Conifers Are Superior Organisms To Humans
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 14 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
*Rules*
1. The definitions below are agreed to by accepting the debate and both debaters agree, by accepting, that all voters must use these definitions and that if the voters do not, both debaters will publicly request that the mods remove the vote.
2. All votes *must* have thorough, serious reasons for voting and both debaters agree, by accepting this debate, to publicly ask the mods to remove those votes, after the debate, if the votes are not serious or thorough.
3. By accepting this debate, both debaters and the voters (and maybe one day I can say the moderators too) agree that any vote that is dishonest (defined below) about what occurred in the debate will be requested publicly by both debaters, after the debate, to be removed by the mods.
Dishonest votes include:
a. Voters claiming an argument was made by a debater that was never made and then using this fabricated or exaggerated argument to vote that debater up or down.
b. Voters claiming a source that was provided by a debater states/shows something it does not state/show and then using this imaginary/exaggerated content to vote the debater up or down.
c. Voters claiming a source that was used by a debater for a particular purpose that was not the purpose the debater stated it was being used for or voters exaggerating/self-generating the purpose/intent of the debater in order to vote the debater up or down.
d. Voters ignoring arguments made by a debater to claim the arguments were never made then voting that debater up or down based on the claimed lack of arguments.
e. Voters ignoring sources provided by a debater in order to claim the debater didn't provide them, or to claim that the sources were not supporting an argument not used by the debater to support, or to claim that the purpose for using the source was something not stated by the debater to be or to claim that the purpose for using the source was one that was fabricated by the voter to be then using any or all of these fabrications to vote the debater up or down.
f. Voters claiming a lack of clarity where it is not obviously apparent and where the voter does not specifically explain why it's not very clear or voters exaggerating a lack of clarity without referencing content within the debate in order to vote the debater up or down.
g. Voters using ANYTHING not within the debate in order to vote a debater up or down.
4. Both debaters agree, by accepting the debate, that any votes that a) fail to address the majority of resolution-impacting points made by both debaters, b) are dishonest or lies about debater performance, or c) are vendetta votes/overtly biased will be requested, publicly, by both debaters to be removed by the mods.
5. No kritiks, counter plans, or semantics.
6. Death23, ethang5, Raltar, and any of their related accounts may not vote on or participate in this debate because of the dishonesty section of the rules.
------
*Full Resolution*
Conifers are superior organisms to humans.
-Pro-
Has the BoP and 4 rounds of 10,000 characters, with 3 days to post per argument, to AFFIRM that conifers are superior organisms to humans and refute Con.
-Con-
Has also 4 rounds of 10,000 characters, with 3 days to post per argument, to NEGATE that conifers are superior organisms to humans and refute Pro.
------
*Definitions*
conifers - trees that bear cones and needle-like or scale-like leaves that are typically evergreen of the order Coniferales, class Coniferopsida, subdivision Gymnospermae with several families, including the pines and firs (Pinaceae) and the cypresses (Cupressaceae).
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/conifer
superior - better than another of the same type (type refers to living organisms, which both conifers and humans are)
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/superior
organisms - living things that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow and metabolize energy, inherit traits, and maintain homeostasis.
https://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Organism
to - when compared with.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/to
humans - bipedal primates belonging to the genus Homo, especially Homo sapiens.
https://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Human
homo sapiens - the species group of bipedal hominins characterized by having higher and vertical forehead, brain volume of about 1,400 cc, smaller teeth and jaw, and prominent chin relative to earlier hominins.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Homo_sapiens
May the better argument win and may voters be thorough and honest.
"Pro lists 8 specific abilities which are only relative to conifers and obviously not relative to humans."
"It is therefore impossible to make a fair comparative judgement based on these criteria."
"superiority is based on a comparison of obvious similarities and not a comparison of distinct differences."
"Conifers do not have freedom of movement."
"Conifers do not have freedom of choice."
"Humans for their own gain, can utilise and manipulate conifers."
A conifer would never need a human to help it, because conifers are so organismically self-sufficient.
May we bow down to conifers' superiority.
I extend all arguments, and I dismiss any argument made hereafter, because I cannot respond.
Any honest voter would do the same.
Keep on rollin'
"By comparing them as two living organisms.
It's like when you compare a human cell to a plant cell in biology.
Yes plants are an entire kingdom and yes a human is only one species of animal, but the two organismic cells can still be compared because both the kingdom of plants and the species of human contain types of cellular organisms.
Make sense?"
Comparing a human cell to a plant cell would be a lot simpler. However there are about 200 different cell types in the human body, by comparison, conifers have a fractional amount of cell types.
