Instigator / Pro
14
1553
rating
24
debates
56.25%
won
Topic
#517
Sea lions are seals
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
Death23
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
8
1702
rating
574
debates
67.86%
won
Description
I will be Pro. In other words, I will be arguing that sea lions are seals.
You will be Con. In other words, you will be arguing that sea lions are not seals.
Rules:
Round 1 is only for opening arguments // making your case. Con shall not use round 1 to rebut or otherwise respond to Pro's round 1 arguments .
Round 2 is only for rebuttals to round 1 arguments. Pro shall not use round 2 to rebut or otherwise respond to Con's round 2 arguments.
Judges shall not consider arguments that weren't possible to respond to in compliance with these rules as dropped arguments.
Pro and Con shall not plagiarize, but may reuse their own work.
You forfeit, you lose.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Argument:*
P1 - Any organism of the taxonomic family Phocidae or Otariidae is a seal.
P2 - All sea lions are organisms of the taxonomic family Otariidae.
C1 - Therefore, all sea lions are seals.
This argument is valid. If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.
* "P" is an abbreviation for "premise" and "C" is an abbreviation for "conclusion".
Support for P1 -
Support
for P1 comes in the form of encyclopedic and dictionary entries for the
word "seal". These references are reputable, sufficiently numerous, and
are inclusive of the taxonomic families mentioned in P1. The family
names have been emphasized.
- Encyclopedia Britannica [1]
- any
of 32 species of web-footed aquatic mammals that live chiefly in cold
seas and whose body shape, round at the middle and tapered at the ends,
is adapted to swift and graceful swimming. There are two types of seals:
the earless, or true, seals (family Phocidae); and the eared seals (family Otariidae), which comprise the sea lions and fur seals.
- any
of 32 species of web-footed aquatic mammals that live chiefly in cold
seas and whose body shape, round at the middle and tapered at the ends,
is adapted to swift and graceful swimming. There are two types of seals:
the earless, or true, seals (family Phocidae); and the eared seals (family Otariidae), which comprise the sea lions and fur seals.
- Oxford Dictionary [2]
- A
fish-eating aquatic mammal with a streamlined body and feet developed
as flippers, returning to land to breed or rest. Families Phocidae (the true seals) and Otariidae (the eared seals, including the fur seals and sea lions). The latter
have external ear flaps and are able to sit upright, and the males are
much larger than the females
- A
fish-eating aquatic mammal with a streamlined body and feet developed
as flippers, returning to land to breed or rest. Families Phocidae (the true seals) and Otariidae (the eared seals, including the fur seals and sea lions). The latter
have external ear flaps and are able to sit upright, and the males are
much larger than the females
- American Heritage Dictionary [3]
- Any of various aquatic carnivorous mammals of the families Phocidae and Otariidae, found chiefly in cold regions and having a sleek torpedo-shaped body and limbs that are modified into paddlelike flippers.
- Any of various aquatic carnivorous mammals of the families Phocidae and Otariidae, found chiefly in cold regions and having a sleek torpedo-shaped body and limbs that are modified into paddlelike flippers.
- Collins Dictionary [4]
- any of two families (Otariidae and Phocidae)
of sea carnivores with a doglike head, a torpedo-shaped body, and four
webbed feet or flippers: they live in cold or temperate waters and
usually eat fish see also eared seal, earless seal
- any of two families (Otariidae and Phocidae)
of sea carnivores with a doglike head, a torpedo-shaped body, and four
webbed feet or flippers: they live in cold or temperate waters and
usually eat fish see also eared seal, earless seal
Support for P2 -
Support
for P2 comes in the form of encyclopedic and dictionary entries for the
term "sea lion." These references are reputable, sufficiently numerous,
and demonstrate that sea lion species are of the family Otariidae,
which is also referred to as "eared seals." [1][2] "Otariidae" and/or
"eared seal" have been emphasized.
- Encyclopedia Britannica [5]
- any of five species of eared seals found primarily in Pacific waters. Sea lions are characterized by a
coat of short, coarse hair that lacks a distinct undercoat. Except for
the California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), males have lion-like
manes and constantly roar to defend their harems (hence their name).
