Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Why Jimtimmy Won

Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 1:11:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Jimtimmy rightly won the debate and I will explain why, in detail, here.

The first question to address is the resolution itself, as this was an issue of contention. It reads: "Caucasians are inherently more intelligent than African Americans." All of these words are rather self-explanatory except for "inherently."

What precisely is meant by this word? We are told in round 1 by Jimtimmy that "inherently" means, for the purpose of this debate "genetically influenced." This is confirmed in round 2 by 000ike who writes "My opponent and I have indeed . . . agreed that inherent refers to genetics."

Other words defined differently than one might expect are "Caucasian" which jimtimmy and 000ike both agree refers solely to Caucasian Americans and intelligence which is agreed to be IQ. It is also mutually agreed that they are debating only averages and not the proposition that ALL Caucasian Americans are smarter than ALL African Americans.

Given this, we can rewrite the resolution to Caucasian Americans Genetically have Higher IQ than African Americans.

What does this mean? Well, one way to explain it is that if we isolate the genetic component. Another way of saying "isolate the genetic component" is "holding environment constant."

Con will argue that, if you hold environment constant, Caucasian Americans will NOT score higher. Con may argue that Caucasian Americans and African Americans will have the same average IQ score or he may argue that African Americans will have a higher IQ score. If Con succeeds in proving this, or even just making this seem plausible, Con wins, given that Pro has the burden of proof.

Pro will argue that if you put Caucasian Americans and African Americans in the same environment, the average IQ scores of the Caucasian Americans will be higher than the average IQ scores of the African Americans. However, Pro does not need to prove that this difference in IQ will be very large, only that it will be significant enough to speak of. If he succeeds in proving this, Pro wins. If Pro does not prove this, he loses.

Jimtimmy begins by noting, and citing, the existence of an IQ gap that presently exists in the United States. Pro writes "The gap observed is about 15 points. Whites average about 100 IQ. Blacks, on the other hand, average about 85 IQ."

This, in itself, doesn't prove much. Maybe environmental effects are the reason that African Americans display lower IQ. Maybe African Americans, everything else equal, actually naturally have a higher IQ than Caucasian Americans and their IQ has been lowered by the negative effects of racism. This is certainly a possibility.

But jimtimmy then notes, and cites, the well-known incredible heritability of IQ. Jimtimmy writes, "In 2004, a meta analysis of reports in Current Directions in Psychological Science gave an overall estimate of around .85 [for the heritability of IQ - Reasoning] for 18 year olds and older." .85 is quite a significant figure. This proves that heritability plays not merely a minor role in IQ but a very significant one.

Given these two facts, that African Americans have lower IQ than Caucasian Americans and that IQ is largely heritable, and therefore not a product of environment, lends considerable credence to the contention that, given the same environment, African Americans would still have lower IQ than Caucasian Americans. But this, by itself, does not surmount Pro's burden of proof. After all, maybe African Americans and Caucasian Americans really would have the same average IQ if not for differences in environment and they this is just part of the .15 that is not determined by genetics. It does seem unlikely, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it implausible, as jimtimmy does in the debate. Given how African Americans seem to be treated in society and how disproportionately poor African Americans are compared to Caucasian Americans, it certainly isn't implausible that this would lead to African Americans having lower IQ scores. Even a gap as large as 15 points is possible.

He next argues brain size. African Americans are known to have smaller cranial capacity than Caucasian Americans and brain size has a correlation of bout .4 with IQ. .4 isn't nearly as high as .85, but it is statistically significant and does nudge the idea that the African Americans will have lower IQ, ceteris paribus, in Pro's direction.

If jimtimmy stopped here, he would have lost, fair and square, for not meeting his burden of proof. But our jimtimmy is thorough.

Jimtimmy next notes the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, which really takes his argument over the edge and meets and exceeds Pro's burden of proof.

Here we have a study where environments are as equal as they humanly could be and still a very significant difference in IQ between African Americans and Caucasian Americans are shown. It is essentially a case study of precisely what jimtimmy and 000ike are debating, and jimtimmy's side is shown to be correct. As jimtimmy notes "So, despite being raised in white upper middle class families, the black-white IQ gaps remained. This would suggest that genetics do matter for these IQ gaps."

