Debate Rounds (3)
Ok here is how it works, there will not necessarily be a 'pro' or 'con', it will just be two different sides of the argument.
At the end of round 1 Pro (Me) will pose a question about an alternate reality to Con (whoever accepts). In his/her first round Con will answer the question and provide evidence to substantiate it. You take any stance you like, as long as it addresses the question.
2nd Round - Pro will rebut cons standpoint by 1. outlining why Cons answer would not be plausible and 2. providing my own response that goes against Cons.
Con now defends his original standpoint (and may make slight modifications) and disproves Pros.
3rd Round - Pro defends his standpoint. Con provides final rebuttals to defend his standpoint over cons.
Arguments will go to whoever provides the best answer and defends it most effectively.
All other points as per usual. Sources may be used as evidence. You can present your points from any angle that you can make seem relevant.
Last thing: I want this to be a fun, intelligent, well thought through debate so please respect that. Also if you have any suggested changes to the format we can discuss in the comments.
The Neanderthals never died out and have continued to live alongside Homo Sapiens until the present day (September 2012). Like Homo Sapiens, Neanderthals have evolved cultrally and physically since their days living in caves, although I'll leave it up to you to decide on specifics. Species distribution is around 60% HS, 40% Neanderthal.
Overall do both species co-exists in societies together, or do they live divided? Explain your answer.
Co-existing, I almost 100% sure.
I would like this to be a purely philosophical debate, not a scientific one, so let's please not constantly relate to sources as such. We needn't vigorously analyse the behavioural patterns of either form of primates nor provide evidence for every single claim, we only need to make basic assumptions based on the probable outcomes of the scenario.. That would just make this debate ridiculously boring when it could become an extremely entertaining and intellectually stimulating philosophy debate based on probability (probability being based on past observations of things such as formations of societies etc et era).
How I Claim Them To Have Evolved To Present Day
My proposed Legal System
Ok, I don't have much more....
Thank you to my opponent for accepting this debate. I also agree that this debate should be primarily theoretical, however when dealing with a topic like evolution I feel a little bit of science is necesasary to validate your claims.
It is my contention that the Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens now live together divided, with each occupying their own seperate territories.
The map found here (http://news.nationalgeographic.com...) shows that, before the time of their extinction, Neanderthals occupied much of Western and Eastern Europe, as well as spreading into Central Asia and the Middle East. Neanderthals also had bodies adapted to retain heat in cold conditions such as much more body hair than we have, shorter limbs to prevent heat loss and a large body core to generate more heat.
When the Ice Age ended, Neanderthals would have had to have adapted to survive, with changing weather patterns and food sources, like mamoths, vanishing. Evolution would not have allowed these people to adapt quickly enough so here is what I believe happened:
We fast forward to modern day times and the world is very different to what it is like now. Because of the large Neanderthal presence in Europe, which spread since the last ice age, much of Eastern Europe, Scandinavia and Russia is occupied primarily by Neanderthals. Western Asia, Australia and the rest of the Pacific remain Homo Sapien as well as Africa. Their position in Northern Africa also enabled Homo Sapiens to settle in Greece, Italy and Turkey before Neanderthals were able to migrate back to these areas.
The rest of the world is where is starts to get interesting. Neanderthals were not quite as stupid as we might think them to be and, given enough time, I'm sure that natural curiosity would lead them to start building boats. These boats then enable an adventurous tribe of Neanderthals to return to their lost home in the UK, although for now they are content to settle in the south of what we know as England.
Now, at some point a group of explorers from HS civilisations in the Mediteranean discovers the area and desides to settle there and found a new colony. This is the first documentation of HS and Neaderthals living in the same area together. Enevitably these two cultures met and merged, although cross-breeding was rare due to the fact that HS did not find Neanderthals overly attractive. Using HS innovation and Neanderthal hard work these people eventually discover and colonise North America. The forward thinking and enterprise shown by the mixed civilisation begins to encourage Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals all over the world to begin mixing together, especially in Central Asia and West Europe.
This is where things begin to go wrong. Modern day humans, by their nature, are greedy and selfish and when they discover the vast new land and resources that America has to offer, they wish to keep it all for themselves and their people and so they begin to plot a takeover. However the Neanderthals somehow get wind of this attack. Because they are a more physical people, more prone to action than mind games, they decide that the best course of action is a pre-emptive strike. This of course backfires tragically. Homo Sapien's turn the tables to make it seem like the Neanderthals attacked first.
