The Instigator
RyuuKyuzo
Pro (for)
Winning
29 Points
The Contender
RationalMadman
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

"There is Only One Race, The Human Race" Is an Incorrect Statement

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
RyuuKyuzo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/20/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 19,336 times Debate No: 28466
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (6)

 

RyuuKyuzo

Pro

I will be arguing that Humans are not all the same race. Since what constitutes a "race" will be a point of contention, it will be left undefined for the time being, but the general definition is that a race is a subgroup of a species.

All other definitions will be the standard dictionary definitions that best fit the context of this debate.

All standard DDO rules apply.

First round is for acceptance.

BOP will be shared.

Topic = resolution

Any questions or requests should be made in the comments section prior to accepting.
Debate Round No. 1
RyuuKyuzo

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting.

My opening argument will be split into 3 parts, each affirming the resolution on its own.

1. Humans are a Genus

The term "human" applies to all members of the genus homo. When we say "we are human", we are claiming to be a member of a group spanning 14 distinct species of hominid. Those species are (in order from oldest to most recent) [1];


H. habilis
H. gautengensis
H. rudolfensis
H. ergaster
H. erectus
H. antecessor
H. heidelbergensis
H. cepranensis
H. neanderthalensis

H. rhodesiensis
H. sapiens idaltu
H. floresiensis
Denisova hominin
H. sapiens sapiens(modern humans)


It should be noted that a few of these, namely Neanderthals and idaltus, are not universally considered to be distinct species, but rather a sub-species (or race) of Homo Sapiens. This, by definition, already proves that there are distinct races of human, but there's a more fundamental argument at play.

If human beings are a genus, and a race is a sub-group within a species, then etymologically speaking one cannot say that there is only one race of human as that would be conflating our genus (homo) with our species (sapien [sapien]). It would be akin to saying, "there is only one kind of dog breed; the canine breed", ignoring the fact that the term "canine" actually includes dingoes, wolves (of which there are 5+ breeds), jackals, coyotes and domestic dogs [2].

Therefore, to make the claim that the "human race" is the only race is immediately incorrect terminologically speaking. This statement equivocates race with genus, a jump of 2 orders, which makes it even less correct than saying "there is only one race, the sapien race" or "there is only one genus, the sapien genus", because at least these statements are only equivocating over one order of magnitude of taxonomic classification.

2. Genetic Markers

Even if we shrink our scope to homo sapiens alone, we can see clear and distinct sub-groups.



Even if we only observe superficial phenotype markers, it is undeniable that there are aggregate similarities within certain groups correlating to a common geographical ancestry. I won't bother explaining which physical characteristics match up with which geographical location because everyone already knows which go with where. The point is merely to establish that we can clearly see racial distinctions within humans, just as we can with any species which has distinct sub-groups in various parts of the Earth.

These differences are more than just cosmetic, mind you. Consider that the total genetic diversity of the human genome is equal to about 0.32% (between whites and blacks). That is to say, the two most unrelated humans on Earth have a genetic similarity of about 99.68% [3]. While 1/3 of a percent might not sound like much, keep in mind that chimps are only estimated to be about 1-2% different from us [4]. Clearly, small differences add up.

Let us also consider the current controversy of Neanderthals. Some scientists argue that they are a separate species, while other argue that they are just a separate race. The average genetic distance between sapiens and Neanderthals is actually smaller than the total variance within the sapien genome (0.3% different) [5]. And while we don't have a large population of living Neanderthals to do genetic tests on, it's not hard to imagine that the total variance is about equal to the total variance within the sapien genome.

Given that a genetic variance nearly equal to the genetic variance found within the sapien population has scientists debating on if Neanderthals are a distinct species, let alone a separate race, it is clear that there must be at least 2 different races of sapiens, since this same variation may or may not be enough for human speciation. Therefore, we cannot claim that there is only one race of sapien as the variance within the sapien genome is already nearly large enough for speciation to have occurred (assuming Neanderthals are found to be a distinct species).

3. Self Identified Race

Virtually everyone knows what their race is. The U.S. census is a proof of this [6]. Even those who don't agree with the classifications in the census know which group they fit into as self-identified race matches up with the microsatellite markers geneticists use to determine race at a rate of 99.86% [7]. Therefore, we cannot deny that multiple races exist on the grounds that virtually all of us clearly recognize racial distinctions, even if we don't like to admit it.

