The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
DebatyDebateMaster
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Animals are sentient, can feel pain, and suffer.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Stupidape
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/3/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 221 times Debate No: 94422
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

DebatyDebateMaster

Con

Pain, sentience, and suffering are concepts created solely by human perception. By definition, they cannot apply to animals.
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

"Pain, sentience, and suffering are concepts created solely by human perception. By definition, they cannot apply to animals." DebatyDebateMaster


Thanks for accepting. A good bluff, but I'll call you on it. This would have worked before the invention of the scientific method. The scientific method is designed to create objectivity.

"The scientific method is a set of techniques used by the scientific community to investigate natural phenomena by providing an objective framework in which to make scientific inquiry and analyze the data to reach a conclusion about that inquiry." [5]

We can literally scan an animal's brain and see the neural signals transmit. [6] Therefore, due to the scientific method and 21st century technology the claim that humans can only see via our perception is severely weakened. We might not be able to eliminate all human bias, but we can diminish bias to tolerable levels. Thanks for the debate.



5. http://physics.about.com...
6. http://www.wired.com...
DebatyDebateMaster

Con

The title of the debate is "Animals ARE sentient, can feel pain, and suffer."

Meaning, there can never be a 100% chance to know for sure whether animals ARE sentient, and can feel pain and suffering. i win
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

"The title of the debate is "Animals ARE sentient, can feel pain, and suffer."

Meaning, there can never be a 100% chance to know for sure whether animals ARE sentient, and can feel pain and suffering. i win" DebatyDebateMaster


If I have the burden to prove that there is a 100% chance, then yes, you have won. Let me ask you this though, are you 100% sure you exist? Are you 100% sure the keyboard you are typing on exists? Are you 100% sure the Earth is round, the Earth revolves around the sun? We cannot be 100% sure of anything. This is the plain and simple truth. There will always be 1% chance or so that reality does not exist.

Therefore, I call shenanigans on my opponent's part by trying to force me into 100% burden of proof, since that is impossible. Beyond a reasonable doubt we can safely state that animals are sentient, feel pain, and can suffer.
DebatyDebateMaster

Con

Hey, I didnt create the debte
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by whiteflame 3 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: WKOJ// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: I think the arguments con made were not strong enough to show his side correct. There was an insufficient number of arguments by con which could not have gone against the number of points that pro made.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both sides. Generalizing about what the voter thinks Con didn't manage without any explanation of the burden of proof or any comparison to Pro's arguments is not sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by Hayd 4 months ago
Hayd
RFD is below
Posted by Hayd 4 months ago
Hayd
Pro starts in R1 by citing a bunch of sources that agree with him. This isn't an argument, thus it doesn't impact my decision. Arguments must be made by the debater, not having other sources argue for you. Con argues that sentience is a concept created by human perception, thus by definition is doesn't apply to animals. Con does not explain *why* sentience is a concept created solely by human perception though, thus its only a bare assertion. Pro then argues that animals have neural signals that transmit pain, and can be proven via brain scans, thus animals feel pain. Con then argues that this evidence merely *suggests* it rather than proves it for sure, thus Pro doesn't fulfill his BoP. But Con again fails substantiate his claim. He does not provide any argument for *why* we can never know anything for sure. But regardless, this argument goes too much into semantics to be a *good* argument. Con doesn't provide any evidence that animals don't feel pain, and thus Pro's evidence of brain scans affirms the resolution more than Con does, and therefore Pro wins the debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hayd 4 months ago
Hayd
StupidapeDebatyDebateMasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments