Instigator / Pro
3
1266
rating
119
debates
15.97%
won
Topic
#605
Cro-Magnons were superior to modern humans
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
0
1
After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
Ramshutu
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
7
1764
rating
43
debates
94.19%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Pro
#1
Just so we're clear, by superior I mean in terms of intelligence and physical attributes. By modern humans I mean fully modern humans, not just "anatomically modern" humans which Cro-Magnons themselves are considered to be. The point of this debate is to prove that Cro-Magnons were generally more intelligent and physically fit than today's humans.
This article demonstrates that the human brain has shrunken since the time of cro-magnon man, and while it gives several reasons why this doesn't necessarily make fully moderns less intelligent, it does suggest that they are.
From Wikipedia:
Cro-Magnons were anatomically modern, straight limbed and tall compared to the contemporaneous Neanderthals. They are thought to have stood on average 1.66 to 1.71 m (5 ft 5 in to 5 ft 7 in) tall. They differ from modern-day humans in having a more robust physique and a slightly larger cranial capacity.[15] The Cro-Magnons had fairly low skulls, with wide faces, robust mandibles, blunted chins, narrow noses,[16] and moderate to no prognathism.[17] A distinctive trait was the rectangulareye orbits, similar to those of modern Ainu people. Their vocal apparatus was like that of present-day humans and they could speak.[18] Their brain capacity was about 1,600 cc (98 cu in), which is larger than the average for modern Europeans.[15]
Cro-Magnons had greater bone density than modern humans and are thought to have stronger immune systems as well as being generally stronger pound for pound. Since Cro-Magnons lived mostly during and shortly after the ice age they had to survive through some of the harshest conditions in human history and did not have many opportunities to create actual civilizations beyond nomadic tribes, but there is no reason they could not have given the right conditions. Cro-Magnons are essentially modern humans who happen to be tougher and have larger brains.
I can bring in some more unorthodox arguments but I will leave it at this for now.
Con
#2
Thanks to pro for the debate.
There are inherently multiple issues with pros position, but the biggest and most important one is this:
1.) Cro Magnons ARE modern humans
Any species that is a member of the Genus “homo” is a human [1]. However, to distinguish our cousin species and ancestor species, the phrase “modern human” or “anatomically modern humans”, has been used, with “Archaic Human” used for other species such as Neanderthals or Homo Erectus.
Modern humans in this context are any members of the species Homo Sapiens:
“Homo (Latin homō "human being") is the genus which emerged in the otherwise extinct Australopithecus genus that encompasses the extant species Homo sapiens (modern humans)”[2]
Cro Magnon - in context merely defines a particular geographical and historical grouping of modern humans. Even pros source interestingly demonstrates this, referring to Cro Magnon as both Homo Sapiens and Early European Modern Humans.[3]
As a result, pros position here is largely nonsensical, and is like asking whether Ducks are superior to Birds - or whether Americans are superior to Humans. They’re the same thing - and thus treating them as different is absurd.
2.) Arbitrary Definition of Superior
Even if we assume pro is attempting to talk about “contemporary” humans now, vs early modern humans, even though is not what the resolution says, we still would not be able to assume they are superior.
Pro opens his argument by unilaterally declaring the properties he feels makes one superior to the other. Specifically cranial capacity and physical properties.
While that could be valid in one specific context, it’s also wholly arbitrary. For example - I could argue that carrots are superior to humans as they contain a higher ratio of vitamin K, or that elephants are superior to humans because they have bigger brains and are stronger. This is what is known as Cherry Picking.
If Pro is free to chose whatever suitable properties to compare, I can do the same: in terms of Gold Medal wins, Nobel Prizes, scientific and technological achievements, contemporary humans win hands down.
Even contemporary humans overall survival and being the group that managed to build a global integrated civilization clearly makes contemporary humans superior by any reasonable measure - whilst Cro Magnons either died or were subsumed into what became contemporary European humans.
The general superiority between two groups in this way must be a broad analysis of the properties and achievements as a collective of those two groups - rather than pro simply cherry picking the two properties that could, arguably, be said to be better in one than the other.
In this regard, if a meaningful and broad measure of superiority - contemporary humans are clearly superior.
Summary:
Cro Magnons are themselves categorized as modern humans - so they cannot be superior to themselves.
Pros definition of being superior is arbitrary and cherry picked.
