I sperged out in class and now have to formally debate my professor

You are a dumb shit. Learn to keep your fucking mouth closed. If you win the debate, you're fucked. If you intentionally lose, you damage the truth.

>Racial and ethnic differences in response to medicines: towards individualized pharmaceutical treatment.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2594139/

your mistake was accepting the invitation to debate

simply refuse to do it, if he starts crying in public about it get some actual biology professors to smack some sense into him in private

you can't really win at this point, the people deluded enough to think race isn't real already hate you, all you can do is damage control

let me guess
the language we use is shaky so the whole entire concept is shaky.
archive.is/KU3Iv

Here's what you're gonna do. You are just going to watch every alt hyp video on race. Compile all of his sources and make sure you understand them. You should be good after that.

Attached: blackrace38.png (962x2179, 976K)

tell him to choke a dick then sue the school for targeting you or some equivelent sjw teir screech-bait
play them at their own game and rob their asses blind user

thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/the-existence-of-race/

Attached: blackrace69.png (1317x1652, 425K)

(1997) Barbujani et. al., find a human genetic distance of ,155. There are no recognized subspecies.

jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/92/5/398.long

(2001) Kim et. al., find an Asian dog genetic distance of ,154. There are eleven recognized subspecies.

tau.ac.il/~geffene/PDFs/15-Mol_Biol_Evol_1994.pdf

(1994) Roy et. al., find a North American coyote genetic distance of ,107. There are nineteen recognized subspecies.

nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6871/full/415520a.html

(2002) Schwartz et. al., find a Canadian lynx genetic distance of ,033. There are three recognized subspecies.

rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1786/20133222

(2014) Jackson et. al., find a humpback whale genetic distance of ,12. There are three recognized subspecies.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18466230

(2008) Lorenzen, Arctander & Siegismund find a plains zebra genetic distance of ,11. There are five recognized subspecies.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12969463?dopt=Abstract

(2003) Pierpaoli et. al., find a European wildcat genetic distance of ,11. There are three recognized subspecies and five biogeographic groups according to (Mattucci et. al., 2016).

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03382.x/abstract

(2007) Lorenzen et. al., find a Kob antelope genetic distance of ,11. There are two to three recognized subspecies.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1439-0388.2003.00384.x/abstract

(2003) Jordana et. al., find a south European beef cattle genetic distance of ,068. There are eighteen recognized subspecies.

digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1393&context=icwdm_usdanwrc

Attached: 1505922114150.jpg (618x806, 139K)

research really hard, organize all the information you will need, write it out, commit it to memory

(2004) Williams et. al., find a red winged blackbird genetic distance of ,01. There are twenty-two recognized subspecies.

journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070&type=printable

jstor.org/stable/2460058?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14655871

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.174.698&rep=rep1&type=pdf

sociology.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/1043/2008_Reconstructing_Race_in_AJS.pdf

collegium.hrvatsko-antropolosko-drustvo.hr/_doc/Coll.Antropol.28(2004)2_907-921.pdf

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1548-1433.2009.01076.x/abstract

lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/on-the-concept-of-race-in-chinese-biological-anthropology-alive-and-well.pdf

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.3660290308/abstract

bio.miami.edu/mccracken/reprints/condor-113-747.pdf

pnas.org/content/92/10/4259.full.pdf

science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6228/1352

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11815945

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC534810/pdf/pbio.0020442.pdf

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180234/

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3951706/

digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1393&context=icwdm_usdanwrc

tau.ac.il/~geffene/PDFs/15-Mol_Biol_Evol_1994.pdf

(1997) Wise et. al., show that the genetic variability within humans is 0,776. There are zero recognized human subspecies.

mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/7/707.short

Attached: blackrace2.jpg (1092x1220, 316K)

(1997) Wise et. al., find a chimpanzee genetic variability of ,63. There are four recognized subspecies.

researchgate.net/profile/Warren_Johnson3/publication/227663576_Phylogenetics_genome_diversity_and_origin_of_modern_leopard_Panthera_pardus/links/53ecffa80cf2981ada112c1a.pdf

