Caucasians are inherently more intelligent than African Americans

The Point of this DebateMy opponent seems to have based much of his argument on a fundamental misunderstanding of what this debate is about. My opponent said this in his last round:"Allow me to clarify the terms of the debate. My opponent and I have indeed agreed to equate IQ to intelligence, agreed that inherent refers to genetics, and agreed that Caucasians refer to Caucasian Americans. However, my opponent has mischaracterized his burden of proof. Having the duty of affirming the inherent intellectual superiority of a race suggests a direct and pervasive causatory link between Race and IQ. Let it therefore be established that to meet this burden, my opponent must not merely "show that [IQ] is partially influenced by genetic factors. " He must show that IQ is principally influenced by genetic factors, for if it is not, then IQ is not inherent. "Let me offer an analogy to show how my opponent is wrong about what I need to prove in this debate. Imagine there are two groups, group A and group B. Group A has an average height of 6'0". Group B has an average height of 5'9". To be clear, these are average heights. In the taller group A, the shortest member is 5'5". And, in the shorter group B, the tallest member is 6'2". So, if you took out just the tallest member of group B, you could point out that they are taller than the average member of group A. However, when you look at the groups as a whole, group A is obviously taller than group B. There is no gene that links "group A or B" and height. Group A just happens to be full of individuals with a higher average height than group B. If we accept that genes are largely responsible for height in group A and B (which both reside in the USA), which I hope everyone would, then we can say group A is "inherently" taller than group B. This is, again, despite the fact that there is no "group A or B" gene that is linked to height, and this is also despite the fact that there are individuals and individual groups within group B, the shorter group, that are taller than the average member of group A. However, group A is still "inherently" taller because it is filled with individuals who happen to be, on average, taller than the individuals that comprise group B, and height is largely genetic. This is basically the same debate we are having over intelligence and race. Except, group A would be whites, group B would be blacks, and height would be intelligence. After all, we are talking about two groups, whites and blacks. Whites have an average IQ of about 100. Blacks have an average IQ of about 85. This was shown in my first round argument. However, there are blacks with an IQ well above 100, and there are whites with an IQ well below 85. Despite this, whites, on average, do have a higher IQ than blacks. There is also no "white or black" gene that is linked to intelligence. It just happens that "white" people are a group of people who happen to be comprised of individuals that have a higher average IQ than the individuals that comprise the group known as "black" people. I also gave evidence in round one that IQ was 75% to 85% heritable from adolescence on forward. Given this and the other evidence I gave of genetic influences on the differences between these two groups, we can say that Caucasian Americans (whites) are "inherently" more intelligent than African Americans (blacks). Again, this is true even though there are plenty of blacks that are smarter than the average white, and this is also despite the fact that there is no "black or white" gene that is linked to intelligence. African ImmigrantsMy opponent's argument on African immigrants is based entirely on a misunderstanding of this debate that I explained above. His main point was that African immigrants to the USA are high achievers. This is true, but largely irrelevant. African immigrants are an extremely selective group. Only the smartest and most skilled people from Africa come to the USA, so they can get a good education and have a higher standard of living. So, when we are talking about African immigrants, we are talking about a very selective group that is not representative of the actual African population. Furthermore, African immigrants only made up 0.2% of the total USA population in 2000. African Americans as a whole made up 12.9% of the USA population in 2000. This means that African immigrants made up less than 2% of the African American population in 2000 [1,2]. There is no reason to think these numbers have substantially changed since then. My opponent is essentially taking out a very selective group that makes up less than 2% of the total group and saying that their high intelligence is representative of the entire group. This is somewhat absurd as an argument. As I explained earlier in this round, you have to look at entire groups when making comparisons. The Flynn EffectMy opponent also claims that the Flynn effect, the phenomenon of average IQ scores rising over time, proves that genes do not play a large role in IQ and that the white-black IQ gap has nothing to do with genes. This is a non sequitar. First, let me go back to the analogy I made earlier this round. Imagine if group A had an average height of 5'8" in 1962 (50 years ago) and group B had an average height of 5'5" in 1962. 50 years later in 2012, both of these groups had the average heights that I mentioned earlier, 6'0" for group A and 5'9" for group B. Now, as you'll notice, both groups had their average height increase by an incredible 4 inches each. This could be called the "Flynn effect" for height. However, the 3 inch gap between average height in both groups stayed the exact same during this time period. The reason that average height increased for both groups over this period but the gap between groups did not change is that these two phenomenon have different causes. The increase in average height is because of environmental, non genetic causes. The gap is caused largely by genetic causes. Now, let's shift back to IQ. IQ, as I showed in the first round, is about 75% to 85% heritable. We know this from various studies of identical twins. The Flynn effect, as far as we know it, only occurred during the 20th century. This was a time of rapidly increasing living standards. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that the the 15% to 25% of IQ that is non genetic improved so much during the 20th century that that can explain the entire Flynn effect. However, when you look at the white-black IQ gap, you can see that that gap has not been narrowing, even as average IQ scores have been increasing. The average black IQ was 85 in 1954 compared to 100 for whites. In 2008, the average black IQ was 81 compared to 100 for whites. This means that the white-black IQ gap has actually increased since 1954 [3]. The reason that the white-black IQ gap has not only not been closing but actually been widening is that it is mostly caused by the 75% to 85% of IQ that is genetic. The Flynn effect is from the other 15% to 25% that is non genetic. So, I ask my opponent, if the Flynn effect disproves genetic influences on the white-black IQ gap, why has the white-black IQ gap not been narrowing? Points that my Opponent DroppedMy opponent dropped my points on the white-black IQ gap being larger on more G-loaded parts of IQ tests, differences in brain size among races, and the Minnesota Transracial Adoption study. He also claimed that the points about heritability of IQ and IQ gaps were irrelevant. I showed that this was clearly not true this round. I look forward to my opponent's response. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org...