The Instigator
Seamalicous
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
vardas0antras
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points

Humans are superior to Animals

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 3 votes the winner is...
Seamalicous
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/25/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,032 times Debate No: 13776
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (3)

 

Seamalicous

Con

I noticed your comment about this on another debate and thought I would challenge you to this.

I will outline my arguments when my opponent has responded, I thank him in advance for what I hope will be a stimulating debate.
vardas0antras

Pro

I suppose I should also wait for round 2 to present my arguments. Readers please note that this is my decision.
Debate Round No. 1
Seamalicous

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting the debate. Before I begin I would like to point out that as he is the affirmative and the topic is his invention, he bears the burden of proof.

My argument is simple. Humans are not superior to animals for a few very simple reasons. But before I go into that allow me to define the terms of the debate.

Animal- a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.1

Superior- Of higher standard or quality2

Humans are organisms, we are incredibly complex arrangements of cells that have evolved and built up over time to form the one 'being' that we are today. We feed on organic matter, with other animals and various plant varieties forming our diet. We also have specialized organs that allow us to see, hear, touch and a brain that has evolved with the ability to rapidly respond to stimuli through chemical change. Therefore it should be clear to anyone that Humans are animals. They fit the entirety of the definition of what makes an animal, it is only in the last few millennia ( a negligible period of time in the history of the earth) that humans have made themselves distinguishable from the living patterns of other animals. However, we are not as distinguished as we might first appear.

We still make shelters, very good ones, but the ability to create sturdy shelter doesn't place us above even the bower bird in survival skills, they design their nests to attract mates, arranging things in a very beautiful way3.

The development of farming has long been considered one of humanities greatest inventions and the reason for humans abandoning hunter gathering and moving to a more 'civilized'(for lack of a better word) society. However there is a species of ant in Southern and Central America that composts a fungus, which is there only food source4. The ants have been at this for about 50 million years, whereas humans only invented farming about 10,000 years ago. This means that the ants have laid down their basis for their society a great deal of time before humans, does this make the ants superior?

The fact is that it is a fallacy in the human mind to consider us separate from the natural world. No matter how much we build up the walls around us, we are still just engaging in a more complex form, (that is by no means
better) of what the bower bird does. However much we irrigate and computerize our farming systems we are still working off the same principals developed by ants 50 Million years before we even thought of containing the food we eat.

When we truly look at the facts of the matter it is clear that humans are just an animal like any other, therefore the debate topic (which opponent came up with(he posted it on another debate) actually reads 'An Animal is superior to Animals'. Clearly this makes no sense, how can something be superior to itself? I would ask the reader to note that the topic makes no mention of 'other Animals'. The Pro never considered that humans were animals in proposing and accepting this debate.

I will leave my argument there now, I look forward to his response.

1-Oxford Dictionary
2-Oxford Dictionary
3- it's the video in the top right.
4-http://www.the-scientist.com...
vardas0antras

Pro

1.Humans are separate:
While you could argue that humans simply have more advanced brains than other animals, the difference between our brain and even the smartest animals is so colossal that while your view can be accepted, it is more plausible that humans are in a whole different category.

2.Christianity:
"Let us make man in our image, in our likeness and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock and over all the earth"Genesis 1:21

3.Evolution:
Yes this view says that we are animals but if you want me to accept evolution, I will but at the same time I ask you to accept Christianity. Yes evolution and Christianity can co-exist. I don't want this to be a religious debate hence I suggest we focus on number 1.
Debate Round No. 2
Seamalicous

Con

My opponent did not contest my definitions, therefore they are accepted and flow through the debate. I would contend that this makes his first argument non-nonsensical, and even further serves to accentuate my point that humans are animals as it is made of organic matter. The size of the brain doesn't matter and is not part of any definition of an animal. Fish are animals, yet they are very different to cheetahs or hippos (even a creationist can accept that). Does this mean that fish shouldn't be considered animals?

He is right that humans should be in a different category of animals, and indeed we are, Homo sapiens. But that is merely a category within the overarching term 'animal'.

His second point basically reads 'Man is king of the animals'. King Henry the 8th was King of the English... he was also an Englishman, the two things are not mutually exclusive. While I do not accept that man is 'king of the animals' I argue that even if we are we can still be an animal, and 'rule over the animals'.

His third point doesn't really have any relevance to the debate, I was merely pointing out similarities in the behavior of people and some animals, not making a case for evolution. I am an atheist and believe quite strongly in evolution but it is not necessary for me to convince you of this in order to win the debate, humans share characteristics with other Animals because we're all animals, made out of the same organic matter, pieced together in different ways.

I look forward to my opponents response
vardas0antras

Pro

My opponent has a ridiculous notion that the difference between "cheetahs or hippos" is comparable to the difference of humans and animals. He is wrong:
http://www.realtruth.org...
We also happen to have a larger and more developed cerebrum:
http://www.wisegeek.com...
http://webspace.ship.edu...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Other links:
http://www.plosbiology.org...
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk...

My opponent may argue that ultimately all that is different is the human brain. Though I could make a weak argument, the main question becomes plain: What do you expect? Perhaps we should have a striped skin like zebras or long necks like giraffes, would that make us different? Unless we go to the very extremes (which would dubiously cause extinction) the humans will only be different intellectually. Furthermore you picked extremely different examples of animals (hippo and cheetah) yet the intellectual difference between them is completely null when compared to the uniqueness of the human brain.