Sources:
Round 2
Pro
#3
Any species that is a member of the Genus “homo” is a human
Not exactly, yes Cro-Magnons are humans as in full on Homo Sapiens but not all Homos are Homo Sapiens and not all Homo Sapiens are the same. Members of the same species are analogous to brothers/sisters whereas members of the same genus are more akin to cousin-species.
A genus (/ˈdʒiːnəs/, pl. genera /ˈdʒɛnərə/) is a taxonomic rank used in the biological classification of living and fossil organisms, as well as viruses,[1] in biology. In the hierarchy of biological classification, genus comes above species and below family. In binomial nomenclature, the genus name forms the first part of the binomial species name for each species within the genus.
In the very wiki article you used as a source pertaining to the "homo" genus it literally lists multiple homo species in the bar to the right, clearly indicating that they are not actually "humans" as in the species that we both are.
Cro Magnon - in context merely defines a particular geographical and historical grouping of modern humans. Even pros source interestingly demonstrates this, referring to Cro Magnon as both Homo Sapiens and Early European Modern Humans.
Early modern humans are not the same as fully modern humans. They are the same species as us but that doesn't make them exactly the same. You act as if being the same species means there can be no difference between different gene pools. Cro-Magnons are distinct from modern Europeans physiologically. As Wikipedia already pointed out:
They differ from modern-day humans in having a more robust physique and a slightly larger cranial capacity.[15]
Now let's move on to con's next assault against common sense.
While that could be valid in one specific context, it’s also wholly arbitrary. For example - I could argue that carrots are superior to humans as they contain a higher ratio of vitamin K, or that elephants are superior to humans because they have bigger brains and are stronger. This is what is known as Cherry Picking.
I am well aware that the word "superior" is meaningless unless taken in context. I already established that the context is what it is. And what better context could there be? How else would you judge the superiority of an animal than by their intelligence and physical attributes? I bet Cro-Magnons are more nutritious than us as well.
If Pro is free to chose whatever suitable properties to compare, I can do the same: in terms of Gold Medal wins, Nobel Prizes, scientific and technological achievements, contemporary humans win hands down.
My standards are more objective than yours and hence that is why we will be using mine. Cro-Magnon may not have any of those things, (half of which are not even real in a way) under it's belt but it was definitely physically and possibly intellectually superior. Since Gold Medals and Nobel Prizes are completely arbitrary and man-made all I have to do is make up my own versions and award them to Cro-Magnons to cancel out half of that statement. The other half is just as simple, there is no reason that a Cro-Magnon could not reach Einstein or Nicola Tesla levels of geniusy if they were alive now, but there is plenty of reason to suggest the average human now adays wouldn't make it during the ice age.
Cro-Magnons were tougher than the majority of people now, and had stronger immune systems. They were physically adapted to handle harsher conditions, whereas we are not. A Cro-Magnon is superior in both a general sense and a strict Darwinian sense because they could mentally adapt to modern society, but we could not physically adapt to how they lived. In other words they would be both superior in the context of their own environment and in the context of modern society, because we lack their physical attributes but they do not lack our intelligence.
Also, every scientific and technological advancement us fully moderns have made required previous scientific and technological advancements, and required the right conditions in order to come to be, so we largely owe the credit of our current civilization to the Cro-Magnons that braved conditions we could barely imagine so that the human species could survive long enough to build the first cities, smelt the first ores and cultivate the first crops.
Con
#4
1.) Cro Magnons are modern humans.
Pros opening reply was largely irrelevant. I will pick out the important parts.
“Yes Cro-Magnons are humans as in full on Homo Sapiens”
As stated in my previous post, and largely ignored by pro: Homo Sapiens are also known as both “Modern humans” or “anatomically modern humans”.[1]
Your own source refers to Cro Magnons as early modern humans.[2]
“Modern humans“ is a broad term that encompasses all Homo sapiens - the species to which Cro Magnons belong.
As a result, this whole debate is about whether modern humans are superior to modern humans.
2.) Arbitrary Definition of superior.
Before waxing lyrical about how objective his definitions are, Pro asks:
“And what better context could there be?”
As I pointed out in the previous round, a better and more objective way to measure superiority of one group against another is analyzing the broad and overall success of those groups as a whole.
The fact that we are here - and Cro Magnons are not is clearly indicative that there is superiority of contemporary humans over Cro Magnons.