- any of five species of eared seals found primarily in Pacific waters. Sea lions are characterized by a
coat of short, coarse hair that lacks a distinct undercoat. Except for
the California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), males have lion-like
manes and constantly roar to defend their harems (hence their name).
- Oxford Dictionary [6]
- An eared seal occurring mainly on Pacific coasts, the large male of which has a mane
on the neck and shoulders. Five genera and species in the family Otariidae
- An eared seal occurring mainly on Pacific coasts, the large male of which has a mane
on the neck and shoulders. Five genera and species in the family Otariidae
- American Heritage Dictionary [7]
- Any of several large seals of the family Otariidae, having a blunter muzzle and a thinner coat than the fur seals, especially the California sea lion (Zalophus californianus).
- Any of several large seals of the family Otariidae, having a blunter muzzle and a thinner coat than the fur seals, especially the California sea lion (Zalophus californianus).
- Collins Dictionary [8]
- any of several genera of large, eared seals without underfur, usually living in colonies along the Pacific coastline
- any of several genera of large, eared seals without underfur, usually living in colonies along the Pacific coastline
Sources -
Con
#2
To be clear, I will be rebuking Pro's R1 entirely in my R2. The debate structure is basically such that I am wrong if I don't do that. This is me playing by the rules, not me playing dirty.
This is something I would have brought up anyway and will seem like a rebuttal but it's not... This is going to be a semantics debate and the definition of a true seal vs what a sea lion is is the key to comprehending why the resolution is false.
I am going to both semantically and scientifically explain why sea lions are firstly semantically neither 'true seals' nor 'fur seals' and then non-semantically analyse why 'eared seal' is a totally wrong name for the subset under which sea lions and fur seals come. I will also explain why, logically, the walrus (which is definitely not a seal but is a pinniped) is as categorically non-true-seal as this category wrongly named 'ear seal'.
The Kritik of the term 'eared seal' and defence against Kritik (whether or not my opponent made them in R1) of the term 'true seal'.
True seals are the purest form of seal and all the species within them are seal-variants. True seals, sea lions, fur seals and walruses are all pinnipeds. Fur seals are overall closer to sea lions than to true seals but I am going to prove that they are on the edge of what 'seal' is and that sea lions go further to separate themselves from the entirety of seals such that the term 'sea lion' is NOT a seal-variant and that therefore it was wrong colloquialism in the English-speaking scientific community that led to 'eared seals' being called that instead of being called 'eared pinnipeds' (as both true seals and walruses have no external ear flaps and this is what makes the 'eared seal' category unique).
In short, 'eared seal' is a completely incorrect English version of the Latin term Otariid/Otary and the term Otariidae. True Seals are Phocidae and the term 'seal' was an English invention that has led to a very wrong categorising of the eared pinniped being called 'eared seal' which is so baltantly wrong because there is indeed scientifically-sound reason that Sea Lions are NOT fur seals and why fur seals and true seals, despite not being the same variant of pinniped, are both seal-variants with sea lions being a different third-group who share enough with 'fur seals' to be considered closer to them than the true seals to have the family of the
What do all seals have in common that all sea lions do not have or have differently?
