MgtowDemon

For you edification and amusement, here is a list of leftwing narratives getting obliterated on this site:

BrainDeath23

Gets asked to provide sources to back his claims: At What Point Does the "Racism" Boogeyman Go Away? (debateart.com)

"Shut up": At What Point Does the "Racism" Boogeyman Go Away? (debateart.com)

MissChris

Making her case denying the genetic component to black disadvantage: Using the terms "racism" and "racist" makes you look stupid (debateart.com)

Getting blown out on every point with most of my points having the data to show her wrong: Using the terms "racism" and "racist" makes you look stupid (debateart.com)

Pretending she's too superior to read it because it annihilated her argument (a typical female tactic, hence "MissChris"): How to act like a child on Dart (debateart.com)

Sum1hugmeI'mupset

Tries to argue a case that slaves we're treated terribly: United States slaves were, overall, treated quite well (debateart.com)

Gets a hefty response that uses strong logic: United States slaves were, overall, treated quite well (debateart.com)

Says he'll respond to this "nonsense" later (never responds): United States slaves were, overall, treated quite well (debateart.com)

More to come in the future...

Acting like a child is the way to go on Dart. If you attempt to make rational arguments using data, you will lose out big time on looking cool in front of your friends. Since you're unable to sit at the back of the classroom on Dart, here is a list of how to stay cool and act like a child:

1) Post Wikipedia articles as one-line responses. DO NOT make the mistake of reading the sources, or even attempting to explain the general argument you're referencing. If it's on Wikipedia, the sources it references don't matter. These are good examples of doing it correctly: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5189-united-states-slaves-were-overall-treated-quite-well?page=3&post_number=58 https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5189-united-states-slaves-were-overall-treated-quite-well?page=2&post_number=36 https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5189-united-states-slaves-were-overall-treated-quite-well?page=1&post_number=19 

2) Use anecdotal evidence wherever possible in place of data. Better yet, spam a giant list of anecdotal evidence without explaining any of it. DO NOT make the mistake of attempting to read all the sources. Just make sure the title supports what you're saying, and then add it to the list. Remember: the bigger the list, the more da- I mean anecdotal evidence you have, which is always better than data: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5189-united-states-slaves-were-overall-treated-quite-well?page=2&post_number=41 https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5189-united-states-slaves-were-overall-treated-quite-well?page=3&post_number=61  https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5189-united-states-slaves-were-overall-treated-quite-well?page=1&post_number=19 

3) If someone asks you to elaborate on any sources you provide to make your argument, say that it's their burden to do so. DO NOT attempt to actually read your sources, as this takes precious time away from completing your homework and playing Fornite https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5189-united-states-slaves-were-overall-treated-quite-well?page=3&post_number=56 

4) Remember to look for opportunities to use vulgar language. Everyone thinks you're more intelligent if you can use abusive language. You can win an argument on the spot if you are able to shove a bunch of swearwords into your sentence https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5160-pornography-and-the-destruction-it-causes?page=2&post_number=26 https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5160-pornography-and-the-destruction-it-causes?page=2&post_number=28 https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5160-pornography-and-the-destruction-it-causes?page=2&post_number=32 

Protip: become a moderator so you can abuse people, receive the report for the abuse, and just ignore it. Conflict of interest is for dumb adults.

I think it is worth mentioning that MisterChris has been engaging in behaviour unbefitting a moderator. Note that I am criticising behaviour, not launching a person attack. Please consider this post I made in response to his behaviour. Is this acceptable behaviour for a moderator?:

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5160-pornography-and-the-destruction-it-causes?page=2&post_number=38 

This OP is in response to this quote (plus all the other hysterical dummies on the forums using these words): "If something is racist it is inherently discriminatory, so no, its a category and an adjective not a conclusion of a proposition".

The terms "racism" and "racist" are inherently inaccurate words, loaded with politically charged bias. The latter is self-evident whenever you call something/someone one of these terms. The former takes a bit more explaining.

If someone said, "Blacks belong in slavery," most people will respond to that by saying it's racist. Fair enough. It expresses racial hatred. It deserves the politically charged terminology and social ostracization. I wouldn't criticize the usage of those terms ("racism" and "racist") there.

If someone said, "Blacks have lower I.Q's than Whites", some people will respond to that by saying it's racist. Now, unfortunately, this is a scientifically verifiable fact, and thus in responding with your hysterical, sloppy language, you're not only slandering the people making the claim, but you are engaging in anti-scientific behaviour. Whether a fact is "racist" or not is beside the point, and you're getting in the way of genuine scientific research with this nonsense term.

If someone said, "A lot of Asian people live there", I have heard people say that this is racist. A demographical, verifiable fact gets slammed with a pejorative because your cult lingo is stupid.

That's the issue with the terms. They are catch-all and don't house necessary distinctions required for nuance, AND THEN they slander and destroy factual work in various ways. 

Instead of using these stupid terms, when you hear things like "6 million was not enough" or "all Asians eat dogs alive", use the term "racial hatred". It's far more accurate, it doesn't screw up science and demographic observations, and, most importantly, you don't look like a bloody idiot.

This OP was created in response to a PM received which read as such, "(https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi263) Shows that there may be certain traits of passing down criminal susceptibility, but it is not certain or even likely for this to happen, so a mass killing of violent individuals would not accomplish this via evolution". 

This quote was in direct response to the studies I'm about to provide, and since the person in the PM said that I hadn't refuted anything he said, I decided to bring the discussion to the forums. In this OP, I will show that 'criminal susceptibility' in the European genepool was heavily reduced due to the 'war on murder'.