If Cro Magnons were superior, why were contemporary humans more successful overall? Why are we not having this conversation about contemporary humans?
Pro has simply cherry picked two specific sub aspects of one group - and asserted that it makes one superior. He has yet to explain why his definitions are better or more objective.
Physical strength and robustness is one of the clearest arbitrary points. Which is superior? The fastest marathon runner? Or the strongest power lifter? The fastest sprinter, or the furthest javelin thrower? There are many types of physical strength - simply being physically stronger doesn’t necessarily make you superior. Why is brute force superior to great agility?
The answer it that it isn’t: it is merely a cherry picked data point. This is why a broad overview of both groups achievements as a whole is more objective - or instances where both sides have directly competed - as it covers a wider breadth of superiority. Contemporary humans win on both these counts.
3.) unsupported assertions.
Pro states
“Cro-Magnons were tougher than the majority of people now”“had stronger immune systems”“they could mentally adapt to modern society, but we could not physically adapt to how they lived”
These are all unsupported assertions and can be rejected out of hand as assertions until pro can provide evidence.
4.) miss-attribution:
“Cro-Magnons that braved conditions we could barely imagine so that the human species could survive long enough to build the first cities, smelt the first ores and cultivate the first crops”
The first cities was likely Uruk in what is now Iraq. (4500bce)[3], smelting was first discovered around 5000bce[4]. Agriculture originated from around 11,000 bce all outside of Europe.[5]
All of which were at least 20-30,000 years after Cro Magnons in completely different places.[2]
Pros attribution of these things to Cro Magnons are laughably inaccurate and are due solely to the achievements of contemporary humans than Cro Magnons who died out thousands of years prior.[2]
Also it should be noted that Cro Magnons are not the seeding group for all humans, and we do not all descend from them: especially non Europeans.[2] So the concept that they somehow survived to turn into us is untrue also.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Pros opening reply was largely irrelevant.
Gee, that's the thanks I get for correcting you when you claim that a genus and a species are the same thing? I know it was irrelevant to the debate so thanks for forcing me to correct you on it then calling my reply irrelevant rather than your own elementary mistakes. Not only do you conflate all Homo Sapiens as being exactly the same just because they are the same species but you also can't even tell the difference between a species and a genus, yet have the nerve to call what I say irrelevant? Learn basic biology you incessant plebian crotch guzzler.
As stated in my previous post, and largely ignored by pro: Homo Sapiens are also known as both “Modern humans” or “anatomically modern humans”.[1]Your own source refers to Cro Magnons as early modern humans.[2]“Modern humans“ is a broad term that encompasses all Homo sapiens - the species to which Cro Magnons belong.As a result, this whole debate is about whether modern humans are superior to modern humans.
If you couldn't tell already, I am getting impatient with your insane stupidity. There are physiological differences between humans today and there are physiological difference between humans today and Cro-Magnons. No matter how many times you repeat the overly simplistic and nuance-less line "this whole debate is about whether modern humans are superior to modern humans" it doesn't change the fact that there are genetic and physiological differences.
On average, a man from Kenya has a bigger penis and can run faster than a man from India, but probably has a lower IQ. There are biological differences between people even though we are the same species.
Before waxing lyrical
You're an incessant twit/ who's hesitant/ to present a bit/ of evidence/
when you claim to have the facts, but you mis-represent and twist/
common sense to fit/ your needs in the present-tense/
you pathetic dick/ headed shit/ stain you misread the script/
if you have any edifice/ of intelligence then submit/
f Cro Magnons were superior, why were contemporary humans more successful overall? Why are we not having this conversation about contemporary humans?Pro has simply cherry picked two specific sub aspects of one group - and asserted that it makes one superior. He has yet to explain why his definitions are better or more objective.
The success of the group is contingent upon more than just their attributes, it also depends upon circumstances and how well their attributes are suited to a specific environment. Rather than judging them by "success" it is more objective to judge them by their actual attributes alone, because success is not necessarily due to superiority. Two things are clear and undisputed here, Cro-Magnon man was physically adapted to handle harsher conditions than us and mentally capable of everything we are. That means if you got thrown into the ice age you would probably die but if a Cro-Magnon was raised in modern society it could do just fine.
To answer your first question though, it is because Cro-Magnon genes got diluted because inferior breeds were more numerous.
