Intellectual Differences Exist Between Races

I'll start out by making a brief observation. At the end of last round, I mentioned that I would be assuming that R2 was just for opening arguments. However, the way in which the opponent structured his argument (by posing a lot of questions directly toward me) it seems that he wishes me to respond. As such, I'll be rebutting the arguments made by the opponent, then mention something about a request I made regarding intelilgence.Rebuttals:Contention 1: Jewish vs Blacks; Nobel PrizeMy opponent first contends that the Jewish people are responsible for "25% of nobel prizes, 25% of turing awards, 25% of fields medals, and 50% of world chess champions. Whereas only 1 black person has achieved any of these feats." The opponent did not cite any evidence to support this, instead claiming that it is easily verified. While it is correct that neither the Fields Medal or the Turing Award has been given to an African American, nor has any African American ever been a chess champion, there have been 15 African American Nobel Prize winners. While this does not drastically alter the opponent's point, it would be a diservice to African Americans not to correct the facts on this issue. Regarding the other achievements my opponent pruported as some measure of intelligence, one must note that only 56 Fields Medals have been awarded, only 62 Turing Awards have been given and there have only been 16 world chess champions since that title has officially existed, with 10 of these champions from USSR/Russia. The point here is that the awards in question have been given to so few people that it would be hasty and intellectually dishonest to conclude that this tiny sample set is any way reflective of intelligence by race. There can be no doubt that the men and women who have accomplished these feats (namely the last three) are intelligent, but this does not speak to the intelligence or lackthereof of other people. You could take a random sample of 50 people from a population of 6 billion, but you'd be very unlikely to learn anything interesting, barring except average height, simply because the variance inherent in such a small sample size destroys its statistical usefulness. And that's exactly what my opponent's argument is -- an outrageously small sample size that he is trying to draw statistically meaningful conclusions from, when that's simply not possible. Lastly, it's important to note that there exist many socioeconomic barriers that hinder the successes of minorities. For instance, a black college student is less likely to get a job than a white high school drop out, simply because of race. [1] This is largely due to negative cultural overflows from a time when African Americans were not considered equal to Caucasians. With this in mind, one can see how a negative socioeconomic position works against minorities and how this might affect a minority's ability to become as successful as his majority equal. In summary, the opponent's argument uses incorrect statistics, a too-small sample size and neglects other possibilities as to why minorities are less likely to be academically successful in the status quo.Contention 2: Stability of Countries By Racial MajorityIn this argument, the opponent claims that "African countries" are the least hospitable, as opposed to Japan and South Korean countries, which are "some of the most hospitable [countries]."While the opponent does not actually state any conclusion for this, it seems he is implying that a country's political state is in some way tied to the intelligence of its citizens. This implication must be proved, with evidence, before it can be considered relevant to this debate. The entire idea that political health is tied a country's race's intelligence is ludicrous (and unsubstantiated). We see in nature that many other non-human animals (who are no doubt less intelligent that us) are capable of living in a state of peace and cooperation, which seems to defeat the idea that intelligence signficantly impacts a country's political well-being.Again, the opponent will need to provide evidence to back up the implicit claim. Contention 3: Jews and Asians are not discriminated against, Blacks are.It is true that African Americans are perhaps the most discriminated upon race in America (though this may be shifting toward Middle Easterns). However, I'm not sure how this relates to the resolution. For one, it's simply untrue that Asians and Jews have been discriminated against as much as African Americans (in America). And while a few subsets of people do still discriminate against Asians and Jews, the largest subset is that of people who discriminate against African Americans. Again, this is likely due to a residual cultural effect from when blacks were legally discriminated against, enslaved, etc. The opponent doesn't seem to have much of an argument here. Opponent's Closing RemarksBefore ending, the opponent asks me "how come [Jews] are so dominate in all of the intellectual fields?" First, I'll point out that I have no actual need to explain this. Rather, since the opponent has the burden of proof, it is necessary for him to explain how Jewish success in intellectual fields is indeed a result of innate intelligence, rather than any of the other possible factors. In other words, the opponent needs to find data that manages to remove (to a reasonable extent) all other factors and look simply at intelligence, by race. (My opponent will find this difficult, since it's hard to find a dataset of people that haven't been affected by cultural, economics, politics, etc.)In fact, I will now contend that it is fundamentally impossile for my opponent to prove his point. There is simply no way to separate the variable of "intelligence" from all of the other variables except race. There simply is no way to measure the two without drastic interference from other factors. For instance, the opponent may offer IQ scores or standardized test scores by race, but these scores would fail to adjust for the economic statuses of its participants. Blacks, who are economically worse off, on average and who are less educated, on average, would clearly show lower test scores. But is this because of intelligence, or is this because of the economic situation? Or perhaps the culture? We don't know and the opponent doesn't know, so the evidence simply isn't valid. I took this debate mainly because it seemed that my opponent had some amazing evidence regarding this issue, but it seems as if there is not any evidence at all. The opponent needs to find evidence that demonstrably proves that intelligence is tied directly to race, otherwise he simply has no leg to stand on. A Bit About IntelligenceAs the opponent mentioned in his opening speech, intelligence is a very complicated issue. In my opening speech, I agreed to this and urged my opponent to provide a detailed explanation of what he defines to be intelligence, as well as mention what standards of measuring intelligent are the best and why. The opponent failed to do this. In fact, he did not provide any intuition on what intelligence is or how it should be measured, despite my request. I can only assume that the opponent does not know how intelligence should be defined and additionally does not know of any good ways to measure it. Perhaps I am wrong, though, and the opponent wil discuss this next round. I will save the brunt of my "intelligence" argument until that time, as it is necessary to know where the opponent stands on the concept of "intelligence".Closing RemarksThe opponent seemed to think he had some sort of trump card with the Jew arguments and, as a result, failed to discuss anything else. This was a mistake, as the arguments did little to uphold the resolution. I have demonstrated that the opponent uses a too-small sample size for the one substantive argument made. Additionally, I have showed that it is near impossible for my opponent to uphold the resolution, as there is no statistically possible way to separate race and intelligence from other variables that can affect a person's intellectual growth. To do this, the opponent would need to find a person of each race that has had the *exact* same life experiences, then compare their intelligences. The opponent will have a difficult time doing this. I look forward to my opponent's response and I look forward to his detailed description of what intelligence is, how we measure it, and why that measurement is an accurate representation of intelligence. Sources:1 - http://thinkprogress.org...