I thought that this argument had some very interesting points and insights to it. I would have to say that Agustin Fuentes had the better argument though. In my opinion he had a better overall argument against Nichols Wade. He was less biased and I felt like he had more facts to back up his argument. I think that Wade sounded like he didn’t have as many facts and many times, in my opinion, he sounded like he didn’t know what he was talking about. He didn’t formulate his arguments well, or as well, as Agustin Fuentes. I think that there was also an interesting amount of diversity used in Fuentes arguments where I saw a lack in diversity in Wade’s.
Wades argument had an interesting foundation. He thinks that humans are divided into three, five, or seven different races. In his argument, he used a lot of cultural differences to demonstrate his findings. He tried to show the differences between individuals but lacked facts. Some of his findings and comparisons could have been true of many different cultures and he chose to focus and make a point on one.
When looking at the topic where Wade is arguing two anthropologists about how racial differences reflect the fundamental biological realities of race, I think that Wade’s claims are the least convincing. In my opinion, he makes a lot of exaggerations in his arguments and in his statements within his text. It seems as though he does not have the facts to back himself up. He wants to argue the others on the fact that they believe that there is no race. However, he does not sound educated enough on the manner to make those statements. It seems like he is making a lot of assumptions in his arguments. He makes so many broad arguments and sounds like he has a lack of knowledge.
I think that Fuentes main argument was most convincing because it seems as though he had scientific fact to back up his specific argument. He looked into our genetic makeup and different genetic variations. For me, it seemed as though he put much more into his process and was fighting specific arguments rather than general assumptions. I also think that Wade lacked individual findings, something that Fuentes had. He had his own research and I think that gives him a lot of credibility in his arguments. He found and formed them first hand.