1. Swimming style/motion
All seal-types swim by fundamentally propelling themselves forward by their rear flippers. Their front flippers are used for stabilising, turning and assisting the rear flippers.[1][2] On the other hand, sea lions fundamentally swim by using their front flippers as the propellers that pull their body both up and forwards, even commonly gliding on the surface of the water because they are strong enough in the front to enable a constant up-and-forth movement.[1][3]
Their swimming style is more overtly different because sea lions swim by regular bursts, averaging 25mph with the cruising-speed being 11mph.[3] On the other hand, seals swim more steadily with ranges of 14-23mph and the style of swimming being much less bursty (especially true seals follow this).[1]
2. Lacking the capacity to walk on land in any effective manner
Seals all cannot properly walk on land in any way other than caterpillar-wriggling, also known as 'hobbling'.[1][2] This is something unique to what makes seals be seals, while sea lions have the capability to almost walk on land as they can push their body up strongly with their front flippers and use the back to assist as the turning-mechanism.[1][2] The cause of this difference also lies in that sea lions have a much more effective pelvic girdle to enable turning while maintaining a 'walking motion' much like land animals have and much superior to what seals have. Seals swim smoother than sea lions and sea lions walk smoother than seals; whom can't even walk but only crawl in the first place.[3]
3. Hissing and moaning (with growling that sea lions also have) but not roaring and bleating
This is actually a very significant thing, it's not just 'oh they make different noises' but actually sea lions almost 'talk' and actively communicate with trainers and zookeepers etc in ways seals do not. Sea lions are more confident with communicating and put seemingly no effort into keeping things 'secret'. Seals are either actively or passively subtle and secretive having unique hisses and moans that they seem to not want humans to hear. Both growl when angry or threatened but the hissing and quietly moaning are unique to seal-types while roaring and bleating is unique to sea-lion-types.[1]
In fact, sea lions do 'moan' but much lower and squeakier, intending to be heard.
Sea lions hear both above and below the water's surface, although they hear better under water. Studies show sea lions can hear frequencies up to 70,000 Hz, but tend to vocalize within a range of 100 to 10,000 Hz. This is comparable to humans who have a hearing range of 20 to 20,000 Hz. Sea lion vocalizations include barks, clicks, moans, chirps, growls, and squeaks. There is no concrete evidence to suggest that sea lions use echolocation.
- [3]
Any one that has spent time observing Sea Lions will tell you that they are very active when it comes to communication. They have plenty of ways to send messages to each other. While researchers have spent years observing them and recording them, they still have plenty more to learn before they can fully understand what all of their communication efforts mean.It is true that Sea Lions can roar, but many people think that is a myth unless they have witnessed it themselves. They will continue to get louder and louder too should they feel threatened. Roaring is a way that they can protect their territory when they feel threatened. This is often enough to get both humans and other animals to leave them alone.It is also true that Sea Lions know how to bark. In fact they often use this type of communication to interact with each other. The barking sounds are believed to mainly come from the males though. They use them when they are looking for females to be a part of their harem before mating occurs.The can be heard making a variety of sounds that resemble honking and even the sound of trumpets. It is their array of sounds used for communication that can keep humans watching them for hours and hours. Sea Lions are believed to have excellent hearing both on land and in the water.
- [4]
Meanwhile, while male seals can become quite vocal when threatened or aggressive, it is rarer and seals prefer much subtler sounds than sea lions do. True seals, more so than fur seals, especially enjoy communicating in subtle manners saving it for sex, fights or situations where they deem communication vital. Sea lions are very blatantly more communicative-extroverts as opposed to the introverts that seals are. This is more about communication than actual nature as both are social animals overall.
All kinds of seals communicate vocally by making noise with their throat and air. The range, pitch, and variety of these noises, however, are all vast. Arctic seals can groan, chug, or growl in the course of their communication. Weddell seals send out long, low whistles underwater at very high decibel levels, and harbor seals make quiet calls. The variation of these methods shows the highly specified development of each species of seal in response to its environment. Each style of communication suits a particular need.FunctionMale seals are the most vocal because they use their calls to defend their territories. The sounds are amplified underwater and can be heard by other seals over large distances. Arctic seals make long-range calls underwater designed to attract females. Up north under the polar ice, these calls can be heard 30 kilometers away. Above-ground snorts, whistles, and growls are responses to threats from other seals.DangersSeals that live in polar areas with heavy ice can make loud, long-range calls because their predators cannot get through the ice. Bearded seals in the Arctic make a long whistle underwater that can last for 70 seconds. Harbor seals and others that live in the open oceans would attract killer whales with these loud calls. Instead of being loud, male harbor seals will choose a spot where females will pass by and put on a display of poses and low guttural noise. This is the safer way to attract a mate in open waters.
- [5]
The term 'true' means [https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/true]:
1. In accordance with fact or reality
2. Accurate or exact
So, what's a seal?
