The Instigator
royalpaladin
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
jimtimmy
Con (against)
Winning
41 Points

Resolved: Caucasians are not more intelligent than African Americans.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 14 votes the winner is...
jimtimmy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/6/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,676 times Debate No: 19712
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (87)
Votes (14)

 

royalpaladin

Pro

First round is acceptance only. Since jimtimmy so ardently believes that he is genetically superior to African Americans, I am sure that he will accept this debate.
jimtimmy

Con

This is like debating about whether Caucasians have lighter skin than Africans... But, I'll take the easy win
Debate Round No. 1
royalpaladin

Pro

Resolutional Analysis

The affirmative burden is to prove that Caucasians are not more intelligent than African Americans. I can pursue this in two ways. The first manner is to prove that African Americans and Caucasians are either equally intelligent or that African Americans are not inherently less intelligent than Caucasians because our measurements have some confounding factor, like poverty. If socio-economic status, for example, determines IQ then the poor have lower IQs than the rich. African Americans tend to be poorer than Caucasians, so it would appear that they are less intelligent than Caucasians even though they are not.


Aff Case


Point 1: IQ is associated with enviornment and not with race.

Subpoint A: IQ is mostly influenced by environment, and is not completely inherited
.

A common misconception is that intelligence is completely inherited, and that environment has little impact on IQ. A study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology notes, however, that heritability of IQ is 0.2 in infancy, 0.4 in childhood, and as high as 0.80 in adults (http://ije.oxfordjournals.org...). Although this result would initially seem to bolster the claims of individuals who claim racial superiority, another study concludes that these results measure the true heritability of IQ. Notice that IQ's heritability is 0.2 in infants, meaning that genetics plays a very small role in one's intelligence. The rest, 0.8, develops after infancy, indicating that environment actually shapes one's intelligence. Ulric Neisser of Emory University and the American Psychological Association concludes that heritability appears higher in adults because individuals often associate with others who are perceived to be of similar intelligence. (Source: http://psycnet.apa.org...) Thus, he notes that environment, specifically the culture from which one stems, is the most important factor in shaping one's IQ.


Subpoint B: Reduce IQ is associated with malnutrition.

One common cause of lower intelligence in individuals is lack of proper nutrients in the first two years of life, a period of time in which the brain is rapidly developing. Because the brain does not develop properly in individuals who experienced malnutrition in the first two years of life, these individuals will score lower on IQ tests despite the fact that they are not inherently less intelligent than their peers. A study conducted in the Phillippines noted that individuals who were malnourished in their second year of life score an average of 51.40 on IQ exams, indicating that environment is a significant factor in determining one's intelligence quotient. (Source: http://wber.oxfordjournals.org...).


Subpoint C: Reduced IQ is associated with exposure to drugs.

Recreational drugs are infamous for reducing an individual's intelligence, ability to think, and ability to perform well on an intelligence exam. Three common drugs, namely, marijuana, alcholol, and tobacco, are all known for their intelligence-reduction effects. First, cannibis is known to cause reductions in IQ scores in heavy users. Although many individuals who stopped abusing cannibis were later able to score higher on tests, thus proving that cannibis does not have a lasting effect on intelligence, studies have clearly noted that cannibis users that have not given up on the activity score lower on intelligence exams than their peers. Leslie Iversen of the University of Oxford explains, "The long-term use of cannabis, particularly at high intake levels, is associated with several adverse psychosocial features, including lower educational achievement and, in some instances, psychiatric illness." (Source: http://www.sciencedirect.com...) . Second, alcohol is known to impair the intelligence of fetii whose mothers consumed the drink while pregnant. Fetal alcohol syndrome is infamous for causing mental retardation. Ernest L. Abel of Wayne State University notes, "Mental retardation is a cardinal feature of FAS and is now recognized as the leading known cause of mental retardation in the Western world." (Source: http://www.sciencedirect.com...). Finally, a study noted the negative realtionship between intelligence test scores and exposure to tobacco smoke in children between the ages of 6-16. Kimberley Yolton of the Cincinnati Children's Environmental Health Center notes, "After adjustment for sex, race, region, poverty, parent education and marital
status, ferritin, and blood lead concentration, there was a significant inverse relationship between serum cotinine and scores on reading (β= −2.69, p = 0.001), math (β= −1.93, p = 0.01), and block design (β= −0.55, p
< 0.001) but not digit span (β= −0.08, p = 0.52). The estimated ETS-associated decrement in cognitive test scores was greater at lower cotinine levels. A log-linear analysis was selected as the best fit to characterize the increased slope in cognitive deficits at lower levels of exposure. These data, which indicate an inverse association between ETS exposure and cognitive deficits among children even at extremely low levels of exposure, support policy to further restrict children’s exposure." (Source: http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov...).


