Instigator / Pro
8
1500
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#4800
Humans Are Animals
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
Average_Person
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
14
1516
rating
25
debates
82.0%
won
Description
No Religiuos Arguments
Round 1
1)
Animals(definition)
a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and
nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.
-oxford dictionary
humans do/have all of those things
2)
"Humans and chimps share a surprising 98.8 percent of their DNA"
chimps are animals
Looks like pro did not specify any BOP whatsoever. Therefore, I shall.
BOP
BOP is “essentially” shared; I prove that humans aren’t animals, and pro must prove that humans are animals.
However, the pure mundane prompt says “humans are animals”, essentially meaning, without a doubt, humans ARE animals. Therefore, pro has more BOP to satisfy than con.
The way I understand this debate, we’ll mostly be putting dictionary against dictionary. Anyhow, let’s go do exactly that, apparently.
Arg: N dictionary attacks
All bolded phrases are my own elaborations.
- noun An animal organism other than a human, especially a mammal. This definition states that animals are “animal organisms” but humans.
- noun A person who behaves in a bestial or brutish manner. Not everyone behaves in a brutish manner, some people are quite polite.
- noun A person having a specified aptitude or set of interests.
- Not everyone has a “specified aptitude”. If this “specified aptitude” were measured as IQ=200000, then nobody is an “animal”. Likewise, not everyone shares the same set of interests, and some may not even have interests in the first place.
- adjective Relating to, characteristic of, or derived from an animal or animals, especially when not human. Definition itself excludes humans from animals.
- one of the lower animals (see LOWER entry 3 sense 3) as distinguished from human beings
- Meaning animals “lower” than humans are considered “animal”. Since something cannot be below itself, humans are not animals by definition.
- a human being considered chiefly as physical or nonrational
- Not all humans are considered “nonrational”. People have brains that are actually being used!
- of or relating to the physical or sentient as contrasted with the intellectual or rational
- Not every characteristic is “physical”. For example, “happiness” is purely intellectual and rational rather than physical sensations.
- any such living thing other than a human being.
- Humans are excluded from definition
- pertaining to the physical, sensual, or carnal nature of humans, rather than their spiritual or intellectual nature:
- Not every characteristic is “physical”. For example, “happiness” is purely intellectual and rational rather than physical sensations.
- something that lives and moves but is not a human, bird, fish, or insect:
- Humans are excluded from definition
- an unpleasant, cruel person or someone who behaves badly:
- Not everyone is unpleasant or a cruel person.
- used to describe what type of person or thing someone or something is:
- Not everyone is described nor prefers to be described as an animal.
- made or obtained from an animal or animals:
- Humans are not “made” from an animal.
- relating to, or taking the form of, an animal or animals rather than a plant or human being:
- Humans are excluded
- relating to physical desires or needs, and not spiritual or mental ones:
- Not everyone, when talking, is relating to purely physical desires. (Example: I want to be happy ⇒ “happy” is not a physical desire, but rather a mental/emotional one.)
- In ordinary use, animal means all living beings except humans:
- Humans are excluded
- relating to physical needs or desires, such as to eat or reproduce:
- I have repeated the argument for this countless times; just scroll up.
- a living thing that is not a human being or plant
- Humans are excluded
- a person who behaves in a wild, aggressive, or unpleasant way
- Not everyone is wild.
- coming from the bodies of animals
- Humans don’t come from the bodies of animals.
- An animal is a living creature such as a dog, lion, or rabbit, rather than a bird, fish, insect, or human being.
- Humans are excluded
- Any living creature other than a human being can be referred to as an animal.
- Humans are excluded
- Animal products come from animals rather than from plants.
- So I don’t think there are “animal products” that come from humans; rather from other living creatures that are not plants, bacteria, humans, or archaebacteria.
- any such organism other than a human being, esp. a mammal or, often, any four-footed creature
- Humans are excluded
- a brutish, debased, or inhuman person
- Not everyone is a brutish human
- physical rather than mental or spiritual; specif., sensual, gross, bestial, etc.