When the rest of the world finds out about this, all hell breaks lose. HS leaders around the world had long been considering invation of Neandethal populated areas and this gave them a spark, especially those in the Mediteranean that wanted to expand north.
The wars that followed were interesting ones. In the Mediteranean, the well prepared Homo Sapiens won territory to the North, encountering little Neanderthal resistance. The Greeks eventually halted around the area we know as Bulgaria, while the Italians, after capturing Switzerland and Austria, drove Neandethals out of the area we know as southern Germany. Neanderthals court between these two armies in areas like Croatia fled North and joined Neandethals in Russia.
Northern Neanderthal populations largely escaped the anger of the Homo Sapiens and still ocupy these territories today as well as Scandinavia and North Western Europe. In central Asia, where mixed civilations were springing up, was one by the Neandethals as they were able to bring reinforcements down from the North. Back in the UK the HS were able to win a comprehensive vicotry and drove the Neaderthals away to Ireland. In America the Homosapiens were able to hold the eastern Peninsula where they had landed, but the Neanderthals claimed the west coast and much of Canada. South America was later settled by HS migrating from Europe although Small Neanderthal pockets can be found along the west coast.
The Insident in America, known as the Colonisation Attack and the conflict that it sparked are the reasons why Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens are not able to live together in society, however a somewhat healthy relationship exists on a political level between the groups and they regularly trade. There is also tourism between the groups however it is well controlled. Mimor conflicts have sprung up since, as well as intra-species conflict.
Some Points on my opponents theory:
His first point about how Neanderthals are basically slaves seems a bit far fetched. I believe tht the two species would be much more successful in working together rather than with a master slave relationship. A race of people would never 'happily allow' themselves to be subjected to slavery, they would be too proud and self respecting.
"They stay hunched over, they refuse to wear clothes other than to cover private parts and in warm climates and to shave"
This seems a little far fetched. What can a race possibly gain from remaining hunched over, when standing up straight allows for greater strength, reach and amkes them seem to more physically attractive to a mate them a person with a hunched back. Also, with the end of the ice age, Neanderthals would have gradually lost hair, especially those that remained in Europe. So they progression of the Nenaderthal to wear clothes makes complete sense. CLothes can also been seen as sign of status, something which is importatn in building societies.
"The Neanderthals should never ever mate with humans. Due to children most likely having some funny thing like Downs syndrome"
Actually, they it is suspected that they mated in this reality to produce a new subspecies, the Cro-Magnon. It should not be illegial, if people want to interbread then they should not be stopped, however physical diferences and pressure from society would make it rare.
The rest of his points are for a society in which both species are integrated and are not make a reasonable amount of sense. However I will point out that sending 'retarded humans' to 'Neanderthal school' would subject them to a huge amount of bullying and severly reduce their self-esteem and mental health.
I'm confused as to whether you are saying all Neanderthals are white people or that Asians (brown and yellow) and blacks are more human than whites...
Anyway, it's natural that the species of less IQ would fair better in the manual labour workforce than the white-collar jobs where brains is needed over brawn, and the brain of most Neanderthals was adapted for hunting and building. Also the issue is that if we allowed them to join our standard of jobs, obviously there would be some who were smart enough to be upgraded in school, they would merely evolve back into homosapiens... so really it would just be humans in the end.
The premise of my school system is that Neanderthals have brains that probably would require far higher stimulating teaching methods, with practical activities, physical objects and diagrams being far more useful than speech and text to communicate ideas to them, since this is where they dominate homosapiens naturally. This is also, funnily enough, how we try to teach retarded human beings. This is why I suggested the swapping around. Also, a human who was too undeveloped mentally to process school wouldn't even be able to process embarrassment or social issues to a high enough level to feel ashamed. If anything the Neanderthal in the human school, Neanderthals are what homosapiens probably consider 'ugly' would probably receive more discrimination.
Perhaps they would lose hair and wear clothes, but then they'd be evolving into homosapiens so really they wouldn't be Neanderthals anymore, this negates your rebuttal.
The reason for the cross-breeding ban is that clearly when there is an evolutionary gap in your DNA you don't want a degenerative middle species which clearly died out for a reason...
I agree that colder climate countries would suit the fat-rich Neanderthals. However, I believe they could eventually evolve to become skinnier hunched beings, thus being adapted for hotter climates.