This study was an exceedingly strong conclusion to Pro's opening round.

Con begins his round on an interesting note.

Con begins by claiming that jimtimmy needs to prove that being African American is what makes you dumb. But this is stated nowhere in the resolution. As Jimtimmy points out in his next round, if the average height of basketball team A is greater than the average height of basketball team B and the resolution is "Basketball team A has genes that make them taller than Basketball team B" it would be ridiculous for Con to claim that this means that Pro needs to prove that being in Basketball team A, as opposed to basketball team B, is what makes people in Basketball team A taller. The absurdness is self-evident.

Con also claims that Pro needs to prove that "IQ is principally influenced by genetic factors, for if it is not, then IQ is not inherent." Principally means "for the most part" but nowhere in the resolution is it claimed that jimtimmy needs to prove that the current IQ gap in the US is more than 50% genetic. Indeed, nothing is mentioned of any currently existing IQ gap in the resolution at all!

These attempts at moving the goalposts[1] are asinine and not what the resolution actually says nor what jimtimmy thought the debate was about nor what jimtimmy would likely be willing to debate. It is incredibly ungentlemanly to try to alter the resolution after the first round has already been completed.

But moving on, 000ike then concedes all of Jimtimmy's data on IQ and heritability! This is astonishing. How does 000ike think he can beat jimtimmy's argument once he concedes the soundness of jimtimmy's damning data?

Well, 000ike gives it a good try in bringing in African immigrants. African immigrants have high educational attainment, and if we compute these at the usual rate we find that African immigrants have higher IQ than most Caucasian Americans. Very well, but so what, Mr. 000ike? You have given us no reason for this to mean anything. Black astrophysicists probably have pretty high IQs too. Jimtimmy would not question that. In order for this to mean anything you would have to show that African immigrants are a representative sample of Africans, which you do not do. (Actually, even then the debate was explicitly about African Americans, not Africans.) 000ike completely misses the point.

Ike's next point is the Flynn effect. The Flynn effect shows that over time, IQ has risen for all racial groups, though the gap between Caucasian Americans and African Americans has not diminished. 000ike thinks that this proves that IQ is largely environmental. But 000ike has already agreed that jimtimmy's statistics are accurate and that heritable factors make up .85 of IQ, leaving only .15 for environment.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 1:17:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Flynn effect will have no effect on the relative heritability of IQ because it affects both groups equally, leaving the racial gap unchanged. It therefore has no explanatory power in accounting for the IQ gap or in answering the question of which group, Caucasian Americans or African Americans, will have higher IQ given the same environment.

The rest of the rounds were most rehashes of these points with 000ike not understanding what they were actually debating. I'd get into them, but I'm tired now.

I hope this has been enlightening.

1 http://en.wikipedia.org...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
mestizomongrel
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 1:36:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Good analysis.

A large problem with that debate was how the question was framed.

Words like "inherently" (instead of heritability estimates) and more "intelligent" make people freak out.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 8:56:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/20/2012 7:20:15 AM, nonentity wrote:
Heritability =/= genetic. /end thread.

Actually it's genetics and eviroment.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Jim proved genetics plays a large role and environment does not fully Gil the gap as he said its "implausible". So he proved his point. /thread continue.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 9:05:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Actually I won the debate.
Pedants may point out that I was not taking part in the debate, but surely that is only worth the conduct point? From sources to arguments, in every other area I steam-rolled both of them.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 9:10:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/20/2012 8:56:22 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/20/2012 7:20:15 AM, nonentity wrote:
Heritability =/= genetic. /end thread.

Actually it's genetics and eviroment.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Jim proved genetics plays a large role and environment does not fully Gil the gap as he said its "implausible". So he proved his point. /thread continue.

I shouldn't have to explain high school things...

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

and

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com...

As I pointed out in my RFD, his argument was not valid.

1. Intelligence is a heritable trait.
2. Blacks score lower on IQ tests.
C. Blacks are genetically less intelligent.

He uses heritable and genetic interchangeably, which they are not.