Physical strength and robustness is one of the clearest arbitrary points. Which is superior? The fastest marathon runner? Or the strongest power lifter? The fastest sprinter, or the furthest javelin thrower? There are many types of physical strength - simply being physically stronger doesn’t necessarily make you superior. Why is brute force superior to great agility?
The Cro-Magnon was all of those things so I don't get your point. In terms of both physical attributes and mental attributes Cro-Magnons appear to be the net superior of all Homos. It's actually not entirely true that Cro-Magnons are entirely homo sapiens, only the Negroid breed of homo sapiens are pure blooded homo sapiens. Cro-Magnons are a sub-race which all caucasoids and mongoloids are descended from which was created by the interbreeding of African homo sapiens and neanderthals.
Comparison of modern human, neanderthal and cro-magnon skulls:
(Skip to 15 minutes in if you don't want to watch the whole thing)
Neanderthals have contributed approximately 1-4% of the genomes of non-African modern humans, although a modern human who lived about 40,000 years ago has been found to have between 6-9% Neanderthal DNA (Fu et al 2015). The evidence we have of Neanderthal-modern human interbreeding sheds light on the expansion of modern humans out of Africa. These new discoveries refute many previous hypotheses in which anatomically modern humans replaced archaic hominins, like Neanderthals, without any interbreeding. However, even with some interbreeding between modern humans and now-extinct hominins, most of our genome still derives from Africa. Neanderthals could not have contributed to modern African peoples’ genomes because Neanderthals evolved and lived exclusively in Eurasia and therefore could not have bred with the humans living in Africa at that time.
For many years, the only evidence of human-Neanderthal hybridization existed within modern human genes. However, in 2016 researchers published a new set of Neanderthal DNA sequences from Altai Cave in Siberia, as well as from Spain and Croatia, that show evidence of human-Neanderthal interbreeding as far back as 100,000 years ago -- farther back than many previous estimates of humans’ migration out of Africa (Kuhlwilm et al 2016). Their findings are the first to show human gene flow into the Neanderthal genome as opposed to Neanderthal DNA into the human genome. This data tells us that not only were human-Neanderthal interbreeding events more frequent than previously thought, but also that an early migration of humans did in fact leave Africa before the population that survived and gave rise to all contemporary non-African modern humans.
We previously mentioned the lack of genetic contributions by Neanderthals into the modern human mtDNA gene pool. As we have shown that Neanderthal-human interbreeding did occur, why wouldn’t we find their DNA in our mtDNA as well as our nuclear DNA? There are several potential explanations for this. It is possible that there were at one point modern humans who possessed the Neanderthal mtDNA, but that their lineages died out. It is also highly possible that Neanderthals did not contribute to the mtDNA genome by virtue of the nature of human-Neanderthal admixture. While we know that humans and Neanderthals bred, we have no way of knowing what the possible social or cultural contexts for such breeding would have been.
Because mtDNA is passed down exclusively from mother to offspring, if Neanderthal males were the only ones contributing to the human genome, their contributions would not be present in the mtDNA line. It is also possible that while interbreeding between Neanderthal males and human females could have produced fertile offspring, interbreeding between Neanderthal females and modern human males might not have produced fertile offspring, which would mean that the Neanderthal mtDNA could not be passed down. Finally, it is possible that modern humans do carry at least one mtDNA lineage that Neanderthals contributed to our genome, but that we have not yet sequenced that lineage in either modern humans or in Neanderthals. Any of these explanations could underlie the lack of Neanderthal mtDNA in modern human populations.
“Cro-Magnons were tougher than the majority of people now”
They differ from modern-day humans in having a more robust physique
“had stronger immune systems”
“they could mentally adapt to modern society, but we could not physically adapt to how they lived”
Cro-Magnons were tougher than us but we are not smarter than them.
The first cities was likely Uruk in what is now Iraq. (4500bce)[3], smelting was first discovered around 5000bce[4]. Agriculture originated from around 11,000 bce all outside of Europe.[5]All of which were at least 20-30,000 years after Cro Magnons in completely different places.[2]Pros attribution of these things to Cro Magnons are laughably inaccurate and are due solely to the achievements of contemporary humans than Cro Magnons who died out thousands of years prior.[2]
All caucasoids are descended from Cro-Magnons and caucasoids (middle eastern and europeans) are responsible for creating the first civilizations. This shows how laughably ignorant you are. Please go learn some basic anthropological facts before you put your imbecilic fucking fingers upon the keyboard presuming to spew more ignorant drivel such as this.
