>>11763428Recommendations:
(1) Don't make claims that are too technical and don't get bogged down in specifics. That type of discussion is beyond you and the people who you will be talking to.
(2) Be semantically clear: you need to distinguish between the layman understanding of race loosely based on phenotype and the biological understanding of race based on genetics.
(3) You need to be able to define what is physically real and what is socially constructed. A valid taxonomy describes and categorizes physically reality while following a set a rules. Race is not socially constructed; the value that people assign to race, however, is.
(4) You need to be able to counter claims regarding the genetic variation between races as being smaller than the genetic variation within races. The implicit assumption is that what is small is insignificant. You can talk about how closely related, yet distinct, humans and chimpanzees are genetically; you can make a similar argument regarding how similar males and females are, and how important that 23rd pair of chromosomes is. In short: what we share in common across races, although great, is insignificant, and what differentiates us, although minor, is important.
(5) Put forth a positive message: racial categorization exists because it helps society. Be sure to have a stock of examples to appeal to utilitarian values.
(6) Attack the opponent as well-meaning but ultimately causing harm by politicizing science. You can talk about how just because racist phantoms (Nazis/KKK) will use scientific information to justify their beliefs that you shouldn't stop studies into the health and social problems that are unique to races. Be sure to have a specific example of this happening and ideally data showing a downward trend of race related studies.
