The relevant post here is Policy Debates should not appear one-sided.
This is a tangent but I find this sort of thing quite disappointing from a supposedly scientifically-minded person:
Like it or not, there’s a birth lottery for intelligence—though this is one of the cases where the universe’s unfairness is so extreme that many people choose to deny the facts. The experimental evidence for a purely genetic component of 0.6–0.8 is overwhelming, but even if this were to be denied, you don’t choose your parental upbringing or your early schools either.
I can't be sure where the 0.6-0.8 figure comes from since no source is given, but I assume that this refers to heritability, a common statstic in genetics that, for intelligence, tends to fall in that range (the most recent study I found put it at 50%, but that is from 10 years after the publication of this blog entry).
To say that intelligence is strongly determined by genetics because of this stat is misunderstanding what heritability measures. Heritability measures the extent of deviation that cannot be accounted for by external factors. But that is by its nature dependant on the strength of the external factors. In a strongly segregated society, heritability would decrease, because there are more other factors that impact a child's development. The more egalitarian a society becomes, the more you should see an increase in heritability.
This means that you have no grounds to make a statement like "intelligence is determined mostly by a birth lottery". Heritability is not an inherent biological truth, it depends on the society in which we live. I have not seen any studies supporting the argument that biological differences in intelligence will persist no matter how we organize our society.
