There is good reason to believe in the, inherent, Intellectual superiority of the Mongoloid 'Race'

It does indeed seem I have the burden of proof. Before I start I'd like to thank CON for conceding that races do infact exist as we will no longer have to use up our word limits debating that point. ------------------- Rebuttal ------------------- 1.CON said: "I wouldn't want to suggest that there is, in fact, such clear distinctions to be observed." I proved there were clear distinctions. He conceded the point. 2. "try to provide a working link" As for my link it does work and the abstract in the link clearly states that the adopted Korean children's mean IQ is 118.7. The very fact that it has been published shows that it has passed through a rigorous peer review process and that there is no call to question the facts in the abstract any more than there is for me to question the stats in CON's NY times article. Infact, since the article written in the NY times has not been peer reviewed it is more likely to be inaccurate or misrepresent information than the paper I linked to. "average White score of 100 (which was not in the abstract which you linked to)[…] (if you did substantiate your claim about the average white IQ score) " CON seems to be in some doubt about whether 100 (by design, the average score) is infact the average IQ for whites (the race that designed the IQ test). Here are some links. http://www.rlynn.co.uk... http://www.vnnforum.com... http://www.lrainc.com... http://www.lrainc.com... I quote from the second link: Italy IQ 102 Germany IQ 102 Netherlands IQ 102 Austria IQ 102 Sweden IQ 101 United Kingdom IQ 100 Belgium IQ 100 Spain IQ 99 Iceland IQ 98 Poland IQ 99 Australia IQ 98 France IQ 98 Norway IQ 98 ___________________ Avg. 100 IQ "Again, those who adopt are likely to have a greater chance of being more financially prepared to provide for children, than those who do not, and if whites seek to adopt Asian Babe's they are likely, on average, less racist, AND more well educated then and financially secure than average white people." Since there is a longer history of prejudice against blacks than against east-asians in the US, it is then logical that parents who would adopt a black child would be more open-minded, less-racist, and better educated than the average parent who adopts an east-asian child or a white child. From this one would expect (if there was no genetic hierarchy) that black adopted children would do the best in IQ tests out of all the three main races since they would have the environmental advantage – but this is not the case. These black adopted children actually do worse than their white and east-asian counterparts, once again showing that there is an underlying genetic hierarchy. In the Minnesota study black children who were adopted by well-off white parents scored an average of 87 in IQ tests when they were 17. If it were all down to the environment then one would have expected the results to be at least close to the Korean results if not better. http://psychology.wikia.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... Now to CON's rebuttals. 1. "[PRO says] East Asians is ahead of the curve, but doesn't back it up" You have not objected to the fact that East-Asians do better on SAT tests compared to their white counterparts yet SAT tests correlate positively with IQ scores showing that just as Asians have a higher average SAT score they also have a higher IQ score. Some links affirming the positive correlation: http://www.scienceblog.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... "It's not that I don't believe that the author, and the signatories to her work, have found that to be the case, it's that I'd like to know how they found that to be the case: Which "East Asians"? The one's residing in the U.S.A. (which may, in general, have all sorts of relevant social advantages, and quirks, for one reason or another)The one's in China? Korea? Japan? Where? Perhaps "East Asians" all throughout the world?Your source doesn't provide any such answers" http://psychology.uwo.ca... On p245 there is the following table (To save space I have cut out everything except the IQ scores and the sample size but please have a look yourself if you want the whole table): ____________HongKong___Japan___Britain____South Africa Sample Size__118_________110____239_______350 IQ score_____113_________110____100_______67 As you can see, it is not only East-Asians in the western world that score higher on average in IQ tests but East-Asians throughout the world. 2. "Which East Asians come to America the industrious ones or the lazy ones?" Ignoring the fact that East-Asians (especially the chinese) first came en masse to America as slaves, you could make the same argument for Mexicans crossing the Mexican border. Who would make the effort to get across the border, the industrious ones or the lazy ones? Yet Mexicans, unlike east-asians, are not over-represented in Ivy league schools so as the reader can see it is not merely a question of "industry". 3. "I too could link to some dude talking". I'm sorry but a professor who collaborates with Harvard and has either worked or graduated from the University of Toronto, Western Ontario, York, London, Oxford and London School of Economics giving an hour long lecture, is not "some dude". 4. See 2. 5. I was merely highlighting the fact that even Universities accept the IQ difference and attempts to normalize their student intake accordingly by using "positive discrimination". To summarise, I have once again proved all CON's assertions to be inaccurate and have shown that mongoloids (east-asians) are indeed at an inherent intellectual advantage compared to other races. I urge CON to accept that there is a difference in IQ as most if not all researchers in the field agree there is, and instead debate me on the cause of this which is the real point of contention between researchers. I do not wish to waste another 4,5 thousand words on something that is already accepted as true but only dedicate one thousand words to the point of real contention.