The Instigator
Hetaera
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
RyuuKyuzo
Pro (for)
Winning
32 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 7 votes the winner is...
RyuuKyuzo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/23/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,580 times Debate No: 59428
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (7)

 

Hetaera

Con

There is only one 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
RyuuKyuzo

Pro

My opponent has issued this debate based on an old debate of mine, of which concluded in a way Con doesn't like [8]. Seeing as my opponent has opted to post her arguments first, I presume she's accepted the full BoP as she hasn't said anything to the contrary. My opponent also neglected to define the term "race" in her R1, leaving me to conclude we are using the same definition used in the original debate, which was:

A race is a subgroup of a species.

Therefore, if I can show that there are distinct subgroups within the human genome, I will have affirmed the resolution and won the debate.

Oddly enough, even though Con had access to all my arguments, her opening round didn't address any of them, and in fact all of her points are preemptively debunked in my R1 argument of the original debate, so I will reiterate my argument here and afterwards make comments on some specific points from her opening arguments.

Enjoy!

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 Northern Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans). 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, dpeending on the genetic markers measured, chimps are estimated to be as much as 99% the same as 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.

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.

--

Now to address some specifics of Con's argument:

1. All Other Races Are Extinct

This isn't true. There are still multiple races of Sapien alive. What Con means is that all the other species of Human are extinct, but this is irrelevant. Let's say all forms of canine died off except for the domestic dog. Would their genus suddenly change from Canis to Lupus Familiaris? No, because that's not how taxonomy works. We would still keep record of the domestic dog's species and subspecies, just as we do with ourselves.

2. Horses

This is also entirely irrelevant. Horses are not humans. The genetic variance between wild horses and domestic horses doesn't tell us anything about the racial classifications found in our species. Besides, domestic horses are a distinct subspecies from wild horses [9]. Remember, the genetic distance between Sapiens and Neanerthals is smaller than the genetic distance found between the two most distinct living human races, and neanderthals are arguably a different species from us. This is all that matters when trying to determine if the genetic variance seen in humans is enough to justify the claim that there are multiple races.

3. Plants

Con says something about how we could go extinct if we limited our genetic diversity, then sites an article on crop heterogeneity in rice. Once again, this is irrelevant, as it doesn't tell us anything about whether or not the human genome contains enough genetic variation to justify the claim that there are multiple races. I think Con is saying that there isn't much genetic diversity within out species' genome, but what's her point? There isn't much genetic distance between us and chimps. Does that mean we're the same as chimps?

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.

Furthermore, I've debunked Con's arguments, which surprisingly can all be refuted simply by asking "So what?". The other species of hominid have gone extinct -- so what? Domestic horses and wild horses have genetic dissimilarities -- so what? Genetic heterogeneity helps prevent disease in corn crops -- so what? To be blunt, Con's case is just a bunch of nonsense.

The resolution has been affirmed.


VOTE PRO


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...
8. http://www.debate.org...
9. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Hetaera