African Americans are more likely to be affected by malnutrition and exposure to drugs than Caucasians are. The U.S. Department of Health's Office of Applied Studies has noted that African Americans are more likely to have abused illicit drugs than Caucasian Americans have in the past month. Moreover, the LSU AgCenter nutrition experts note that approximately 30% of African American children reside in a home without acess to an adequately nutritious diet (Source: http://oas.samhsa.gov...), a figure that is much higher than the amount of malnutrition in Caucasians. Since these are conditions that result from low income, my burden is to prove that African Americans are more likely to be poor than Caucsians. According to the U.S. Census, African American families have a median income of $34,082, while the median income for Caucasians is $58,728. So, because African Americans tend to be less wealthy than Caucasian Americans, and because families with low incomes are likely to produce children with lower recorded IQs, IQ tests do not fairly measure the intelligence of African Americans. We can conclude that Caucasians are not inherently more intelligent because IQ scores are being twisted by external factors.

Point 2: Biracial Children Have Higher IQs than Individuals of Pure Caucasian Ancestry

According to racial supremacists, if IQ is purely inherited and Caucasians have higher IQs than African Americans, then the IQs of biracial individuals would be between the IQs of the average African American and the average Caucasian. However, Tizard, et. al. conducted four studies that tested the differences in IQ between African American, biracial, and Caucasian children; three of the studies found no statistical significant difference in IQ, while one test recorded statistical significance in favor of non-whites. According to Tizard, Caucasians had an IQ of 101.3, African Americans had an average IQ of 105.7, and biracial chilrden had an average IQ of 109.8. Eyeferth also conducted studies with slightly older children and determined that the average Caucasian IQ was 97.2 while the average African American IQ was 96.5 (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...). These results have two important impacts. First, they disprove the fallacious notion that African Americans are less intelligent than Caucasians. Second, they note that African American children are actually more intelligent than Caucasian children until they are exposed to debilitating environmental factors.
jimtimmy

Con

In order to win this debate, I much show that Caucasian-Americans are, on average, more intelligent than African-Americans.

The standard measure of intelligence is IQ. Caucasian-Americans (whites) score an average of 100. African-Americans (blacks) score an average of 85, 15 points lower than the white average [1]. The existence of this gap is not in dispute. The cause, however, is.

My opponent is claiming that this IQ gap is entirely the result of environmental differences between whites and blacks, with genetics playing no role. I will show that this is clearly not the case, and that, while environmental differences do play a role, whites do have an innately higher intelligence than blacks, on average.

IQ and Environment

My opponent claims that IQ is mostly a result of environment. This is clearly not true. IQ is almost entirely heritable. A 1996 statement from the American Psychological Association gave a heritability estimate of .75 during and after adolescence, and a 2004 meta-analysis in Current Directions in Psychological Science found that IQ is .85 heritable by age 18 [2].

My opponent's main argument for strong environmental effects is that heritability is much lower at younger ages. He is correct that heritability grows with age, but it is astounding that she finds this as evidence against heritability. It is well known that genes express themselves more as organisms grow. Early on in development in the womb, human fetuses look virtually the exact same as fish, chicken, cows, and numerous other animals [3]. However, as time goes on, genes express themselves more and these species begin to look different. Likewise, humans become more different throughout their lives, as genes express themselves more.

The fact that IQ heritability grows with age is evidence for heritability, as it is a central prediction of hereditarians that IQ would become more heritable with age. The fact that it does is evidence for genetic differences.

IQ and Malnutrition

My opponent argues that malnutrition can lower IQ. In this respect, she is correct. Malnutrition can lead to a lower IQ. However, malnourishment's effect on IQ is not the topic of this debate, the black-white IQ gap is the topic of this debate.

