The Instigator
JeffCline
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
voxcaussae
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

Are Humans another animal?

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 3 votes the winner is...
voxcaussae
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/1/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 500 times Debate No: 74641
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

JeffCline

Con

I would like to debate anyone who states that we are just another animal. You see animals are very interesting most animals tend to go after the young why because there not wise, they also go after the old because they are slow, and they go after disabled because they can't move very far or at a fast pace but we as humans if we hurt someone on average we feel guilty for it as a animal does not feel no guilt at all. So how could it be that we are just another animal.
voxcaussae

Pro

This is my acceptance round. I would first like con to define the term animal and explain why it doesn't apply to homo sapiens sapiens. I will be arguing that humans are indeed an animal, even though many of us are ashamed to deny it.
Debate Round No. 1
JeffCline

Con

I am defining animal has a organism with no law or a moral law. A animal simply does not know from right to wrong but as for humans we know from right to wrong. So since we know from right to wrong and animals do not know right from wrong then we can not be put into the animal category.
voxcaussae

Pro

Well I suppose you could define animal like that. Homo Sapiens Sapiens(Humans) are still classified in the kingdom Animalia, but I'll use your definition to support my argument as well. First off, there is no universally defined right and wrong. I understand that many would probably say that the Bible gives us social and moral rules, but the Bible hasn't been translated into Ostrich-Tongue. So how are we supposed to know if animals know right from wrong? Maybe we are the ones being morally inept, as millions around the world are fighting right now. How is that any different from your example about animals attacking their young? How is the Holocaust morally justifiable? It is and it isn't, because there are no universally adopted set of morales.
Debate Round No. 2
JeffCline

Con

You have used great examples but there is one problem though, We as humans know it is wrong to kill, Yes we do have millions fighting everyday but we still feel guilty for that, as for animals though do not show any sense of guilt when they kill. We as humans sense the guilt because we know right from wrong but animals can not sense that killing is wrong. There for animals are animals and humans are humans. So there for you would have to say we are not another animal because we can sense guilt when we do something wrong which then would also help define right from wrong also.
voxcaussae

Pro

Do we? Many people have no regard for human life. You still didn't completely address my question about what is right and wrong? Why should animals feel guilt if they haven't done something wrong? Killing isn't morally wrong, yet humans deem it so.
Many of Jane Goodall's studies have shown that apes and other primates feel extremely complex emotions like guilt and remorse. This undermines many of your previous claims that only humans know right and wrong. Regardless of morales, Homo Sapiens Sapiens are animals, in the kingdom Animalia, and there is no evidence to suggest that we are of some different kingdom entirely. Evolution and natural selection has served us well, but we must not forget that we once were and still are animals. Thank you for the wonderful debate.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Finalfan 2 years ago
Finalfan
Many different animal species protect the young. Sometimes they even protect the young of other species. Morality is a design created by the mind, not nature! Morality is simply a fancy word for empathy and compassion.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
JeffClinevoxcaussaeTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Darn good debate! Nice work vox on the Jane Goodall studies (would have preferred a citation, however). Nice job on the critique of a transendental universal morality. I think you effectively communicated the points that humans are not "above" other animals, as often they are inclined to believe of themselves. Some further advice for next time--because of humans, 50% of biodiversity is lost. Additionally, humans mercilessly torture and slaughter 10+ billion innocent, feeling animals in factory farms in the US alone in one year alone--far more than the entire population of the humans species on earth--each year. That suffering suggests that humans are MORE inclined to mercilessly kill for their own minor convenience compared to other animals. Anyway, nice work!
Vote Placed by gabep 2 years ago
gabep
JeffClinevoxcaussaeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro just had better points.
Vote Placed by kman100 2 years ago
kman100
JeffClinevoxcaussaeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro successfully argued that regardless of the negative stigma associated with the word "animal", humans are taxonomically animals. This didn't actually fit Con's definition, but con never pointed that out