Con

Hetaera forfeited this round.
RyuuKyuzo

Pro

Extending arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
Hetaera

Con

Hetaera forfeited this round.
RyuuKyuzo

Pro

Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Hetaera 2 years ago
Hetaera
So the idea son is for you to learn something!
Your stance is quite contrary to the current stance in the anthropological community. Which I found to be interesting when I read your original debate, mainly because you fervently tried to reiterate your racist views with anthropological evidence, lol. I thought that this may have been due to your not realizing where the phrase "There is only one race human" came from, so I went into detail explaining the leaps and bounds this community had made to come to that conclusion. To establish my ethos on the matter at hand, I am currently finishing my Associates in Psychology. In fact today is my last day of my last class in this degree, and next semester I will be starting in the Nursing program at CCAC, which may mean little to you but consider the source, http://www.ccac.edu.... I am fairly well versed in anthropology and current genetics. I also just have a general interest on the subject of genes as I am a gardener by hobby... much like Friar Gregor Johan Mendel. Trust me the human genome project wouldn't be but a scant fart of an idea if it had not been for Gregor's initial discovery of genetics.
I think what frustrates me the most about your rhetoric is in it's presentation. You see it promotes ignorance when you use tactics such as the ones you have applied to most of your persuasive arguments. It comes across almost as if you are more concerned with performing a magic trick, applying distraction and bedazzlement, rather than getting to the actual truth or heart of the matter.To the unobservant eye your rhetoric displays neutrality and is set up with points and sub points all where they need go. However to the keen eye your flash falls short and the pictures you portray for your audience seem blurry and muddled if not at all completely distorted from what is actually there.
Ignorance is tricky. We must not lead our readers into the dark whether by mishap or malicious intent.
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 2 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
Um... okay?
Posted by Hetaera 2 years ago
Hetaera
https://www.youtube.com... I realized that I ended my "debate" prematurely without presenting any new verifiable information about genetics.. here. Even college humor knows what I'm talking about.