Well, here is where Pro is going to have to concede that this is about exactness. Sea Lions are not a seal-type. What happened was that 'eared seals' were wrongly named.
In fact, one definition available online seems to support Pro but ends with 'especially: a fur seal or hair seal as opposed to a sea lion'
Sources:
[1] Smithsonian's National Zoo. (2018). Dare to Compare: What’s the Difference Between Sea Lions and Seals?. [online] Available at: https://nationalzoo.si.edu/animals/news/dare-compare-whats-difference-between-sea-lions-and-seals [Accessed 23 Jan. 2019].
[2] Ecomare. (2019). Seals, life and facts | Ecomare Texel. [online] Available at: https://www.ecomare.nl/en/in-depth/reading-material/animals/seals/ [Accessed 23 Jan. 2019].
[3] Dolphin Research Center. (2019). Sea Lion Info - Dolphin Research Center. [online] Available at: https://dolphins.org/sea_lion_info [Accessed 23 Jan. 2019].
[4] Sealion-world.com. (2014). Sea Lion Communication - Sea Lion Facts and Information. [online] Available at: https://www.sealion-world.com/sea-lion-communication/ [Accessed 23 Jan. 2019].
[5] Kunsak, A. (2017). How Do Seals Communicate?. [online] Animals.mom.me. Available at: https://animals.mom.me/how-do-seals-communicate-4514135.html [Accessed 24 Jan. 2019].
Round 2
Pro
#3
Con produces
information and articles which show a usage of the word "seal" as narrowly
referring to true seals. Based on this, Con concludes that the
English-speaking scientific community made a mistake and should have named
eared seals as eared pinnipeds. Con argues that this naming mistake diminishes
the significance of the word "seals" appearing within the family name
for sea lions. Con also points out that "true seals" have the word
"true" in the family name and that "eared seals" do not
have this.
First,
Con has appealed to improper authorities on this subject. The proper
authorities to cite in disputes over the meanings of words or terms are
dictionaries or encyclopedias. Con's sources are the Smithsonian zoo, a marine
mammal charity called "Ecomare", the "dolphin research
center", "Sea lion
world", and an article on animals.mom.me written by Alexis Kunsak, whoever
that is. The only thing that Con has demonstrated with these sources is that some
people use the word "seal" in a narrow sense to refer exclusively to true
seals as opposed to more broadly referring to both the eared seals and true
seals. I will address that fact later, but for the moment I turn to Con's
reasoning.
Con's
assertion that the scientific community erred in the naming of eared seals is
not supported by his information nor articles. This doesn't even make sense. The scientific community may choose whatever names they prefer. If this naming was truly a scientific
error, then Con should have produced something more supportive of that. We can
tell from Con's work that he searched but apparently found nothing. Con's
assertion of a mistake may be soundly rejected due to insufficient evidence. Beyond
that, Con's argument about the word "true" is nonsensical. Just
because "eared seals" are not "true seals" doesn't mean
that eared seals are not seals. It is not as though eared seals are false seals
because they are not true seals. Both "eared seals" and "true
seals" are seals, which is directly and credibly supported by the sources
I provided in round 1.
Now
I discuss the usage of the word "seal" as it was used within the
articles produced by Con. The explanation for this is not that there was a
naming error. Rather, the explanation is that there's a tendency to
use "seal" to refer to exclusively to "true seals" within
the scientific community, especially among marine biologists and those who work
closely with the animals. (see, e.g., "True seals are also known as earless
seals, or simply 'seals'." [1]) This usage is informal, largely limited to
that community and isn't consistent with the objective meaning of "seal" as
it's used in English. The word "seal" - alone and by itself - isn't a
prescriptive scientific term. "Seal" likely originated,
as most words do, among laymen who categorized life based on what it looked
like. Despite the differences between the eared seals and the true seals, both
seal families look substantially the same. They are both marine mammals of
similar size, shape and color. Of the pinnipeds, it is only the walrus that
looks substantially different. The walrus likely got its own name among laymen because
it looked noticeably different due its considerable size and prominent tusks.
Con did, however, point to one dictionary entry - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/seal . Con quoted the following text: "especially: a fur seal or hair seal as
opposed to a sea lion" to support his position. The rest of the text from that entry was "any of
numerous carnivorous marine mammals (families Phocidae and Otariidae) that live
chiefly in cold regions and have limbs modified into webbed flippers adapted
primarily to swimming". This entry for "seal" is inclusive of
sea lion and doesn't support Con's position.
Con
#4
Round = 1
In this Round I shall rebuke Pro's R1. This was not permitted to so in my own R1 and also, if I happen to rebuke Pro's R2 here, it is coincidence as Pro repeated points and even Pro's new R2 points must inherently be countered in my countering of his/her R1.
Pro opens with a syllogism:
P1 - Any organism of the taxonomic family Phocidae or Otariidae is a seal.P2 - All sea lions are organisms of the taxonomic family Otariidae.C1 - Therefore, all sea lions are seals.
But P1 is false. P1 is the entire assumption that the side of Pro, and many colloquial definitions of 'seal', make and is the entire point which Con is attacking this entire debate.
Otariidae are eared Pinnipeds, they are not eared seals. If one looks at the ridiculously colloquial source of Wikipedia, it makes Pro's error for him and I'm surprised Pro didn't simply quote Wikipedia to prove P1 'true'.
Wikipedia falsely claims:
Pinnipeds, commonly known as seals, are a widely distributed and diverse clade of carnivorous, fin-footed, semiaquatic marine mammals.
WRONG! Pinnipeds are not commonly known as seals, but a majority of pinnipeds are true seals or fur seals and therefore most pinnipeds are seals. Sea Lions and Walruses are NOT SEALS. Walruses are the only living species of Odobenidae.[6] Now, my source puts colloquial English in brackets but also supports me prior to saying that Otariidae are "eared" seals by the following:
It introduces what pinnipeds are by stating:
Pinnipeds are carnivores that have adapted to an amphibious marine existence. They forage at sea but most come ashore or onto ice at some time of the year to mate, give birth, suckle their young, or to molt. Many of their anatomical features reflect compromises needed to succeed in both marine and terrestrial environments. Externally, pinnipeds share many characteristics with terrestrial carnivores (fissipeds) due to their need for mobility on land.Pinnipeds have four webbed flippers used to propel their spindle-shaped bodies. Their sensory organs are adapted to function in both air and water: large eyes and well-developed whiskers allow feeding in dimly lit water; tail and external ears are small, limiting drag. Pinnipeds have retained canine teeth but molars are modified for consuming prey whole. All have fur, which is shed or molted annually, but they are insulated primarily by blubber.
- [6]
And furthermore demonstrates the family-tree of categories by the following sample:
^ If you look at this diagram, it is crystal clear that being in any family-tree of Pinniped does not mean you are a seal inherently, this is undeniably accentuated by the walrus but also accentuated by the very fact that any and all seal-variants are named 'seal' to specify that they are not just a pinniped, but more specifically a seal.
What P1 of Pro's entire case and syllogism relies on is that when the English marine biologists translated what should have been 'eared PINNIPED' instead became completely erroneously known colloquially as 'eared SEAL' Con stands to explain that this is totally erroneous.
Pinnipeds have three categories and I'm going to let a research paper abstract do some talking here:
Pinnipeds are charismatic but difficult to study, and taxonomy is poorly understood. An accurate taxonomic framework is essential for studies of biogeography, ecology and conservation.Morphologic and genetic criteria used to recognize pinniped species and subspecies are evaluated individually for all taxa in the three families: Otariidae (sea lions and fur seals), Odobenidae (walruses) and Phocidae (seals). We advocate a pragmatic approach that, in general, follows the Evolutionary Species Concept and ‘diagnosability’ criterion for subspecies delimitations.
- [7]
Pro would have you believe that if something within a category defies that category in scientifically-sound ways, that the semantics is not at fault but rather than the science is at fault for not matching with the semantics. Con argues that, instead, if the semantics of English colloquial terminology has wrongly formed the term 'eared seal' to be what should be 'eared pinniped' then it follows that if there can be proven things that all seals do, or do not do, that sea lions fail to do, or do (respectively), then it follows that it is the term 'eared seal' at fault and not the term sea lion lacking 'seal' which is at fault.
