The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Berend
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Animals are inferior to humans

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/31/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 966 times Debate No: 81841
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Stupidape

Pro

I Pro will for the topic
Con will argue against the topic

Humans are the best! Yet, sometimes I hear people state sentences like "animals are better than humans." Come on everyone body knows that humans are awesome.

Humans invented cat wigs and the pizza fork. That proves animals are inferior to humans.

http://www.smashinglists.com...
Berend

Con

Opening

C1
- A somewhat interesting debate, yet original. So I guess I can thank StupidApe for that. As it shows, I will be arguing humans are not superior to animals. To make my case, I will make a simple line of rhetoric. Humans are animals, therefor are not superior as they can not be better then what they are as that is self contradictory. As such, the line "animals are inferior to to humans" is a fallacious one as it does not denote the reality that humans are animals.

What is that question you wish to ask? "What is defined as an animal"? Well, glad you asked. I will explain to you what exactly an animal is by biological definitions. In truth, an animal is a multi-cellular organism that feeds on organic matter. That's the short version. [1]

With this, I will conclude that animals are not inferior to humans nor that humans are higher or better than animals because they themselves are in fact animals. One can not be higher than what they are in actuality, it's nonsensical.


Sources for Work:

1) The Biology Online websit - http://www.biology-online.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

Oh sure, turn to science and biology to prove your point. Does anyone even take the scienfic method seriously? Just for starters.

"Recently, however, even as metaphysics has come under attack for its apparent lack of access to real knowledge, so has science begun to have its own difficulties in claiming absolute knowledge. " pbs.org

" When Does the Scientific Method Fail?

Are there circumstances in which the scientific method ought to work, but for which the method does not provide "an accurate representation of the world"--that is, a correct description of the way things really are? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. As Professor Wolfs mentions above, "personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena."" icr.org

Its like the old expression "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" wikipedia.

http://www.pbs.org...
http://www.icr.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Berend

Con

I will now use this round to address and deconstruct Pro's points, as he directs his arguments towards me. I feel before making my point, I should also address his/her points. Each rebuttal will be two each point he tries to make, such as the argument from the creationist website. I feel it will make my case easier to follow.

R1 - The Scientific Method And Reliability Of It

Pro said: "Oh sure, turn to science and biology to prove your point. Does anyone even take the scienfic method seriously? Just for starters."

Why would I not? do you expect me to retort your notion at your standard or lower? To answer this quite bluntly, yes. Anyone who follows science does. Theories and laws have come about because of them. What is the method? "The steps of the scientific method go something like this:

1 - Make an observation or observations.
2 - Ask questions about the observations and gather information.
3 - Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what’s been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
4 - Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
5 - Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
6 - Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory. “Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method," Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, told Live Science. "The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility – no science.""[1]

"Some key underpinnings to the scientific method:

- The hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable, according to North Carolina State University. Falsifiable means that there must be a possible negative answer to the hypothesis.
- Research must involve deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is the process of using true premises to reach a logical true conclusion while inductive reasoning takes the opposite approach.
- An experiment should include a dependent variable (which does not change) and an independent variable (which does change).
- An experiment should include an experimental group and a control group. The control group is what the experimental group is compared against."[1]

So does anyone take this seriously? Of course. It's logically based. The real question should be directed to the very source Pro cited. Can a source that is dedicated to Creationism of the Christian religion to be taken seriously? It's quite literally the same as a Flat Earth website. Yes, they are trying to destroy credibility to the Scientific Method. Why would they not? They have been proven wrong, so if they prove the method wrong, they have room to argue that they are right and with legitimacy then before. It's an attempt at saving face because science has proven creationism by Genesis wrong. A Flat Earther would do the same, because the very thing 'proving' them wrong is science, so why not try to prove science wrong?

The author is John R. Baumgardner, a geophysicist, young earth creationist, intelligent design supporter and Christian. He has a bias by very definition and is the same as Kan Ham and Kent Hovind.

If you read the article, you will see where the person they interview states that the scientific method can fail by person bias, in what you believe and what you perceive. They twist this in supporting the sites bias, creationism. And they do so by calling out a scientific mistake being the origins. Of course. No one should be surprised. The site itself is fallacious all in of itself. It even goes after other theories in science which have since been essentially proven as much as a theory can get in science through mountains of evidence.