- Not every “thought” is physical (e.g. happiness)
- This dictionary has quite many definitions. I’d be happy to continue, but I don’t want to make this an eyesore to read.
Clearly many dictionaries state that humans are excluded/are often not described as animals, compared to just one definition that is essentially truism.
Refutations
Pro says:
Animals(definition)a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs andnervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.-oxford dictionaryhumans do/have all of those things
Consider that your arg relies on only one definition.
Also, consider the origins of the word:
Latin anima means “breath” or “soul,” and animalis, the adjective that comes from it, means “having breath or soul.” An animal such as a cat or dog can be seen to breathe. Plants breathe too, by taking in certain gases from the atmosphere and releasing others. However, this process cannot be observed by the naked eye. So the noun animal, which comes from animalis, was borrowed from Latin for that group of living beings that breathe visibly.Therefore, I can logically state that plants are animals. Technically, an A/C unit breathes in air and breathes out air by taking in gasses from the house and outputting them in the same house. According to this logic, a manmade A/C unit is an animal.
Which is obviously false, essentially proving that the original definition has been morphed over and over again into contemporary language, where it is not used to describe humans.
Moving on.
Humans and chimps share a surprising 98.8 percent of their DNA
Okay. So we have a list of numbers down below.
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
So since 25/26 = 96.1% of those numbers are 2, according to your logic, all numbers in the list are two since 2=2.
Instant fallacy within your argument here. I believe it is called the fallacy of composition, where you are assuming truth (humans are animals b/c chimps are) about an entire group if only part of a group (in this case, 98.8% of a human) is true (shared with chimps).
Looking forward to r2.
Round 2
defensive "arguments"
1) well first i would like to say that when i made the title humans are animals i meant it as in i think
they are and con thinks they arent so i didnt mean it as a fact at the end of the day what we are debating
is subjective also i dont want this to turn into a definition debate so that was a mistake on my part
so i wont be arguing against dictionaries since some of the ones you stated contradict themselfs by
sying any livivng thing then exclude humans and a couple of them even include humans
2) i dont really understand your numbers argument so could you explain that a bit more
3) with my dna argument i wanted to show that animals and chimps especially have pretty close dna
so i find it odd that humans get their own classification
(sorry if my first arguments were a little lackluster this is my first debate and from your messages
i didnt even know if you were gonna argue)
arguments
1) we arent diffrent enough from animals to be classified as something else we should be classified as
mammals since we both are made of cells, have blood, need oxygen, need water, need food, are born/give
birth, die etc...
2) the only reason i can think of is because of our intelligence but many animals like
chimps, dolphins, dogs, pigs etc have an intelligence comparable to toddler/children and obviously
children are human
sources-
3) we evolved from monkeys so there should be a point where we stopped being animals but that point
is impossible to pinpoint because something signifigiant enough would need to seperate it
4) us becoming so intelligence and advancing so much could be classified as evolution since we werent
strong enough we needed to evolve and become smart enough to build tool, communicate, and survive in
general
sources-
(we should debate more in the commenst it was a mistake only making it 2 rounds)
Thanks for R2.
Args
Most of my args are actually within my refutations.
But anyhow, here’s a list of reasons to distinguish us from animals.
- We have an understanding that we can die, and we do things in life to gain satisfaction before we die. Animals do not have the ability/intelligence to understand that they will die someday. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-big-questions/201207/we-are-not-animals
- We negotiate conflicts between each other much different than animals do; we have codes of conduct while animals just have some simple favor-based “sorry”.https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/reclaiming-childhood/201106/only-humans-have-morality-not-animals
- We have the ability to be creative with our thoughts and express it through art and technology
- We feel more empathy for each other than animals
- We have diverse culture and traditions, while it has not been documented that animals have any.
- We have an understanding of religion and the spiritual dimension, while animals do not.