Pro is trying to say, without having explicitly stated it, that the term 'sea lion' is faulty and should instead perhaps be 'lion seal' or a clear variant of seal beyond what it currently is, as a non-seal subset of Otariidae (eared pinnipeds).
In R1, I stated 3 clear things that separate ALL seals from ALL sea lions. There is much more separating specific seals from sea lions including blubber for true seals, colouring of fur (for fur seals) and much, much more.[1][6] The three that apply to all seals vs all sea lions were swimming style, capacity to walk on land efficiently and use of voice/sounds to communicate in both manner and motive.
The problem with this word 'Otariidae' and such terms is that they are not strictly any language in origin, not even Latin which quite a bit of Taxonomy is from. So, I cannot semantically prove to you that the semantic attack on Con from Pro, is wrong. What I can do, is prove that scientifically and contextually it's severely likely and, in how I have presented my arguments thus far, blatantly true that the Otariidae are a unique group of Pinnipeds that happen to have ears. They are not inherently seals, most blatantly and undeniably proven by the Walrus, the only subset of Obodenidae (unique for having tusks, severe whisker prominence and massive bulk[6]) which is not a seal at all and has yet to be proven to be one by Pro even via hinting. If the Obodeniidae can be non-seal and yet pinniped, it follows that the Otariidae are foremost Pinniped and the be assumed to be unique forms of Pinniped that happen to be eared which may or may not have seals within them and not eared seals by default at all, nor by actually scientifically sound translation. In the source 6 that I use, it's made very clear that 'eared' is that part that's translated correctly but seal is something that the English wrongly added on.
Phocidae, the family of true seals, are not even called seals either but, again, Wikipedia would erroneously support Pro on his/her conquest of truth by stating that apparently the 'true seals' are somehow only one of three types of 'seal lineage' which is total and utter nonsense. Pinnipeds are not seals, it's just that the majority of Pinniped-species are seal-species. This coincidence has led to the erroneous use of 'commonly referred to as seals' to be attached to Pinnipeds and is how the entire nonsense began.
I stand here, today, begging you voters and scientifically literate readers to ask yourselves if the error is in science living up to dictionaries and colloquial English interpretation or if, instead, it is the semantics that has the error in living up to science.
Otariidae are not eared seals, they are eared Pinnipeds, some of which are a form of seal named Fur seals which all have ear flaps, just as sea lions have ear flaps making them distinguishable. Obodenidae can walk as sea lions do and as fur seals can do just a little better than the 'crawling/hobbling' that true seals do and it is said crawling (not just lack of tusks and ear flaps) that makes Phocidae what they are. Fur seals still 'hobble' but can do a very strange 'hobble' as I said whereas sea lions can smoothly mimic land animals as their back flippers and pelvis allow easy flapping of the back fin inside to turn it into back feet like a four-legged animal almost and their front flippers are stronger than seals' due to their swimming style and evolution thus.
Phocidae contain only seals and are considered 'true seals'. Obodenidae may as well be called 'walrus' as it's only got walruses in it but Otariidae DOES NOT only have seals in it, it has sea lions which ARE NOT SEALS for the reasons I elaborated on in R1.
Sources [Continued]
Credit to http://www.citethisforme.com/ for helping with the formatting except for source 7 which the source itself helped with.
[6] Seagrant.uaf.edu. (2013). Pinnipeds: Seals, Sea Lions, and Walrus | Marine education | Alaska Sea Grant. [online] Available at: https://seagrant.uaf.edu/marine-ed/mm/fieldguide/pinnipeds.html [Accessed 26 Jan. 2019]
[7] BERTA, A. and CHURCHILL, M. (2012), Pinniped taxonomy: review of currently recognized species and subspecies, and evidence used for their description. Mammal Review, 42: 207-234. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2907.2011.00193.x
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:
Arguments:
Pros argument depends on all pinnipeds being “seals”. He provides sources to back this up which refer to pinnipeds as seals.