If self-identified race didn't match up with these major genetic clusters a statistically significant amount, then perhaps one could argue that race is merely a social construct, but the evidence says that race is very real and we all know it.

Conclusion

In this round I have established that the statement "There is Only One Race, The Human Race" is incorrect for three main reasons, and several minor reasons. Those three reasons are 1. the statement is taxinomocally false, 2. the statement is false genetically speaking, and 3. the statement is false by the uniform agreement between self-identified race and the genetic markers denoting race. The resolution has been affirmed.


1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://www.mun.ca...
4. http://www.scientificamerican.com...
5. http://en.wikipedia.org...
6. http://en.wikipedia.org...
7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

RationalMadman

Con

Ethnicity =/= race =/= species

Let us use definitions (I assumed pro would do so)

Ethnicity = the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition. (Such as the distinction between an African-American and a Caucasian American.)
http://oxforddictionaries.com...

Race = each of the major divisions of living creatures.
http://oxforddictionaries.com...

Species = a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.
http://oxforddictionaries.com...

Now look at "race" it doesn't HAVE TO mean the skin colour or the SUBDIVISION of species, all it has to mean is that what is being discussed is the human race!

Humans have a lot in common, we all have very many emotions (arguably a far richer subjective emotional experience to all other creatures), we have the urge to make a meaning in life (barely any other species has this urge) and we have the capability of language which, aside from our scientific and mathematical abilities, is probably the single most influential advantage which has made us the dominant species on the planet.

In essence, what bonds humans as a race is far beyond the physique, if it wasn't we'd still be having the horrific slavery of black people. To some people differences in religions is grounds to say "THEY ARE NOT THE SAME RACE AS US, THEY ARE A DIFFERENT BREED/RACE ALTOGETHER!" it is why the Hindus and Muslims tore each other apart in the events leading up to (and even following) the Partition of India. Would you say that two black men who are Christian and Muslim (for example a Kenyan and a Tanzanian) are of a different race? Well probably not. IN THE SAME WAY THEN... How are we to say that two men, one Caucasian, one Chinese, who both are peaceful monks of Buddhism and even are both in China are of different races? I assure you if anyone on the street laughed at the 'white guy' the 'yellow' man would jump in and say "He is not an outsider, he is one of us of the HUMAN RACE!"


There is no definitive difference between humans because all of us have the urge to COMMUNICATE more than ANY OTHER "RACE" IN EXISTENCE IN FACT THIS IS WHY WE ARE NOT THE NEANDERTHALS NOR THE IDALTAS.

The homo sapiens ARE THE HUMAN RACE! Whether you're black, white, (oriental) Asian or (brown) Asian you are all united by this innate urge to cognitively process any and all things in some form or shape. This is why Eminem raps so well, why Yao Ming thrashed black people at basketball, why Obama (he is even a mixed race) is ruling what was once the land that could be considered the epitome of segregation to mixed race kids (since neither the slaves nor the whites truly accepted them) and why we have an almost inexplicably beautiful "race" the Latina one (I say this because they dominate the porn industry in the female gender, with Caucasians not too far behind in second place and blacks dominating the male porn). This is why the Japanese draw manga that represents the Caucasian form (generally) and why the world is so diverse at its core in the 21st century. We must realise once and for all that....


Listen, racism of an imaginary thing where "OMG DUDE A BLACK GUY IS PLAYING FOOTBALL" is so wrong and disgusting CREW ALL OF YOU RACISTS OUT THERE! Anyway here is a video...
Debate Round No. 2
RyuuKyuzo

Pro

...Okay, I see what this is here.

before I begin, let's clear a few things up

1. I'm not trying to promote racism here. This debate is merely meant to establish that there are, in fact, distinct races within our species. My arguments are positive, not normative, so any normative counter-arguments my opponent makes are irrelevant to the resolution.

2. Race has already been defined to the extent that a race is a sub-group of a species. This was established in R1 and therefore agreed to by con by virtue of his acceptance of this debate. The only ambiguity I left in the definition of race was to what extent a species' genome must exhibit variance before we can say it contains separate races. Given this, it is Con's burden to argue that the genetic variance found in the sapien genome is not enough to claim that there are separate races within our population.

Now let's continue.

Con never actually responded to any of my 3 main arguments, so I extend all arguments.