- We have moral/ethical frameworks (codes of conduct) while animals just have some simple repayment systems
- We can think rationally
- We have pushed technology to its limits through innovation
- https://www.innovativeinsight.net/post/20-reasons-why-human-beings-are-considered-more-important-than-animals
- Humans have higher mental capabilities
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010027722001275
Most of my args are down below in refutations
Refutations
1) well first i would like to say that when i made the title humans are animals i meant it as in i think they are and con thinks they arent so i didnt mean it as a fact at the end of the day what we are debating is subjective also i dont want this to turn into a definition debate so that was a mistake on my part so i wont be arguing against dictionaries since some of the ones you stated contradict themselfs by sying any livivng thing then exclude humans and a couple of them even include humans
Please note none of my definitions explicitly include humans, making it not contradictory. Also, this arg is essentialy dictionary attacks from 6 dictionaries proving multiple definitions in modern society for the word “animal” to not be a referent to humans. Also by stating “ i wont be arguing against dictionaries”, you’re basically dropping the argument of the fact that many definitions for “animal” are not inclusive of (all) humans.
2) i dont really understand your numbers argument so could you explain that a bit more
I don’t believe I need to, all I’m stating is that because something is similar or partially common/indicative of a group, it does not mean that you can pinpoint direct correlation/truth of the entire group. If we are only 98.8% similar to a chimp, it does not mean the attribute of an “animal” of a chimp can be applied to us.
Let me show you an example using https://nigms.nih.gov/education/Inside-Life-Science/Pages/Genetics-by-the-Numbers.aspx.. Humans have DNA that is 99.6% similar between all humans. However, my friend has blonde hair, and I have black. We are only 99.6% similar, not 100% same. Therefore, you cannot generalize the fact that “I should be considered as one who has blonde hair because my friend also has blonde hair” purely because of similarity alone. Likewise, you cannot generalize that humans are animals because chimps are purely based on similarity alone (which is exactly what you are doing, essentially an applied version of fallacy of composition).
Another refutation: consider that 98% of our DNA is “junk” and actually can’t produce any proteins. (https://nigms.nih.gov/education/Inside-Life-Science/Pages/Genetics-by-the-Numbers.aspx)
3) with my dna argument i wanted to show that animals and chimps especially have pretty close dnaso i find it odd that humans get their own classification(sorry if my first arguments were a little lackluster this is my first debate and from your messagesi didnt even know if you were gonna argue)
Again, please refer above. You can’t infer that humans are animals because chimps are because of similarity alone rather than the two being the exact same (which they are not).
1) we arent diffrent enough from animals to be classified as something else we should be classified asmammals since we both are made of cells, have blood, need oxygen, need water, need food, are born/givebirth, die etc...
Using these resources in my next refutation:
Scientists have figured out a way to make robots made of cells, use blood, sweat, breathe, get goosebumps, drink water, eat organisms for fuel, and can reproduce. For obvious reasons, robots can die (e.g. hardware failures, they explode, software failures). Essentially, these robots are “mammals” according to your argument and thereby “animals”. However, this is quite not the case. Consider the definition of mammal (https://www.wordnik.com/words/mammal):
Any of various warm-blooded vertebrate animals of the class Mammalia, including humans, characterized by a covering of hair on the skin and, in the female, milk-producing mammary glands for nourishing the young.
Robots don’t even have a taxonomic rank. Therefore, they cannot be mammals and thereby cannot be robots, essentially making your argument invalid by counterexample.
2) the only reason i can think of is because of our intelligence but many animals likechimps, dolphins, dogs, pigs etc have an intelligence comparable to toddler/children and obviouslychildren are human
Also consider the accomplishments we have done due to our intellect. We are able to read and write, make nuclear bombs, create technology, have much higher IQ than animals due to our unique brains.
(https://theconversation.com/what-is-it-about-the-human-brain-that-makes-us-smarter-than-other-animals-new-research-gives-intriguing-answer-183848). In fact, due to this said brain, we are able to achieve complex depth estimation with our two eyes and have a new synergistic method of processing instructions in our brains. Essentially, this ability provides a capability for attention, learning, working memory, social and numerical cognition.