Con
#6
1.) Cro Magnons are “modern humans”
Let’s correct a few issues first of all:
“Gee, that's the thanks I get for correcting you when you claim that a genus and a species are the same thing”
This is a straw man - I never claimed a genus and a species were the same thing.
I claimed everything in the genus “Homo” is a human, and everything in the species “Homo Sapiens” is a modern human.
I do not know from where pros confusion arises about my terminology or argument, but I am not arguing that every human is the same, or that Homo Sapiens today are the same as Homo Sapiens of 10,000 or 40,000 years ago - I am arguing that both form the species “Homo Sapiens” - which are what is referred to as “modern human”
Sure, there are physical and genetic differences between someone from Kenya, and you, and Cro Magnons and me: but the resolution is not “A guy from Kenya is superior to a Cro Magnon” - it is “Cro Magnons are superior to modern humans”.
Cro Magnons ARE part of the species group that is defined as “modern humans.” Therefore they cannot be superior to themselves.
In the last two rounds:
- I provide sources that show Homo Sapiens are defined as not “Modern humans” and “Anatomically Modern Humans”[1]
- I provided sources defining Cro Magnons as Homo Sapiens, and defined them as “Modern Humans”[2]
The source is explicit: it calls Cro Magnon early European modern humans and states:
“The description as "modern" is used as contrasting with the "archaic" Neanderthals who lived within Europe from 400,000 to 37,000 years ago.”[2]
Let’s throw I another
“they're the earliest known European example of our species—living between 35,000 and 10,000 years ago—and are actually modern in every anatomical respect. [8]”
I have shown Cro Magnons are modern humans - pro simply drops these arguments to focus on the above Straw men.
2.) Superiority
“To answer your first question though, it is because Cro-Magnon genes got diluted because inferior breeds were more numerous.”
Pro is basically pointing out that Cro Magnons were not able to compete with contemporary humans, were subsumed by them, and were not able to successfully survive long term in less harsh environments, and were replaced by the more broadly globally successful contemporary humans.
Pros claim that contemporary humans objective success in colonizing almost every part of the planet - should not be considered superior, is fairly laughable.
“Success is not necessarily due to superiority”
Comparative Success over long lengths of time is normally down to broad superiority. While one football match may go either way - a league campaign of 38 games is likely down to broad superiority of one side.
Individuals and encounters may be fluke, or luck, but hundreds of thousands of individuals failing to be as successful as other groups over ten thousand years - is indicative that one group is superior.
“The Cro-Magnon was all of those things so I don't get your point”
I pointed out in the previous round that simply strength and robustness is not an indicator of overall superiority. Marathon runners are lean, power lifters are not agile, physical prowess normally involves trade offs between different types of prowess[3] - high bone density maybe good if you’re repeatedly being hit in the face by A Mammoth: not so great if you’re chasing down herds of deer over 20 miles, through water or have to swim[4]. So even pros claims of physical prowess are meaningless.
Pro claims that Cro Magnon were all of these things: no - that’s not possible because body shape and composition prohibit you from being good at all things at once. That’s why you don’t see many gangly Olympic weight lifters, or chubby Olympic marathon runners.
3.) Neanderthals are not Cro Magnons.
After claiming I confused Genus and species, pro mixes up Neanderthals and Cro Magnon.
Cro Magnons are Homo Sapiens - Neanderthals are Homo Neanderthals. Different species.[5]
Pros argument from toughness and immune system are based on comparing humans to Neanderthals- so is irrelevant to the resolution.
4.) Misattribution
Pro asserts that the humans that made the break through a he claimed were all descended from Cro Magnon.
This is a blatant unsupported assertion, and factually untrue:
“These mesolithic hunter-gatherer cultures are substantially replaced in the Neolithic Revolution by the arrival of Early European Farmers (EEF) lineages derived from mesolithic populations of West Asia (Anatolia and the Caucasus). In the European Bronze Age, there were again substantial population replacements in parts of Europe by the intrusion of Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) lineages from the Pontic–Caspian steppes. These Bronze Age population replacements are associated with the Beaker culture archaeologically and with the Indo-European expansion linguistically”[6]
Cro Magnons contributed to European genetics, but the population spread from the world was into Europe, not out of it. [6][7]In Asia and the Middle East where the majority of the discoveries that pro claims were due to Cro Magnons - there is little lineage shared with Cro Magnons.[7]
Pro is merely making this up as he does most of his remaining claims.