"Your inability to imagine how it could be properly done, doesn't make it ridiculous."
With all due respect, the reason i find the premise ridiculous is based on my study of taxonomy and zoology.
The main reason i think the premise of this debate is flawed is because of the large degree of separation between the two things being compared.
"Yeah, being superior was defined in the debate as being better than another of the same type and type was indicated to be a living organism.
A conifer is a type of living organism and a human is a type of living organism, no?
Why can't I compare superiority between two members of the same group?"
You may have defined "type" it in no way helps to compare them. You could argue that one living organism is superior to another living organism that exists within the same group, but a conifer and a human do not exist in the same kingdom let alone the same taxonomic group.
"Thanks for the fact, but this is irrelevant because the superiority is being weighed between two types of living organisms not two taxonomic ranks.
Superiority mentions nothing about taxonomic ranks, yet it does mention others of the same type, and humans and conifers are both types of living organisms."
The reason i mentioned taxonomic ranks was to point out the fact that these two things that you are attempting to compare are so different from one another that superiority can not be properly established.
test
"The premise of this debate is flawed from the start"
Hey someone I've never talked to before.
Why do you think that?
"The instigator is trying to argue that order of living organisms is superior to one specific organism. "
Yeah, being superior was defined in the debate as being better than another of the same type and type was indicated to be a living organism.
A conifer is a type of living organism and a human is a type of living organism, no?
Why can't I compare superiority between two members of the same group?
"An order of species is three taxonomic ranks above a species"
Thanks for the fact, but this is irrelevant because the superiority is being weighed between two types of living organisms not two taxonomic ranks.
Superiority mentions nothing about taxonomic ranks, yet it does mention others of the same type, and humans and conifers are both types of living organisms.
"How is there any objective way to compare one order of species with one specific species of animal"
By comparing them as two living organisms.
It's like when you compare a human cell to a plant cell in biology.
Yes plants are an entire kingdom and yes a human is only one species of animal, but the two organismic cells can still be compared because both the kingdom of plants and the species of human contain types of cellular organisms.
Make sense?
"It would be ridiculous to even assume such a thing could properly be done."
Your inability to imagine how it could be properly done, doesn't make it ridiculous.
Watch the debate.
The premise of this debate is flawed from the start, whether it was done purposefully or accidentally is irrelevant. The instigator is trying to argue that order of living organisms is superior to one specific organism. An order of species is three taxonomic ranks above a species, in this case there are over 700 species of conifers that live all around the world and can be traced back to 300,000,000 years ago. Humans, while we do live in most of the world have been around as a species for about 200,000 years. How is there any objective way to compare one order of species with one specific species of animal, these two organisms aren't even in the same kingdom of organisms. It would be ridiculous to even assume such a thing could properly be done.
Oh look he does exactly what I said he'd do.
It varies from person to person. I'm competitive, so I care about victory. I'll learn from whoever accepts this debate, if anyone.
It's not about the loss it's about the learn.
You will learn so much you won't care if you win or lose.
I'm scared I'm going to lose. I can think of some arguments on how trees could be better.
Awesome, take the debate.
I can think of a few pros. Humans are:
-Smarter
-Not eaten by anyone else
-Can move freely.
-Don't have to hibernate in the winter.
Some's gotta want to defend humans here.
Though you blocked me, thanks for clarifying you're not threatening on me on here.
Look man, I'm not really that bad a guy, so if you ever wish to unblock me and we could has out things, we don't have to hate each other. We may have common ground. If not, I understand too.
I couldn't give a single shit. You're not the victim here and your lust for revenge will come at a price.
No, the price isn't about me hurting you IRL or on here. Keep at it, others will get fed up of you. You want to make yourself a villain, just be sure you understand the hero fully first.
You got me all wrong man.
Your boy wronged me first, not the other way around, btw.
More lies.
Ok, you're judging me based on my one counter intuitive debate that you now admit didn't see coming and got sucked into, and so you see me as shady or whatever.
But if you knew anything about me on DDO it's that I was one of the good guys, giving newbies tips, voting really thorough and fair RFDs, I was even part of the voter's union.
I constantly would report votes for me because they were inadequate or were dishonest, even though in my favor.
I'm a teacher, I'm here to discuss and learn justr as much as I'm here to get people to think about linguistic trickery differently
I doubt it. Lying is your specialty.
Accept and find out
This one's not a counter-intuitive debate, it's exactly what it says it is.
He is going to prove that Conifers can do something superior to Humans and then say that all ways that Humans are superior doesn't mean that Conifers aren't superior in that way.
How is a tree superior to a human?