Multiple reasons why we can be distinguished from animals.
3) we evolved from monkeys so there should be a point where we stopped being animals but that point is impossible to pinpoint because something signifigiant enough would need to seperate it
Multiple points exist. The most recent, as historians identify it, is the birth of the Anthropocene era due to the Trinity test in 1945 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene)
The whole point of defining the anthropocene era is to define advanced human impacts on the world, something animals would not be able to do right now and distinguish humans from capabilities of other animals.
There is also the Neolithic Revolution at about 11700 years ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution), where farming and agriculture was first invented. In fact, many animals still live as hunter-gatherers, not being able to farm which is a uniquely human trait.
Also, this started our complex society structure, something animals don’t have.
Therefore, there are multiple points “where we stopped being animals” due to events “significant enough … to separate it”
4) us becoming so intelligence and advancing so much could be classified as evolution since we werent strong enough we needed to evolve and become smart enough to build tool, communicate, and survive in general
So what I understand is you’re saying humans are animals because we evolved? Wouldn’t that make us different from animals? That would be contradictory.
Conclusion
- I have successfully refuted all of Pro’s arguments
- Pro has dropped all dictionary attacks of the word “animal”.
- Pro has dropped his fallacy of composition due to similarities among humans and chimps
- There are multiple reasons and points in time to separate us from animals
- We have grown traits such as distance estimation and have constructed complex societies with agriculture, which animals cannot do.
- I have proved multiple reasons why humans can be distinguished from animals
- Pro did not satisfy his 100% BOP since he hasn’t provided evidence that humans are FULLY, 100%, ANIMALS.
Voters, thank you for reading this debate, and please vote Con!
there is no way this can be true
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Americandebater24 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
It's almost a good vote.
A touch more detail on the con side should be given, even as much as you obviously disagree with offering anything other than the scientific definition.
Sources was also problematic, since the award seemed to basically be a repeat of the argument allotment, rather than either side offering excellence.
...
Sources are optional and if awarded require a strong quality lead. Sources go to the side that better supported their case with relevant outside evidence and/or analysis thereof. If both sides have done their research due diligence, these points are usually tied.
A side with unreliable sources may be penalized, but the voter must specify why the sources were unreliable enough to diminish their own case (such as if the other side called attention to the flaws, thereby engaging with sources in a more effective manner with impacts to arguments; thereby flipping the source and harming the opposing argument).
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
Americandebater24
08.02.2023 03:45PM
#2
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro points out that Humans fit under the scientific definition of animals. Con never addresses this point from a scientific aspect. In contrast, Con did use more sources than Pro. But those sources only provided word definitions that, while numerous, did not establish a scientific definition that excluded or had a separation from the definition of animals. Con should have tried to use scientific definitions to refute Pro, not merely use word arguments that are primarily not relevant. Great debate, Pro and Con.
@#10 #11 #12
Action is not the same as understanding,
Even slugs and plants avoid pain,
Express in actions that they are ideally functioning.
True, some humans lack empathy,
Whether the care of others, or the understanding.
I wouldn't say culture is a 'fallacy,
'Does fall under intelligence though,
As greater intelligence may allow greater culture and longer culture.
Still, intelligence then simply becomes one of the 'many ways humans are, as rule of thumb separated.
If a dog acquired intelligence, high social skills, could make us 'believe they were sentient,
Many people would want to treat the dog as a person, give the dog human rights.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Classification, to my mind, is tricky,
But still, in practicality, something we use.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Interesting use of history,
To argue against actions such as agriculture.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
If it makes you feel better about the people Average_Person tagged in comment #3,
I think all those people will vote honestly in the debate, without bias forAverage_Person, if they vote.
RFV Part 2
Average_Person Con R2
Con 'does use sources,
I'm unsure whether animals 'lack understanding though.