/endthread.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 9:21:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/20/2012 9:10:07 AM, nonentity wrote:
At 2/20/2012 8:56:22 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/20/2012 7:20:15 AM, nonentity wrote:
Heritability =/= genetic. /end thread.

Actually it's genetics and eviroment.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Jim proved genetics plays a large role and environment does not fully Gil the gap as he said its "implausible". So he proved his point. /thread continue.

I shouldn't have to explain high school things...

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

^ says genes or environment.


and

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com...

^ this argues genetic programs give you things, it's example is fingers.



As I pointed out in my RFD, his argument was not valid.

1. Intelligence is a heritable trait.
2. Blacks score lower on IQ tests.
C. Blacks are genetically less intelligent.

He uses heritable and genetic interchangeably, which they are not.

/endthread.

He proved environment had little role and that genes had a larger role. Also read your sources before you provide them. It's funny how I know this and I'm not even in highschool...

/continue thread
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 9:33:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/20/2012 9:24:44 AM, nonentity wrote:
Lol I read my sources. It's obvious you do not understand them so I'm not even going to bother.

It said genes and environment had roles to play in heritability. As it says genes, and jim first round stated, the environment would not likely fill the 15 point gap. So as environment + genes = heritability, and Jim proved genes play a larger role = he won.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 10:47:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/20/2012 9:10:07 AM, nonentity wrote:
As I pointed out in my RFD, his argument was not valid.

1. Intelligence is a heritable trait.
2. Blacks score lower on IQ tests.
C. Blacks are genetically less intelligent.

I agree, that argument isn't valid. C does not necessarily follow from premises 1 and 2, premises 1 and 2 just suggest that C is rather likely. I said as much in the OP, if you bothered to read it. But you're also leaving out the twin study which is very convincing.

You also seem to misunderstand the distinction between heretability and genetics.

The heretability of a trait varies depending on environment. For example, there is a lesser heretability of IQ in Africa than there is in the United States. Why? Because there are many more variable that significantly affect IQ in Africa than in the United States. For example, getting enough food for your brain to develop properly.

The claim that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites, however, is to claim that if you hold all non-genetic factors constant, blacks will be less intelligent than whites. Another way to think of this is to think of removing all environmental differences such that any difference in IQ must be 100% heritable.

This is why jimtimmy's statistics of heredity in the United States is so compelling. The difference between .85 and 1 is not all that great that it seems unlikely that such a relatively minor imperfection in environmental effects could produce such a significant gap.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 11:36:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
isn't 000ike winning now?
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 1:07:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is my defense for I think Reasoning is wrong, for anyone who's interested.

There is nothing "inherent" to a race that is not genetically attached to factors that DEFINE that race. So, for me to say that African Americans are inherently darker skinned, suggests that there is a connection/causative link between the genes that MAKE them African American, and the genes that define skin color. So should we apply this necessity for GENE LINKAGE if we want to assert that African Americans are inherently less intelligent than Caucasians.

Had jimtimmy found anywhere that intelligence was dependent on race, or that intelligence was a factor, as in a part, of the genes that define specific races, he would have won the debate immediately. But the fact is that no such claim exists. He thus depended on inconclusive data and trends to confirm the likelihood of the resolution.

In comparison, I showed that those observations are more likely the products of external factors than something intrinsic. I mention twins, who scored opposite IQ rates in accordance with their socioeconomic status. I mentioned that college graduates had a higher IQ than noncolleges graduates, and mentioned that African Americans that immigrated exceed the Caucasian average. Jimtimmy refuted saying that only a select subset of Africans come to America, but I am confident that that was an unsubstantiated assertion. It is not "common sense" that only smart Africans come to America, so a claim like that warranted SOME sort of backing. Jimtimmy neglected to provide that,...but by Reasoning's logic I should have wasted time addressing it anyway, I should have wasted time on something that could have been and was probably completely fabricated.

The African Immigrant argument stood unnegated, and Jimtimmy's only refutation against the other evidence was that I picked children with malleable brains, ...but that didn't stand either since I also mentioned rates for college graduates, and the Flynn Effect which can account for a 5-25 IQ point differential! He did not negate that either.