(2001) Uphyrkina et. al., find a leopard genetic variability of ,58. There are thirteen recognized subspecies.

uff.br/gefras/artigo 83.pdf

(2001) Eizirik et. al., find a jaguar genetic variability of ,739. There are nine recognized subspecies.

eebweb.arizona.edu/courses/Ecol406R_506R/PUMA_for_Culver_lect.pdf

(2000) Culver et. al., find a puma genetic variability of ,52. There are six recognized subspecies.

nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6871/full/415520a.html

(2002) Schwartz et. al., find a Canadian lynx genetic variability of ,66. There are three recognized subspecies.

jstor.org/stable/2387512?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

(1998) Paetkau et. al., find a North American brown bear genetic variability of ,5275. There are nineteen recognized subspecies.

bearproject.info/old/uploads/publications/A 28 Nuclear DNA.PDF

(2000) Waits et. al., find a Scandinavian brown bear genetic variability of ,687. There are nineteen recognized subspecies.

eebweb.arizona.edu/courses/ecol406r_506r/garcia-moreno1996-wolf.pdf

(1996) Garcia-Moreno et. al., find a coyote genetic variability of ,629. There are nineteen recognized subspecies. They further find a Gray wolf genetic variability of ,574. There are thirty-seven recognized subspecies.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11472538

(2001) Girman et. al., find an African wild dog genetic variability of ,643. There are five recognized subspecies.

researchgate.net/profile/Christopher_Kyle/publication/12035218_Genetic_structure_of_North_American_wolverine_Gulo_gulo_populations/links/0fcfd50ec27bb60633000000.pdf

Attached: blmcnn.jpg (2469x2421, 776K)

(2001) Kyle & Strobeck find a North American wolverine genetic variability of ,55. There are two to three recognized subspecies.

researchgate.net/profile/Carles_Vila/publication/12080301_Genetic_variation_and_population_structure_in_Scandinavian_wolverine_Gulo_gulo_populations/links/54f2b60e0cf24eb87949009d.pdf

(2001) Walker et. al., find a Scandinavian wolverine genetic variability of ,325. There are three recognized subspecies.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11050551

(2000) Polziehn et. al., find an elk genetic variability of ,395. There are seven to eight recognized subspecies.

mbe.library.arizona.edu/data/1995/1206/13forb.pdf

(1995) Forbes et. al., find a bighorn sheep genetic variability of ,6235. There are three recognized subspecies.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-294x.2000.00852.x/abstract

(2000) Reinartz et. al., find a bonobo genetic variability of ,535. There is one subspecies.

research.amnh.org/~rfr/paetkau99.pdf

(1999) Paetkau et. al., find a polar bear genetic variability of ,68. There is one subspecies.

jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/90/1/108.full.pdf

(1999) Wilton, Steward & Zafiris find an Australian dingo genetic variability of ,445. There is one recognized subspecies.

eebweb.arizona.edu/courses/ecol406r_506r/garcia-moreno1996-wolf.pdf

(1996) Garcia-Moreno et. al., find a domesticated dog genetic variability of ,5085. There is one recognized subspecies, and there are many breeds.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22391749/

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4776623/

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2795070/

Attached: blackrace12.png (799x2325, 984K)

I'll take stuff that didn't happen for $500, Alex.

Attached: 1501221887039.png (535x800, 377K)

Easily. Race is not a social construct but a robust heuristic that developed over time via observed differences. You simply have to argue that the observations were based on something that was impossible to fully appreciate until modern genetic science became possible. Racial distinctions can be dispensed with but ethnicities do exist and can be accounted for and there are measurable differences between them.

You must not accept their framing. Leftists will try to win before the debate even begins by arranging the structure of the debate and its presuppositions in their favor. You need to take the high ground and dodge that using my argument. How you do so in specific is up to you. Also, never argue in the alternative. Make your case and don't let anyone egg you on further. If you make an air tight case then any further argumentation only serves your opponent who will be desperate to find a rhetorical escape. Don't give them any.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2933725/

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15651931

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028960200137X

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23593038/

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3938855/

people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/papers2/three_laws.pdf

(2000) Turkheimer presents his Three Laws of Behavioral Genetics and explains their meaning.