What do I have to do to make my point completely clear?Write a poem?No?Ill do it anyway:

Like bright sunlight
Our brain shines
with knowledge
of good and evil
truth and farce

Yes we're noble
Though sometimes
Madly drunk or
plainly ignorant

So I conclude
Lets not drink vodka
Nor miss classes
Because we are smart
In fact you're reading this
Stop it now
You're vexing illiterate bears
.................
Angry bears

"even a creationist can accept that"
Q.Is this relevant if not then why did you make this remark?
Q.What were you trying to convey with this?
Q.Is this prejudice and what response did you expect?

When I said "different category" I wasn't referring to "Homo sapiens" however I admit that this misunderstanding is my fault. Sorry about this but it was frankly (at best) a trivial mistake. I was simply trying to say that when one considers my points, it becomes obvious that humans are superior. It simply is the more plausible conclusion.

My second point was that when one considers religion of Christianity, it becomes obvious that man is not an animal. I am not using this argument unless you react in such a way that I am free to use religion without proving religion (I briefly explain this in my previous round). Instead of providing a lengthy rebuttal to your rebuttal, Ill simply ask a question: Have Christians ever debated if humans have souls or not?

The third argument was also made to be "just in case". I can use this for various situations for example if you say that evolution proved that we're animals and etcetera. Also this was made to go hand in hand with my second argument. I don't see how I can use these points in this debate so "salut" (quotes for the sake of not making spelling errors).

Hence my stance still is:

"The difference between our brain and even the smartest animals is so colossal that while your view can be accepted, it is more plausible that humans are in a whole different category."(Note: The category error is already explained).

Thank you for reading
and
feel free to comment
(Especially on my poetic skills...Or lack of :D)
Debate Round No. 3
Seamalicous

Con

Seamalicous forfeited this round.
vardas0antras

Pro

Who did you agree before and after:
This is irrelevant to who won but it would be interesting to see if anyone changed his/her mind. So vote!

Who had better conduct:
A tie since this was a friendly debate and neither of us got angry or frustrated with our opponent. As for this comment
"even a creationist can accept that" I think it was a light hearted joke though at first I found it offensive.

Who had better spelling and grammar:
A tie. After skimming few times I couldn't find any mistakes.

Who made more convincing arguments:
Pro. My opponent has forfeited the 4th round hence my arguments are untouched.

Sources:
I wouldn't mind if this were a tie but I did do a good job in Round 3.

Anyhow this is just my opinion, feel free to vote for who you want especially if its me :D.
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Seamalicous 5 years ago
Seamalicous
I could've posted one link to a pictorial comparison of Chimp and Human skulls and all your arguments would've been deemed invalid, the only reason you HAVE seven points is because I didn't have time to post..
Posted by vardas0antras 5 years ago
vardas0antras
*facepalm* If ignoring arguments (valid or otherwise) and forfeiting the last round is what makes winners then congrats Rocky Balboa!
Posted by Seamalicous 5 years ago
Seamalicous
But you didn't win the debate. I presented conclusive proof from an actual source that humans are animals, you used crap sources, you're delusional.
Posted by vardas0antras 5 years ago
vardas0antras
I'm still worried about votebombing, this is like debating gay marriage: even if you win chances are that you'll lose the votes.
Posted by Seamalicous 5 years ago
Seamalicous
@vardas0antras

I'd be happy to have it again if you think you can win...
Posted by vardas0antras 5 years ago
vardas0antras
Wow, I sucked, though I still believe that I won this debate.
Posted by blackhawk1331 6 years ago
blackhawk1331
@varda0antras
If you had half a brain cell, you would know that your statement is not true. I said that my position in this debate depends on the situation. I didn't vote based on my stance. If I did, you wouldn't have gotten any of my votes. Faulty logic isn't an argument, it's a lack of competence. Based solely on the core of the arguments, you made the worst one and you lost the vote. You stated that humans aren't animals, but it is known fact that we are in fact animals.

BTW I'm not narrow minded, if you can provide a significant reason as to why my vote for arguments should go to you, then I will change it.

I'd also like to point out that I'm not the sole reason you are losing. If my vote was gone, you'd STILL be losing 8 to 5. Even if I change my vote, you're still only tied. So sorry, but it's not my fault you're losing. It's your horrible argument, and everyone else who voted.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
@blackhawk1331
Just say it frankly: You are not comparing my an my opponents arguments! I could have provided the argument of the ages and you still would have voted against me. Its not my arguments it my position.

"vandas0antras, I'm sorry but I don't care about his logic where it may be faulty, he didn't try to argue a fact. Faulty logic is nothing compared to clearly stating something that contradicts fact."

Just try and tell me that thats not what is happening here, cool. I lose a debate because I argue against the consensus. Its nice to know that my debate depends on votes like these. Whatever you're probably too narrow minded for me to be able to change your mind.
Posted by blackhawk1331 6 years ago
blackhawk1331
vandas0antras, I'm sorry but I don't care about his logic where it may be faulty, he didn't try to argue a fact. Faulty logic is nothing compared to clearly stating something that contradicts fact.
Posted by losedotexe 6 years ago
losedotexe
conduct : PRO ; Forfeiting is bad.
S&G : Tied
Arguments : Con. Pro's links were non-existent, where as CON's links were clear and understandable.
Sources : CON. PRO Provided links, but didn't show where they impacted his arguments... :/
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by losedotexe 6 years ago
losedotexe
Seamalicousvardas0antrasTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Vote Placed by blackhawk1331 6 years ago
blackhawk1331
Seamalicousvardas0antrasTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:52 
Vote Placed by ethopia619 6 years ago
ethopia619
Seamalicousvardas0antrasTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:34