Blackflag (PRO)As the affirming position, I am in charge of setting all definitions not put into the rules . I will not define discreet because it wont have much influence on the debate unless the opposing position would like to do some plays on semantics, although it is in his best interests not too since semantics rarely make up a good case.
Race - "each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics."
Classification - "the action or process of classifying something according to shared qualities or characteristics."
Many scientists reject the use of the word race, instead wanting to classify every being under one grouping known as Hominids, but for the purpose of discussions that have to due with very specific racial classifications, they have generally accepted three great races with multiple sub-classifications.
Homonid
- Humans, because in a way, we're all one race anyways
Caucasoid (Defined by pale skin color)
- Aryan
- Semetic (an ongoing religious and scientific debate exists on whether Semitic Jews deserve to be separated from Caucasoids)
- Hamitic
Negroid Race (Defined by brown to black skin color with tougher hair)
- African Negro
- Khoikhoi
- Melanesian
- Bold
- Australoid (often classified as non-negroid due to their lack of tough hair and distinct ancestral genealogy)
Mongoloid Race (most varied racial classification, but mostly categorized as such by their yellowish skin)
- Mongol
- Chinese and Indochinese
- Japanese and Korean
- Tibetan
- Malay
- Polynesian
- Maori
- Micronesian
- Inuit/Eskimo
- American Indian
Dravida (Blackish with extremely distinct ancestral genealogy)
Without a doubt, there are at least 5 racial classifications. Above I have named 22 racial classifications. My sources also bring up a couple new racial classifications which I did not mention. Believe it or not, some scientists have argued that there are upwards of 200 racial classifications. Although it is constant that almost every scientist in the world accepts the ones I listed above.
Let's not have a debate on semantics. There ARE at least 5 racial classifications. We might not like it, but it is a fact of life. Not a debate.
Sources
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/SM3/GeoDis.html
Kroeber, A.L. Anthropology: Race, Language, Culture, Psychology, Prehistory.
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-05-24 16:25:02
| Speak Round
admin (CON)I apologize for mis-writing "discrete" in the resolution. It should be pretty obvious that this is the word I meant anyway.
Context
In the 1600s when Europeans settled the new world in earnest, domestic servants and such were common in the households of the wealthy - people could sell themselves into "indentured servitude" (typically Irish, not African). Occasionally, there would be conflict between these social groups, and this is recorded in countless literature from the period. And since there were a lot more in the servant class than landowners, the landowners needed to collectively find a way to maintain their power.
Their solution in America was to invent the concept of race based on skin color. It turned out to be an exercise in convenience, because:
- It gave rise to an extremely profitable slave trade
- The landowners split up the working class to prevent most rebellion
There was only one problem - a complete lack of a scientific basis for the notion that those of a particular skin color, of all things, deserved less economic, political or social privilege. After all, is skin color really a fair defining characteristic for a racial phenotype? With almost every species in biology, there has to be more correlations than that for it to be called a "race" as opposed to just another random trait. Why should skin color deserve to be that classification? There were some philosophers who were starting to make such claims, but there was no physical evidence or clear moral imperative.
Almost two centuries later there was Dr Samuel Morton, an American ethnographer whose studies proved that peoples are a different species altogether, let alone a race. Which would have been rock solid, until Stephen Gould discovered in the 1970s that his studies were basically frauds and that his data collection had been selective to fit his own racial bias. On public policy grounds however, Morton's "research" was more or less in vain, as the question was ultimately not settled by science but by a certain American civil war.
Unfortunately he was also completely bummed out by none other than the God of biology himself, Charles Darwin, who pointed out the obvious fact that skin tone is a continuous series of shades, not a discrete classification. With the discovery of melanin following World War 2, it was found that skin color was not in any way related to a biological phenotype.
Some History
The earliest philosophers, such as Aristotle, defined physical characteristics in terms of environmental factors. By the time of the dark ages however, the European view had become overwhelmingly religious. The Christian prophet Noah's three sons were alleged to have spawned all humankind - Ham for the African peoples (said to be cursed with black skin for Ham's sins), Japheth for Indo-European peoples, and Shem for Asians. Medieval Islamic scholars called bull and stuck with the classical view.
This all changed with the development of taxonomy. It sort of became a scientific fad to catalogue everything into specific categories. John Ray, the same guy who invented the concept of a species, made an early study of this, taking into account dozens of different factors including skin color. His findings were challenged by Francois Bernier, who argued that race was a term better suited to describing geography along the lines of the Islamic school of thought. His theory became popularly known as the "four corners of the globe" theory, but he also advocated that some races were inherently inferior, which later made him popular with the landowners.
Where did Pro's races come from then?
Johann Blumenbach. And he didn't base them on skin color as Morton did, but on skull shape. Blumenbach's original five races: Caucasians, Mongoloids, Malays, Negroids and Americans, all have distinct skull shapes - to account for Morton's skin color hypothesis, Capoids and Australoids were later added by some Americans. Today these form the basis for what scientists call the historical definition of race.