Hm, reading second source, collective cognition, I disagree,
Animals communicate states of the world, or can lie about states of the world,
Though less advanced than humans, and one still questions whether the animals 'understand.
Still there is room for Pro to argue.
Pro sources can be argued against easily,
So Sources still a tie, due to definitions in earlier rounds.
Humans 'are a different type of animal,
Con gives many examples of actions humans can take that many other animals cannot,
Though arguably many animals such as spiders, are able to do something many other animals cannot,
But this is reason spiders get a classification, course some spiders don't make webs.
Hm. . . But even if one classifies humans as animals,
Is this any reason 'not to eat and tyrannize other animals?
Empathy I suppose,
Though many animals eat each other,
One of Cons arguments is higher empathy, higher understanding.
Debate 'could tie, but depends on Pro arguments later on maybe.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Con makes points on their definition arguments and on fallacy of composition.
Though I still imagine that items get classified 'based on traits and compositions.
That one compares and predicts other items, partially based on past items, comparisons, compositions.
Still, a coffee machine is matter, we are matter, doesn't mean they are the same in all ways, way material is put together is different, types of material.
Hm, interesting use of robots, to argue classification.
Ah, this is the last round, my vote is going to Con definitely,
More rounds 'maybe Pro could manage a tie, 'maybe,
But Con is going pretty strong, and it is the final round.
RFD
Arguements,
My vote goes to Con,
If debate had remained whether humans can be classified biologically as animals,
Con might have had a harder time,
But Pro themself, in my view, opened up the 'meaning of animal in R2,
Also the debate description and round 1 leaving the 'meaning of animal somewhat vague in debate.
Sources are a tie, as many of Cons other than definitions could be argued against.
Legibility, both understandable.
Conduct, both polite in debate.
If you read this far,
Feel free to vote on any of my debates,
Whether for, or against me.
Couple more Quotes that came to mind, not that I 'agree with them, they just came to mind.
"A virus." - Agent Smith
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." - Animal Farm
RFV Part 1
Interesting description,
I wonder if 'spiritual arguments count,
Not that I'm particularly spiritual.
MonkeyBara Pro R1
A definition of animal, noting humans fit definition.
"98.8 percent of their DNA" reminds me of,
"Bleach is healthy. It's mostly water. And we're mostly water. Therefore, we're bleach." Nathan Explosion
But of course Pro is not saying we are chimps, but that we are animals,
Humans are partially liquid maybe.
Average_Person Con R1
It 'does help when debate creators have BOP and some detail in the description, though I am lazy debater myself.
Con uses definitions counting on vagueness of debate description,
As a number of definitions and uses of the word animal, excludes human from the word.
Sadly I don't understand the math example,
But I 'have heard of the fallacy of composition, not that I consider 'all 'things a fallacy.
Hm, Pro not saying similarity makes us chimps,
Still, probably organisms that hardly share far less DNA with us,
So maybe DNA similar not reason enough to use as animal argument. (Still Con says slightly different)
MonkeyBara Pro R2
I wonder what MonkeyBara would expect Con to look like, following MonkeyBara's ideal debate description.
I can only 'imagine, but not know,
That this debate has come about because of times people differentiate themselves from animals,
Such as when humans eat animals, and say it's fine because humans are not animals.
I doubt they are saying humans are not MonkeyBara's first definition,
But rather they are differentiating humans from 'animals for other reasons.
Of 3) (Shrug) Primates is some kind of biology classification, lot's of different primates that can't interbreed, breeding is one of the ways some people define different species.
(But this is my argument, not Cons)
Ah, some explanatory of Pro debate reasons,
Arguably, humans are 'still classified as animals by biologists, I'm 'pretty sure,
Not 'plants, for example.
Classification is tricky, insects still animals, plants still organisms,
But differences are cause for different treatment.
Even if animals other than humans can still reach toddler intelligence, there would still be reason to treat them differently,
They would not be interchangeable with humans,
Raise a chimp as a human, not going to work,
Though more a rule of thumb,
As I 'think I recall Pro stating later on, we still treat toddlers and the mentally challenged as human,
But there are various reasons for this, may be Con addresses later.