Turkheimer begins by stating, "The nature-nurture debate is over. The bottom line is that everything is heritable, an outcome that has taken all sides of the naturenurture debate by surprise. Irving Gottesman and I have suggested that the universal influence of genes on behavior be enshrined as the first law of behavior genetics (Turkheimer & Gottesman, 1991), and at the risk of naming laws that I can take no credit for discovering, it is worth stating the nearly unanimous results of behavior genetics in a more formal manner."

The Three Laws are as follows:

? First Law. All human behavioral traits are heritable.

? Second Law. The effect of being raised in the same family is smaller than the effect of genes.

? Third Law. A substantial portion of the variation in complex human behavioral traits is not accounted for by the effects of genes or families.

In short: no one is born tabula rasa.

isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic185351.files/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

(2005) Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen (author of, "The g Factor") conclude that IQ is the greatest indicator of future success in Western societies when inter-generational income dependence is accounted for.

They also found that IQ is at least 50% heritable and likely nearer to 80% heritable. To draw comparison, height is 70-90% heritable.

During their analysis they concluded that Whites have a minimum of 75% IQ heritability.

Attached: nigabstract.png (697x8275, 1.87M)

(2004) Plomin & Spinath discuss intelligence in the wider context of genetics, genes, and genomics.

Their discussion is multi-faceted; their analysis illustrates proof of the genetic heritability of intelligence, the immense weakness of environmental explanations for intelligence, changes in heritability during development, a multivariate analysis of IQ and various testing metrics, gene expression profiling, and genomics.

This is an excellent compilatory piece.

atavisionary.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Heritability-of-interests-a-twin-study-Lykken-bouchard.pdf

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289609001561

(2009) Rushton & Jensen refute erroneous claims made about the nature of the Flynn Effect and its relationship with the Black-White IQ gap.

In their conclusions they state, "We conclude that predictions about the Black–White IQ gap narrowing as a result of the secular rise are unsupported. The (mostly heritable) cause of the one is not the (mostly environmental) cause of the other. The Flynn Effect (the secular rise in IQ) is not a Jensen Effect (because it does not occur on g)."

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028960200137X

(2001) Rushton & Rushton show evidence for racial-group differences in the form of brain size and structure, IQ, and musculoskeletal trait variation.

Their analysis shows significant variation in both the structure and sizes of the brains of Negroids, Caucasoids, and East-Asians. In addition to this, they have found differences in the skull shapes and structures of the races, alongside differences in average height and weight and all parts of the bone and muscle structures from the neck to the feet.

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289607000244?np=y

(2007) Shatz analyzes the relationship between IQ and fertility.

Attached: blackrace30.png (1600x900, 1.52M)

At some point he's gonna claim that there's no specific gene that determines race, therefore race is a social construct. Simply reply that genes don't work that way. There's not a single gene that gives you blue or brown eyes either, it's determined by hundreds of different genes.

They find that IQ is negatively associated with total fertility rate, birth rate, and population growth rate. This means that higher IQ populations are less fertile than lower IQ populations.

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000470

(2013) Michael Woodley, Jan Nijenhuis, and Raegan Murphy conclude that Western IQs have declined by an average of 1,6 points per decade since the Victorian Era.

Higher IQ people are more productive, healthier, and are more creative. The reduction in IQs across the West has been met with a marked decrease in average productivity and general health despite vast increases in average wealth, nutrition and access to healthcare.

The cumulative reduction in IQ is between 12,45 and 13,35 points or roughly one standard deviation on a normal IQ bell curve. This represents an eight-fold reduction in the number of geniuses and a counter to the Flynn Effect.

The resultant decrease in IQ is attributed to dysgenics in the form of outbreeding and negative mate selection within populations. The importation of migrants of different races and ethnicities preempts the outbreeding and subsequent loss in IQ. This effect has sped up as migration has increased.

