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

Thanks for such a... long and lengthy response... oh, geez. "First of all, quotation marks go outside the period. (*puts on his grammar police sticker*)" Ah, but that only applies to a direct quotation, not an embedded one. "Second of all, according to my source, the US Government, that is not what a disability check is." Well, the disability checks in the resolution are limited to the disability checks defined by my definition. "My opponent's source does not indicate that any said disabilities were genetic, and provides no evidence, only a proportion (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." Okay, the mere fact that they are taking money away from the successful and giving it to the unsuccessful is against natural selection, as I will define later. Also, those with poorer genes are more likely to become disabled, because a person who lost his arm to a machine might have been able to pull it away in time, had he had 20-20 vision instead of 20-150. A person with better hearing might have heard the police officer yelling for him to get out of the way of the speeding truck. These are examples of how poorer genes increase your chances of becoming disabled, even if it is very slight. Therefore, gaining a disability could have a connection to genes, countering your #4. To your arguments about how I listed jobs that having better genes increases your chances of getting them, you didn't refute the point that being more physically fit increases your chance of getting such and such a job. Just because so few people get into major sports or acting, doesn't mean that genes are irrelevant. Michael Phelps, for example, has the perfect build of a swimmer (http://en.wikipedia.org...) and had a better chance of succeeding as a swimmer than a person in a wheelchair. Better genes increase the chances of you getting a job. Your entire body makeup is reflected by your genes; thus, your voice, your throwing arm, and your brain are impacted by genes. To counter your little source about intelligence (http://iq-test.learninginfo.org...), it said in the conclusion, "At birth, every person is dealt a hand of card - his genetic makeup." Genes have a slight impact on intelligence, and thus it is connected to your genes, and to natural selection. So, now I have established that your genes impact your entire life and having better genes gives you an advantage at quite literally everything, with the exception of luck, which is one of the things that make natural selection take so long, but is still part of natural selection. To counter your hemophilia point, this gene was passed over to the Russian royal family, and then one of their members' hemophilia triggered the Russian Revolution, which brought about their death. Thus, natural selection removed some hemophiliacs from the gene pool, because they carried the bad gene. http://www.writing.com... (5th paragraph) Just because having better genes doesn't directly give you more money, doesn't mean that it doesn't have an indirect effect. A family of people with very poor genes is more likely to never have a family member succeed, and thus they continue to live their life in poverty, living off of the welfare checks that save them from disappearing from the gene pool, which is a part of natural selection. Money will always be unevenly distributed. However, the better your genes are, the more likely you are to have succeeded in life and become a millionaire, and be in the upper class. HIV is not a genetic disorder. And I'm not saying that all rich people are genetically superior to all poorer people; I'm saying that the average upper-class member has better genes than the average lower class. To counter 14, the poorer your genes, the poorer you are likely to be. If we do not support the people who cannot sustain themselves, and they all die off because we never sent them welfare checks, then they will have been rid from the gene pool, the overall gene pool will have been improved, and natural selection will have worked. Natural selection can be both periodical and constant. The Darwin Awards are an example of how by people slowly removing themselves from the gene pool due to stupidity (slightly connected to genetics) or possibly due to a disease or accident that wouldn't have happened had they had better genes, natural selection occurs. http://www.darwinawards.com... This is constant. Even without overpopulation, natural selection can occur; it just doesn't occur so rapidly. Finally, you did not disagree that having more money increases your chances of survival, so it has been conceded. CONCLUSION: People who have poorer genes are more likely to be disabled. People who have poorer genes are more likely to be poor. Both of these groups are kept alive by disability and welfare checks. Therefore, their genes are removed from the gene pool at a slower rate than they would if these two systems are abolished. Because the removal of poor genes from the gene pool fuels natural selection, disability checks and welfare checks slow down natural selection. Thus, disability checks and welfare checks go against the concept of natural selection. Now I get to put on my grammar police sticker. When you have a quote within a quote, you replace the ""s with 's. Thank you, and I didn't use up all of my characters!