Blumenbach himself saw no race as inferior, but he gave rise to other scientists who built upon that research to prove races based on skull shape were inherently inferior. This field, known as anthropometrics, quickly became one of the biggest talking points in science during the 1800s. Though the field remains important to this day (it is the basis for the modern science of ergonomics, for example), once again Charles Darwin became its biggest opponent:
Man has been studied more carefully than any other animal, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five (Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven (Pickering), fifteen (Bory St. Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins), twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to Burke. This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them.
In other words, Darwin argued, the very fact that nobody could agree on racial classifications, probably meant they don't exist at all. And that quickly became a huge problem for the historical definition of race, because all of its proponents were all busy arguing with each other. Nonetheless it did remain a popular idea long after even slavery was abolished and the landowner / servant class distinction failed to remain relevant.
Hitler and the Modern Era
Yip, this guy changed everything. Suddenly the historical view of race wasn't cool anymore.
Hitler grouped people by historical race, AND by religion. In other words, pretty much the greatest taxonomist in history. In response to his world war, it became clear to scientists that a new standard was needed for race.
As such, a debate arose between Carleton Coon, who defended the historical view valiantly, arguing that the five original historical races were clearly distinct, and had human fossils to prove it - but these ultimately fell short. He was opposed by Ashley Montagu, who argued that despite physical differences, it made more sense to use the word "race" to mean "ethnic group" when you're talking about humans. UNESCO demanded an answer, and eventually, decided Ashley Montagu's position made more sense on social policy grounds. This became known as the "Race Question", and ended with Ashley Montagu essentially declaring that human race and ethnic group should have no distinction in science. To satisfy those who believed differences remained between Mongoloids and Caucasians and Negroids, it included the following statement:
Most anthropologists have classified humans into 3 large groups. Such a classification does not depend on any single physical character such as skin color. There is considerable overlap.
This statement became massively influential and has become known as the modern definition of race. It distinguishes race, which is defined as ethnic groups, from the broad groupings used an anthropology, while condemning studies that showed racial differences to be significant. That anthropological position, however, is not based on evidence. It is based on custom from a servant-landowner conflict. And the reason why this is a debatable issue is because that custom is deeply dangerous.
If my little history lesson hasn't already convinced you of that, then I currently don't know what will.
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-05-27 02:07:34
| Speak RoundBlackflag (PRO)My opponent went on a long tangent about Hitler and racist Europeans which really had nothing to do with this debate. This isn't a science debate and this isn't a history debate. Much to my displeasure, this is a semantics debate. It shouldn't matter if certain people believed certain races were inferior. Hitler didn't change the meaning of the word race by instigating the holocaust.
Here is why you should be immediately skeptical of my opponent though. He brings up a new definition of race, which is completely unwarranted and unsupported by the majority of scientists and dictionaries throughout the world. Why does his definition, the sole talking point for his case, have more validity than my traditional and scientifically supported definition? Because Hitler, that's why. Making a word taboo does not generally change the meaning of the word.
You're a racist, whatever you say is invalid!
Regardless of whether you chose to accept my definition which classifies 25-200 possible races, or my opponents ultra post modern tolerant liberal definition, both definitions support a victory for the argument that there are more than 5 racial classifications. The opposing position's definition was quoted as...
"It distinguishes race, which is defined as ethnic groups, from the broad groupings used an anthropology, while condemning studies that showed racial differences to be significant." - admin
There may be only 25-200 racial classifications by my definition, but if we accept that Hitler changed the word "Race" and that the word "Race" now means ethnic groups, there would be by my opponents own concession over 100,000 unique races, otherwise known as ethnic groups.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It should not matter to much, but my opponent was incorrect. Neither the 22 racial classifications or the map I posted came from Johann Blumenbach. The three great races were titled as such as early as the Middle Ages, which directly conflicts with my opponents history revisionism. It should be worth noting that my opponent is creating the same fallacy he made about changing the word race as he did with Hitler.
----------
Although it is unfair that I have to adjust my case due to a careless spelling error made by the opposing position, I will overlook it. It is quite clear that the opposing position is willing to concede that there are more than 5 racial classifications, trying instead to base his arguments off his idea that there are not significant, or discrete differences between races. Unfortunately for my opponent, discrete universally means distinct, and not significantly different. That is not a subject of semantics. Discrete really does have a definition determined by scientific consensus.
So that does leave me the responsibility of proving that the races I provided are presented with a degree of distinction. There is one thing which classified the 22 races I presented as being such.
- Skin Color
- Tone
- Minor Physical Traits (due to our native genepool and historical enviornmental condition)
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/14/9/1679.long
If a group of people havea certain skin color, skin tone, and genepool then they will get their own racial classification. In refutation of Hitler, the only difference between the Aryan race and the Semetic race is that Aryans originate from the Neanderthals and have a lighter skin tone with generally smaller facial features. Not exactly an example of signifigant difference, but this does prove that there are distinct differences among racial classifications.
