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

My opponent can not stipulate a definition during a debate. "Well, the disability checks in the resolution are limited to the disability checks defined by my definition." My opponent failed to stipulate your definition of disability check before I accepted your debate. He stipulated a definition (with no source to back it) after I presented one from a legitimate source and based an argument off that definition. To enforce a stipulated definition added after one's opponent agrees to debate, argues a round, and bases an argument off said definition is palpably abusive. My opponent's definition of "disability check" is unfounded. He did not site a source. I cited the United States Government, from which disability checks come. If anyone has the right to define "disability checks" it is he who gives them. "Also, those with poorer genes are more likely to become disabled...truck." On the person who lost his arm to a machine: This situation is unreasonably unlikely. For this to happen, one with bad eyesight would have to be faced with an avoidable accident, and said accident would have to be aranged perfectly so that his eyesight made the difference between life and death. The said accident has ubdoubtedly not happened a significant number of times. The same can be said about the one who was crushed by the truck; the probability of the truck's being the perfect distance (through time) away from said person so that he would be able to get out in time if he had good hearing but wouldn't if he didn't is unlikely. Again, this has not happened enough times to make a difference, if it has ever happened. "Therefore, gaining a disability could have a connection to genes, countering your #4." A quantum event also scramble the information on debate.org, changing all my arguments to "I concede everything." "To counter...makeup." My opponnent's quote from my source indicates that, and only that, genes are inherited. A more accurate summarizing quote from my source is the last sentence: "His ability to take part in the game of life satisfactorily, perhaps even successfully, will be determined...by the quality and quantity of education that he has enjoyed." "Just because so few people get into major sports or acting, doesn't mean that genes are irrelevant." True; however,due to their small numbers, the people are. So now I have established that my opponent failed to reasonably establish that one's genes have a major effect on one's life, and that not having better genes does not significantly increase one's chances of becoming disabled or dependent on welfare checks. "one of their members' hemophilia triggered the Russian Revolution, which brought about their death." The link of hemophilia to the war is existent but isolated. Alexandria left Russia to take care of Alexis because Alexis was hemophilic, which allowed Rasputin's assassination. This is not an example of natural selection, but an example of unfortunate circumstances and poor choices on the part of Alexandria. "A family...selection." If such a family's living in poverty off welfare checks that save them from disappearing from the gene pool is a part of natural selection then welfare checks are a part of natural selection. 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. "Money will always be unevenly distributed." With, and only with, capitalism. A true socialism is the only way to evenly distribute wealth. "HIV is not a genetic disorder." In its lysogenic stage; HIV infection can be inherited and passed down in one's genes if one's germs are infected. "I'm saying that the average upper-class member has better genes than the average lower class." Perhaps that is true, but with even distribution of wealth there can be no outliers, and natural selection can run uninterrupted. If there was no factor like money to interfere with natural selection, the fittest would always end up on top. Money can either shelter a bloodline that would succeed inevitably or shelter a bloodline that would fail. Even if the latter is less likely than the first, the latter is significantly possible. Extend my 12. And enlarge it. And color it blue and yellow. "If we do not support...will have worked." Welfare checks also drain the money of the rich, bringing us closer to socialism and lessening the effects of uneven distribution of money. "Natural selection can be...occur so rapidly." The Darwin Awards list twenty-three (laugh out loud hilarious) deaths by stupidity, but only twenty-three. It is a commonly known fact that being struck by lightning is very unlikely, and the average number of deaths by lightning is 90 per year. Also, you have said that making evolution occur more slowly means going against it. If natural selection works more slowly without overpopulation, that which prevents it works against natural selection. Make 12 even bigger. Conclusion: Money will be unevenly distributed as it is now, and, as it is now, genes will not correspond perfectly to richness. Until the collapse of society, those with more money will have an advantage of the others introducing a non-genetic selection, an artificial monetary selection which palpably goes against natural selection; Queen Victoria would have a palpable advantage over a peasant with the Delta-32 mutation, 20 20 vision, and clotting blood. Even if royals and millionaires have a greater chance to be genetically fit, 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.