Resolved: Caucasians are not more intelligent than African Americans.

Given that this is the last round, any drops that he made in the previous rounds cannot be defended by him in this round. This means that if I prove that he mishandled or dropped any of my major arguments, I functionally win the round because it would be unfair for him to make new arguments in this final speech. Aff CaseI presented you with data from the International Journal of Epidemiology that notes that the heritability of IQ is 0.2 in infancy, -.4 in childhood, and 0.8 in adults. He counters this claim by contending that that genes express themselves more as organisms grow. This is actually completely false. All genes do not automatically express themselves as an individual becomes older; instead, different genes are expressed according to the period of development that the organism is undergoing. For example, different genes are expressed during puberty in women than in menopause. As the study cited in subpoint B notes, the critical period of development for the human brain is within the first two years of life, meaning that IQ development genes are most present at that time. So, since IQ heritability is only 0.2 during infancy, the period of critical development of intelligence, we can assume that intelligence is mostly affected by the environment over time; it is not controlled by genetics. This is directly in line with the dropped Neisser analysis in point A, which explicitly states that heritability is higher in adults because individuals often associate with others who are perceived to be of similar intelligence/the environment, specifically the culture from which one stems is the most important factor in shaping IQ. Next go to point B, in which I discussed the effects of malnutrition on IQ. He concedes that malnutrition does have a negative impact on IQ, but notes that African American children are not malnourished because only a small percentage have stunted growth. However, he ignores the LSUAgCenter statistic, which explicitly states that 30% of African American children reside in a home without access to an adequately nutritious diet, meaning that malnutrition is higher in African Americans than Caucasians. This, as I noted in my previous speech, this links malnutrition with the African American population and drags down their average IQ. Thus, even if I lose the rest of the points, I still win the round because the average has been unnaturally reduced by environmental factors.In point C, I discussed the affects of drugs on reducing intelligence. As with the malnutrition point, he concedes that drugs do reduce IQ scores, but claims that I have not provided a definitive link to show African American drug use is higher than Caucasian drug use. In fact, he cleverly attempts to turn the argument by contending that Caucasian teenagers use drugs more than African American teenagers do. Unfortunately, he ignores the Department of Health evidence that notes that African Americans are more likely to have used illicit drugs than Caucasians are. Moreover, his statistic is unfair because it only takes into account drug abuse among teenagers. If we examine the population as a whole, including the adult population (which he claimed in his last speech was the only valid population to test IQ in), African Americans are more likely to be exposed to drugs than Caucasians. So, we can see that the true IQ of African Americans is not measured in intelligence tests for this reason as well.In Point 2, I explain that biracial children have higher IQs, as evidenced by the Tizard study, which was not even discussed by the negative at all (meaning he cannot attempt to refute it in his next speech.) Tizard conducted four studies; in three, there was no statistically significant difference between the IQs of Caucasian children and African American chlidren. In the fourth, Tizard found that African American children and biracial children have a higher IQ (109.8 vs. 101.3) than Caucasian children. I then provided a second study, the Eyeferth study, that found the same results as the first three Tizard studies. Remember that I gave you two impacts for these dropped studies: first, African Americans are not less intelligent than Caucasians. Second, and more importantly, African American children are actually more intelligent than Caucasian children. However, IQ measurements are lower when they are older due to debilitating environmental impacts. This is directly in line with the evidence that I provided in point A.Neg CaseThe only offense that he attempts to offer is the Minnesota Transracial Adoption study. He attempts to use the study to show that even when placed a similar environment, African American children had less intelligence than Caucasian children. Unfortunately for him, the study is notorious for having serious flaws that even the authors admit to.First, the study was conducted in 1976, a period in our history noted for rampant racism. The educational environment for African Americans was, and still is, repressive, leading to a deemphasis on the importance of education as a tool for success. Scarr and Weinberg, the authors of the study, themselves concede that the racism still existed and affected the participants of the study, and that the study only controlled for family environment, and not social environment. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...). This negates the negative's argument that the environment was the same, since racism did not have any negative impact, and indeed did not exist, for the Caucasian children.Second, as Scarr and Weinberg note, the selection methods for African American and biracial children was completely different from that of Caucasian children. They concede, "It is essential to note, however, that the groups also differed significantly (p < .05) in their placement histories and natural mother's education. Children with two black parents were significantly older at adoption, had been in the adoptive home a shorter time, and had experienced a greater number of preadoption placements. The natural parents of the black/black group also averaged a year less of education than those of the black/white group, which suggests an average difference between the groups in intellectual ability. There were also significant differences between the adoptive families of black/black and black/white children in father's education and mother's IQ." (Same source as above.) If this is true, then African American children that were already less intelligent than the Caucasian children were selected for in this study, meaning that it has sampling errors that mitigate its use as a proper scientific tool.Perhaps most damningly, in 1994 the authors of the study themselves countered claims that this study could be used to prove racial differences in intelligence by noting, ". . . contrary to Levin's and Lynn's assertions, results from the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study provide little or no conclusive evidence for genetic influences underlying racial differences in intelligence and achievement." (Same source as above.) Richard Nesbitt further discusses concessions by Scarr and Weinberg, noting that another flaw in the study is that the African American children studied were known by the authors to have ". . . an unusual degree of psychological disturbance having to do with identity issues" (Source: http://www.scribd.com...). This means that the individuals selected for the Scarr study were troubled, and were thus less likely to score well on the exam than individuals of sound mind.Finally, note that the Tizard study was arranged in response to the Minnesota study, and that it is considered by the psychological community to counter the Scarr study. So, the study provided by opponent is utterly flawed and cannot be accepted as true.Thus, the only logical vote in this debate is affirmative because I have proven that a debilitating environment is responsible for the perceived gap.