"Maybe you should look at your opponents sources that you don’t think exist"
Cool but you can't just link some random sources without explaining it in your argument and expect us to understand what the heck you are talking about.
Also most of your arguments are merely opinions and you literally have no sources for those either.
Wish I could just link 50 sources at the bottom and call it a day lmao
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.
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).
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.
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)
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.
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
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.
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.
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)
we're already done with the debate, plus, you can't pick up arguments you already dropped.
I don't even think voters are allowed to consider what has been written in the comments unless it has been explicitly mentioned in the debate "X has happened" by both ppl on a consensus.
You should... prob stop. I don't influence how ppl vote. If you want to improve your arguments, I'll link a couple guides by one of the mods.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wgEoU2M4k7PvJZzvbwrjw8nOomkYqnBpDaLR4igvMe0/edit#heading=h.4gchlr7uwv2c
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dPsCqhJTfkhFxQKblrsbKxjunKfnQUlUG59B5h1XWuI/edit#heading=h.4gchlr7uwv2c
By the way-- if I have proved you committed fallacies in the debate, you can't just come being a discord mod in the comments.
This isn't an elementary school playground where you can throw mulch over and over again.
"You don't think swearing is an example of vulgarity?"
no ive never just heard that comment directed against Barney
"The conduct point was given to Pro because Con included vulgarity and a highly emotional approach."
first time ive ever heard you having vulgar language lol
damn since when did yall start having rocks for brains?
vote if you want?
nobody should be forced to use ai lol
Your entire Round 1 is basically opinions without foundation.
"Maybe you should look at your opponents sources that you don’t think exist"
Cool but you can't just link some random sources without explaining it in your argument and expect us to understand what the heck you are talking about.
Also most of your arguments are merely opinions and you literally have no sources for those either.
Wish I could just link 50 sources at the bottom and call it a day lmao
you cant even vote xd
He does bring up a valid point though.
hold up what now?
We can change definitions?
hold on ima get some popcorn and watch this unfold.
thx
"I see that you changed the definition so you dont have to defend Christians."
https://c.tenor.com/TDC-kzU-F2UAAAAC/trump-donald.gif
Okay, multi-accounter.
Yes is the thing in math where you say my proof is done
I thought I made formatting it like that to show reasoning per round to make all decisions clear 😭
Was scrolling through your debates, referring this?
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2212-orogami-is-the-best-active-debater-on-debateart
There's your answer. might as well stop arguing for nothing in the comments.
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.
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?
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).
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
quick question---apologies for the ping.
Are debates allowed to continue within the comments itself and if so is that included in voting?
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)
we're already done with the debate, plus, you can't pick up arguments you already dropped.
I don't even think voters are allowed to consider what has been written in the comments unless it has been explicitly mentioned in the debate "X has happened" by both ppl on a consensus.
You should... prob stop. I don't influence how ppl vote. If you want to improve your arguments, I'll link a couple guides by one of the mods.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wgEoU2M4k7PvJZzvbwrjw8nOomkYqnBpDaLR4igvMe0/edit#heading=h.4gchlr7uwv2c
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dPsCqhJTfkhFxQKblrsbKxjunKfnQUlUG59B5h1XWuI/edit#heading=h.4gchlr7uwv2c
By the way-- if I have proved you committed fallacies in the debate, you can't just come being a discord mod in the comments.
This isn't an elementary school playground where you can throw mulch over and over again.
idt ur allowed to extend arguments in the comments --- we're already done with the debate
Also --- I'm like 99% sure that kind of bias doesn't exist too much here on debateart as in IRL
The question is--- would they see it? Just as much as any other debate unless I ping them specifically and they get a notification.
... and I know them on the site? I can't (comfortably) ping a random guy and ask them to vote.
hello i request your vote if you may?
Are you trying to argue truism bruh
stop being stupid
i wanna winfarm bro :(
Intelligence definitely knows when to play his cards. He's boutta accuse you of moving the goalpost lmao