If you accuse me of leaving any of Jimtimmy's arguments unaddressed, then you could also accuse jimtimmy for leaving my 2 biggest arguments essentially untouched. In the end it came down to the fact that I let jimtimmy started the arguments and had the BoP,...and never actually disproved any of the evidence I brought up suggesting the reflections of IQ were more environmental than genetic.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 6:42:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is my defense for I think Reasoning is wrong, for anyone who's interested.

There is nothing "inherent" to a race that is not genetically attached to factors that DEFINE that race. So, for me to say that African Americans are inherently darker skinned, suggests that there is a connection/causative link between the genes that MAKE them African American, and the genes that define skin color. So should we apply this necessity for GENE LINKAGE if we want to assert that African Americans are inherently less intelligent than Caucasians.

Had jimtimmy found anywhere that intelligence was dependent on race, or that intelligence was a factor, as in a part, of the genes that define specific races, he would have won the debate immediately. But the fact is that no such claim exists. He thus depended on inconclusive data and trends to confirm the likelihood of the resolution.


This is basically my RFD in the debate. African Americans may appear to look less intelligent, but it is not because of race. It is because of other factors (mainly environment).
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 7:13:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Pathetic. Please, stop being such a nauseating sycophant.

RoyalPaladin completely decimated Jimtimmy. I read it up and down in a thread a long @ss time ago. And, just because no one feels like going through all the trouble you did while unreasonably fellating Jimtimmy's absurdly weak argument to present a refutation in kind does not grant its preposterous sophistry merit.

What disgusts me most is although you kids may be clever, you're nowhere near notably intelligent. I've met sincerely intelligent people, both kids and adults, and they exist on a completely different plane than you. Many of them have been who are considered "minorities," including "blacks," and judging how the meager glimmer of the breadth my own intellect that I've revealed has so intimidated the likes of Reasoning, Jimtimmy, and others, some of them would probably cause your penises to invert from one insightful comment made while on drugs.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 7:14:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/20/2012 7:13:29 PM, Ren wrote:
Pathetic. Please, stop being such a nauseating sycophant.

RoyalPaladin completely decimated Jimtimmy. I read it up and down in a thread a long @ss time ago. And, just because no one feels like going through all the trouble you did while unreasonably fellating Jimtimmy's absurdly weak argument to present a refutation in kind does not grant its preposterous sophistry merit.

What disgusts me most is although you kids may be clever, you're nowhere near notably intelligent. I've met sincerely intelligent people, both kids and adults, and they exist on a completely different plane than you. Many of them have been who are considered "minorities," including "blacks," and judging how the meager glimmer of the breadth my own intellect that I've revealed has so intimidated the likes of Reasoning, Jimtimmy, and others, some of them would probably cause your penises to invert from one insightful comment made while on drugs.

lol omg.
Cobo
Posts: 556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 8:05:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/20/2012 1:36:36 AM, mestizomongrel wrote:
Good analysis.

A large problem with that debate was how the question was framed.

Words like "inherently" (instead of heritability estimates) and more "intelligent" make people freak out.

A long time ago, I checked out jimtimmy's wins.
Some of them come from him not properly wording the resolution or making it hard to see who is arguing for what.
Church of the BANHAMMER GODS priest
caveman135
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2012 1:45:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/20/2012 7:13:29 PM, Ren wrote:

What disgusts me most is although you kids may be clever, you're nowhere near notably intelligent. I've met sincerely intelligent people, both kids and adults, and they exist on a completely different plane than you. Many of them have been who are considered "minorities," including "blacks," and judging how the meager glimmer of the breadth my own intellect that I've revealed has so intimidated the likes of Reasoning,

Maybe you can have one of your intelligent minority friends teach you statistics. You will realize that counterexamples mean nothing with regards to the soundness of general trends. Very weak argument.
caveman135
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2012 1:56:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/20/2012 1:07:46 PM, 000ike wrote:

There is nothing "inherent" to a race that is not genetically attached to factors that DEFINE that race. So, for me to say that African Americans are inherently darker skinned, suggests that there is a connection/causative link between the genes that MAKE them African American, and the genes that define skin color.

