Race is purely a social construct

Lades and gentlemen, my opponent continues to perform argumentative acrobatics with the continuing of his claim that his argument is so spectacular, it is self-evident. And therefore, there is no valid point of contention! This is a non-argument. It is a way of him trying to avoid building a case for race's existence. I again must state that if the case were so self-evident, we wouldn't be having this debate, as I would have no ability to reasonably disagree. Now, my opponent has called my evidence a "bogus, propagandist, sociological" interpretation of science. This is utter nonsense. The project workers of the human genome project are giving us bogus and propagandist interpretations of science? Laughable. It is most amusing folks that my opponent would sooner throw away the words of geneticists who dedicated several years of their life to the deep analyzation and categorization of the human genome, so he can continue to hold onto his incorrect perception of reality, than recognize their authority on the field.But, never let it be said that I am not up for the challenge.Let's break apart these numbers that have been given, to gain a more accurate idea of what we're dealing with here. Of the 15% previously mentioned, less than 5% of that is attributed to local populations that we classically call "races". The remaining 10% is geographical heritage, which deals with the variation amongst groups we view as races in the every day sense, based upon skin colour or hair type, ect[1]. What this means is, the amount of genetic variation amongst human beings that is inherited is incredibly minute, and even amongst geographic groups, the genetics of a particular "race" are still highly varied within themselves. The whole point of sub classification is to divide up obviously highly varied groups into distinct categories for the sake of simplicity. However, due to human beings being so homogeneous, the usage of sub classification is not only useless, it merely makes things more complicated! Professor Lewontin goes on to say this in the above listed article:"This imprecision in assigning the proportion of variation assigned to differences among population within ”races” as compared to variation among “races,” arises precisely because there is no objective way to assign the various human populations to clear-cut races. Into which “race” do the Hindi and Urdu speakers of the Indian sub-continent fall? Should they be grouped with Europeans or with Asians or should a separate race be assigned to them? Are the Lapps of Finland and the Hazari of Afghanistan really Europeans or Asians? What about Indonesians and Melanesians? Different biologists have made different assignments and the number of “races” assigned by anthropologists and geneticists has varied from 3 to 30."Clearly the idea of "race" is not only impossible to accurately pin down, due to the lack of genetic variation that would give rise to sub classification, it is impractical and useless.Now the article goes on to say a great number of may things about the lack of race, however, there is something else I want to focus on at this moment. My opponent has accused me of of trying to make the term "race" meaningless. This is, of course, preposterous. I am advocating that the term race apply to humans as it does to other living creatures, in that it has strict parameters and requirements for sub classification. It is my opponent, however, who would choose to divide humans into a series of subspecies based on a fraction of genetic material, and some outward appearances. This muddies the waters of what race even truly means, and what constitutes a race. By my opponent's own logic, fat people should be there own race. Or people born without an arm. Hell, people within racial groups would be classified as different races. My opponent seems to equate any minute amount of genetic variation with sub classification. This is utter nonsense, and completely impractical when it comes to sub classification, again, the point of which is to make identification simpler, not more complex. When you generalize what constitutes a "race", and muddy the waters, by making the most minute amounts of variation constitute sub classification, you devoid the term "race" of any practical meaning. If this loose usage of the term "Race" is what my opponent wishes to use, then so be it. However, by doing so, they fail to defend the notion of race as we currently know it in popular usage, meaning they have already surrendered this debate to begin with.Notice how near the end, my opponent references my argument on the history of the term race. Notice, more specifically, how he never actually refutes the case put forth. This is because he cannot, for it is true, whatever emotional appeals he may spew, that the modern usage of the term "race" is based in nothing more than European imperialism and racism, and had no scientific backing in it's origins. He cannot contest this, and does not contest it. According to this loose usage of the term "Race", anyone who looks different from anyone else, is of a different race. It is ludicrous people.No, human beings are not biologically divided into separate subspecies, or "races". We are simply a diverse species, with large amounts of variation amongst ourselves. But we are still only one race, one grouping. Homo sapien. In it's origins, race was nothing more than the socially constructed justification for European imperialism and subjugation of foreign lands, and continues to this day to have absolutely no scientific backing. It's existence has been disproved and shot down by top authorities in the fields of Biology, Anthropology, and other branches of science. It is a socially constructed con, backed only by racists, the ill-informed, and the willfully ignorant. Then, and now.Sources1. http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org...