2s and 5s ; anti-racist whites are doomed

I have to admit, I'm somewhat disappointed that the opponent's apparent arrogance stopped him from addressing my argument and/or presenting clarifications.2's and 5's: The Theory?A cursory Google search reveals that there has been no academic attempt to describe the "2s and 5s" theory, implicating the opponent as the creator of this theory. In fact, searching "2s and 5s race" brings about the following DDO forum post by Monkey [http://www.debate.org...], in which contains the exact arguments presented here, with no further explication. The opponent states, "Con has not understood the original post so he is arguing against a strawman." Instead of explaining why I didn't understand it or specifically addressing any part of my argument he felt was flawed, he simply copy and pasted his first round argument. He implies that this debate should only have been accepted by people who understand it, which is largely ludicrous considering no one understands it except Pro. I'm all for coming up with new theories on social dynamics and whatnot, but it is not a mark of intelligence to produce a poorly written, ill-considered piece of writing on a previously non-existant topic and expect anyone to have an understanding of the subject. This self-serving attitude turns to arrogance when you refuse to explain your 'theory', instead simply repeating that which clearly was not understandable in the first place. Given that this is a 5 round debate, I fully expect the opponent to specifically state what I'm not understanding about his theory, as well as making it clear. (Preferably with examples and statistics, like every other theory on social dynamics uses.) Lacking this, the opponent will not only assuredly lose the debate -- he will demonstrate himself a fool in the most Biblical of ways. Statement regarding my ArgumentEven if we assume I missed the idea behind the opponent's theory completely, there can be no doubt that I've understood his conclusion. It's stated in the resolution after all -- that "anti-racist whites are doomed". In my argument, I looked at racism and the current state of the world, which brought me to the stunning conclusion that "anti-racist whites are not doomed". Regardless of whether I understood the opponent's argument, I directly presented clash to dismantle his conclusion. If some man presented an argument in an unknown language, then concluded with the English statement, "therefore 1 + 1 = 3", one would not need to understand the entire body of the opponent's inscrutable argument, since the conclusion in and of itself was demonstrably false. Similarly, the opponent has presented an argument which I have not understood by his own claim, but I have understood the conclusion. Furthermore, I demonstrated that said conclusion is false. At this point, the body of his argument is irrelevant, since his conclusion is demostrably false. Despite this, I still wish to understand the opponent's argument in order to highlight the flaws within. (Or perhaps to learn a knew way of thinking about things. Who knows.) As such, I'll walk through his argument one step at a time and address the state of the argument from a "common sense position" along the way. The Line-by-line analysisQuotes are from the opponent's argument. "Anti-racist whites are doomed by chronic racial integration."This is a proposition. Assumably, the opponent will soon attempt to prove this as true. "2s and 5s theory explains this doom. ... 2 is lesser than 5, and 5 is greater than 2 at a ration of 2.5. In [this theory] whites are considered lesser and integrated races are considered greater at a ratio of 2.5."I am assuming that "whites" refers to "only whites" since "integrated races" can include white people amongst one or more other races. The ratio of 2.5 seems completely irrelevant. As we will see later, the justification for this difference of 3 is because 5's have 3 characterstics that 2s do not. If this is true, the specific numbers don't matter, so long as the difference of 3 is preserved. This could just as easily be the "7s and 10s" theory or the "112's and 115's" theory, which would make the ratio 1.43 and 1.03, respectively. Given this, the "ratio of 2.5" is entirely irrelevant. "Humans are born racist. ... The notion that all races are equal is social born."Humans are also born unable to speak, do simple math or control their bladder. What a human is and is not capable of at birth is not necessarily indicative of their capabilities as an adult. "There will always be racist [and anti-racist] people... [P]eople can change and often will change as others like them change."This is a reasonably position. "The Governments who control the western world, are anti-racist, and therefore 2s and 5s logic will play. There will be people with evil intent, and people who [will switch] good intentions for evil ones. There are racist people who don't use racist terms. [I]t's a belief that sometimes goes unspoken."Again, fairly reasonable. "...2s in comparison to 5s, lack 3, and 3 represents racism, conpiracy and wordlessness."Ok. "Anti-racism can only be valid to an individual or group of individuals and not a cohesive race. Therefore it is invalid, as races exist that cancel individuality as a man-made concept."This is somewhat non-sensical. One cannot claim a characteristic or belief invalid simply because everybody doesn't believe that. Some Christians definitely exist, despite the fact that not everyone is a Christian. Similarly, there are some people who are anti-racist, despite the fact that not everyone is anti-racist. It would be invalid to say "whites are anti-racist", but it is not invalid to say "some whites are anti-racist". The resolution itself implies this. Furthermore, the line "races exist that cancel individuality as a man-made concept" doesn't make sense as a sentence and as an idea. Individuality cannot be "cancelled out" by race -- since a race is simply a group of individuals. We are biologically individual units, so "individuality" is a biological reality, not a man-made concept. "The 2s are living in an I & You world, whereas 5s are living in an Us & Them world. If it's an I & You world, then all races are equal because we do not look at any aspect of our species as above a single or a product of singles. If it's an Us & Them world, which [Monkey] argue[s] it is, then all races are difference because we comprehend above singular aspects..."If we are to assume that these descriptions of the worlds are correct, then I'd agree with the opponent -- all races are different. If they were all the same, the classification of "race" would be arbitrary and meaningless. However, we should not confuse the terms "different" and "equal". Two things can be different, but equal. For instance, (4/2) and (2/1) are undoubtedly different, but equally as undoubtedly equal. The opponent can definitely prove that races are different, but he has yet to prove that they are not equal. "For 2s to be anti-racist is to allow 5s to neglect the 3 that 2s neglect with the 3 that they accept."This doesn't make grammatical sense. I'm assuming he means that 2s being anti-racist allows 5s to neglect the 3, as if they were incapable of neglecting them before. "Neglecting racism is to leave us weaker to racism."The opponent takes a sharp right term and makes this assertion. This assertion was addressed and fundamentally disproven in my previous argument. The opponent does not even attempt to prove this is true in his argument, either. "[Silent racists exist.] Another race can conspire against whites almost effortlessly."This is a highly abstracted assumption. It doesn't explain through what conspiratorial mechanism 2s will actually be harmed. The opponent needs to present how we are vulnerable. Sure, anti-white racists may want to hurt whites -- but the ability to do this has not been shown.ConclusionOut of space. More next round. I look forward to the opponent's explication.