"my argument is based [...] on facts, [...] yours ... on nonsense, [they're] not comparable."

I said your stance was based on presumptions, mine on facts, which are by definition incomparable since one is the basis for a conclusion, the other is a search of evidence to fit a pre-concieved conclusion and is typically based on prior context or experience.

    Except I don't see a single fact in your original comment.

Then you missed it. The TechCrunch author's controversializing use of race is not supported by any specific facts and is merely a presumption based on circumstantial evidence.

Now, we're in agreement that you believe presumptions are sufficient to reach different conclusions, and I do not.

    while bringing in our own biases based on a lot of assumptions

You're confused and not following along. Not only do I make no assumptions on this issue; that assumptions should never be made is my whole point.

    The difference is, I admit it.

Your position is that we both make assumptions. My position is that assumptions should not be made and that your stance is justly objectionable. Do you see that admitting the above would not only be a self-contradiction, but, in fact, it would be a reversal?