GOOD DAY SIR!
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 2 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
That's swell. If you get your Elo up a fair bit, you can re-issue this debate and we can go at it again.
Posted by Hetaera 2 years ago
Hetaera
There is an error in my argument at the begging because having been angered I typed a bit to hastily; All those lovely species of Humans can be considered "race" however they are dead gone and not relevant to today's world when discussing the world at large and the issue of "race." Which btw was the thesis of my last rhetoric here; but alas I actually do forfeit my argument due to my opponents lack of knowledge on the subject of genetics, and his inability to debate correctly.
Posted by Hetaera 2 years ago
Hetaera
pressed why very clearly as it is for you the most simple way to observe genetics and genetic conformity. Something I feel you very much need to brush up on rather than muddling your facts YET AGAIN. Though by reading what you wrote I understand where you cannot comprehend so let me reiterate: HUMANS GENETICALLY DON"T HAVE AS MUCH DIVERSITY AS THE OTHER MAMALS ON THIS PLANET. This has nothing to do with chimps and God help you if you monkie around with the wording any more than you already have. Diversity between species is not the same as diversity within SPECIES. Not to sound completely capricious but DUH.
So to answer your "So What?" Uhm " derrr read a book read a book read a Muther F"ing book LOL??!?! DO you seriously win debates on here?
Infact I will counter your entire argument right here and now with it"s only viable response:
DID YOUR MOTHER TEACH YOU TO AD HOMYNEM LIKE THAT?
Posted by Hetaera 2 years ago
Hetaera
HOMYNEM Ladys and Gents: you start off your "argument" laced with implications of my intellectual frailty. However you assume quite a lot about me and well you know what they say about well making an as... but I defer.
"Con had access to all my arguments, her opening round didn't address any of them, and in fact all of her points are preemptively debunked in my R1 argument of the original debate"
As I have stated previously your points are laced with fallacies clear as day for anyone to see them. I respond DIRECTLY to your misconceptions of the world we live in as you only; assume your points of view about my own. To further the point of me having to now "defend" myself instead of focusing on the issue at hand let me just reiterate YET AGAIN that I said CLEARLY that that all other sapiens are dead except for ofcource H. Sapien Sapien.
When one refers to the subject in a sentence one might use the terms he or she or his ect as I would and correctly used the word sapien to describe the extinct species of Humans thus your statement of clarity is really just a red herring meant to attack me and distract from the topic at hand: "This isn't true. There are still multiple races of Sapien alive. What Con means is that all the other species of Human are extinct, but this is irrelevant"
And usually I don"t care about these jabs but your debates are so rife with them that it is hard not to give consideration to the idea that you have no experience with what debates are really about and therefore have no real concept of what you"re doing outside of insulting your opponents indirectly, muddling the issue and skewing whatever you can to get your way, much like a child screams to get a bottle.
Horses are relevant much like most mammalians are relevant to this debate " You may find an Elephant to be IrrELAPHANT but that doesn"t mean it isn"t when we are talking about mammals and genetic differences. I again reiterate SPECIES and RACE are the same.
Plants are RELIVENT and I ex
Posted by Hetaera 2 years ago
Hetaera
more genetic DIVERSITY within their genome than the entirety of the HUMAN race. SO as you would say "unrelated" I would very much differ to say that humans, all humans on the planet are very much related, coming from a very SMALL pool of ancestors, so small it is a wonder how we survived. Also your statistics lie. Comparing the similarity of a species to us does not denote the same scale as concluding the most related humans. So in other words this whole statement:
"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 Northern Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans). 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, dpeending on the genetic markers measured, chimps are estimated to be as much as 99% the same as us [4]. Clearly, small differences add up."
Is misleading at best. Last time I checked apples were not oranges.
Not to mention the slippery slope you would have us all follow you down: "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."
Did you not just mention clearly I might add that this "separation" was under debate? But as long as we are on this slope let me introduce a history fact of my own: wasn"t and I will say not too too long ago that the Netherlands was a prevalent part of the Nazis party? Would it really surprise you that this "debate" would happen in such an area ripe with propaganda or that they would feel a need to distinguish themselves yet AGAIN from the rest of humanity? See what you and I did there?
In fact let me throw in my own Red herrings for this debate because son you need schooling on what is proper educate within a debate:
Implying my ignorance towards a topic with limited proof is called AD HO
Posted by Hetaera 2 years ago
Hetaera
I think it"s pretty obvious that the term "race" doesn"t mean "subgroup of a species"
I"ve never heard anyone reference the "race of H. Erectus" or the "race of "H. habilis" because quite simply it would be improper to do so.
Apparently my point which I feel was iterated clearly that when we use the term "human" we are in fact talking about modern still EXTANT beings. I mean if you can go down to Walmart and find me a living H. antecessor, then more kudos to ya. Which I believe debunks your entire argument about "sub species."
I find it funny however that you do attempt to make the only valid argument to race as it can be akin to "breed" however "breeds" especially within dogs are manmade. Dogs didn"t just magically end up as poodles or German Shepherds nor did their differences come about due to climate or environment, which debunks the theory of Breed being so akin to Race after all.
Races are a natural phenomenon.
Also I find it interesting that you narrow your scope to "homo sapien" not realizing that infact we, the current and ONLY living species on this planet are "Homo sapien sapien"
But that just speaks to your creditability.
As I argued earlier phenotype is not or at least should not be the conditions for race. You may refer back to my original argument. My argument very much states Race and Species to be the same. I further my argument with a little bit of science fiction for ya. When talking about the Vulcans or we refer them a humanoid species.
Species and Race are identical in this sense.
Since we are all of the Homo Genus and the Sapien Sapien species I think it is fair to say that We are the same Species and there-fore race. Also considering I am an amalgamation of genetic phenotypes I feel your rudimentary arguments for singularity fall short of reality.
As I will inevitably have to rehash my earlier argument which you have yet to debunk yourself.
Chimps may be a close cousin to us but like most mammalian species on this planet they have
Posted by Hetaera 2 years ago
Hetaera
Lol actually had speech class speech thingies to attend to lmao. I totally forgot about this... His argument is flawed as hell tho. For shits and giggles I'll post my reply here.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 1 year ago
Zarroette
HetaeraRyuuKyuzoTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro rebuts Con's argument with superior sources, to which Con never offers a response. So, conduct, sources and argument points go to Pro.
Vote Placed by Mister_Man 2 years ago
Mister_Man
HetaeraRyuuKyuzoTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Why is it that whenever someone forms a really interesting topic, they always forfeit?? Come on.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
HetaeraRyuuKyuzoTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
HetaeraRyuuKyuzoTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff. Only pro had sources
Vote Placed by Maikuru 2 years ago
Maikuru
HetaeraRyuuKyuzoTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit from Con, full ballot for Pro.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
HetaeraRyuuKyuzoTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by YYW 2 years ago
YYW
HetaeraRyuuKyuzoTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF