Race has no significant affect on a person's abilities

Well Joe here started this debate saying, "Race debates are very uncommon in today's politically correct world, and let me say that I thank you for debating race with me." and since he is someone that honestly believes that the white race is superior to other races, I guess I was a little silly thinking that he'd actually make any arguments to support his belief. So far, all he has said is that race can be important for a few CIA jobs of infiltrating gangs and that if you are naked and robbing a bank at night. Really, his argument consists of "Race can still be taken as a significant factor because if they were really robbing the bank butt naked." I said in the beginning "None of the 'white people are more likely to get sunburned' kind of stuff." That was to mean that I was hoping for a serious debate to why he thinks one race is superior. These arguments are not the same kind of stuff that I was referring, they are totally worse! But, since this is what he said, this is how the debate is going to have to end. So lets talk about these arguments. As far as IQ is concerned, the resolution is for "significant" differences, therefore, I only need to show that there is no significant difference, that's not semantics, that's the resolution of the debate. So considering that, Joe has not provided any arguments that race does have a significant effect on IQ and he hasn't argued against anything that I've said about it. So that point is totally dropped. For the CIA gang infiltration stuff, if we actually consider this as an argument, even though it would technically be arguing that minorities are superior to whites, which is the opposite of my opponent's stated beliefs, then it is up to my opponent to show that this is the case. Joe has provided an interesting theory that people are picked because of their race, however a totally better theory would be that agents are picked because of their ability to mimic the cultures of that gang. This makes more sense because gangs focus more on culture than on race, and there are gangs that don't cover race at all. So this theory has a greater scope. That means it should be accepted above alternative theories with less scope. Unless Joe can provide hard examples of cases when the CIA picked a significant number of agents for their race, not for their ability to mimic culture, this point is lost. The last argument is the "Race can still be taken as a significant factor because if they were really robbing the bank butt naked." This is completely pointless for an argument about race. People have access to clothes, which take care of any "advantages" one's skin color would have. If robber choose not to use clothes, then it isn't their skin color which caused them to get caught, but their own stupidity. Since most police have flashlights, they come standard, and if the police don't suspect you at the time, seeing a naked guy running around at night, be you white or black, you're gonna get arrested. So the very choice of attempting this naked is what causes them to fail. Anyway, this debate doesn't matter because my opponent did not choose to argue with his real beliefs. If he'd like to, we can redo the debate, but I doubt that will happen.