Black people are inherently physcally superior to white people.

Thanks to C_N for his response and also his apology regarding the initial heated exchange in the forum thread. Although I was quite taken aback by his remarks at the time, I have realised that I was partially responsible for escalating things and would like to re-assure him that there are no hard feelings on my part. ___ Rather than any scientific argument about what could potentially cause black people to be physically superior, C_N seems to have argued his position based solely on a few hand picked statistics. Rather than showing "a stronger correlation [between?] black ancestry and physical prowess then there is between white ancestry and physical prowess" all that these statistics suggest is that individual black people have performed better in a few particular sporting disciplines. I don't see how such correlation goes anywhere towards proving the resolution. As any amateur logician knows, correlation does not imply causality, and even if it did, it would be a simple task for me to present alternative statistics proving the success of white athletes in other fields, swimming and ice hockey being obvious examples. ___ 1. Heavyweight boxing. 1) It is indeed a fact that black American boxers have dominated the heavyweight division of boxing for decades but C_N claims this statistic proves his assertion without giving any reason why. Why, if they are so superior do they not dominate other sporting disciplines, or indeed other boxing weight divisions, in the same way? As well as strength and reflexes, boxing of course requires a great deal of technique, concentration, strategy and decisiveness, all mental factors rather than physical ones. Boxing is not street brawling, or a mere contest of strength, it is an art and a science. 2) C_N accepts the "valid point" that white people dominate power lifting, and I think it is clear that this is a much less mentally demanding sport than boxing. I would wholeheartedly agree that "it is not certain that this is due to biology or sociology" but fail to understand why C_N reaches this conclusion about such a purely physical sport, while insisting that the success of black boxers is due to inherent physical superiority. This seems like a logical inconsistency to me, if it's unclear with power lifting, it is surely unclear with boxing too. If black people are inherently physically superior, why do they not dominate a straight forward contest of brute strength like power lifting? 3) C_N recognises that certain social backgrounds can contribute to boxing success but seeks to dismiss this as a factor in the success of black boxers for the reason that non-black people also live in similar conditions. Black people are on the lowest rung of the poverty ladder in America, http://www.infoplease.com... this table shows levels from 1975 to the present, with the average black person consistently around three times more likely to live in poverty than their white counterpart, I would assume the difference to be even more noticable prior to that. As well as basic socio-economic factors to take into consideration, there are many more subtle cultural factors, harder to measure, but just as real. Pre-civil rights legislation, employees were free to openly discriminate on the basis of race, and even after this, on-going prejudice continues to profoundly affect the job prospects of black Americans. http://www.questia.com... http://hum.sagepub.com... Let's face it, one has to be pretty desperate to choose a career that involves being hit in the head repeatedly by an 18 stone man and those white people born into poverty had much more reason to be optimistic about other avenues of employment. Some popular sports such as baseball and basketball were segregated at the beginning of the timeline C_N refers to and so gifted and ambitious black athletes were more likely to select a sport like boxing where they would be able to compete at the highest level. The success of black boxers from the time of Johnson to the time of Ali was also surely a great inspiration to young black boys who finally saw a black man beating a white man at something and encouraged them into the sport. There are many successful hispanic American boxers, the most well known perhaps being Oscar De La Hoya, their lack of success in the heavyweight division doesn't seem relevant to the debate to me, they are not white or black according to the definitions we have. Regarding poverty they are less likely to live in poverty than black people (although more than white) and they of course make up a much smaller percentage of the US population, although this trend is changing in recent years http://www.infoplease.com... Perhaps superficial ethnic differences make hispanic men shorter on average and therefore less able to bulk up enough while maintaining tone. The important thing to consider about C_N's assumptions about heavyweight boxing, is that he is referring to the exploits of a few individuals in one weight class, of one sport that is not by any means a purely physical sport. His conclusions are baseless. ___ 2. The Olympics C_N links a table of Olympic achievements modified for GDP, claiming that the positions held by Zimbabwe and Jamaica support the racial superiority claims but this is wildly misleading. As the source itself acknowledges, Zimbabwe's score "reflect[s] more than anything else the collapse of their economy under Mugabe's rule" and how do the success of Mongolia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Armenia etc. fit in with the race argument? The problem with modifying for population in this way is that a few outstanding achievements by individuals can propel a nation higher up the ranking with less statistical significance. It is also interesting to note that in the modified-by-population graph, the only predominantly black nation apart from Jamaica that makes an appearance, is its geographical neighbour, the islands of Trinidad and Tobago. Jamaica is indeed an exceptionally successful Olympic nation, but I would argue the main reason for this is the huge cultural emphasis Jamaicans place on sport in general and on athletics in particular. This BBC video is a good demonstration of how seriously athletics is taken in Jamaica, school age competitions can attract 30,000 spectators in a country of less than 3 million people. http://news.bbc.co.uk... The "statistical anomaly" C_N refers to, concerns just two individual countries and covers so many unknown variables and obvious cultural and economic conditions that it has no significance at all. If this is the best statistical evidence C_N could find to support his position, it should tell him something about his beliefs. ___ 3. Football I don't know what 7 players Cereb is referring to, but I believe that Ferdinand, James, Lennon and Cole all have one white parent and would therefore be excluded from his definition of a black person. In any case a disproportionate member of black footballers again says nothing about inherent physical superiority. It shows a cultural trend for interest in a specific sport, notably one that requires little equipment and is accessible to all. Where are the disproportionate numbers of black rugby players, cricketers or oarsmen? If there was any significant difference in inherent ability, black people in countries with large black minorities would dominate all sports and they clearly don't. It is also worth noting that black people from Jamaica, Brazil, America and England are far more likely to have some European ancestry than black people from African countries. What about African teams? 4. Slavery Since my opponent has provided zero evidence for his unusual opinions on why black people were favoured as slaves, I will allow him to do so before responding to such claims. Thanks.