The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
LostintheEcho1498
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

african americans are less intelligent than whites

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 2 votes the winner is...
LostintheEcho1498
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,120 times Debate No: 55240
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

intelligence is proportion to brain size. african americans have smaller brains than whites. they also have lower IQs. IQ tests are debatable, but it's still evidence.

to be fair, whites are not as smart as most asians. whites are known to have a wider rage of intelligence, but overall be less intelligent. hence, more genius whites, and more retarded whites.
LostintheEcho1498

Con

Well this is.......wow. Okay let me educate some people.
1. Whites are NOT more intelligent than blacks by nature. Their brain may on average be a fraction smaller but that has not prevented them from doing some extraordinary things. Intelligence is also deducted in two categories. Book smart and street smart. Yes, on average there are probably more book smart whites but there are also more street smart blacks. Ask an educated white kid to find the probability of Earth existing and they will know how to find it. Tell them what you should do during a mugging and they would probably say crouch down and take it. Hint: You get mugged you fight, you run, you stand up and take it, but do NOT just go into the feetle position. It invites more pounding because you are seen as weak. Blacks on average know this. Does this mean whites are more stupid? No, it just means they know different things. Aside from that, intelligence is something that I do not think you understand. A white may have accumulated more knowledge but this does not make that person superior. The brain has the same capacity(The mentally ill aside) for everyone not just whites. Blacks, if given the same opportunity, can learn just the same as whites. When I say the same opportunity, I also mean environment. It has become a stereotype that blacks should be tough and don't "need to learn nothin" while the white stereotype is the very one you represent. As for the Asian comment, let me explain this stereotype. In China and several Asian countries around it the people who live there have a strong sense of honor. The kids were to be the best and represent the country the best way possible, especially in intellect. They want people to know that they are the best and this mentality was ingrained into the minds of many Asian children's parents who migrated to America. They believed in the very thing you say in your comment(Not cool by the way. Keep debate info in the debate. Not being smug but that was not something you should do unless agreed upon by both parties or you do not have any opportunity to do so). They thought in survival of the fittest and if you have gained more knowledge than those around you than you are the fittest.
Over to You Pro
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

i cited my information in the comments section. con has done nothing to contradict any of it. based on cranial size at least, and IQ as added evidence, whites are smarter than blacks. all con has done is offer speculation, about nature v nurture. he's arguing the differences are all about nurture. that whites and blacks would be the same intelligence given the same social constructs. this is all speculation though, and doesn't negate the studies provided.
LostintheEcho1498

Con

Alright, since it seems you did not understand my statement let me further explain. Also, this is a debate, not a slander match. Simply saying"You didn't argue what I thought you should" does not make it not worth saying or detracting to your argument. I was hoping for this to be a debate and so you should act as if everything has value to it or otherwise it is simply ignorant. I am finished with that and hope you take this seriously and now I am moving on to the argument:

1. I am going to start with the dictionary definitions for this:
in"tel"li"gence [in-tel-i-juhns] Show
noun
1.
capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.
2.
manifestation of a high mental capacity: He writes with intelligence and wit.
3.
the faculty of understanding.
4.
knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or imparted; news; information.