Attached: niggers NIGGERS.png (619x352, 8K)

>not biting your tongue if you cant debate properly
enjoy your F, retard. And you can be sure he'll make passive-aggressive smug remarks about you constantly in front of the class now.

>He asked for a source, and I obviously didn’t have one on hand
Good thread 10/10

>Do pigmentation and the melanocortin system modulate aggression and sexuality in humans as they do in other animals?

> In 40 species of wild vertebrates, darker pigmented individuals are more aggressive and sexually active.
> Cross fostering studies and pharmacological dose manipulations establish the role of the melatonin system.
> We review the human literature within and between populations and find similar relationships with pigmentation.
> Darker individuals average higher levels of crime, sexual activity including HIV/AIDS, and lower IQ.

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912000840

Attached: zimbniggers.jpg (3884x1776, 1.24M)

A massive info dump isn't going to help this dude win a debate. He will be taken out on semantic grounds before he even has a chance to use this shit. He needs to scale the argument down to ethnicity and avoid the rhetorical traps around 'race' and only then can he introduce genetic science effectively.

you have the truth on your side
basic google searches should do it for you

What white supremacists? Specifically.
We have 23 and me, doesn't something like ancestry play a role in this?

He wants to hear your say niggers are born stupid. Don't go there. Use abos from Australia and Muslims

content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html

Tell someone who needs a bone marrow transplant that race is a social construct, like this poor lady

bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-35523890

>He asked for a source, and I obviously didn’t have one on hand.
why didn't you just refer to the well respected field of biological anthropology?

I mean come on you even have people like the police making use of that to identify human remains

Read Mein Kampf and it will give you everything you need to BTFO them

there is a collab of JF and Mouthybudda that glosses over genetic distribution fairly well

see this

You absolutely must escape the semantic traps before the real debate can begin.

>OP is too stupid to read
then he deserves to lose

Attached: notevenrapists.png (1113x1109, 157K)

Read him the New York Times article that we just published that states race r3alis is real, despite the author being sad about the results. GG.

This video was good too because JF understands the semantic issue regarding how race is used.

>formal debate
You're fucked. Formal debates aren't about actually digging down and discovering truth through dialogue. It's a bullshit form of competition, where it doesn't matter whether your position is true or not, but rather how good you are at the rules of formal debate.

You should've told him to fuck off with the "formal debate" bullshit and just had an open-ended discussion about it with the class

Ask him why everyone in the room can tell which continent any person's ancestors came from just by looking at them.

Forensic anthropology

It's overwhelming. Supreme excellence is winning without fighting at all.

He needs a few simple maxims to cut the knees out from under his opponent early on. Complexity isn't helpful in debates like this.

You are in a world of shit now, to quote Gunny.

This

>How do I win?
nytimes.com/2005/06/24/health/fda-approves-a-heart-drug-for-africanamericans.html

Also, how can forensics be so good at identifying races if races don't exist?

If he goes into gay rights and shit, bring up the fact that all the cases leading up to the those rights were based off child experimentation.

Watch this video and make some notes.

youtube.com/watch?v=JVrw-IiGgLY&t=2s

>How do I win?
You can't win against these mentally ill individual... and if you do they will attack you, and attempt to destroy you.

So
talk about haplogroups
talk about statistics and averages in particular populations with similar genetic heritage
Explain that social constructs are null and void as everything is based off it's initial conditions. i.e. your biological predispositions assist to determine your culture and social structure. The reason humans of varied backgrounds can integrate in some cases is due to European societies still having similar starting constructs such that different humans still have biological social needs for survival. And hence integration into a different society is beneficial for their survival. However, due to millennia-centuries of varied culture influencing breading practices, humans are biologically different in these various regions which can be argued that it impacts their societal decisions (there's a few sources for this you can reference).

>race is a social construct.

Well it is. Be prepared to eat your own foot lad.

Attached: 2018-04-07-093017_581x434.png (581x434, 344K)

start doing research before you open your mouth you stupid faggot

This too. It's highly possible that OP will be declared the loser simply on technical grounds. If he tries to reframe it more accurately as ethnicity they might try claiming he's admitting race is a social construct. This is why he needs to defend it on the ground that it is a robust heuristic born from experience over generations and not simply some construct to be dispensed with.