3) We're 'still animals,
Yet 'not animals,
Words have many senses, definitions,
At this point in the debate, I'm leaning heavily towards Con,
Reason for, is that Pro 'themself, is opening up different reasons that humans are not considered animals,
Which opens up room for Cons definitions to be seen as valid,
Debate becomes no longer 'just whether humans are biologically animal.
There's your answer. might as well stop arguing for nothing in the comments.
With the cards you have played, I am certain there is a better way to play them.
The comments are not considered part of the debate, even while they are hopefully topical to it.
by the way, you keep saying that my sources aren't scientific yet completely drop the fact that I have cited 5 science journals/articles, including sciencedirect and NIH.
hm, why am i mentioning you then?
Maybe you just dont want to read my args and use your biased lens to focus on a simple fact pro said.
I think your comments have pretty much established that you are only hearing and talking to yourself. I am not debating this any longer. My vote stands as it is.
othing Trumps science as a source of information except science, which you did not provide.
Ah yes, NIH is not science. Sciencedirect is not science.
"That is not how science works. I"
Thanks for admitting that you viewed this debate from a scientific standpoint rather than including behavioral and moral standpoints.
I have scientific evidence? Please consider the journals I have referenced and science articles.
" related to said animal on a genetic level, "
Cool. I'm related to bacteria due to some evolution billions of years ago. Therefore, I'm bacteria. Hopefully you notice a clear problem.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-big-questions/201207/we-are-not-animals
https://www.innovativeinsight.net/post/20-reasons-why-human-beings-are-considered-more-important-than-animals
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010027722001275
https://nigms.nih.gov/education/Inside-Life-Science/Pages/Genetics-by-the-Numbers.aspx
(https://nigms.nih.gov/education/Inside-Life-Science/Pages/Genetics-by-the-Numbers.aspx)
Apparently these are not scientific enough for Americandebater. Wow, doubting the NIH?
no one says you cant debate something in the comment i just dont think you can continue the the debate if this should be true since ive seen multiple debates on this sites with people who have debated plenty of times who debate in the comments also you dont debunk anything in 16# you just say you dont think your allowed to continue debating in the comments also you should read from the start since if you dont you will miss me explaining everything that youve done wrong and you still havent adress any points ive made in those 3 comments
plus some others and the mods still havent responded and you said you didnt really know so you cant state that as a fact threw your 2nd arg and this comment section youve done nothing but lie and try to manipulate people who might vote i wont argue with you anymore you can post whatever you want since you clearly dont wanna end this argument i will stop arguing with you since there is no reason for me to continue i might still post comments on here but i wont be arguing there is no reason for you to keep commenting if you really wanna stop then this is the time to do it
(if anyone wants to know the context read the whole comment section from the first comment)
That is not how science works. If you share DNA with species of an animal regardless of the amount, this can only happen if you are related to said animal on a genetic level, which makes you also an animal. Again, what causes me to vote for the Pro is that they based their arguments on backup scientific evidence, which Trumps any dictionary arguments you made. And since you did not refute the evidence Pro provided, that is considered in a professional debate as consenting to that point. Also, the Criteria asks who gave BETTER sources, not the amount. Nothing Trumps science as a source of information except science, which you did not provide.
because... you're not supposed to debate in the comment section? (also you keep referring that I haven't debunked anything, but scroll all the way down to #16 nd read from there).
why do you keep lying you havent debunked a single thing i said in this comment section also you cant reply to my comment make a point and then say to end it i responded to the point you made and then tried to end it if you wanna end it lets just end it
cool, you've already brought up points that I've debunked, just whining in the comments section, and I've said on end to end this and you have decided not then.
honestly lets just stop this has been a horrible experience if your not gonna try to debunk my points then just dont reply and we will end it there
I'll honestly refer to the fact that everything you said can be simply refuted by scrolling down below.
