The Instigator
emospongebob527
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
RationalMadman
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

All Humans Are Homo.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
emospongebob527
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/10/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,875 times Debate No: 26138
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (5)

 

emospongebob527

Pro

Today's debate is about whether or not all humans are homo.

1. Acceptance
2. Presentation of Main Argument
3 & 4. Rebuttals
5. Resolution/Closing Argument

Rules-
No semantics
No trolling
No profanity
No vulgarity

Violating any of the rules results in immediate termination of the debate.

Homo- any of a genus (Homo) of hominids that includes modern humans (H. sapiens) and several extinct related species (as H. erectus and H. habilis)

Humans- (Homo sapiens) primates of the family Hominidae, and the only living species of the genus Homo.
RationalMadman

Con

Your first rule is no semantics but if I use YOUR definitions ot highlight something then I think it's not semantics but merely useing your own words to explain your resolution.

Your reslution reads as follows 'All Humans Are Homo.'

It neither reads 'All Humans Are One Form of Homo.' nor does it read 'Some Homos are Human.'

I shall now highlight why the second two are correct and the first is incorrect: I am not breaking the semantics rule, I am using your own definitions to highlight why you are wrong.

Homo is any of a genus (Homo) of hominids that includes modern humans (H. sapiens) and several extinct related species (as H. erectus and H. habilis).

Humans are not any genus of hominids. They are one type of homonid, namely homospaien. To state that "all humans are homo." is to state that "all humans are any type of homonid"
Debate Round No. 1
emospongebob527

Pro

Any- one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind.

Homo- any of a genus (Homo) of hominids that includes modern humans (H. sapiens) and several extinct related species (as H. erectus and H. habilis)

Humans- (Homo sapiens) primates of the family Hominidae, and the only living species of the genus Homo.

Humans (Homo sapiens) are any of a genus hominids because they are one indiscriminately of whatever kind (the kind being the genus homo)

I'd like to thank my opponent for proving me right.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
RationalMadman

Con

Homo sapiens = Humans.
Any = One, or some, indiscriminately, of whatever kind.

Thus:

Homo = One, or some, of a genus hominidae and several extinct related species.

Thus, your new resolution is as follows:

All Homo sapiens are one, or some, of a genus Hominidae and several extinct related species.

The reason this is wrong is as follows according to your definitions:

1) Homo Sapiens are A Homo.

2) Thus, they are not Homo, clearly being used in the verbal sense.
Debate Round No. 2
emospongebob527

Pro

Homo = any genus of hominids = one or some of the hominid species = homo sapiens (or one of the hominid species)
Debate Round No. 3
emospongebob527

Pro

Extend my arguments like the process of evolution extended the mental capacity of homo sapiens.
RationalMadman

Con

Let me describe this visually because maybe literally is difficult to understand what I am saying (not that you are stupid at all, just it can be hard).

Take all humans and they are indeed a type of Hominid, they are homosapien. So let's draw a Venn diagram circle of 'hominid' and stick all humans in there.

But your definition of Homo was ANY OF A GENUS of hominids that includes humans and several extinct related species. Humans are not any of a genus of hominids, and they certainly do not include several extinct related species within their category.

So although all human fall into section of 'hominids' they cannot possibly be applied to your definition of Homo.

Thus it is undeniably conclusive that not all humans are homo.
Debate Round No. 4
emospongebob527

Pro

Homo is any of any of a genus (Homo) of hominids that includes modern humans (H. sapiens) and several extinct related species (as H. erectus and H. habilis)

Any- one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind.

Homo sapiens (humans)- primates of the family Hominidae, and the only living species of the genus Homo.

Given that homo sapiens are one of the species which is synonomous to any, which is quantitive to the definition of homo, we can conclude that all humans are homo.

Humans-
Scientific classificatione
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Synapsida
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens
Under scientific classification all humans are:

Animals
Chordates
Synapsids
Mammals
Primates
Hominids
Hominins

And................ Homo


RationalMadman

Con

Can't argue with an idiot after all.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by baggins 4 years ago
baggins
The resolution was stupid. It is a little sad that Con was not able to present a better attack.
Posted by baggins 4 years ago
baggins
What does this mean:
"any of a genus of hominids..."

IMO, the most obvious meaning is:
any (member) of a genus of hominids

So the resolution means...
All humans are members of genus hominids.

Clearly the semantic attack was incorrect.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 4 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
How can there be a no semantics rule? Pro, by providing definitions, violates a rule against semantics.

Indeed, Pro, by saying anything that means anything, violates it.

Does the first person to break a rule lose?
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
And as was certainly able to be anticipated, this has completely devolved into a debate on semantics, despite the clear "No Semantics" rule.

Zaradi predicted this.
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
What kind of a debate is this?

It's like me saying "Resolved: Pies are pastries" and defining "pastry" as "a sweet baked food made out of dough, such as a pie", and "pie" as "a baked dish of fruit; a form of pastry".
Posted by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
There I fixed it. :)
Posted by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
Yep lol.
Posted by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
Since you didn't define anything con gets the privilege. He can define it by what the title most obviously implies to the average person and if you contend you will be the one playing semantics.
Posted by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
I know I'm such a hypocrite ;) lol
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
No semantics, yet all this will be is one massive definition debate. -.-
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Rayze 4 years ago
Rayze
emospongebob527RationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Clear semantics attack by con. Pro stated definitions to avoid said semantics. In addition Con forfeits conduct by calling pro an idiot.
Vote Placed by baggins 4 years ago
baggins
emospongebob527RationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Clear semantic attack, which is violation of debate rules. Further the semantic attack is wrong (as I explain in comments). Further Con calls Pro idiot in R5 - losing the conduct.
Vote Placed by adontimasu 4 years ago
adontimasu
emospongebob527RationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm giving Pro conduct because, while it was made for an easy win, the debate clearly says no semantics (which means that Con broke this rule first) and then proceeded to call him stupid, and even missed a round by responding "K." instead of giving answers.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
emospongebob527RationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was abusive to the extremes. Conduct to Con because Pro broke the 'no semantics' rule first.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
emospongebob527RationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: I just want to give Con conduct because this was a stupid debate created for an easy win