Race has no significant affect on a person's abilities

RebuttalsPro has said, " 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. " This debate is about my political and/or racial beliefs. This debate is about you defending the resolution and me attacking it. It doesn't matter if I do or don't believe the white race is superior to other races or not. This debate is specifically about the resolution, nothing less, nothing more. My opponent says, "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'm not sure if Pro noticed this or not, but I said this in the comments section: For some reason whenever I posted my argument, it deleted everything I said. So I had to type a new argument in 3 minutes. Is something tampering with my computer? I thought the debate. org has a program in which it auto saves the information whenever you hit post my argument. Like I said right there, my last argument that I made was somewhat hastily formed and I probably didn't include most of what I wanted to say. What I wanted to address with the claim that I made was to show that if a black person was robbing a bank and/or similar store, and he was wearing little to no clothes at all, his skin color would help him blend to the environment. My opponent says, "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. "What my opponent said in the beggining is rather vague. The sentence that my opponent said, "None of the 'white people are more likely to get sunburned' kind of stuff. " is extremely vague. The term "stuff", can well over mean anything in the English language. My opponent then said that he would have preferred a serious debate over one race being superior to the other. If my opponent wanted to debate this, then why didn't he make that the resolution? This is where Pro makes no sense. My opponent said, 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. My opponent is correct whenever addressing the fact that the resolution calls for "significant" differences, however my opponent is incorrect in stating that I am trying to do semantic arguments with the resolution of the debate. The resolution is, Race has no significant affect on a person's abilities. It seems to me that perhaps my opponent wishes that the didn't term the resolution as he did since I am taking a different approach than what he originally intended. I am still upholding my bargain and am consistently debating against the resolution. My opponent says that I haven't provided any arguments that race does have a significant effect on IQ. There are several problems with my opponent's assertion. For one, my opponent believes that I should have made an argument supporting the differences of IQs within different races. The resolution doesn't call for this, so that technically means I don't have to debate something that isn't within the resolution and you are simply making up arguments that have nothing to do with the resolution at that point. My opponent said, "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. "Even if I were to be arguing this and even if it is going against my stated beliefs it still doesn't matter. My opponent is trying to twist things around as if we are debating what my political views are and aren't. We are debating the resolution. When I stated the "CIA gang infiltration stuff" (Again with the term stuff), I'm not saying that minorities are superior to whites, I am simply stating that minorities (Specifically darker skinned minorities) have an advantage over whiter skinned people in terms of stealth whenever it becomes darker outside. My opponent then says that gangs focus more on culture than on race. So this technically means that my opponent agrees that race is taken into consideration within gangs, just not to the extent of culture. So if gangs were to take this into consideration, even if it is minimal or whatever, the person who fits the best race would obviously be more preferable than the other person due to his race. My opponent said, "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. " Like I said before in the comments section, this answer was a relatively quick answer due to a weird glitch that I happened to suffer. My opponent also says that people have access to clothes and that it would disable any advantages a person's skin color would have. There are two clear flaws with my opponent's argument that he has presented here. One is that my opponent automatically assumes that the robber will have clothes to disable and/or minimilize his/her race, and two is that my opponent believes that the robber would be automatically wearing it in the first place. My opponent then said that if a robber choose not to wear clothes then it wouldn't be his/her race that would get his/her caught, it would be their own stupidity. I would question this, because it is clear that skin color would have help in capturing the criminal. Closing Remarks: My opponent has constantly said that I didn't argue according to my real beliefs. There are several problems with this that I shall address below. 1: There is nothing in this debate or the resolution that called for me to argue according to my real beliefs. 2. I am arguing with my real beliefs, and I made arguments that didn't support your interpretation of the resolution, for that I'm sorry if I didn't make the correct argument that you wanted me to based on your interpretation of what the resolution was to be.