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

...Okay, I see what this is here.before I begin, let's clear a few things up1. 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. NeanderthalensisEach 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.ConclusionCon 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...