Out of his sources, coincidentally, the Brittanica dictionary defines seal as any of the 32 species of pinniped - con missed that there are actually 34 species of pinniped, and could have used that but didn’t.
Throughout the debate, pro primarily relied on these definitions.
Pro did not offer any argument or sources that explicitly said “Sea lions are seals”, However at least two of his sources came as close as is possible to doing that without being quite that explicit.
On the other hand con did not offer any arguments or sources that explicitly said “Sea lions are not seals either”, however con did offer up multiple examples where sources and information indicate that sea lions are different from seals.
Pro explained that cons sources differentiated sea lions and seals as they are using a narrower definition, but cast the sources that differentiate as not authoritative to define the meaning of the words.
As con has no opportunity to refute, I have to consider that.
A large thrust of cons argument is that only “true seals”, are actual seals. I found this argument wholly lacking, relying on a fairly tenuous dictionary reference and not really relying on any sources - as pro pointed out.
I tend to give more benefit of the doubt to debate positions that appear unwinnable due to definition.
However, cons only argument that pushed me his way was sources that said sea lions were different from seals: but he didn’t do enough, IMO, to justify why all dictionary definitions, and encyclopedias were wrong. To win this, pro not just to separate seals from seal lions, but to explain why this separation is more valid than the definitions con provided. Simply arguing that only true seals are seals, and scientists named the group wrong is not sufficient.
If con had pointed out the Brittanica source 34/32 species thing or similar, and if he had mentioned the word paraphyly, and used examples - I would have awarded the win. But in my view, he fell short in this respect.
Arguments to pro.
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:
enjoyable debate, interesting subject. Essentially, a semantic debate pitting genus vs species, generic vs specific. Analogously, the genus populus is commonly called poplar- even though aspen trees and cottonwoods are conspicuously different from what English speakers call poplar trees, they are all correctly termed poplar trees as a genus. One can generically refer to a grove of aspen and cottonwood as a poplar grove, even in the absence of any specific species popularly called poplar. Likewise, any group of pinnipeds may be referred to generically as seals, even if no species named seal is present. Pro could have been more explicit in the first round, but leaves Con little room to run from a well established syllogism. Con makes a valiant effort but never addresses the central contention: seal applies to genus as well as species. Arguing that sea lions are a different species from any other species called seal has no impact on genus nomenclature. Con is arguing "it should not be so" which does not contradict "it is true today." I'll fault Con somewhat for bringing Wikipedia in for examination, since that source confirms Pro's sources and reminds the reader that Con is arguing against ordinary linguistic and taxonomic convention. Con also cited Oxford to define "true" which strengthens Pro's Oxford definitions for seal and sea lion. Does Con suggest that Oxford can be trusted to define his word but not Pro's? Still, I won't give a source point to Pro since Con had all the heavy lifting research-wise and I disagree with Pro that Con's sources were less than reliable. I admire Con's argument but ultimately he only attacked the central premise at the species level and ignored the genus application.
BREAKING NEWS: The sea lion's style of terrestrial locomotion is called the "galumph" after Lewis Carrol's "Jabberwocky"- possibly a portmanteau of triumph and gallop.
No, they are fucking well not.
It is has been established that sea lions are merely ionized seals.
I think the definition I advanced was paraphyletic. It included every extant pinniped except the walrus.
someone needs to tell it to your fuckign face; you are absolutely oblivious to who has or has not won a debate, you say it's winnable and nitpick 2 fucking words I didn't say that you would say, it's an utter sham of a voter you are.
I see seal a bit like lizard or fish - they are exclusatoy and paraphyletic. I was actually thinking of accepting this before RM, as this was pretty winnable.
EDIT: I actually *DON'T* see "seal", by itself as a taxonomic term
Appreciate the vote.
In a world where logicians and scientists are defeated by linguistic magicians, we are in the world of bullshit-being-paramount indeed.
