Black people are inherently physcally superior to white people.

I would like to begin by apoligise to my opponent both for the aggressive exchange that spurned this debate and for my delay in actually accepting it and posting an opening round. The Resolution is: Black people are inherently physcally superior to white people. Black People: For the purpose of this debate I wish to define black people as those of primarily black sub-saharan african descent. Thus a person whose only known antecedents are of black sub-saharan african descent would be a valid example. A person whose only known antecedents are of black sub-saharan african descent apart from one white grandparent would be a valid example. A person who is half black, and half white would not be a valid example. This is because one could equally claim that their physical superiority comes from the white race, and the simple need for some form of definition as to what is meant by the term black in order to have a valid debate. I accept my opponents other definitions and I do not feel that they need to be clarified. To further clarify my position, I seek to argue that Black People are, by and large, if taken collectively, physically superior to White People. That is to say there is a stronger correlation black ancestry and physical prowess then there is between white ancestry and physical prowess. It would be an obvious strawman, and one that I know my opponent won't indulge in, to compare an elderly or disabled black person to a white olympian. Argument 1: The Great White Hope Is indeed a reference to the Jack Johnson, the first black heavyweight champion of the world and in the words of the first Great White Hope, James J. Jeffries, "the effort to reclaim the heavyweight championship for the white race". Jeffries however was defeated, quite convincingly. The whites got themselves their great white hope in the form of Jess Willard in 1915, and whites held the title until 1937 when it was taken by Joe Louis (who still holds the record for longest reigning champion). http://en.wikipedia.org... A cursory examination of wikipedia suggests that of the period of 1937 to 2010 whites have held for approximately 6 years, certainly no more than a decade. That shows nearly 70 years of black hegenomy over the sport. http://en.wikipedia.org... (if people want to check) I would seek to argue that this suggests that Blacks are physically superior to Whites. My opponent counters the following, "1: You could just as well say that the success of black boxers indicates superior intelligence on their part, as boxing is a very mentally demanding sport." In reality there is no such thing as mind-body duality. Though something such as mathematical ability can be defined as mental, and muscle strength as physical, a complicated sporting activity crosses both. The skills of a boxer in include strength (purely physical) and reflexes (can be seen as physical and mental). Though part of the point above I will seperately address my opponents argument of, 2. "If you take a sport that relies purely on physical strength, like power lifting for example, you will find that the most succesful athletes in that discipline are actually white." This is admittedly a valid point, it is not certain that this is due to biology or sociology however. My opponent also argues that, "3: There are plenty of social explanations for the success of black heavyweight boxers. The determination and enthusiasm for violence required to succeed in this field is often nurtured in the very hostile and impoverished environments that black Americans have been more likely to endure than their white sporting rivals" I have no problem recognising that the social backgrounds of many of these black boxers have created a impetous. However there is firstly a world of difference between living in a violent neighourhood and the intense regimen of training that a professional athlete undergoes. In addition it is clear that there are just as many non-blacks who are raised in similar enviroments. Where are the hispanic heavyweight champions for instance? It is clear that sociology is not the primary driving force for black excellence in this field, and that the reason is most likely to be genetic predisposition. Argument 2: The Olympics My opponent states that, "I think the notion that on the whole, black people out-perform white people in athletic ability is easily refuted by a look at a list of multiple Olympic medalists." All things being equal one might assume that a country's share of olympic medals would be proportional to its population, allowing for the vagaries of random chance. In reality other factors come into play, such as a countries GDP (or I would suggest it's genetics). A number of statistical studies have been conducted. This article shows that when looking at population Jamaica, a predominately black nation, greatly overperforms. When looking at GDP we see that Zimbabwe, a predominately black nation greatly overperforms, followed by Jamaica. This is a strong statistical anomaly, and a reasonable explanation for it is race. http://www.stubbornmule.net... Argument 3: Football (Soccer). My opponent states that, "the fact that in our domestic sport of football (soccer), no nation with a black majority has ever won a major international competition, and countries with significant black populations, such as the US, Brazil and our own dear England, still field a number (in most cases a majority) of white players." 7 of the 25 members of the current England Squad are black. This translates as 28% of the entire team. When compared to the overall population of England this is massively disproportionate. This is because of the correlation between black ethnicity and physical prowess. Argument 4: Slavery The Spanish exported vast numbers of black slaves from Africa to the 'New World'. The motivation for doing so is clear, slavery provides a cheap workforce. Why did they not simply make slaves of the native population (these days referred to as indentured servants, or indeed slaves from Europe? Well they did use both, but ultimately blacks, being of superior strength and therefore more useful were preferred. I am unable to find the quotes I need to back up this point, and shall attempt to do in subsequent rounds and to bring in fresh arguments or develop new ones.