Race is not defined by a single phenotype such as skin color. There are individuals with albinism who are still considered "African American".
mestizomongrel
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2012 6:34:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/20/2012 1:07:46 PM, 000ike wrote:
This is my defense for I think Reasoning is wrong, for anyone who's interested.

There is nothing "inherent" to a race that is not genetically attached to factors that DEFINE that race. So, for me to say that African Americans are inherently darker skinned, suggests that there is a connection/causative link between the genes that MAKE them African American, and the genes that define skin color. So should we apply this necessity for GENE LINKAGE if we want to assert that African Americans are inherently less intelligent than Caucasians.


You are wording your propositions in such a way that makes it very hard to follow. Nonetheless, it seem as if you are proposing it is necessary that we must define race in an essentialist framework; this is not the case. We also don't need to find "gene linkage" (kind of ambiguous term), or in other words, we don't need to find the specific genes for 'intelligence' to demonstrate intelligence is heritable. (that's what twin studies are for)

Jimtimmy made a huge mistake framing the debate with words like 'inherent'; I will definitely grant you that.

Had jimtimmy found anywhere that intelligence was dependent on race, or that intelligence was a factor, as in a part, of the genes that define specific races, he would have won the debate immediately. But the fact is that no such claim exists. He thus depended on inconclusive data and trends to confirm the likelihood of the resolution.


Just in case you dispute that the social ontology of race may have a biological basis:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

APA study demonstrating intelligence may have a high heritable component.
http://www.gifted.uconn.edu...

In comparison, I showed that those observations are more likely the products of external factors than something intrinsic. I mention twins, who scored opposite IQ rates in accordance with their socioeconomic status. I mentioned that college graduates had a higher IQ than noncolleges graduates, and mentioned that African Americans that immigrated exceed the Caucasian average. Jimtimmy refuted saying that only a select subset of Africans come to America, but I am confident that that was an unsubstantiated assertion. It is not "common sense" that only smart Africans come to America, so a claim like that warranted SOME sort of backing. Jimtimmy neglected to provide that,...but by Reasoning's logic I should have wasted time addressing it anyway, I should have wasted time on something that could have been and was probably completely fabricated.


If you are referring to your 'africaresource.com' link, I read it and the source was not clear on how representative the sample of the African immigrants was. No indicators were given that showed the financial status of the immigrants, living conditions, nutrition, et cetera.

The African Immigrant argument stood unnegated, and Jimtimmy's only refutation against the other evidence was that I picked children with malleable brains, ...but that didn't stand either since I also mentioned rates for college graduates, and the Flynn Effect which can account for a 5-25 IQ point differential! He did not negate that either.

If you accuse me of leaving any of Jimtimmy's arguments unaddressed, then you could also accuse jimtimmy for leaving my 2 biggest arguments essentially untouched. In the end it came down to the fact that I let jimtimmy started the arguments and had the BoP,...and never actually disproved any of the evidence I brought up suggesting the reflections of IQ were more environmental than genetic.:

Both of you had pretty unsatisfactory arguments actually.
1dustpelt
Posts: 1,970
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2012 8:00:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Jimtimmy attacks and insults everyone who disagrees with him! And he PM'd 16kadams to counter a valid vote! I say conduct goes to Ike.
Wall of LOL
"Infanticide is justified as long as the infants are below two" ~ RoyalPaladin
"Promoting female superiority is the only way to establish equality." ~ RoyalPaladin
"Jury trials should be banned. They're nothing more than opportunities for racists to destroy lives." ~ RoyalPaladin after the Zimmerman Trial.
Space_Milk
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 1:24:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Found the debate when I was looking for old debates out of curiosity. I do not understand how people cannot put aside their beliefs before reading a debate, put aside whatever feelings they have for each person before a debate, then read and make a choice. Jim clearly won the debate, yet people for the sake of not wanting to be 'racist' had con win. This is coming from a half white half hispanic person. Geez. Not to mention con demonstrated a lack of understanding on genetics and biology.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 1:48:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 1:24:07 AM, Space_Milk wrote:
Found the debate when I was looking for old debates out of curiosity. I do not understand how people cannot put aside their beliefs before reading a debate, put aside whatever feelings they have for each person before a debate, then read and make a choice. Jim clearly won the debate, yet people for the sake of not wanting to be 'racist' had con win. This is coming from a half white half hispanic person. Geez. Not to mention con demonstrated a lack of understanding on genetics and biology.