Voters --- please note the WW3 happening down here;
you said i commited a fallacy in the last argument if people see that they might vote against me just because of that so i debunked and showed all the fallacys you made aswell as showing that you have lied multiple times and providing sources that arent relevant
your still ovoiding everything i said and you said i gave multiple dictionary attack when i only gave one as i already proved some of your definitions are flawed also you should know how stupid dictionary debates are
You can't treat the comments section as a debate.
This just shows nothing but you can't handle a defeat.
Why would I want to fool anyone in the first place? You didn't even debunk anything, just added more evidence.
Honestly I'd ask you to stop and let the debate be, instead of starting World War 3 in the comments.
your not fooling anyone i debunked your accusation that i commited a fallacy and showed what fallacys you commited so you tried to get me a warning from the mods
N = 6 dictionaries.
Dropped arg is still dropped arg, even in debates.
You opened with a dictionary as an arg, I contended with more.
Simple, right? You can't really argue truism and say "I don't like dictionary attacks anymore"
still in the realm of possibility, mate.
That is all that needed to be proved and that is exactly what I have proved.
QED then.
i dropped 1 dictionary attack and it was barely an attack
bro please look at my comment where i explain why those sources are bad and with this comment you admit you lied
lied? You can't just cry to an opponent and saying how I'm trash... Consider how you dropped all dictionary attacks, too.
cried? Check what I asked them for, I'm asking on your behalf.
Lying? Check the sources, mate. Even if they're blogs, it shows that things are possible.
also what are you talking about you are the one who cried to the mods so how am i a crybaby you lied during the debate and in the comments
"Please also consider that my sources are much more than word-based definitions, as mentioned in round 2. I believe none of my sources in round 2 are dictionaries, purely from scientific articles, engineering blogs, and research journals."
you are just lying i already showed that you gave some bad sources and you know most people wont read the sources so your trying to make it seem like you have more and better sources even tho you dont
I'll probably vote in a few hours.
But if I don't, if you can, remind me if it gets close to the voting period ending.
By the way--- u seem to be pulling the evidence (1 piece of evidence, mind you) that we share 99.6% of DNA with chimps, and repeatedly citing that pro pulled evidence for this while I have not.
Consider what I have refuted:
Let me show you an example using https://nigms.nih.gov/education/Inside-Life-Science/Pages/Genetics-by-the-Numbers.aspx.. Humans have DNA that is 99.6% similar between all humans. However, my friend has blonde hair, and I have black. We are only 99.6% similar, not 100% same. Therefore, you cannot generalize the fact that “I should be considered as one who has blonde hair because my friend also has blonde hair” purely because of similarity alone. Likewise, you cannot generalize that humans are animals because chimps are purely based on similarity alone (which is exactly what you are doing, essentially an applied version of fallacy of composition).
Another refutation: consider that 98% of our DNA is “junk” and actually can’t produce any proteins. (https://nigms.nih.gov/education/Inside-Life-Science/Pages/Genetics-by-the-Numbers.aspx)
And you say you have read both rounds hmm?
By the way, if you lost it's okay. No need to further characterize yourself as a clear crybaby by shooting yourself in the foot repeatedly. You can't just murder the opponent quarterback because of a 2 touchdown difference.
Clearly you only have read Round1. Consider the bullet points in round 2, effectively establishing fundamental differences between chimps, animals, and humans. This debate, given how vague and non-specific the title is, can either go the route of trusim or fundamental analysis of animals vs humans.
Pro clearly chose the former, purely arguing truism,
As such, please notice that I included at least five (if I can count correctly) fundamental proofs of how we are distinguished from animals successfully. As you mention being "overreliant" clearly shows that you pose listings of dictionary definitions, which is the exact same approach pro took in round 1, are unfairly weighted in contrast to the rest of my debate, showing true differences between humans and animals due to the nature of the argument provided by pro in round 1,
Both these show that you only read one round, and haven't actually analyzed my argument in its entirety, exactly what a voter should be doing.