These are all from http://dictionary.reference.com....
Notice how number 1. says to have a CAPACITY for learning meaning you are able to learn. Number three says you have the ability to understand. Number 4 is actually knowing of something specific. Only number 2 says that it is of a higher mental capacity. The other definitions say that it is something that is a capacity. EVERYONE can learn. EVERYONE can understand to a certain degree. Even dogs understand things when taught. Jimmy Carter invented more and better inventions in his time then any others and he was black. Does this mean he was more intelligent? No, it meant that he spent more time to learn but this does not give him more capacity to learn than any other white or black person(slaves aside for this specific time period). There are many blacks who have great knowledge such as the Obamas, Barrack and Michelle. While I do not agree with the Obama administration he does have a knowledge of the workings of modern politics. Many other blacks have had extensive knowledge. Martin Luther King Jr., Michael Erich Dyson, Harry Belafonte, Al Sharpton, and many others. This does not mean that these people are more intelligent but have more knowledge in their respective fields. Reffering back to what i said earlier; book smarts do not make someone intelligent. The IQ test is good to find book smarts but not anything else. Some people do not use book smarts because they have jobs that do not require these particular "smarts". Being a mechanic for cars for your whole life means that you know more about cars than the general population but this is not tested in th IQ test. He does not need to be book smart to know how to fix cars. This does not mean he is less or more intelligent. He knows what he needs to in order to do his job which is what we all do. Having more knowledge is neccesary for certain fields but even the brightest do not know certain things. Albert Einstein failed his English class. Does this make him less knowledgable? No, because he still had the ability to create the first nuclear bomb. Intelligence is not something that is a measure of knowledge, it is a measure if capability which is the same for all(again mentally ill aside). The whole idea of someone being "superior" because they know more about something is completely construed as I have shown. Over to you.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

con basically says blacks of a capacity to be intelligent, and there are various types of smarts, which everyone has different types of, so we can't say whites are smarter than blacks.

con also seems to just forget about all he argued before, as before he focused on the nature versus nurture debate and emphasized nurture. now he's arguing something else. it seems con is just stream of conscious style throwing common objections to 'he or she is or is not smart'. mostly platitudes. nothing scientific, yet again.

back to what he just argued though. can't we say humans are smarter than monkeys? or is that wrong because monkeys have capacity, and have certain smarts humans do not? it's just an analogy to make a point. when we talk about intelligence, we are talking about one's capacity to reason and engage in higher level thought. not whether one per se is decent at fixing cars even though he's generally otherwise a dimwit, even though stephen hawkins well say sucks at fixing cars.
concepts and the essence of the debate matters. con is just engaging in rhetoric and platitudes and misses the point
LostintheEcho1498

Con

Let me start with this:
"con basically says blacks of a capacity to be intelligent, and there are various types of smarts, which everyone has different types of, so we can't say whites are smarter than blacks."

If I did not make it clear with the dictionary definition then let me be clear now because this is getting redundant. Intelligence=Capacity not that there is capacity to BE intelligent.

Next: "back to what he just argued though. can't we say humans are smarter than monkeys? or is that wrong because monkeys have capacity, and have certain smarts humans do not? it's just an analogy to make a point. when we talk about intelligence, we are talking about one's capacity to reason and engage in higher level thought. not whether one per se is decent at fixing cars even though he's generally otherwise a dimwit, even though stephen hawkins well say sucks at fixing cars."

Now to expound on what exactly intelligence is. Now that we can see that intelligence is capacity then we know that monkeys are not of the same level of intelligence as humans. They do no have the capability to understand quantum physics while any human CAN be taught with enough time and effort. There still is the ability, Black or White. As for the Stephen Hawking comment let me solve that issue. The general and cultural perspective of "smarts" is that one has several things: a large and general knowledge about most academic subjects including but not limited to English/Literature, Sciences, History, and Math, a large understanding and use of native language such as grammar and vocabulary, and being able to problem solve with relative ability. While these are parts of ones knowledge, they do not limit people from being able to learn it. Sure, Stephen Hawking is a genius at what he does and many people think he is very smart but why is that a separation to a man who is a genius at fixing cars? Just because one person does not know something does not make them less intelligent.