Geez, crazy bump, I haven't thought about this debate in awhile.

I'm not going to argue about this because everything that can be said about this debate has been said. This debate was also an inaugural Hall of Fame debate inductee:

http://www.debate.org...

Either way, there are obviously strong opinions on both sides, both sides of the debate have difficulty putting their beliefs aside, and no one "clearly won".

I'm sure someone will happily take you up on this debate topic though. Set up a debate challenge. Good luck.
Debate.org Moderator
KingDebater
Posts: 687
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 7:58:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2012 1:11:59 AM, Reasoning wrote:
Jimtimmy rightly won the debate and I will explain why, in detail, here.
The first question to address is the resolution itself, as this was an issue of contention. It reads: "Caucasians are inherently more intelligent than African Americans." All of these words are rather self-explanatory except for "inherently."
What precisely is meant by this word? We are told in round 1 by Jimtimmy that "inherently" means, for the purpose of this debate "genetically influenced." This is confirmed in round 2 by 000ike who writes "My opponent and I have indeed . . . agreed that inherent refers to genetics."
Other words defined differently than one might expect are "Caucasian" which jimtimmy and 000ike both agree refers solely to Caucasian Americans and intelligence which is agreed to be IQ. It is also mutually agreed that they are debating only averages and not the proposition that ALL Caucasian Americans are smarter than ALL African Americans.
Given this, we can rewrite the resolution to Caucasian Americans Genetically have Higher IQ than African Americans.
What does this mean? Well, one way to explain it is that if we isolate the genetic component. Another way of saying "isolate the genetic component" is "holding environment constant."
Con will argue that, if you hold environment constant, Caucasian Americans will NOT score higher. Con may argue that Caucasian Americans and African Americans will have the same average IQ score or he may argue that African Americans will have a higher IQ score. If Con succeeds in proving this, or even just making this seem plausible, Con wins, given that Pro has the burden of proof.
Pro will argue that if you put Caucasian Americans and African Americans in the same environment, the average IQ scores of the Caucasian Americans will be higher than the average IQ scores of the African Americans. However, Pro does not need to prove that this difference in IQ will be very large, only that it will be significant enough to speak of. If he succeeds in proving this, Pro wins. If Pro does not prove this, he loses.
Jimtimmy begins by noting, and citing, the existence of an IQ gap that presently exists in the United States. Pro writes "The gap observed is about 15 points. Whites average about 100 IQ. Blacks, on the other hand, average about 85 IQ."
This, in itself, doesn't prove much. Maybe environmental effects are the reason that African Americans display lower IQ. Maybe African Americans, everything else equal, actually naturally have a higher IQ than Caucasian Americans and their IQ has been lowered by the negative effects of racism. This is certainly a possibility.
But jimtimmy then notes, and cites, the well-known incredible heritability of IQ. Jimtimmy writes, "In 2004, a meta analysis of reports in Current Directions in Psychological Science gave an overall estimate of around .85 [for the heritability of IQ - Reasoning] for 18 year olds and older." .85 is quite a significant figure. This proves that heritability plays not merely a minor role in IQ but a very significant one.
Given these two facts, that African Americans have lower IQ than Caucasian Americans and that IQ is largely heritable, and therefore not a product of environment, lends considerable credence to the contention that, given the same environment, African Americans would still have lower IQ than Caucasian Americans. But this, by itself, does not surmount Pro's burden of proof. After all, maybe African Americans and Caucasian Americans really would have the same average IQ if not for differences in environment and they this is just part of the .15 that is not determined by genetics. It does seem unlikely, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it implausible, as jimtimmy does in the debate. Given how African Americans seem to be treated in society and how disproportionately poor African Americans are compared to Caucasian Americans, it certainly isn't implausible that this would lead to African Americans having lower IQ scores. Even a gap as large as 15 points is possible.
He next argues brain size. African Americans are known to have smaller cranial capacity than Caucasian Americans and brain size has a correlation of bout .4 with IQ. .4 isn't nearly as high as .85, but it is statistically significant and does nudge the idea that the African Americans will have lower IQ, ceteris paribus, in Pro's direction.
If jimtimmy stopped here, he would have lost, fair and square, for not meeting his burden of proof. But our jimtimmy is thorough.
Jimtimmy next notes the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, which really takes his argument over the edge and meets and exceeds Pro's burden of proof.
Here we have a study where environments are as equal as they humanly could be and still a very significant difference in IQ between African Americans and Caucasian Americans are shown. It is essentially a case study of precisely what jimtimmy and 000ike are debating, and jimtimmy's side is shown to be correct. As jimtimmy notes "So, despite being raised in white upper middle class families, the black-white IQ gaps remained. This would suggest that genetics do matter for these IQ gaps."