Summary:
1.) All Cro Magnons are Homo sapiens. All Homo Sapiens are classics as Modern humans. Therefore pro is asking us to compare Modern Humans to Modern Humans.
2.) Pro keeps presenting arbitrary and cherry picked criteria as if they are objective - when they clearly aren’t s
3.) Pro is making up a series of claims about Cro Magnon - which he confuses with Neanderthals.
4.) Pro mistakes Cro Magnons as the progenitors of humans from the Middle East and Asia - it’s the other way around.
5.) Pro is now just resorting to insults and name calling: consider this when awarding Conduct.
Sources
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_early_modern_humans
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 (con): This largely boils down the the limits stipulated in the description: Or lack thereof. Were the scales of brain size, strength, durability, "more nutritious," etc. specified before the debate, with the current arguments pro would easily win. But con introduced other scales, which give greater value to living modern humans.
CONDUCT (con): Pro called con an "incessant plebian crotch guzzler," and a "pathetic dick/ headed shit." Con refrained from doing likewise (yup, following the weird voting rule of stating when someone does not do something), and in general kept his cool. (FYI, the correct spelling is plebeian... but a small mistake like this does not cost S&G)
Going to break this down by key argument lines as highlighted by con (it captures the main points closely enough, even if these shifted as it went on)...
1.) Cro Magnons are modern humans (pro): The very title of the debate implies it is assuming they are treated as distinct. Con in arguing they are the same, states "Cro Magnon - in context merely defines a particular geographical and historical grouping of modern humans," which preludes pro's counter nicely. The back and forth, does not invalidate that a particular grouping of humans might be better, the Olympic village for example is a grouping full of physically amazing humans.
2.) Arbitrary Definition of Superior (con): I actually disagree with con on the initial cherry picking fallacy complaint, as there will always be some standard of measurement. However, pro could not show why success should be ruled out in measurements. So "Gold Medal wins, Nobel Prizes, scientific and technological achievements, contemporary humans win hands down." Giving made up awards post-mortem, while fine as a joke, would not be the same as top-tier members achieving amazing things. Even intelligence does not favor Cro-Magnons, due to agriculture (pro dropped this point to do an ad hominem attack, instead of actually challenging the information)
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: KingArthur // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for arguments
>RFD:
I think CON did a much better job at showing that Cro Magnons were not superior to modern day homo sapiens. Overall it was a decent debate on both sides.
PRO did not do enough to carry the assertion that Cro Magnons are indeed superior to humans. He struggled to overcome the burden of proof in this manner.
Wikipedia was rampant on both sides which I see as an issue for such a scientific topic however, PRO used some better legitimate sources (though not by much).
Conduct and grammar were a tie, nothing special there.
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote fails to adhear to the standards set forth in the code of conduct found here https://www.debateart.com/rules.
(1) In order to award the argument point, the voter must do the following: (a) Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate; (b) Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself); and (c) Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. The voter does neither of these things.
**********************************************************************
Elephants are clearly supplier, making the resolution irrelevant when we should be focused on them! /joke
That forces you to either go to the site or never know what's in there (wrong).
You paste the shortURL into another URL shortener, then go to the 'short to long' for that, usually this bypasses it.
the easiest way to trip-link thinking users is to make a shortened URL of a site that isn't known to be a virus or something (such as an IP-tracking site) you can't screen short-url's so easily without pasting it into a dedicated 'short to long' URL decoder that only serves the most popular shortURL providers.
No, it doesn't exist. The closest thing to it is when the domain is something like the kind of redirect that NathanAllen used on us.
That is where the YouTube is so similar to the text of his domain that if you skim-read it on the bottom-left you'd barely notice it as even the ending is kept the same. It then redirects you to the real YouTube video after instantaneously pinging the IP-catch site where he gets your system info and IP emailed to him.
I see, well that's pretty easy. I'm sure more advanced hackers have better versions of trick links that aren't so easy to detect.