In order for this malnourishment point to be relevant, my opponent must do more than show that malnourishment can lower IQ. She must show that malnourishment is a major cause of the black-white IQ gap in America. Another important point is that only malnourishment has been shown to lower IQ. In other words, once an adequate level of nutrition is reached, there is no reason to believe that better nutrition after this point raises intelligence.

So, all my opponent has shown is that malnourishment lowers IQ, and malnourishment is very uncommon in America. A common indicator of malnourishment at early ages is growth being stunted. However, only 2.6% of children that are considered poor have stunted growth [4]. Note, that this figure is only among poor children, meaning that growth being stunted is even less common among all children.

The fact is that all my opponent has shown is that severe malnourishment can lower IQ. I have shown that malnourishment is not enough of a problem in America to account for the black-white IQ gap and is, therefore, not an adequate explanation for this gap.

IQ and Drugs

My opponent claims that drug use lowers IQ, and that this helps explain the black-white IQ gap. Once again, she is correct that drug use, especially extreme drug use, can lower IQ, but she is wrong in thinking that this explains the black-white IQ gap.

The main reason for this is that black teens actually do fewer drugs than white teens and teens from other races, that also have higher average IQs [5]. Just like the malnourishment point, my opponent needs to do more than show that drug use can lower IQ for this to be serious point.

IQ and Biracial Individuals

My opponent claims that biracial individuals (specifically those who have one black parent and one white parent) have higher IQs than individual with two white parents. This is an interesting claim, but it is simply untrue.

The famous Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study looked at individuals, some with two black biological parents, some with two white biological parents, and some with one black biological parent and one white biological parent, who had been adopted into upper middle class white families. So, the environments were somewhat similiar for all of these groups.

At age 17, the IQs of each of these groups had their IQ measured. The adopted children with two black biological parents scored an average IQ of 89, the adopted children with two biological white parents scored an average of 106 IQ, and the adopted children with one biological white parent and one biological black parent scored an average of 99 IQ. So, to summarize, pure white children scored an average of 106, pure black children scored an average of 89, and half white and half black children scored an average of 99 [6].

So, biracial children (as in half black and half white) actually have lower average IQs than whites and higher average IQs than blacks. This is exactly what would be the case if whites had a gentically higher IQ than blacks.

I look forward to my opponent's response.

Sources:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] http://www.google.com...

[4] http://www.heritage.org...

[5] http://reason.com...

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
royalpaladin

Pro

Given that this is the last round, any drops that he made in the previous rounds cannot be defended by him in this round. This means that if I prove that he mishandled or dropped any of my major arguments, I functionally win the round because it would be unfair for him to make new arguments in this final speech.
Aff Case


I presented you with data from the International Journal of Epidemiology that notes that the heritability of IQ is 0.2 in infancy, -.4 in childhood, and 0.8 in adults. He counters this claim by contending that that genes express themselves more as organisms grow. This is actually completely false. All genes do not automatically express themselves as an individual becomes older; instead, different genes are expressed according to the period of development that the organism is undergoing. For example, different genes are expressed during puberty in women than in menopause. As the study cited in subpoint B notes, the critical period of development for the human brain is within the first two years of life, meaning that IQ development genes are most present at that time. So, since IQ heritability is only 0.2 during infancy, the period of critical development of intelligence, we can assume that intelligence is mostly affected by the environment over time; it is not controlled by genetics. This is directly in line with the dropped Neisser analysis in point A, which explicitly states that heritability is higher in adults because individuals often associate with others who are perceived to be of similar intelligence/the environment, specifically the culture from which one stems is the most important factor in shaping IQ.


Next go to point B, in which I discussed the effects of malnutrition on IQ. He concedes that malnutrition does have a negative impact on IQ, but notes that African American children are not malnourished because only a small percentage have stunted growth. However, he ignores the LSUAgCenter statistic, which explicitly states that 30% of African American children reside in a home without access to an adequately nutritious diet, meaning that malnutrition is higher in African Americans than Caucasians. This, as I noted in my previous speech, this links malnutrition with the African American population and drags down their average IQ. Thus, even if I lose the rest of the points, I still win the round because the average has been unnaturally reduced by environmental factors.