Did the same thing to my Sociology Professor about 5 years ago. After debating him for about 10 minutes, he started looking a little dumb and admitted that he's using "Race" as a synonym for "Species", while I'm more using it as a synonym for "Breed", like dog breeds, which is how it's used in the common vernacular.

This. Talk about different racially specific diseases, differences in muscle fibres while using sports as an example. You have to be persuasive to the crowd. If you're on video you might go full sam hyde and actually entertain the greater world at the expense of your class mates and professor. Pls go option b entertain me user.

Attached: 1511217257988.png (201x226, 73K)

FPBP

you have JSTOR at your disposal, get to work.

Ask him to arrange the seating of students in class by their current grade in the course and then ask him why all the blacks and Mexicans are in the back

The bell curve exist

Then google a book on biology and cite sources.

Also pount out that organ transplants and blood transfusions between races are widely avoided by medics

Humans already have subspecies, you mong. We're all part of the Homo sapien sapien subspecies.
Race isn't a subspecies, it's a set of phenotypes.

>Race is a social construct
Ask him how race works in admissions, jobs, census data.
Ask him if you can claim you are black on college admissions and apply to NCAAP scholarships.
Say you identify as black. After all its a social construct. If there are not innate differences anyone should be able to join based on muh feels.
No reason to go into racial statistics, I doubt you can win nor will you convince the class.
Make him tell you that you cannot be black. He will say muh culture. Say, so a white person who grows in inner detroit inside ghetto culture can be black? Is eminem black?

Instead of debating him, what if you called him a faggot and punched him in the liver?

Attached: 72911163.jpg (612x462, 53K)

Start off clearly stating that while the concept of 'race' as we use it is a 'social construct', to imply or assert that 'white people' or 'white supremacists' use this as a tool of domination is disingenuous. It didn't take whites coming along for people to tell that they're different from each other, white presence or not.

Ruin his whole shtick, then go into biological differences between groups of people.

Here's the thing, those diseases aren't race specific, they are ethnically specific. As in, some African tribes have those weaknesses, others do not. In a formal debate the professor just has to point that out to 'win'. Whether a leftist would be willing to admit to the existence of any essentially differences at all just to win is the question. He might not. But making your argument absolutely air tight is the safest bet. With leftists you must be absolutely intellectually dominant or they will try to signal condescension and the audience will buy into their bullshit.

>Race isn't a subspecies
wrong. try re-reading my sources nigger. if we treat human phylogeny the same as all other life then there are unquestionably separate human subspecies

The left loves to use the rhetoric of social justice, chances are that he's a leftist given his opinion.
would be a good idea to point out this:
-we all have differences, physically and mentally, and as a society we should embrace these differences, adapting to different abilities. basically the "if you judge a fish by it's ability to clime a tree" rhetoric.
I wouldn't bring up supremacy or anything like that. You could win it but everyone is going to think you're an asshat. not even worth it. Just talk about how there is a difference, can mention the bell curve, differences in physiology, etc.
There's a number of sources posted above.

Charles Murray the bell curve

you are fucked

Attached: 1400364385195.png (957x658, 1.28M)

Race is what divides humans from horses and other Animals, of course It's not a social construct. I Think what you mean is that there are diverse races of humans. That is wrong. We are the same Race, tough that doesnt mean we are equal. Just see how different dogs are. Both of you are wrong.

In your statistics part, note that majority singular homogeneous societies that are 1st world countries have very low crime rates (japan, china, Norway, Switzerland). In this instance if he uses the "correlation and causation" falacy, this is where you do multiple source statistical analysis and correlate them.

kek, this. The Jow ForumsIRL sperg strikes again
press S to spit on grave

Attached: Rear-Window---James-Stewa-008.jpg (620x372, 81K)

>I Think what you mean is that there are diverse races of humans. That is wrong. We are the same Race
wrong. good job reading the thread, paco

Just keep asking "Is Laurence Fishburne white?"