I couldn't think of much more... I'm starting to realise how difficult it is to debate this topic:
There is essentially a paradox.
If they integrate, the Neanderthals will evolve into homosapiens and thus there will be none left to integrate (unless we don't allow them to cross breed and let them stay in less intellectually-able schools).
If they are divided and at war, the humans would thwart them with machinery in warfare. This leaves no Neanderthals left to be divided.
If they are divided and at peace, they are essentially co-existing in the same way countries such as Germany and France don't fight each other.
First of all, thank you to RationalMadman for an interesting debate.
I agree with what my opponent is saying about the Neanderthals we know of in our reality being more suited to physical jobs because of their stature. However to basically subject them to slavery, as my opponent was implying before, is still not a practical way of integrating the two species together as it would only cause resentment.
In several cases my opponent makes mention to how species evolve, but on this matter it he conveniently ignores it.
Two things are worth noting:
1. Within our own race there are those that are more suited to labouring jobs as opposed to more intellectual ones. It is my belief that, if Neanderthals survived, the same natural variation would be evident in their species.
2. There was also a time when the brain of the Homo Sapien 'was adapted for hunting and building.' However when a hunter gatherer lifestyle was no longer neccesary we lost the instincts that go along with it, adapting to a lifestyle alongside farming and living together in larger, fixed communities instead of constantly roaming the land in search of food. My point is, that if this happened to us, this would probably happen to Neanderthals if they lived to reach the point that we are at today.
Next my opponent continues to defend his education theory. However he himself states that: 'If anything the Neanderthal in the human school, Neanderthals are what homosapiens probably consider 'ugly' would probably receive more discrimination.'
Does this reply not further add to my own argument that sending kids of different species to another species school would only make the child feel bullied and out of place.
He also says "a human who was too undeveloped mentally to process school wouldn't even be able to process embarrassment or social issues to a high enough level to feel ashamed"How can you possibly say that a person who is pushed around and bullied, a person who no one wants to talk to or be friends with, would not be able to realise that people don't like them? Would they not be able to notice that the people around them are laughing with friends or talking about stuff that they learnt in class that day. Would this same person not start to feel inferior if they overheard some of the kids in their class talking about how easy the homework that took them an hour of intense concentration was? Everyone is capable of feeling emotions and everyone has feelings.
"Perhaps they would lose hair and wear clothes, but then they'd be evolving into homosapiens so really they wouldn't be Neanderthals anymore, this negates your rebuttal."
I can see where my opponent is coming from with this, but, from both a scientific and logical perspective it fails. If a Neanderthals evolve to be less hairy, and decide to start wearing clothes this does not make them Homo Sapiens, it just makes them more evolved Neanderthals. For example, if you take a lion and a tiger, two forms of the feline family and bread a lion that does not have a mane, it becomes like a tiger in one aspect, but it is still not a tiger.
I must also address the paradox presented by my opponent. Or do I? The theory that I presented in the previous round was built around the premise that, if Humans and Neanderthals tried to live together it wouldn't work. But in the end they establish a peaceful relationship. The final line of my opponents paradox reads, "If they are divided and at peace, they are essentially co-existing in the same way countries such as Germany and France don't fight each other."
If they exists in this way, then they are not interbreeding and creating a mix in the species (although again the evolutionary ideas are flawed) and they are not fighting each which would never lead to any extinction. Thus both species are able to live and can therefore be defined as being separate. If this is the only solution to the provided paradox it further proves that the only way both species could share the earth is if they live divided.
The final thing that needs clarifying is my opponents question "as to whether you are saying all Neanderthals are white people or that Asians (brown and yellow) and blacks are more human than whites..."
The population spread I use in my theory is based around the 'Out of Africa' migration routes, which can be seen illustrated here: (http://0.static.wix.com...)
The first areas humans ever appear is in Africa, hence the presence of Homo Sapiens there. Then they migrate east, into Asia, India and Australia. This is why I believed Homo Sapiens would have had a large presence there. The people that migrated into modern day Europe became the Neanderthal people, and after they died out, it was re colonised, although there was probably some overlap of the species, hence the existence of the Cro-Magnon.
These migration routes are why I divided the populations the way I did.
There is essentially a fundamental difference between the con's and pro's concept in this debate. It is this fundamental difference which leads to con to think the pro is illogical and the pro to think the same of the con.