With the opposing position already conceding to the idea that there are many racial classifications, this debate comes down to whether these racial classifications are discrete or not. If you are convinced that there is a outwardly distinction between a black man and a white man, you should judge in favor of the affirming position.
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-05-27 10:34:20
| Speak Roundadmin (CON)This is a science debate, and history is profoundly relevant. It's only a semantics debate to my opponent, because he framed it that way. Unfortunately for him, he still has not provided any arguments or other evidence to support his position. He hasn't even so much as cited a dictionary. Even if he somehow did, though, I'm winning this debate on my weight of analysis for the contrary position.
A "discreet classification" is nonsensical
There is no possible way my opponent could have misread this to mean something else. It's grammatically wrong and there is a clear homophone, one single letter removed, that solves for it. If it had really been unclear, the correct thing to do would have been to raise a point of order, or ask about it before the debate starts.
Words are socially defined
There is no divine voice that comes down from the heavens and teaches us about what words are, how to use them properly and what they all mean. We as people figure that out ourselves. This means it's absolutely possible for the meaning of a word to change over time, for a single word to have multiple meanings, and for words to be lost completely, or new words just created. Events such as a world war can absolutely do all of the above - change the meaning of words, add meaning to words, remove meaning from words and create neologisms. The study of this is known as etymology.
This is why history is profoundly relevant to this debate. There were some people historically who held similar views to my opponent, but the meaning of the word has changed. There have also been other people historically who believed differently from my opponent. By demonstrating where the change comes from and how it happened, we can better understand why the contrary position (that there was no change) is wrong.
I never said the word was taboo
The primary problem with the historical definition of race was that it wasn't clear. This was the problem Darwin had - nobody could agree on how many races there were exactly, and when somebody did suggest a number it was often extremely arbitrary. This was particularly the case for skin color of all things, which Darwin specifically refuted by showing that skin color was graduated and not distinct. Darwin's theory was later proven as I showed.
When reliance upon the historical definition of race led to social issues, it became clear that a new definition was required. Pro's logic might have been valid in some circles about a century ago, but even then the use of the word "race" to refer to any sort of categorization was becoming rare.
Ethnic groups are not categorical
Rather, they're loose groupings that are redefined every 5 minutes - in scientific terms, ethnicity is fluid. I think pro's big picture here proves my point - peoples of a given "ethnic group" can basically call themselves what they want. Even if somebody did somehow manage to create a book of the ethnic group that everybody on the planet subscribed to personally, then that book would be invalid by the time it was printed.
Pro's ideas stem from the early middle ages?
I would ask him to prove it. Along with all his other unsourced assertions. Science as a subject wasn't all too popular during the early medieval period, and most of it was happening in Islamic monasteries that subscribed to Aristotle's views on race.
Pro's source
Agrees with my position. It shows there is no genetic evidence whatsoever for the existence of races. In fact I'll quote it:
Genetic variation in humans is sometimes described as being discontinuous among continents or among groups of individuals, and by some this has been interpreted as genetic support for “races.” ... Our results show that when individuals are sampled homogeneously from around the globe, the pattern seen is one of gradients of allele frequencies that extend over the entire world, rather than discrete clusters. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that major genetic discontinuities exist between different continents or “races.”
This disproves both the geological and historical views of race. Genetic differences between any group of people are well within the bounds of sample variability - talking about race in genetic terms is therefore impractical.
Extragenetic factors
Let's all remember that skin color is not a genetic factor at all (most obviously because when you go to a tanning salon you're not actually changing your DNA). The problem with these kinds of factors, once again, is that they're BOTH fluid and unable to be categorized because, by nature, they graduate. There is no set of defined characteristics that clearly makes one person black and another brown - people are all shades in between.
Regardless, the question is settled
Pro has provided zero evidence to support any of his positions. He has made up a definition and proclaimed it as though it were the word of God. This whole discussion has already been settled by UNESCO. That's about as close to a settled science around the world as it's possible to get.
The resolution is negated.
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-05-30 01:44:58
| Speak RoundBlackflag (PRO)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-06-02 01:45:04
| Speak Round
18 hours 8 minutesPosted 2015-06-01 07:36:02
@admin how much time is left on this debate?Posted 2015-06-01 07:08:21
*sigh* Here comes the pointless and miserable debate on definitions.....
Can we make a new rule. If the majority of people accept a word as meaning one thing, it must mean what that on the basis that's what it is called.Posted 2015-05-24 16:29:11
I had accepted the debate a half hour before you posted this comment
Is it a fact? 'Cause I think I will refute it. If you're so convinced, accept the debate and show me the "science" that you think classifies these races.Posted 2015-05-24 16:21:27
Really? This is the challenge you sent me? This isn't a debatable topic. It is a fact that scientists have classified at least 5 races.Posted 2015-05-24 15:55:49