Disability checks and welfare checks go against the concept of natural selection.

Alright, I'm not exactly sure what your first two paragraphs are supposed to mean, but sure, let's go with the government's definition. Now, there was a time when wealth was evenly distributed: the dawn of man. Ever since human beings went into organized society, those with the most advantageous genes rose to the top, became economically successful, and survived. Genes have an undeniable correlation with disabilities. Deaf people are more likely to get hit by a truck than people who can hear normally. If you can hear any truck coming, you get out of the road. A deaf person can't do this, and gets hit by the truck. A man who is quick on his feet is less likely to trip. A quick man is less likely to be chased down and ripped apart by a jungle cat. A quick man is less likely to be crushed by a boulder. A man with a weak leg is more likely to break it if he trips. If a man's heart is naturally weak, he is more likely to have heart disease. I can guarantee you that there are disabilities out there that wouldn't have happened if it weren't for their genetics. Genes also have an undeniable correlation with money. The smarter you are, the more likely you are to succeed. Certain high-paying jobs look for specific, advantageous qualities (strength, good voice, humor) in people; the people with these qualities are more likely to succeed. And your source did make a connection between genes and intelligence; just because there are additional factors, doesn't mean that you can ignore the genetics behind them. Also, if there happens to be a person who is academically or physically great because of genetics, and had a poor upbringing, there is a chance for him to earn a scholarship and become successful. "So now I have established that my opponent failed to reasonably establish that one's genes have a major effect on one's life..." On the contrary, the job one has is a major effect on one's life. One's fitness has a major effect on one's life, which is connected to genes. One's genes could gain him popularity; one's genes could gain him ridicule and neglect. One could argue that a person's genetics has more effect on his life than any other factor. "Although genetics plays a large role in the appearance and behavior of organisms, it is the combination of genetics with what an organism experiences that determines the ultimate outcome. For example, while genes play a role in determining a person's height, the nutrition and health that person experiences in childhood also have a large effect." http://en.wikipedia.org...... I'm not denying the effect of childhood on a person, but you can't deny the effects of genetics on everything you do. "Perhaps that is true..." It is true. "Also, the hierarchical arrangement of the capitalist economic system prevents a family with better than average genes from climbing classes without the aid of extreme luck." False; capitalism allows for entrepreneurship, and promotion, and steady wealth gaining through trade. "Welfare checks also drain the money of the rich, bringing us closer to socialism and lessening the effects of uneven distribution of money." Socialism is bad; back to the point, the uneven distribution of money is our fairly accurate measure of a family's genetic success. "Money will be unevenly distributed as it is now... there will be Queen Victorias as long as there are queens. Because welfare checks minimize monetary differences, not only do welfare checks not go against natural selection, but they support it." Queen Victoria was just one occurrence, and the result of a mutation. The correlation between anything is rarely ever perfect; genes and richness do not correspond perfectly, but they correspond reasonably well. Also, money was not enough to shelter hemophilia. Read the deaths here: http://en.wikipedia.org...... Many royal family members died bleeding to death. Also, "Alexei's hemophilia was one of the factors contributing to the collapse of Imperial Russia during the Russian Revolution of 1917." Coincidence? I highly doubt it. "The Darwin Awards list twenty-three (laugh out loud hilarious) deaths by stupidity, but only twenty-three." I quote from the website: "Within These Portals Lie 759 Enterprising Demises." Last I checked, seven hundred and fifty-nine was not twenty-three. Because a large number of stupid incidents do not occur with death, but from injury and disability, it can be said that their stupidity is what leads to their disability. Because there is also a correlation between stupidity and genetics, genetics correlates with disability in both physical and mental health. Now, here are eleven steps that prove the resolution to be true: 1. People who are more genetically fit to their environment have a lesser chance of gaining a disability. (Ex. A person gets run over by a car, but doesn't get out of the way, because he's deaf. A person can't run fast enough, and his leg is ripped open by a lion. A person is stupid, and shoots himself in the throat with a paintball gun. [True Story]) 2. People who are more genetically fit will on average make more money than those who are less genetically fit. (Ex. People who are naturally taller, faster, and stronger are more likely to get a sports profession. People who naturally speak clearer and stronger are more likely to be public speakers, TV Show hosts, etc. People who are more intelligent are more likely to be college professors, scholars, inventors, engineers, etc.) 3. Welfare checks and disability checks distribute money to the poor and the disabled. (Definitions of welfare and disability checks.) 4. Having more money increases one's chances of survival. (Conceded point.) 5. Welfare checks and disability checks increase the chances of survival for the genetically unfit. (3 4) 6. In natural selection, the genetically fit have a higher chance of survival than the genetically unfit, and the gene pool improves over time. (Definition of natural selection) 7. The greater the difference in the chance of the genetically fit surviving and the chance of the genetically unfit surviving, the faster natural selection will occur. (If the difference was very small, it would take large amounts of random chance to remove the unfit genes. If the difference was very large, the genetically unfit would be eliminated almost immediately.) 8. Welfare checks and disability checks lessen the difference in the chance of the genetically fit surviving and the chance of the genetically unfit surviving. (5) 9. Welfare checks and disability checks slow down the process of natural selection. (7 8) 10. Anything that slows something down is against it. (Ex. The wind slows you down; the wind is against you. The ice slows the warming of your glass of water; the ice is against the warming of your glass of water.) 11. Welfare checks and disability checks go against the concept of natural selection. (9 10) Now, I don't know exactly how you're going to attack this proof, so I'm going to have to anticipate your attacks and further pad my wall. 1. You have conceded this point, because you did not deny the correlation. You attacked its significance, but not its existence. It is much more significant than you actually realize; your genetics define your body and your mind, and your body and mind together determine your life. Genes that give you a more likely chance to get a disability are the genes that natural selection is working to remove. There is correlation. 2. I have stressed this point time and time again. At the beginning of time, the most genetically fit advanced economically, and this is reflected in current times. People who are born into a lower-class family, but have advantageous genes in either academics or sports, can get scholarships, so as to fully utilize their genetic advantage. You typically use your best genes to get your job, and if none of your genes are good, you get a poor-paying job. There is correlation. Thank you.