I actually see "seal", by itself, as a taxonomic term and don't view its definition as prescriptive and beholden to some scientific authority on taxonomy. In taxonomy all the terms that use "seal" (e.g. "true seal"; "eared seal"; etc.) are multi-word terms. "Seal" alone strikes me as more of a layman's term and definitions would then be descriptive (i.e. the ultimate authority for its meaning would be how its used in common parlance and other contexts to some extent)
This debate can use a well-reasoned vote.
I'd take what he says with a grain of salt. He does it to everybody. I don't think it's personal.
I was fully aware of Pro's line of reasoning, Pro has copy pasted their R1 from their DDO account which is the same username.
I was prepared fully for all angles of semantics vs science and how to prove that it's the English semantics which are at fault, not the science.
I'll object to being called liar & would remind Con that continuing arguments as well as ad homming voters in the comments section are both generally considered bad form.
I have a certain sympathy for Con since I too believed before reading this debate that sea lions and seals were rather distinct species. I remember my California friends telling me that sea lions descend from bear-like ancestors, seals descend from weasel-like ancestors. The subject makes a perfect trap for a debate because most non-biologists aren't aware that the conventional understanding was entirely upturned after 21st century genetic analysis. Now we know that sea lions are a relatively recent off-shoot of northern fur seals and that some fur seals are more closely related to sea lions than to other fur seals and therefore the fur seal/sea lion subfamily distinction has been eliminated in modern taxonomies. All seals, including sea lions are descended from a bear-like form, contrary to what physiology alone would suggest.
Here is the 2001 study that changed the paradigm: "Phylogenetic Relationships within the Eared Seals (Otariidae: Carnivora): Implications for the Historical Biogeography of the Family"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790301910127?via%3Dihub
Please vote
So I won't bother flagging it as it passes for valid even though it's not.
But virtuosos and the idiotic vote standards will allow your lie to pass for valid RFD.
I did attack the genus level. I said it's pinniped and that a pinniped is not seal which is why seal is specified every single time it's mentioned so as to separate it from non-seal pinnipeds. Read my R2.
Thank you, I pride myself on it.
You're quite good at convincing yourself of things that aren't so.
The naming and semantics is the only line of argumentation you have. The rest is defeated by science and by the logic of the naming paths.
I could not win on your side against me on my side.
TBH the "naming error" isn't persuasive because it comes across as somewhat arrogant. It's not really a counter-argument because my argument didn't place much weight on the fact that eared seals have "seal" in the taxonomic name. I don't consider taxonomic terms to have much weight here. For example, dolphins are known as "toothed whales" in taxonomy, but nobody would call them whales. Rather, my argument was largely based on my sources. The strongest argument for Con I could think of was that there exists, to a certain extent, the usage of "seal" in the sense of referring exclusively to true seals or fur seals as opposed to sea lions despite the fact that this sense of the word doesn't appear in most dictionaries. That sense of the word may be implied by the context, and it's perhaps especially implied when discussing the two together in the same sentence. The wording of the resolution itself arguably implies this sense of the word.
I meant Round 1 = R1 oh my god, I did not mean R2 is my R1
will appreciate a vote.
You may view the voting rules here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
Yes, you are indeed meant to judge this in that way.
It is possible to win a debate supporting a false premise because one is judged on the quality of rhetoric.
I have no idea if a sea lion is seal, but i I did I would try to forget what i know and give my vote tothe best argument either way - isn't that what formal debating is about?
those are the only 2 errors I see.
It's meant to be eared pinniped or the latin version.
sea lions moan LOUDER not lower.
Exactly.
"seal-variants with sea lions being a different third-group who share enough with 'fur seals' to be considered closer to them than the true seals to have the family of the " - Was something supposed to be after that?
Yes I will not reply to your r2 in my r2
The rules state that "Pro shall not use round 2 to rebut or otherwise respond to Con's round 2 arguments." This was an error. It should read as "Con shall not use round 2 to rebut or otherwise respond to Pro's round 2 arguments." It's functionally an inconequential error because the content restriction was implied by the prior statement.
You're wylted?
You'd be surprised how many people think that sea lions are not seals.
Do not accept truism debates unless they are made by the false side.
This debate is a fact and is impossible to lose.