The rest of this will be dealt with point-by-point

- Con says race doesn't have to mean skin colour/ subdivision of a species. I never said race was defined by skin-colour, but race was defined to the extent that it is a subdivision of a species in R1, so for the purposes of this debate, it does have to mean that.

- Con claims humans have a lot in common (therefore race doesn't exist?). This is a non-sequitur. We also have a lot in common with chimps (98% in common), does that mean we are chimps? Of course not.

- Con says if we weren't bound to each other by more than physique we would still have black slavery. This is both off-topic and wrong on more levels than I have space to get into right now, but long-story short we still have slavery today [1].

- Con goes on to say some things about religion. Again, irrelevant. I'm not arguing that race=religion, nor am I arguing that different races should fight each other. My argument is merely that the variance found in the human genome is grounds that there are distinct races within our genome.

- Con says that there is no definitive difference between humans because we all have the urge to communicate. This is an absurd argument. Every living creature communicates in some form with other creatures. Con also states that we are not Neanderthals or Idaltus because we have a stronger urge to communicate. This is even more absurd. Both Neanderthals and Idaltus are human, in fact they may even be homo-sapiens (Idaltus are already considered to be sapiens). I provided a picture displaying several different races of people last round. Can anyone honestly argue that they do not see distinct differences? How about between us and the other types of human?


From left to right; H. Habilis, H. Sapien, H. Floresiensis, H. Erectus, Paranthropus Boisei, H. Heidelbergensis, H. Neanderthalensis

Each of these humans communicated with other humans, so clearly communication has no bearing on whether or not two groups of people are significantly genetically dissimilar or not.

Let's not look a little deeper into the definitive differences between the currently living races of sapien too.

1. The smartest race of sapien (ashkenazi Jews) score an average of 60 IQ points higher than the least intelligent race of sapiens (Kalahari bushmen) [2][3]. Given that the average IQ is only 100, a 60 point gap is enormous.

2. Out of the 71 fastest men on Earth, 1 was white, and the rest where black [4]. Athletic ability is yet another distinct difference, despite both races having the "urge to communicate"

- Con says we are all united by our urge to "cognitively process and an all things in some shape or form". I thought the unifying theme was communication? Con is contradicting himself here.

- Con lists people who break racial expectations. These people are the exception, not the rule. This argument in no way establishes that the races don't have distinct differences on the aggregate.

- Con ends by saying that racism is disgusting. Once again, my argument has nothing to do with normative statements, so this counter argument is irrelevant.

Conclusion

Con dropped all my arguments, all while making arguments both incorrect and irrelevant to the debate at hand. Much of what I typed last round already counters the arguments con made this round. Furthermore, con is trying to twist the definition of race outside the limits established in round 1, something con claimed he would do in the comments section. Due to this, he has performed a conduct violation and I request that next round he addresses the arguments I've made, rather than trying to side-step them with semantics.

1. http://ranisvoice.org...
2. http://ieet.org...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...(book)
4. http://human-stupidity.com...

RationalMadman

Con

This is a silly debate because he is using facts that are undeniable but not explaining why this warrants RACIAL discrimination.
Debate Round No. 3
RyuuKyuzo

Pro

Once again, my arguments are not normative. I am in no way trying to justify racial discrimination, just racial differentiation.

Since that was the last round my opponent could make new arguments in, he has effectively dropped all my original arguments and failed to defend his own original arguments.

To recap my arguments, the statements "There is Only One Race, The Human Race" is wrong because;

1. A race is a sub-group of a species, and humans are a genus including 14 species. Since speciation requires greater genetic variance than race differentiation, this statement must be wrong.

2. Even if we only look at the sapien genome, the total variance within the sapien genome is equal to the genetic distance between sapiens and Neanderthals, a distance used by some scientists to argue that Neanderthals are a distinct species. Therefore, given that a genetic dissimilarity of 0.3% is used to argue for speciation in humans, and since we know the sapien genome contains that much variance, we must conclude that there are at least two races of sapien as the sapien genome is arguably on the border line of speciation.

3. Self identified race matches genotypical race almost perfectly, something you would only expect if there are legitimate objective grounds for racial distinction.