Lastly:"concepts and the essence of the debate matters. con is just engaging in rhetoric and platitudes and misses the point"
Let us see what the debate is: "african americans are less intelligent than whites". Now, yes, I can see where the example of the mechanic and Stephen Hawking may seem off topic but let me change oh so slightly; A Black guy can fix cars really well and a White guy knows about the working of the physics. Seems on topic to me. Also, if I am just being "off topic" then why is it that the first section my starting statement was "Whites are NOT more intelligent than blacks by nature." and for the second I gave you the dictionary definition of Intelligence and then went to explain how this very definition affects our debate. I am sorry if you are out of good working material but just saying that mine is no good is a little below the belt when all I did was talk about the intelligence of all people being equal. Thanks for the interesting topic and I hope for a fair vote, despite who wins.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by LostintheEcho1498 3 years ago
LostintheEcho1498
One thing off the record I thought was that the very statement proved my point....
Posted by MilesandMilesofMiles 3 years ago
MilesandMilesofMiles
Wow! This has got to be the dumbest s*** on debate.org! Clearly pro is one of the aforementioned 'retarded' whites
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
when i talk about brain size, i'm talking about proportional brain size. this is well established to correlate to intelligence in the animal kingdom.
Posted by ArcTImes 3 years ago
ArcTImes
I don't get the thing about the brain sizes. Whales have bigger brains than us. Brain size definitely has correlation with cognitive ability, but intelligence is more than that. I mean, just simple things like learning and understanding are not related to the size of the brain.
Sure, huge animals with huge brains can have good memory, and reason pretty well, but it's not enough.
And statistics related and hypothesis of this related to evolution don't mean much when we are talking about the same species, I mean, when we can still reproduce with people from other races. A kid with a white dad and black mom, his IQ tends to be in the middle? In one of the sides? It depends if he is more black than white/ lol That's ridiculous. It looks more of a class thing, than a race thing.
Posted by Cygnus 3 years ago
Cygnus
I'd LOVE to be there when you call Neil DeGrasse Tyson that he's not as smart as you.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
"general consensus among scientists as published in the Wall Street Journal in 1994 titled "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" shows a consensus among scientists that average IQ are as followed in America. Blacks 85. Whites 100. East Asians 106. Further studies done and published in science journals show IQ to be overwhelmingly genetic. Minnesota Twins Study by Dr. Thomas Bouchard, the most famous twin study done, shows that identical twins separated at birth are significantly more similiar in IQ than fraternal twins raised together with a genetic correlation of .80.

Cranial size studies show published in the science journal Intelligence 1997, 25, pg 15 shows the average cranial size as followed. Blacks 1,267 cm3. Whites 1347 cm3. East Asians 1364 cm3. The link between cranial size and intelligence are strongly established in several scientific studies published in journals. "Brain Size and Cognitive Ability" in the 1996 issue of the journal Psychonomic Bulletin and Review surveyed all the published research on this topic. It included studies that used the state-of-the-art technique known as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) which gives a very good image of the human brain. There were eight of these studies with a total sample size of 381 adults. The overall correlation between IQ and brain size measured by MRI is 0.44.

So why are Asians smarter? More specifically Northeast Asians? The scientific theories among scientists today hold the notion that the humans that left Africa 110,000 years ago into colder climates of Europe and Northern Asia required more thought and planning to obtain food than that of Africa. And that Northern Asia had more drastic temperatures than that of Europe. It's evolution at work.

The Bell Curve (1994) stated that the average IQ African Americans was 85; Latino 89; White 103; Asian 106; and Jews 113. Asians score relatively higher on visuospatial than on verbal subtests. The few Amerindian populations that have been systematically
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by MilesandMilesofMiles 3 years ago
MilesandMilesofMiles
dairygirl4u2cLostintheEcho1498Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: The concept of intelligence and the degree to which intelligence is measurable is a matter of debate. While there is some consensus about how to define intelligence, the concept of intelligence as something that can be unequivocally measured by a single figure is not universally accepted. A recurring criticism is that different societies value and promote different kinds of skills and that the concept of intelligence is therefore culturally variable and cannot be measured by the same criteria in different societies. Consequently, some critics argue that proposed relationships to other variables are necessarily tentative.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
dairygirl4u2cLostintheEcho1498Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had only "scientific" source, Con failed to sourcedly attack it.