In point C, I discussed the affects of drugs on reducing intelligence. As with the malnutrition point, he concedes that drugs do reduce IQ scores, but claims that I have not provided a definitive link to show African American drug use is higher than Caucasian drug use. In fact, he cleverly attempts to turn the argument by contending that Caucasian teenagers use drugs more than African American teenagers do. Unfortunately, he ignores the Department of Health evidence that notes that African Americans are more likely to have used illicit drugs than Caucasians are. Moreover, his statistic is unfair because it only takes into account drug abuse among teenagers. If we examine the population as a whole, including the adult population (which he claimed in his last speech was the only valid population to test IQ in), African Americans are more likely to be exposed to drugs than Caucasians. So, we can see that the true IQ of African Americans is not measured in intelligence tests for this reason as well.


In Point 2, I explain that biracial children have higher IQs, as evidenced by the Tizard study, which was not even discussed by the negative at all (meaning he cannot attempt to refute it in his next speech.) Tizard conducted four studies; in three, there was no statistically significant difference between the IQs of Caucasian children and African American chlidren. In the fourth, Tizard found that African American children and biracial children have a higher IQ (109.8 vs. 101.3) than Caucasian children. I then provided a second study, the Eyeferth study, that found the same results as the first three Tizard studies. Remember that I gave you two impacts for these dropped studies: first, African Americans are not less intelligent than Caucasians. Second, and more importantly, African American children are actually more intelligent than Caucasian children. However, IQ measurements are lower when they are older due to debilitating environmental impacts. This is directly in line with the evidence that I provided in point A.


Neg Case


The only offense that he attempts to offer is the Minnesota Transracial Adoption study. He attempts to use the study to show that even when placed a similar environment, African American children had less intelligence than Caucasian children. Unfortunately for him, the study is notorious for having serious flaws that even the authors admit to.


First, the study was conducted in 1976, a period in our history noted for rampant racism. The educational environment for African Americans was, and still is, repressive, leading to a deemphasis on the importance of education as a tool for success. Scarr and Weinberg, the authors of the study, themselves concede that the racism still existed and affected the participants of the study, and that the study only controlled for family environment, and not social environment. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...). This negates the negative's argument that the environment was the same, since racism did not have any negative impact, and indeed did not exist, for the Caucasian children.


Second, as Scarr and Weinberg note, the selection methods for African American and biracial children was completely different from that of Caucasian children. They concede, "It is essential to note, however, that the groups also differed significantly (p < .05) in their placement histories and natural mother's education. Children with two black parents were significantly older at adoption, had been in the adoptive home a shorter time, and had experienced a greater number of preadoption placements. The natural parents of the black/black group also averaged a year less of education than those of the black/white group, which suggests an average difference between the groups in intellectual ability. There were also significant differences between the adoptive families of black/black and black/white children in father's education and mother's IQ." (Same source as above.) If this is true, then African American children that were already less intelligent than the Caucasian children were selected for in this study, meaning that it has sampling errors that mitigate its use as a proper scientific tool.

Perhaps most damningly, in 1994 the authors of the study themselves countered claims that this study could be used to prove racial differences in intelligence by noting, ". . . contrary to Levin's and Lynn's assertions, results from the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study provide little or no conclusive evidence for genetic influences underlying racial differences in intelligence and achievement." (Same source as above.)


Richard Nesbitt further discusses concessions by Scarr and Weinberg, noting that another flaw in the study is that the African American children studied were known by the authors to have ". . . an unusual degree of psychological disturbance having to do with identity issues" (Source: http://www.scribd.com...). This means that the individuals selected for the Scarr study were troubled, and were thus less likely to score well on the exam than individuals of sound mind.

Finally, note that the Tizard study was arranged in response to the Minnesota study, and that it is considered by the psychological community to counter the Scarr study.

So, the study provided by opponent is utterly flawed and cannot be accepted as true.


Thus, the only logical vote in this debate is affirmative because I have proven that a debilitating environment is responsible for the perceived gap.
jimtimmy

Con


Heritability and Age

In the last round, I presented evidence that heritability increases with age. My opponent has an odd and unconventional interpretation of this as somehow being an argument against genetic influences.

In fact, this is generally seen as an argument for genetic influences. As I noted in the last round, humans, chickens, pigs, fish, and virtually all species are very similiar at very early stages of development. However, as these organisms develop, differences become apparent as genes express themselves more strongly.

In fact, there was a recent 2009 study done on this from Molecular Psychiatry, a scientific journal, finding that heritability of cognitive ability (intelligence) does increase with age. They look at 11000 sets of twins from four different countries, a larger sample size than all previous studies combined. They found that heritability of intelligence was 41% at age 9, 55% at age 12, and 66% at age 17. This is consistent with the idea, found in all other studies, that intelligence is more heritable with age. The authors of this study say that the reason intelligence increases with age is that with age people increasingly select, create, and modify their own experiences, largely based on their genetic predisposition. This increased freedom and independance allows their genetic tendencies to express themselves more strongly [1].


IQ and Nutrition


My opponent's next claim is that malnutrition is the main cause of the black-white IQ gap. I explained in my last post that this is implausible for a number of reasons, namely the lack of malnutrition in America. My opponent responded by claiming that 30% of black children reside in a house without access to food.

This is a sourceless claim. Therefore, I do not have to respond to it, and, even after looking for it, I could not find this statistic. However, I will respond to the point anyway. I did find a source that found 34.6% of black children lived in a "food insecure" home. 23.2% of children in the general population live in "food insecure" homes [2]. This, however, is not really a victory for my opponent's point.

All my opponent has actually shown is that severe malnutrition can lower IQ scores. She has not shown that moderately low amounts of nutrients can lower IQ, probably because such evidence does not exist. "Food insecure" does not mean malnutrition. In fact, malnutrition is extremely rare in America. Even poor American children are very well nourished (source [4] in my last round).

"Food insecure" simply means that a family had some difficulty with food expenses at some point during a given year. This means that a vast majority of "food insecure" households are actually quite well fed.

The point of all this is that only severe malnourishment can substantially lower IQ scores, and such malnourishment does not exist in any significant way in America. There certainly is not enough to explain the black-white IQ gap.


IQ and Drugs


In the last round, my opponent claimed that drug use was a major explanation of the black-white IQ gap. I pointed out, in response, that she only offered evidence that drugs can lower IQ scores. She did not offer evidence that it was in any way a cause of the black-white IQ gap.

In fact, I showed in the last round that white teenagers actually use more drugs than black teenagers. My opponent, in response, offered a source showing that the black population as a whole, including adults, is more likely to have recently used drugs than the white population as a whole.

This is true. However, my opponent claims that this difference in drug use is the explanation for the large, 15 point black-white IQ gap. This is highly unlikely, as my opponent's source shows that 9.7% of black people report having used a drug in the past month while 8.5% of white people have reported the same thing. This is a very small difference, and it is simply not feasible that this very insignificant difference in drug use explains the large and persistent 15 point black-white IQ gap. Especially given the fact that it is unclear how much drug use lowers IQ scores.


Tizard Study


My opponent, rather oddly, claims that I cannot refute the Tizard study in this round. This is flatly untrue, as my opponent mentioned it in the previous round as one of her major points, so I can absolutely refute it. The Tizard Study is obviously flawed in many ways. Namely, it tests children at ages 2 to 5. This is far too early, as it is before genes have expressed themselves in enough of a way for human differences to be evident. There is also something obviously wrong with the study, perhaps the sampling group, because the results finding that black children are much more intelligent than white children is completely at odds with the well known and well accepted phenomenon of the black-white IQ gap [3].


Eyeferth Study


My opponent also cites the Eyeferth Study to support the view that genetics do not play a role in the black-white IQ gap. This study has many well known flaws. Just for people that don't know, this study looked at children of German mothers that were raped, some by black men and some by white men.

This study has numerous well known flaws. One major flaw is that 30% of the blacks in the US military dropped out, versus only 3% of the whites. This means that there was a much more selective group of blacks than whites in the military at this point, because the bottom 30% of blacks were gone while only the bottom 3% of whites were gone. Another flaw is that the IQ tests were done at too early an age to gauge any results, as differences in IQ are usually expressed later in life [4].

Finally, the Eyeferth study finds that white boys have IQs of 101 while white girls have IQs of 93. This is an 8 point IQ gap between boys and girls found in this study. In the real world, boys are found to only have IQs that are about 3 points higher than girls [5]. This inconsistency with the real world makes this study highly questionable.



Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study


My opponent makes a lot of the fact that this study's authors are skeptical of its conclusions that support genetic basis for the IQ gap. In fact, there is a well known reason why the authors of this study are skeptical. It is that the authors, Sandra Scarr and Richard Weinberg, were actually hoping to show that genetics played no role in the black-white IQ gap. However, their results did not show what they were hoping to show, so they were more neutral on the results.

This study is the only study that has tested adopted children at an old enough age to get an accurate picture of how much genetic differences matter. Not surprisingly, this study found that genetic differences play a large role in the black-white IQ gap [6].


I have shown that heritability of intelligence rises substantially with age. I have also shown that things like malnutrition and drug use cannot account for the black-white IQ gap. Finally, I have shown that my opponent has cited flawed studies to support her conclusion, and I have also shown that the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study was accurate and did show genetic differences playing a big role.

My opponent, on the other hand, made numerous unsourced claims, most of which were claims that clearly needed sources, made numerous logical fallacies, and failed to affirm the resolution.

I have successfully negated the resolution. Therefore, the only logical vote is to vote Con.

Sources:

[1] http://www.nature.com...

[2] http://www.bread.org...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 3
87 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Yngwie 5 months ago
Yngwie
Probably the most hilarious and telling debates I have seen. JimTimmy destroyed the opposing opinion with logic, evidence and reason. Yet people still voted the argument against him, I am stunned.

Honestly, reading the argument I was imagining it to be like a napalm run on a Vietnam children's orphanage. The veracity of the argument providing an extremely compelling case against the weakest, wettest nonsense I have read was laughable.

It is a huge shame the people reading could not comprehend the, quite frankly, elementary arguments at hand. At least enough to vote accordingly. If you don't understand the argument, terminology and logic involved then you shouldn't damn well read it and you definitely should not vote.

Just my humble opinion.
Posted by jimtimmy 2 years ago
jimtimmy
Probably pretty soon. Ren challenged me to a similiar debate last night, so I have to debate him first. I have been on vacation, so I don't have time for more than one debate especially now. I don't know if the debate with Ren will actually happen. I'll probably know pretty soon though. I'll challenge you as soon as I know...
Posted by 000ike 2 years ago
000ike
resolution: Caucasians are inherently more intelligent than people of African dissent. I'd like to put this issue in its death bed rather quickly, so when will you be certain you can/cannot do it immediately?
Posted by jimtimmy 2 years ago
jimtimmy
I'm up for a debate, but I may be debating Ren on this in the short term. I only debate one thing at a time, so let me see if this debate with Ren ends up happening. If it doesn't, we'll debate immediatley. It it does, we'll debate afterwards.

And, what is the exact resolution you want to debate?
Posted by 000ike 2 years ago
000ike
I have had enough. Let me debate you, do you want me to send a challenge or will you do it? You have the affirmative case so it makes more sense if you started the debate. How about it?
Posted by jimtimmy 2 years ago
jimtimmy
aliasam1337,

I would say it is largely genetics.

In another thread, I am actually talking about how culture is largely affected by genes. The fact that african americans are less intelligent, on average, leads to them creating a less intelligent culture which in turn leads to kids being less smart. Of course, black kids are, on average, less intelligent to begin with, but this cultural aspect, which is partially genetic, just worsens this.
Posted by aliasam1337 2 years ago
aliasam1337
id like someone to explain to me why middle class black kids still perform worse then other races in the same class. Why do black kids who get bused to good schools in other neighborhood, or sent to private schools to avoid the public schools still do worse? Well maybe its genetics, maybe it isnt. But the black culture of ignorance and shunning people who are smart and do good in school has something to do with it.
Posted by jimtimmy 2 years ago
jimtimmy
I guess the numbers speak for themselves.
Posted by jimtimmy 2 years ago
jimtimmy
You gave no evidence that most scientists don't believe in race. Even if that is so, it is irrelevant. Different populations, with different evolutionary histories, certainly exist. These populations have differences in traits, like height, skin color, and cognitive ability. You can call them race or populations... different groups of humans still exist...

Watch this video before you comment on this again....

