Race does not influence the individual

=== Prestandards === In debate, an “abusive” argument is one where one side cannot win no matter what. For example, bringing up new arguments in the last round is “abusive” because the other debater cannot respond to them. Evidence! Consider that if linking evidence were sufficient condition for advocacy, rounds could be technically won by spamming evidence. Debaters could link entire books, and so long as the opponent did not address every argument made in hundreds of books, the spammer would win. This is a display of trollery. Debate skill should be prioritized over spamming because anyone can spam evidence. Therefore, evidence must be tagged explicitly to have an impact. Debaters ought not to be responsible for unexplained sources. === Framework === Pro writes: my argument is that race is not the sole factor that intellect is based While the resolution is “Race does not influence the individual”. So his discourse about peripheral influences like education, nutrition, etc, don't matter. He has to directly show that race has no impact on the individual. He hasn't done that, so his whole case is non-topical. It should also be clear from my opening post that “agnosticism” is sufficient condition for Con victory. Pro writes: “He is to prove that race is the sole factor in intelligence, and I am to prove that it is not.” The resolution says nothing about intelligence. Pro is just picking one of many attributes and focusing on it. Even if he wins all his points, as long as I extend one piece of Con advocacy, I win. === Pro Arguments === 1) Other factors of intelligence Pro writes: “But the majority of your intellect is influenced by your environment and what there is to learn around you.” This doesn't matter. As long as race may play some role, even 5%, Pro has failed his burden. 2) Genetic memory No race has genetic memory. Therefore, race does not influence genetic memory. You can replace “genetic memory” with “magic superpowers”, or something crazy that no human has. Pro's arguments are just a semantic exercise. But again, a narrow subset of all possible attributes. Insufficient to affirm the resolution 3) Evidence Looking to the prestandards, we can ignore all of Con's evidence. Even if his links do support his big block of “arguments”, he didn't tag his arguments to source(s), so they remained “unexplained”. 4) Pro concession Pro writes: “Intelligence is part genetic part environment . . . “ Which concedes that race DOES influence the individual. So the first piece of Con advocacy comes straight out of Pro's mouth. Thanks! === Con Case === 1) Intelligence No intelligence gene has yet been found [1]. So research has failed to disprove or confirm the influence of race on intelligence. Direct attempts to study the correlation of inter-generational IQ fail to isolate genetics, because the socioeconomic status and culture are inherited too [2]. This is where my “agnosticism” comes from. So it can't be said with any certainty that race does or does not influence intelligence. With limited information, it might make sense to chalk up the differences to genetics, culture, environment, education, whatever. The genetic component has a degree of plausibility because other traits like skin color [3], blood type [4], and psychological disorders [5], are strongly genetic. So I don't think we should rule out genetics as a contributor to intelligence until all the tests are in. 2) Testosterone Testosterone plays a daily role in our lives. A long list includes: Mental and Physical Energy, Risk Taking, Libido, and the Immune System [6]. So it makes a big difference. It was found that Testosterone levels in blacks are 19% higher than whites [7]. I can't find any studies explicitly studying the racial dynamic, but there are good reasons to believe it makes a difference in people's lives. Testosterone is genetic [8]. === Conclusion === I win conduct because I've gone out of my way to tag my arguments. This makes it easier for readers to follow. I win grammar and spelling because Pro wrote this: “The simple fact of the matter is that the environment influences what you learn such as if you are raised in a poor neighborhood in which the most common means of survival is to join a gang then you are likely to join a gang, if you live in a rich neighborhood with rich people then you are more likely to behave and think like those rich people, now there are exceptions to the rule but remember that exceptions are always an minority. “ That is a huge run on sentence. I win arguments because Pro arguments about intelligence are an insufficient condition to affirm the resolution. I have defended agnosticism on intelligence, and given a concrete case for testosterone differences between races. Thanks [1] http://minority-health.pitt.edu... [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [3] http://www.suite101.com... [4] http://answers.encyclopedia.com... [5] http://depression.about.com... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://guywhite.wordpress.com... [8] http://discovermagazine.com...