One race is inferior to another race.
It is scientific fact that different races have different traits, thus one race will be superior to another. This is not opinion... if you think about it, it is scientific fact! I'm not saying which race is superior... just that it is fact that different races have different qualities and it is a foregone conclusion that they are ordered in terms of superiority and inferiority.
Side Score: 9
Side Score: 21
The PC crowd on this site will never be honest about this question. They use stas and research and theories on other debates but on this point its always the crap thats fed to us by the tolerence crowd. Race discussion is sorely missing in this world due to the enigma of being branded racist. No one should be discriminated by their race but the differences are there.
Differences to not necessitate superiority.
There are almost always gaps of varying sizes when comparing the averages of various ethnicities for any trait, be it height, intelligence, income, or whatever. I would not argue this.
What I will argue is that these differences (excluding physical differences) are due to ethnicity rather than environment. My position is that people raised in a similar culture, under similar circumstances, in similar societal standing, will display similar traits, regardless of their genetic makeup. Because of the idea that one ethnicity as a whole can be inherently superior or inferior to another, marginalized groups tend to get pushed onto the same rung on the ladder. As a result, there may be a strong correlation between one's ethnicity and the traits one exhibits, but correlation should not be mistaken for causation.
I wrote this argument based on my definition of racial superiority, as the belief that race is the primary determinant of traits and thus races can be ranked hierarchically by traits. It may inapplicable depending on how you define racial superiority.
I believe my definition of race should be clarified...
RACE = A person who has a specific belief system and philosophy of life.
From this we can derive that there are different types of people.
1. Lazy (physical and mental), unambitious, unreliable, accepts easy answers, does not care about anything or anyone, is narcissistic, yet has no true achievements to justify his self-aggrandizing view of himself. He/She is usually delusional and self-absorbed.
2. The second "race" is ambitious, hardworking, helpful, team player, community builder, and a person of great integrity and compassion.
To conclude, Yes Race plays a big difference, and yes some "races" should be labeled as better than another.
On the flip side...Skin color purely is not my barometer of choice for determining if someone is inferior!
yes races of people or groups of people that adapted differently to other groups of people in different environments will have different traits
and to an issue no has touched is why do admit the inequalities of race it comes to penis size and athletic ability but not intelligence? i understand why because as intellectually inferior some races are like aborigines who have the smallest cranium,brain size and IQ even less than black Africans they are still smart enough to learn to debate to get offended to create so telling them they are inferior is a little difficult so lets not tell them they probably wont bother looking up any research
Actually, there is no proven link between intelligence of a human and their skin colour. There is a stronger link between religiosity and decline in average intelligence.
c0nc0rdance shows that race is inconsequential to intelligence or whatever other excuse you want to use for being racist.
The PC crowd are scared to admit the truth..... think about it. If there are differences between the races, then there are different strengths.... which race has more strengths that others? When you think about it.... this is a clear truth that not many dare to admit or face!!!!
Any race can be made superior to another simply by varying the criteria. For example, if the criteria is survival, a white man in New York city is superior to a bushman from the Kalahari Desert (pay attention to the words "in" and "from"). However, a bushman in the Kalahari Desert is superior to a white New Yorker. I mean, a New Yorker is quite fearsome in his environment, but lions aren't impressed ;)
Also, Have you seen the movie Deliverance? Those poor city folks never had a chance in the backwoods against those red necks ;)
Well, if you are actually talking about human race then sure. Neanderthals were the last race of humans besides us, and they had trouble adapting apparently because they're not here anymore.
However, I think you're confusing race with social circumstance and the amount of melanin in one human's skin to another.
In which case there is nothing inherently superior and inferior about any of it. You can take a "bushman from the Kalahari" as Joe said, and raise them in a white upper-middle class family, and they will grow up to think act believe much the same as would a white child, or red, brown, yellow, etc.
I mean, it is not as if the Bushman would jump out of his window at age 16 in a loincloth and spear and start hunting lions or something.
By the same token if the child of a white upper-middle class family were abandoned in the Kalahari and raised by Bushman, they wouldn't be asking for the keys to the car when they turned 16, they would be hunting lions with the others.
The whole thing is silly.
God has chosen each and every one of us to be different, physically and mentally. If we argue that one specific race is superior than another, we are defying and questioning God's authority, needless to say, every race has their own benefits and negative points. Therefore, it is an absolute nonsense to say such a thing.
The argument that one race is superior to another is a simple fallacy that can be easily shown by an example of time periods. Assuming we are talking about the European dominance of the later centuries of human history here. To argue that they are simply a superior race is nonsense. They merely had superior technology and military prowess at that time.
There have been many civilizations in the past that were far ahead of the Europeans during certain time periods. Which under the very same logic would make the Europeans "inferior". Different circumstances and historical timeline have shown many "races" to seem "superior" who now in this modern age seem to be at a disadvantage. The argument that one race is inferior to another race doesn't stand the test of time as shown in human history, for one race to be superior over another would imply that they have been and will always be superior.
I disagree. Just because something is different from something else does not make it inferior or superior, and you should see that your logic here is flawed. We are all humans; to not recognise this is moral bankruptcy. If we are all born to the same species, then logically we have the same abilities and desires, and therefore the same rights, at birth. It also follows by extension that, if we keep the same abilities and desires throughout life, then we also keep those rights throughout life. Therefore if we all have the same rights at birth and during life, then our inferiority or superiority cannot be determined by the circumstances of birth and must therefore be decided by what people do qua their decisions. The fundamental principle of our democracy is that superiority or inferiority is decided not be circumstances of birth but by beneficial and moral actions performed throughout life.
No race is better than any other race. See, the really only noticeable difference is the skin color. Other than that you're stating that a certain race acts or does this. If I'm born a white person, does that mean I will come out bratty and hostile? No. You can't predict how a person of color or a person without color will be on our planet.
All races have something they need to improve on. There shouldn't be any division either. We're all human and we're all similar.