R2 - Simple Responses

"Recently, however, even as metaphysics has come under attack for its apparent lack of access to real knowledge, so has science begun to have its own difficulties in claiming absolute knowledge. " pbs.org

The issue here is science doesn't claim, nor ever has, absolute knowledge. Science doesn't prove anything, and someone who is knee deep in science would know such a thing. This quote is taken out of context of what is real.

Pro Says - "When Does the Scientific Method Fail?"

"Are there circumstances in which the scientific method ought to work, but for which the method does not provide "an accurate representation of the world"--that is, a correct description of the way things really are? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. As Professor Wolfs mentions above, "personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena."" icr.org"

And that response from Wolf speaks of exactly what the ICR are doing. But they write it so you don't see that. What Wolf say's doesn't support them, it supports that it fails under basic bias. And as such, you are, my opponent, doing just that by going after the scientific method by making a weak attempt at disproving it or showing its 'flaws' because I used science. So if you do that, it would somehow disprove anything I said. Sadly for you, it doesn't nor would. Humans are animals. Evolution even shows this.[2][3]




"Its like the old expression "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" wikipedia."

No it's not. You are not even using that phrase right. That phrase is based on reality. It's similar to "How do you know I can't fly when you turn away?" or "How do you know we are not all in a matrix?" It has nothing to do with any point you have made, just as ICR sites fails at making a point to agree with them when it argues against their very view of the world and how their bias allows the Scientific Method to fail. It fails because of you and your bias or your inability to truly differ what you want or think with reality. We can scientifically know that a tree makes noise by just basic physics and math. Do you honestly doubt a tree makes noise when you are not there? How does noise travel? In a medium, like air and water. How is noise created? Sound is the rapid varying pressure wave traveling through a medium.[4]

So, does a tree make a sound when in the woods and it falls down? Yes, obviously so. If you are skeptical of that, you should just be skeptical because nothing in reality can absolutely be 'proven', just as you can not prove everything is fake and this is a est and I am God testing you. You can't know nor ever will unless I personally deem it so for you to "know". Assuming you accept me telling you so.

The scientific method is the most logical way we can test things. Is it absolute? No. No one is claiming the method is perfect. We don't follow science because of the method being infallible. We follow what has gone through the method and critically analyzed and where the incidence points.

Is there a sun? Yes. What is some basic evidence? You can see it. We can send a prob to it. You name it. The evidence points to it being there, and as such, we do the same with science. Except we know when to admit when we are wrong. And if we are, we adapts by correcting our selves. We don;'t know everything nor claim too.

I would like to make my final remarks that Pro has not, in his last post at least, made any argument for the topic and actually derailed from defending himself.


Cited Work:

1) http://www.livescience.com...
2) http://io9.com...
3) http://cdn.phys.org...
4) https://www.caa.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

"I will now use this round to address and deconstruct Pro's points, as he directs his arguments towards me." Con

I'm directed my arguments at your argument. Noting that you relied heavily if not entirely on science. I don't know about everyone else, but I'm sick of everything being explained in terms of science. Its not the end all be all. There is so much science has not explained. In fact, I'm pretty sure its scientifically proven that the sum of all human ignorance is greater than the sum of all human knowledge.

How far have we delved into the Earth? How close have we gotten to the center? Have we really explored the bottom of the ocean? We haven't even managed to colonize the moon nor mars. We cannot know the future, so therefore one possible future would be one where we never colonize another planet. That we are stuck on Earth.

Next Con goes into attacking the webpage I linked to. I've noticed this on other places on the internet. Although you are exceeding in destroying the credibility of the webpage, I don't see much attack on my argument itself.

Furthermore, for a long time we did not recognize the animal kingdom. Some of our terminology still has some catching up to do. Yet, we may scientifically find in the future that humans do not belong to the animal kingdom. Humans are the only species with space flight. Even as I type this its possible aliens see us a completely different kingdom than animals. Maybe a new tool would illuminate the difference.

I refute that humans are animals. Thus the notion that we can't be superior to ourselves based on animals not being able to superior to their-selves. Humans are superior to animals because we invented cat wigs.
Berend

Con

Berend forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Berend 1 year ago
Berend
My source seems to no longer, for some strange reason. So here's another source for citation 4.

4) http://science.howstuffworks.com...
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
I agree animals are inferior. That does not mean they are to be Demeaned, Nor are they "in-superior"

insuperior and inferior are two different things. Insuperior is degrading, indicating a lacking.
inferior is in itself an adjective which indicates a factual incapacity.
No votes have been placed for this debate.