Since my opponent has not addressed these arguments at this point, he is no longer able to and any arguments he makes against them next round will be new arguments which must be ignored. He may choose to defend his R2 arguments if he so chooses (and doesn't make new arguments in the process), but given that all his R2 arguments where off-topic, validating them won't be enough to win the debate.

I thank my opponent for his time and I urge the voters to vote Pro.
RationalMadman

Con

Fine, you win. :/
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Hetaera 2 years ago
Hetaera
Wow way to F' up on my first posting here; The opening should be: There is only one* living RACE: Homo Sapien Sapien... eh but I'm only human, and we all make mistakes.
Posted by Hetaera 2 years ago
Hetaera
There is only living RACE: Homo Sapien Sapien

AND NO, I am not just repeating myself for giggles. The specific type of human YOU are today falls within that category, ALL OTHER RACES of humans are EXTINCT.

Any reference to hair colour, eye colour, SKIN colour, is merely a reference to PHENOTYPE (http://dictionary.reference.com...) which is in reference to observable traits not to be confused entirely with GENOTYPE; however there is in fact a relationship between the two. To understand this relationship a little bit better you would need to compare the current LIVING human species to other mammalian species. When you do this you find that within the species Homo Sapien Sapien there are fewer genetic differences than most other species: Compare a Wild Horse to a Domestic Horse for example: in Domestic Horses there are 32 pairs of chromosomes; however in "wild" horses there are 33 pairs of chromosomes(Przewalski's horse).

IN THE HUMAN GENOME (not to be confused with non-living species other than Homo SAPIEN SAPIEN, you can see how this can get old... quickly) there are 23 chromosomal pairs barring genetic defect/ disease (why this is relevant is that you wouldn't say a horse with 33 pairs of chromosomes is any less healthy or a horse because of an extra set of chromosomes, you wouldn't even say this is abnormal).

LET ME JUST BE CLEAR to address all of those with any designs on "racism", humans are so genetically limited in our diversity that limiting our genetic diversity any more than it already is would even more expose US to EXTINCTION. For this I will briefly reference plants (http://www.nature.com...) and if you're busy clicking about my links you'll notice in this one that it references that limited diversity produces a susceptibility to disease; AND BOY DOES IT.

DIVERSITY will save us all, and I mean that literally!

So in conclusion: THERE IS ONLY ONE RACE HUMAN
Posted by john.klepac 4 years ago
john.klepac
Come on, dude, don't concede!
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
yes nick but then he said this isn't true
Posted by Nick254 4 years ago
Nick254
Actually, if you define race as a subgroup of a species (subspecies) then there can only be one race. This is because all living humans belong to the same subspecies (Homo sapiens sapiens). As for the other hominid species, they are all extinct, but even if they were not the question of race would not arise as they are separate species. There were times in the past when different hominid species coexisted, but today only Homo sapiens sapiens is extant. Also, classification of races is difficult to support genetically. As you have pointed out, the genetic variation between any two individuals is very small, but the genetic variation between two populations is even smaller. Additionally, external features can be misleading. For example, Africans are more genetically similar to Europeans than to Melanesians, despite having similar skin color and facial features as the latter. So, while different populations may display different features, the differences are superficial. But if you define race in terms of these observable differences, then I agree that there are different races.

http://goo.gl...
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
@ InVino, How confident are you that in your accusation? Well, confident enough to vote accordingly I see.

I'll debate you on the topic of if I used semantical trickery or not. COME AT ME BRO!
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
k
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
no matter what definition of race you use. I will twist it.
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
There's no trickery. far too many people use this line, and I'm taking it upon myself to show why this statement is wrong.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
Imbecilic resolution, begging for semantic trickery from Pro.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Hemanth_Nambiar 4 years ago
Hemanth_Nambiar
RyuuKyuzoRationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
RyuuKyuzoRationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Winner winner, paint thinner
Vote Placed by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
RyuuKyuzoRationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm not going to use tautologies for my reason for voting. "He had better conduct, therefore, he wins conduct" is useless.
Vote Placed by The_Master_Riddler 4 years ago
The_Master_Riddler
RyuuKyuzoRationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: concession =conduct convincing arg.=same pro had more sources= reliable sources
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
RyuuKyuzoRationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for Con, because Pro simply used a semantic argument founded on a single definition of the ambiguous term "race" (as I had expected.) Con forfeits, nonetheless, so arguments to Pro.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
RyuuKyuzoRationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded.