Disability checks and welfare checks go against the concept of natural selection.

1. "Alright, my definition for disability check for this debate is "a welfare check sent to the parents of a child who is born with a disability". This is the type of check that parents receive to help care for their disability-burdened children, such as the payments Nadya Suleman receives to "make up for" the fact that three of her children are disabled. Now, naturally, the chance of your survival goes up if you have more money. Thus, disability checks increase the chance of any disabled kid surviving. For natural selection to work, the unfit (disabled) have to fail to survive and reproduce more often than those who aren't disabled. With the chance of their survival going up, the process of natural selection is slowed down by these disability checks; thus, disability checks go against the concept of natural selection." First of all, quotation marks go outside the period. (*puts on his grammar police sticker*) Second of all, according to my source, the US Government, that is not what a disability check is. 2. On the octuplet mom, my opponent's source reads "Suleman did not want to disclose the nature of her children's disabilities or the nature of those payments." My opponent's source does not indicate that any said disabilities were genetic, and provides no evidence, only a purportion (which is contradicted by the fact that she "didn't want to...disclose the nature of those payments"), that the said mother actually gets disability benefits. Furthermore, as indicated at http://www.ssa.gov..., children must meet the same requirements as adults that I listed in round one. 3. On my opponent's statements on the nature of natural selection: a population must overpopulate and create competition. For more detail, see my rebuttal to your answer to C. 4. On my opponent's rebuttal's pertinence to my main point: My conclusion in "B" was that the definition of "disability" is not "genetically unfit" as my opponent's contention requires for it to be. My opponent, by default, conceded my point; therefore, disability checks are unrelated to genes; therefore, they are unrelated to natural selection; therefore, they do not go against natural selection; therefore, my opponent's contention is false. 5. "Those who have spectacular strength, stamina, and physical greatness have a higher chance of being in sports." People who make a living playing sports are few; those few are negligible. According to my source at http://www.expertclick.com..., .03% of high school seniors are drafted by an NBA team, .5% of high school seniors are drafted by MLB, and .09% of high school seniors are drafted by NFL. This leaves other 99.38% of seniors unaccounted for. "Those who lack speech impediments become TV show hosts or public speakers." This is a major generalization. They can become show hosts or public speakers. A speech impediment would block out this job sector, but leave many others opened, such as programming, engineering, and countless other career opportunities. "Those who are highly intelligent work as scholars, inventors, and engineers." Intelligence has yet to be solidly linked to genetics; furthermore, my source at http://iq-test.learninginfo.org... concludes through experimentation that intelligence is not dependent on genetics but on one's upbringing. "Those who look and sound great become actors and singers." Again, a generalization. And a very large one. It is extremely unlikely to become rich from a career in acting or in music. Also, there are great actors with less than great looks. Looks are subjective, so I won't press this as solid evidence, but Kate Winslet might change your (the voter's) mind. http://www.imdb.com... Also, my opponent has failed to solidly link this to genetics. "Those who lack genetic "spectacularness" are less likely to be any of these things, and thus are more likely to have low-paying jobs or be unemployed." See above. 6. "Your genes are also dependent on those of your father and mother." As theirs theirs, but getting money into one's family does not necessitate genetic superiority, but luck. Going over to the hemophilia point, hemophilia was inherited with royal money. 7. "However, those with better genes have a slight advantage." See above. 8. "Hemoph[i]lia originated from an accidental, unpredictable mutation, not connected to natural selection." ...and stayed in the royal bloodline in a society without disability / welfare checks. 9. "On a slightly different point, glasses are also against natural selection..." I would consider it more of a use of the main genetic "spectacularness" in humans. (Completely unrelated, though.) 10. "the ability of a royal man having the ability to choose his bride from among anybody in his kingdom contributes to royal families often having better qualities that most commoners." That's sexual selection. King Albert did choose to marry Victoria. 11. "We already have overpopulation..." False. Overpopulation, as it relates to natural selection, is a critical point at which a population can no longer support its numbers. There are no indications that reproduction is slowing down; humans are reproducing more quickly than ever before (http://www.beltramiswcd.org...). Eventually, there will be too many people for all our organization and technology can not sustain everyone. Then, and only then, will there be competition, and the fittest should survive. 12. Now, as a small counterpoint, I would like to point out that money will, at that time, be unevenly distributed and, as it is now, and, again, as it is now, genes will not correspond to richness. Until the collapse of society, those with more money will have an advantage of the others introducing a non-genetic selection, an artificial monetary selection which palpably goes against natural selection; Queen Victoria would have a palpable advantage over a peasant with the Delta-32 mutation, 20 20 vision, and clotting blood. Because welfare checks minimize monetary differences, not only do welfare checks not go against natural selection, but they support it. 13. "By benefitting the unfit...against natural selection." You're assuming that the millionaire has better genes than the broke guy. If everyone got 1/3 million dollars, the one with better genes would inevitably survive to reproduce. Even if the one with better genes had a greater chance to be the millionaire, there would be a chance that the millionaire would have, and make continue, myopia, sickle cell, hemophilia, and HIV. 14. "...the disabled and poor..." Neither of those are genetic; the statement doesn't support the subject. 15. "...our population will not overpopulate so quickly." Our population needs to overpopulate to have competition and, ultimately, a bottleneck for natural selection to work. Slowing overpopulation will stall natural selection; therefore, removing disability checks slows down natural selection; therefore, said checks support natural selection by supporting overpopulation. 15.5. I would like to clarify something; my source at http://books.google.com..., Charles Darwin's famous book *On the Origin of Species* indicates that natural selection is not constant but periodic; it requires reproduction beyond capacity, competition, and reproduction of the fittest, who will continue the cycle. *We do not have reproduction beyond capacity. We need reproduction beyond capacity to take place before we can have competition and elimination of the unfit.* Conclusion: Not only do welfare checks and disability checks not go against natural selection but, as I have proven, they support it. Awesome; I used all my