our environments, and can greatly influence the lives of individuals, they all ultimately came from our environment and our adaptation to it. But for this argument, I would have to vote for the Con, because what he points out on a shorter evolutionary time period shows that race does have inherent influences on individuals.
Posted by Sottaceti 5 years ago
Sottaceti
I wish everyone were all one uniform race. That would solve a good deal of problems.
Posted by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
Posted by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
. . . I win . . .
Posted by darkkermit 6 years ago
darkkermit
S&G: Con
Conduct: Both were bad, but in different ways. Con was disrespectful to Pro . Pro used too many abusive debating tactics.
Convincing Arguments: CON. PRO failed to meet the BOP. The resolution was "Race does not influence the individual." not "Only race influences the individual".
Reliable Sources: Pro gave more sources, yet did not label the sources or explain their relevance. Therefore vote goes to Con.
Posted by Dazedinday 6 years ago
Dazedinday
Well. Even if there were no differences between hereditary intelligence itself, there are physiological differences. I would not dare say I would've been the same 'me' were I to be born Muslim, or in some Hindi family.
So I'd say this argument had no point to begin with.
Posted by Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
Its not. That's the whole point. Pro tried to narrow it down to intelligence (which he didn't win anyway).
Posted by nonentity 6 years ago
nonentity
Ahh forget what I said. I didn't realize it was specific to intelligence.
Posted by nonentity 6 years ago
nonentity
The resolution is terrible. I can't believe Pro accepted it lol I could even make the argument that your hair colour influences you.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
SiebenSuperRobotWarsTied
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:43 
Vote Placed by nhq 6 years ago
nhq
SiebenSuperRobotWarsTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
SiebenSuperRobotWarsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:06 
Vote Placed by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
SiebenSuperRobotWarsTied
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:42 
Vote Placed by darkkermit 6 years ago
darkkermit
SiebenSuperRobotWarsTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Shtookah 6 years ago
Shtookah
SiebenSuperRobotWarsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by annhasle 6 years ago
annhasle
SiebenSuperRobotWarsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
SiebenSuperRobotWarsTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
SiebenSuperRobotWarsTied
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