Additionally, you also overcast differences between humans and animals purely through a scientific lens (species differences) which the current modern understanding of the topic (which any debate is based upon) is not entirely. There is also a social and behavioral aspect, which you seem to be ignoring completely.
Please also consider that my sources are much more than word-based definitions, as mentioned in round 2. I believe none of my sources in round 2 are dictionaries, purely from scientific articles, engineering blogs, and research journals.
I share 85% of my DNA with a mouse. Why am I not a mouse?
I share 61% of my DNA with a fruitfly. Why am I not a fruitfly?
I share 50% of my DNA with a banana. Heck, why am I a human and not an ordinary plant like a banana?
Essentially your fundamental of undersatnding that "sharing DNA = the same" is flawed as shown through which I have pointed out fallacies in pro's reasoning.
Please reconsider this, as it is quite showing.
Sir, I viewed both of your debates. Pro used Oxford University's definition of an animal as a living organism that feeds on organic matter. In addition, he gave another source that proves that we share DNA with other animals. Your sources come from purely word-based definitions, not scientific ones. You also tried using behavioral differences, which does not work as a species is not purely defined by behavior. You also seem to be unaware of the law of contradiction. You cannot share DNA with an animal and not be an animal yourself.
Regardless, the fact remains that The Pro established their stance based on science, whereas you established your argument based on the dictionary. Hence, your lack of scientific rebuttal and overreliance on irrelevant word definitions resulted in my vote.
in the 9 sources you linked the second and third from the bottom are just bad
https://medium.com/@mjennyd/i-programmed-my-robot-to-drink-water-for-me-now-im-dying-c466effc21a0
(third from the bottom) this one is just a random guy saying this word for word-
"I programmed a robot to drink water for me so I wouldn’t have to anymore, but it’s not working. I am so dehydrated.
The robot is drinking water all day long, even when I am asleep, but I am still dehydrated. Why is it not working?
AI is such a crapshoot. Overhyped nonsense."
https://www.instructables.com/Drinking-Robot/
(second from the bottom) is just how to build a kids toy which can simulate drinking water but in the
images and videos of it there is no water
clearly very good sources
From ur vote analogies it appears you didn’t.. and pros r1 arg was another dictionary attack, excluding the minor elaboration of similaritu between humans and chimps
Did u even … read my r2?????
But i did include many scientific components in my arguments, no? Such as about 98% of our DNA being junk, and abilities such as depth estimation which are inherently biological and thus clearly scientific?
(Btw u do realize definition of animals and humans can reside out of the scientific realm?)
And if u do scroll down to my round 2 args I did in fact include many articles and scientific journals to base my argument.
people might vote against me just because you said i commited a fallacy and in many of my comments i clarrified that people should still vote based on the 2 rounds of the debate my comment was to debunk your accusation of fallacy and an argument isnt an argument if i dont make any points for my side also again even if the mods determines i broke the rules you did too and you didnt read my original comments too atleast before you replied
I don't really want to repeat this, but you can't just make a new round 3 in the comments section, and fight fire with more fire.
I'm asking mods for more clarification on rules of debate, btw (does that show that you didn't read my comments?)
It doesn't even matter if you argued your side or not. You can't extend refutations in the comments, which is still considered an argument within debate.
You can't just do all this and say "this is not part of the debate" when you are clearly painting the picture of a mock round 3 in the comments.
again this is not apart of the debate you accused me of commiting fallacy of composition i debunked that explained why your using bad logic and commiting multiple fallacys in alot of your arguments also you shouldnt be asking for mods help since you already insulted me by calling me a "discord mod" also i didnt even argue for my side in these comments
quick question---apologies for the ping.
Are debates allowed to continue within the comments itself and if so is that included in voting?
probably i guess the choice of words just threw me off
I think he was relating to my argument about how there are many factors distinguishing humans from animals (See R2/CON) and how similarities between humans and chimps doesn't mean "exactness" as you say (R1/CON and R2/CON = my args on that)