Attached: laurence-fishburne-9295760-1-402.jpg (1197x1200, 238K)

Saying that race is a social construct isn't the same as denying the existence of race. It's so fucking trivial.

kek

Ask him what isn’t a social construct?
If race is a social construct, then evolution must be one too.

bust out any textbook on forensic pathology.
youll have him sputtering and moving the goalposts in seconds.

youtu.be/XbsTYhadkWM

The same fags that are telling you race is a social construction are selling us dna testing...lol

Attached: Screenshot_20180408-075407.png (1440x2560, 173K)

Don't use skull type retard. Use genetic markers like 23 and me use.

DO NOT FUCK THIS UP OR YOU WILL SET BACK EVERYTHING WE ARE WORKING FOR.

Bret Weinstein set forth everything you need here:
youtu.be/HYJFgyqs0sM

Look up based evolutionary biologists work and cite that.

I am. And we are still classified as the same race, brother.

This this this

Make him feel like a jackass for generalizing all forensic analysers and basically anyone who isn't black a Nazi.
Ask for proof of it being a tool to separate, then ask why you can't join the NAACP and why you aren't allowed to have any perks that blacks and Mexicans get

You should be entitled to all grants and scholarships.

Bring up how you can tell a chihuahua skull from wolf even tho it's the same DNA

>fpbp
>second post
retard

Attached: 580e967e9bcec4378e37de7e260a83b0.jpg (245x245, 13K)

Also
He's probably a commie. So show that handing out money results in a stagnate economy and why it is important not to bring in more people when you have an established welfare state. The burden of paying the bill of the newcomers is put onto mostly the middle income earners which causes instability as the middle income earners can no longer buy as many things, this prevents business expansion and the improvement of products, reducing the quality of life.

Nice plot, I can’t wait to see the heartwarming tale of the professor who taught a racist how to love diversity.

A "species" is dictated by appearance and behavior ONLY.

Race is a nice was of saying species.

All races have different features, this is used often to identify corpses. You can find a lot of data there for your argument.

Make sure you agree to have neutral moderator and equal time.

This should be easy as fuck to win.

Tell him you did the research and actually found your position to be wrong. It's the only way to win.

Use this website OP

thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/the-existence-of-race/

The first thing to do is define race. If you let them define it, they will just strawman you.

A race is not a monolithic group but rather a cluster of subgroups from the same geographical area that were separated from other groups for long periods of time.

Leftists will strawman and say a race is a homogeneous group where everyone is the same, and if there are subgroups, then race doesn't exist. But you could say the same thing about a species. Species have subspecies, but that doesn't mean a species isn't a group.

>And we are still classified as the same race
wrong. good job reading the thread, paco

You done goofed OP. Race is a social construct, ethnicity and genetics are not.

one argument for race is that certain races cant breed (have kids) for example bushmen, some Amazon tribes, and Australians cannot mix with Europeans.

>One post by this (((Id)))
And you can fuck your own face shill faggot

The problem is that even though pointing this out should be a kill shot, the leftist is likely to say the distinctions are arbitrary and based only on outward appearance. Even though they know deep down there's more to it than that, they're more than dishonest enough to let the truth lie in the dirt. You can't rely on arguments that require the audience to follow the logic in their own heads.

He must argue that race is a heuristic and is therefore imperfect but that it does correspond to real differences, most significantly on the ethnic level. You can't leave any shadows for leftists to crawl into. They are little Satans.

Are you stupid? You are a student it's not that hard to get your hands on some basic or slightly advanced anthropology, humanbiology or forensics books/papers. There are thousands of sources that you can determine age, gender, race etc. pretty accurate by just looking at the bones.

If you want to go that route I would use Canis Lupus(wolves, dogs) to prove race.
Have him say a Great Dane, a wolf, a yorkie, a border collies and a pitbull differences are a social construct. They are not different races of dogs, They dont have morphological differences nor do they have behavioral/IQ differences. Let him deny 1000's of books on differences between dog breeds. Show him the genetic divergence between dogs and then show the divergence between humans.
Even concede the wolf as a separate subspecies