In short, the Catholic church started to change its tune on criminality around the 12th Century, and thus things like the death penalty began to become existent in Europe. Harpending and Frost (2015) showed that somewhere between 1-2% of each generation's male population was executed for violent crime. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/147470491501300114 .

Over 30 generations (assuming each is approximately 25 years), you are eliminating each generation's most violent criminals, and hence their genes which made them violent. Moreover, these violent genes set left the gene pool, and the gene pool reshuffled for the next generation *without* that most violent gene set being a part of it. Over time, this meant that the extreme end violent genetic clusters became less and less.

Thus, in effect, removing the most violent 0.5-1% of the population's most violent genes, results in removing about 45% of the violent genes altogether (since the effect is compounded, not a singular generational removal of 22.5%). Thus, the PM quote saying that this is a "mass killing" is misaligned with this phenomenon, because it was not a singular "mass killing", but rather killings that compounded over time to produce a far different effect.

Note that the AIC government source the PM cites was produced in 2003, well before the existence of this 2015 data. Thus, at the time of publication, it is entirely possible that the AIC was correct in its conclusions, at the time of publication.

Again, this OP is inspired by a private PM that I received. The quote involved is as follows: 

The school-taught U.S. slavery oppression narrative is riddled with flaws, and in this OP I will address some of them.

Firstly, I'd like to say that I don't condone slavery and I actively will speak out against it. However, in regards to the slavery conditions of the United States, slaves were treated quite well, relative to the bogus official narrative peddled in U.S. schools.

American adult slaves were actually quite well fed, so much so that they actually grew to be slightly taller than their slave owner's (apart from English aristocrat and Swedes) https://www.jstor.org/stable/2121481?seq=1 . This work is behind a paywall so I gathered the relevant table here https://i.imgur.com/DKvGFFk.png . Therefore, the evidence suggests that slaves were not "given enough to eat most times", but they were "well fed", thus treated well in this regard.

Saying that "learning English isn't a benefit" is, quite frankly, a ridiculous statement that flies in the face of universal standards -- the Human Development Index has "literacy" as a component. In other words, the whole world agrees that literacy is important. In the 1870 census, African American slaves had a literacy rate of over 20%. Comparatively, Russia only had a literacy rate of 15% at this time https://ourworldindata.org/literacy . Further comparison shows that Africa, as a continent, didn't reach 20% literacy rates until 1950. Thus, in terms of literacy, Africans were better off in the United States.

Adjusting for the context of the era involving slavery in the United States, learning English was a benefit because it allowed some of the more talented Africans to become emancipated an integrate into American society. It also helped the slaves to communicate in general.

The claim that Africans were "whipped" if they didn't learn English, flies in the face of logic: why would you buy a slave to abuse and whip him/her? Similar to how well we treat cows, despite owning them, whipping your cow/slave would cause injury and thus stymie his/her ability to produce milk/work for you. Not to mention the official Wikipedia page suggests that teaching slaves English "was discouraged" and made illegal in certain Southern states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_during_the_slave_period_in_the_United_States . Also, data on the brutality of slave owners to slaves is very hard to find (perhaps because it doesn't exist).

it's true that slaves were expected to perform, but that doesn't mean they were whipped and worked hard. A study in 2015 by Trevor Logan found that his children were able to pick cotton at 95% the rate of the average, same-age slave *child* https://i.imgur.com/xnAtnnS.png . Add to this the fact that the average free farmer worked 3,130 hours a year, whilst the average black slave worked 2,798 (Fogel and Engerman, 1977). 

Thus, slaves worked fewer hours than White free farmers and weren't worked particularly hard.

I've recently come across this argument: "IQ is measuring abstract intelligence, not intelligence as a general concept, hence is proved by my source" (non-source quote).

The source was this: https://som.yale.edu/news/2009/11/why-high-iq-doesnt-mean-youre-smart

In this OP, I am going to defend the validity of I.Q. and how it relates to measuring intelligence.

Now, in the article's words, they believe recording a high I.Q. doesn't make you smart because:

This "making good judgements in real-life situations" is what the non-source quote is referring to as "intelligence as a general concept". "Making good judgements in real-life situations" is something that isn't necessarily wholly based on intelligence, as sometimes you do not have all information regarding a situation. Absence of all knowledge can sometimes force a bad judgement, despite making a good judgement with the information you had. 

Furthermore, other factors such as life-experience will inappropriately weight this metric in favour of older people, as sometimes they will be handle "real-life situations" based on their experience of the past, of which might have been negative and hence they learned from it.

Furthermore still, sometimes people will inadvertently handle a real-life situation well through sheer luck, rather than intelligent thought.

Thus, due to these confounding variables, "making good judgements in real-life situations" has components that you precisely DO NOT want in a measurement of intelligence, because it dilutes measurement of intelligence with facets that are not measuring intelligence.

Interestingly, I.Q. is actually an excellent predictor of positive life outcomes (which extend from "making good judgements in real-life situations").  On page 65 of "The Scientific American Book of The Brain," we see that I.Q. is a predictor of positive life outcomes https://i.imgur.com/WwSHDHN.png . According to a longitudinal study, education level, occupation level and income level were all best predicted by I.Q. https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Intelligence-and-socioeconomic-success-A-meta-analytic-review-of-longitudinal-research.pdf . So, there is strong correlation with I.Q. and "making good judgements in real-life situations" anyway.

Whilst it is true to say a person with high I.Q. won't always make "good judgments in real-life situations", it is also true to say that a person with a high I.Q. is more intelligent than a person with a low I.Q.