I shall try to express this fundamental difference, which only became apparent to me in the round 3 debate from pro, in the simplest and clearest manner:
To the pro, if two different species have extremely similar requirements, they are inevitably bound to compete for survival, especially if one tries to use the others as what we would see as 'slaves'. Thus, it is only logical that the only way for species so similar in requirements but different in their physique, and perhaps brain structure, to not go extinct are if they stop competing and accept territorial divides.
To the con, if you have a less intelligent species which can easily interact with a more intelligent species, there is inevitably a mutually beneficial relationship that is bound to form. The less intelligent, which in this case happen to be stronger-built on average, would serve well as the implementers of the intelligent, and in this case physically inferior, species' plan (which will probably, 99% of the time, be better than any plan for a society that the less intelligent species could come up with). Therefore, the less intelligent, but stronger, species needn't use their brute strength against the weaker one, since the weaker one has intellectual benefits which, although relatively less intelligent, the less intelligent species is intelligent enough to comprehend (since Neanderthals were known to comprehend linguistic communication, although they preferred to use symbols and images for phrases, similar to eastern languages, rather than the modern-day letter-by-letter system of written communication). Therefore, especially because they have extremely similar requirements and needs, the Neanderthals and homosapiens would inevitably form a mutually beneficial relationship.
I shall now briefly re-iterate why the latter is far more likely to be the reality than the first. And shall negate your points raised against it.
As I said, we could have two separate schooling systems, one far more practical-based and the other basically identical to the current system (unless a superior one is created) for homosapiens. I shall negate your rebuttal to this stating that I actually was very aware that, just as some homosapiens are built for more physically-oriented jobs, there would also be Neanderthals capable of doing mathematics and science to a far more theoretically challenging degree than average homosapiens (I specified maths and science because linguistically, it's very unlikely that the more basic brain of Neanderthals would process multiple systems of reasoning, hence language than homosapiens, after all it is only a select few homosapiens who truly speak more than two languages fluently, usually only ever speaking a third language with mediocre fluency). This is why I stated that, depending on test scores, we would constantly leave opportunity for a homosapien to prove themselves to be less able to learn theoretically and thus instead of putting them through the shame of being sent to a 'special school for the less capable' we'd merely be sending them to an 'alternate learning system, tailored for the average Neanderthal' who are not necessarily less intelligent than homosapiens just intelligent in processing and memorising physical acts, rather than theoretical concepts. I doubt they'd get bullied because we'd barely send them alone, usually there'd be a batch of homosapiens, or Neanderthals, together in a school (almost like an Asian crew in an American stereotypical high school movie). They would barely ever be truly alone. Also, after school interactions wouldn't be prevented for mingling with their own kind. I see very little likelihood of either species not seeing how this is a more beneficial arrangement than being divided.
The reasoning behind the mating law was so the Neanderthals could keep themselves beautifully adapted to carry weights heavier than most humans could and thus be more adept for manual labour, this is actually better for both species than species less intelligent than homosapiens and weaker than Neanderthals to replace both (which potentially could happen if we didn't ban inter-breeding between the species, this is extremely different, and incomparable to, inter-racial mating because all races have the same DNA for mental function and muscle mass (usually, although blacks are known to have higher average muscle mass) so inter-racial breeding doesn't actually make our species more weak or less intelligent. I'm sure that no society would be better off with a Neanderthal-homosapien breed as opposed to a dynamic-duo system of thinking species and working species to make a society function well.
A lion differs to a tiger in far more ways than the Neanderthals differ to homosapiens. A lion is naturally sociable, they hunt in packs and care for young till late adolescence. A tiger is naturally solitary, larger and striped, hunts alone and the father usually ditches his children early on in their life, bringing back food for his girlfriend only (in fact only at the baby stage have tigers been seen to bother searching for young if they go missing). You could say that lions run families in a stricter, less hippy-like manner, than the tigers if that makes sense... However, the only differences between homosapiens and Neanderthals lie in the Neanderthals being... I don't' know if it's right to say 'uglier', because probably homosapiens' hairlessness is ugly to them, but basically the only real difference is in their physique and mind, and if the physique is no longer different it would be extremely hard to tell the difference and hence the inter-breeding law would cease to be feasible and thus both species would mate and create a homosapien-Neanderthals hybrid species. This is the issue.
Thanks for this debate, it was actually fun to think about.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Smithereens 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||2||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro won sources 3-0, everything else was pretty even.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.