Capitalism has oppressed millions. Nope. That would be socialism. Capitalism has led to rabidly increasing standards of living. And, of course, slavery and capitalism are actually unrelated. Saying that slavery was caused by capitalism is very ignorant, as slavery existed before capitalism... In fact, the beginning of capitalism was pretty close to the end of slavery. Capitalism contributed to the END of slavery.... by making it redundant and increasing education

Workers... they certainly have benefited. After all, 2 centuries of rapidly rising incomes, life spans, and medical tech certainly would benefit me. Consumers, same... and Regulations have only made it worse... by increasing prices and decreasing innovation

Yes, humans used to live in communal tribes. Humans did not used to live in massive collectivist states. See, this little human tribes were all closely related to each other. Science will tell you that people are more altruistic towards closer relatives.

Tribes can survive up to about 250 or so people (Dunbar's number), and then people stop working for the good of the tribe. Also, large scale socialism has the central planning problem that did not exist in tribes of 100... So, we lived in small communal tribes, large scale socialism still doesnt work.

And, finally, these tribes were not very advanced... they were excited to discover fire. The rapid increase in technology in the past 200 years is a direct result of capitalism. So, Thank God for Capitalism
Posted by jimtimmy 2 years ago
jimtimmy
You gave no evidence that most scientists don't believe in race. Even if that is so, it is irrelevant. Different populations, with different evolutionary histories, certainly exist. These populations have differences in traits, like height, skin color, and cognitive ability. You can call them race or populations... different groups of humans still exist...

Watch this video before you comment on this again....

Capitalism has oppressed millions. Nope. That would be socialism. Capitalism has led to rabidly increasing standards of living. And, of course, slavery and capitalism are actually unrelated. Saying that slavery was caused by capitalism is very ignorant, as slavery existed before capitalism... In fact, the beginning of capitalism was pretty close to the end of slavery. Capitalism contributed to the END of slavery.... by making it redundant and increasing education

Workers... they certainly have benefited. After all, 2 centuries of rapidly rising incomes, life spans, and medical tech certainly would benefit me. Consumers, same... and Regulations have only made it worse... by increasing prices and decreasing innovation

Yes, humans used to live in communal tribes. Humans did not used to live in massive collectivist states. See, this little human tribes were all closely related to each other. Science will tell you that people are more altruistic towards closer relatives.

Tribes can survive up to about 250 or so people (Dunbar's number), and then people stop working for the good of the tribe. Also, large scale socialism has the central planning problem that did not exist in tribes of 100... So, we lived in small communal tribes, large scale socialism still doesnt work.

And, finally, these tribes were not very advanced... they were excited to discover fire. The rapid increase in technology in the past 200 years is a direct result of capitalism. So, Thank God for Capitalism
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by thett3 2 years ago
thett3
royalpaladinjimtimmyTied
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: Con shows intelligence to be heritable, what else are we supposed to go on? Blacks have lower IQs regardless, even if its just a matter of environmet that still makes them less intelligent. Easy win for Con.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 2 years ago
vmpire321
royalpaladinjimtimmyTied
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: Hmm. CON seemed to have better points to me.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
royalpaladinjimtimmyTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: this kills dabest guys vote bomb
Vote Placed by Rasheed 2 years ago
Rasheed
royalpaladinjimtimmyTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I thought that Pro had better arguments that could not be credibly refutted by Con. I also believe that because of white ethnocentric attitudes he could not get a fair hearing.
Vote Placed by DaBestGuy1010 2 years ago
DaBestGuy1010
royalpaladinjimtimmyTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: HI!
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 2 years ago
InVinoVeritas
royalpaladinjimtimmyTied
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: Strong case for Con. Not so much for Pro.
Vote Placed by WriterSelbe 2 years ago
WriterSelbe
royalpaladinjimtimmyTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Though everything jimtimmy said was just about complete and utter BS, since this is an actual debate, we all HAVE to look to the Con who proved his points well.
Vote Placed by OberHerr 2 years ago
OberHerr
royalpaladinjimtimmyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: All I can say is that jimmytimmy has me convinced. Though he didn't have he burden of proof, and Pro just didn't seem to carry that burden well.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 2 years ago
ConservativePolitico
royalpaladinjimtimmyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: I agree with Historygenius (previous voter)
Vote Placed by Boogerdoctor 2 years ago
Boogerdoctor
royalpaladinjimtimmyTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I've got to give it to Con. He clearly demonstrated intelligence is at least partially inherited. He also showed whites have a higher IQ on average.