This study was an exceedingly strong conclusion to Pro's opening round.

Con begins his round on an interesting note.

Con begins by claiming that jimtimmy needs to prove that being African American is what makes you dumb. But this is stated nowhere in the resolution. As Jimtimmy points out in his next round, if the average height of basketball team A is greater than the average height of basketball team B and the resolution is "Basketball team A has genes that make them taller than Basketball team B" it would be ridiculous for Con to claim that this means that Pro needs to prove that being in Basketball team A, as opposed to basketball team B, is what makes people in Basketball team A taller. The absurdness is self-evident.

Con also claims that Pro needs to prove that "IQ is principally influenced by genetic factors, for if it is not, then IQ is not inherent." Principally means "for the most part" but nowhere in the resolution is it claimed that jimtimmy needs to prove that the current IQ gap in the US is more than 50% genetic. Indeed, nothing is mentioned of any currently existing IQ gap in the resolution at all!

These attempts at moving the goalposts[1] are asinine and not what the resolution actually says nor what jimtimmy thought the debate was about nor what jimtimmy would likely be willing to debate. It is incredibly ungentlemanly to try to alter the resolution after the first round has already been completed.

But moving on, 000ike then concedes all of Jimtimmy's data on IQ and heritability! This is astonishing. How does 000ike think he can beat jimtimmy's argument once he concedes the soundness of jimtimmy's damning data?

Well, 000ike gives it a good try in bringing in African immigrants. African immigrants have high educational attainment, and if we compute these at the usual rate we find that African immigrants have higher IQ than most Caucasian Americans. Very well, but so what, Mr. 000ike? You have given us no reason for this to mean anything. Black astrophysicists probably have pretty high IQs too. Jimtimmy would not question that. In order for this to mean anything you would have to show that African immigrants are a representative sample of Africans, which you do not do. (Actually, even then the debate was explicitly about African Americans, not Africans.) 000ike completely misses the point.

Ike's next point is the Flynn effect. The Flynn effect shows that over time, IQ has risen for all racial groups, though the gap between Caucasian Americans and African Americans has not diminished. 000ike thinks that this proves that IQ is largely environmental. But 000ike has already agreed that jimtimmy's statistics are accurate
tl;dr
kaniblu
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 3:43:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
What does "gene linkage" even mean? ike's been creating weird concepts from nowhere, and it just seems so desperate.

But putting those desperation aside, let's look at what ike's trying to say. ike said there should be no correlation between race and intelligence because we do not classify people's race based on their intelligence. Now if we could find an example of a trait, which is not a criteria for race determination but shows some correlation among races, then ike's argument is instantly void. I could waste my time searching for those sources, but let's just use common sense to think of an example. Ah, the famous "male gen!tal size"!. It is a pretty established fact that Asians have smaller male gen!tals than Caucasians. Do we use gen!tal size as one of the measures to segregate Caucasians and Asians? No. Is there a correlation? Definitely, yes. See what we did here? "Genetic linkage" or whatever it is just a ton of horse dong that just needed to addressed once and could put ike's arguments into trash bin faster than Nazi Germany.