To screen the URL, look at the things before the '.com'-type part of the link (you can tell because this level of '.' will never EVER be followed by a '.' but be followed by a '/' or by only text/numbers/these symbols: %_-().
okay, the blue text you see, on Chrome it's as simple as this on a computer:
wave your mouse over it, instantly look at the bottom left of your screen. Read the URL that shows; that is 100% the real URL that you are about to click.
If this ever changes or you are using a different browser or something without that chrome-ability like a computer has, it's like this:
right-click the hyperlink (or hold down if on a phone), click either:
1. Copy Link Address
2. Copy URL
OR
3. Copy Linked URL
etc
THEN
Paste the URL into anywhere that text shows (make sure you are pasting and not 'paste and search' or 'paste and go' type pasting into the URL bar. That is your real URL of the link.
Yes, by all means explain how to never fall for it.
Why are you certain?
Anyway, there is a way that it is possible. The URL he has as the text of the link is the same as the end-point of a redirect link that ends up there.
Again, this is the false-hyperlink scenario if that's the case. Do you want to know how to never fall for it? (I won't explain how to do it).
The gun may have not actually been his but I know that was how he got my IP. I don't know how he did it, but I'm certain it was from me clicking on that link. I am not a computer expert or a hacker but I am internet-wise.
Are you very certain that it was from that link or is there not the possibility that the link was to a Google Image of a gun (maybe his and maybe not, from the sounds of it not, he likely stayed totally anonymous so wouldn't reveal it) and that it was from a previous link or encounter of some cyber-kind that he had obtained your IP address?
The link took me directly to a picture he took of his gun then he said " I'll see you in a few hours" and posted coordinates and my IP address. I searched the coordinates in google maps and it lead me to a nearby service provider but at first glance I genuinely thought he had my exact location. The link itself was a regular google image link.
You probably shouldn't type the part where you wrote 'hoping I could either...' etc.
Anyway, there is no such thing as a regular link. What possibly happened was you saw a URL that wasn't the URL of the hyperlink (the blue text was a regular 'link' but not the website that is hyperlinked to go to when it's clicked. I could even do that on this website, would you like me to explain how never ever to fall for that again or was the issue that the link WAS what you thought it was (same URL) and simply did something you thought it wouldn't?
Someone got my IP once just from a regular link using google chrome. Luckily the guy was too stupid to find my actual address and thought the service provider was my actual location. He literally wanted to kill me and I willingly walked into the trap hoping I could either end up killing him instead or that he would get caught and arrested.
He gets the link by viewing on an Android Phone's Google Chrome the image on Google Images and clicking 'share' and 'copy to clipboard'. Google vets all the links, it cannot be a virus or doxxing, I am a computer expert trust me I know when a link can be dangerous.
https://images.app.goo.gl/C3DLtCxvtzwQ8mJ96
Yes I'm sure you would like me to go there but that's not going to happen.
https://images.app.goo.gl/4re5roYKZ6EZ4ig57
The only thing around here that would be sad enough to make me play such a tiny violin is your level of retardation.
See my avatar.
1.) All Cro Magnons are Homo sapiens. All Homo Sapiens are classics as Modern humans. Therefore pro is asking us to compare Modern Humans to Modern Humans.
When I said modern humans I meant fully modern humans as in the literal humans walking around on earth right now, you are retarded if you can't understand the difference between cro-magnons and modern humans as in humans living in the modern age.
2.) Pro keeps presenting arbitrary and cherry picked criteria as if they are objective - when they clearly aren’t s
That is precisely what you are doing
3.) Pro is making up a series of claims about Cro Magnon - which he confuses with Neanderthals.
You are literally lying. Either that or you are once again retarded. I never at all said Cro-Magnons were neanderthals, I said they had neanderthal DNA and are crossbreeds between humans and neanderthals you insanely disingenuous piece of shit.
4.) Pro mistakes Cro Magnons as the progenitors of humans from the Middle East and Asia - it’s the other way around.
You are focusing on European migration either because you are intellectually dishonest, a stupid cunt or both. Cro-Magnons migrated to asia from the near east, not from Europe.
5.) Pro is now just resorting to insults and name calling: consider this when awarding Conduct.
Fuck you, I hate you because you are a retarded lying cunt and your misinformation should be a greater blow to your conduct than my rudeness is to mine if the voters have any sense. You are an ass licking fuckwit and I hope your step-father molested you.
Will you accept the challenge debate or nah?