The Instigator
Death23
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zaradi
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Sea lions are seals

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...
Zaradi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 674 times Debate No: 84201
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (3)

 

Death23

Pro

The topic should be self explanatory.

Rules:

First round: Acceptance only.

Final round: Rebuttals only. No new arguments.

Pro and Con shall not plagiarize, but may reuse their own work.

You flake, you lose.

You troll, you lose.
Zaradi

Con

Accepted.
Debate Round No. 1
Death23

Pro

Argument -

P1 - Any organism of the taxonomic family Phocidae or Otariidae is a seal.

P2 - All sea lions are organisms of the taxonomic family Otariidae.
C1 - Therefore, all sea lions are seals.

This argument is valid. If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.

* "P" is an abbreviation for "premise" and "C" is an abbreviation for "conclusion".

Support for P1 -

Support for P1 comes in the form of encyclopedic and dictionary entries for the word "seal". These references are reputable, sufficiently numerous, and are inclusive of the taxonomic families mentioned in P1. The family names have been emphasized.
  • Encyclopedia Britannica [1]
    • any of 32 species of web-footed aquatic mammals that live chiefly in cold seas and whose body shape, round at the middle and tapered at the ends, is adapted to swift and graceful swimming. There are two types of seals: the earless, or true, seals (family Phocidae); and the eared seals (family Otariidae), which comprise the sea lions and fur seals.
  • Oxford Dictionary [2]
    • A fish-eating aquatic mammal with a streamlined body and feet developed as flippers, returning to land to breed or rest. Families Phocidae (the true seals) and Otariidae (the eared seals, including the fur seals and sea lions). The latter have external ear flaps and are able to sit upright, and the males are much larger than the females
  • American Heritage Dictionary [3]
    • Any of various aquatic carnivorous mammals of the families Phocidae and Otariidae, found chiefly in cold regions and having a sleek torpedo-shaped body and limbs that are modified into paddlelike flippers.
  • Collins Dictionary [4]
    • any of two families (Otariidae and Phocidae) of sea carnivores with a doglike head, a torpedo-shaped body, and four webbed feet or flippers: they live in cold or temperate waters and usually eat fish see also eared seal, earless seal

Support for P2 -

Support for P2 comes in the form of encyclopedic and dictionary entries for the term "sea lion." These references are reputable, sufficiently numerous, and demonstrate that sea lion species are of the family Otariidae, which is also referred to as "eared seals." [1][2] "Otariidae" and/or "eared seal" have been emphasized.

  • Encyclopedia Britannica [5]
    • any of five species of eared seals found primarily in Pacific waters. Sea lions are characterized by a coat of short, coarse hair that lacks a distinct undercoat. Except for the California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), males have lion-like manes and constantly roar to defend their harems (hence their name).
  • Oxford Dictionary [6]
    • An eared seal occurring mainly on Pacific coasts, the large male of which has a mane on the neck and shoulders. Five genera and species in the family Otariidae
  • American Heritage Dictionary [7]
    • Any of several large seals of the family Otariidae, having a blunter muzzle and a thinner coat than the fur seals, especially the California sea lion (Zalophus californianus).
  • Collins Dictionary [8]
    • any of several genera of large, eared seals without underfur, usually living in colonies along the Pacific coastline


Sources -

1 - http://www.britannica.com...

2 - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

3 - https://www.ahdictionary.com...

4 - http://www.collinsdictionary.com...

5 - http://www.britannica.com...

6 - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

7 - http://www.ahdictionary.com...

8 - http://www.collinsdictionary.com...


Zaradi

Con

A – Interpretation: Debaters ought to instigate resolutions with fair burdens and ground available for both sides arguing.

B – Violation: The resolution’s a truism. He’s literally asking a question that you can goggle the answer for in Wikipedia.

C – Standards:

First is ground skew. The way he has constructed his resolution leaves the other side with physically no possible arguments for why sea lions are not considered seals. There’s physically no possible argument I could construct because that’s literally what they’re scientifically classified as. This leaves me with no possible substantive way to argue the resolution, which is inherently unfair and harms the educational value of debate.

It harms fairness because if he’s constructing a resolution that leaves one side with zero room to make substantive arguments, there’s no fair way to debate the resolution.

It harms education because instead of having a debate about biology and scientific categorizations of animals and the various levels of classifications, we have this debate because I have no room to actually make a normal argument, which means less learning is taking place.

Second is reciprocity. By creating a resolution that’s a truism, he gives himself a massive advantage while not allowing any kind of reciprocal advantage for the other side to even things out and create an even playing field. Reciprocity is important to fairness because if I just keep making things easier and easier for me without doing anything to help the other side, the debate can’t ever really be classified as fair.

D - Voters. He ought to lose the debate because:

- Fairness is a voter because the role of the judge is decide on who did the better job debating but that’s not possible if one side has an unfair advantage.

- Education is also a voter because the only thing that gives debating value is what we learn from the debate. It’s the entire reason why competitive debate exists in the first place.

- And, vote him down for this because a) I had to spend time checking the abuse, so the round can never be evaluated fairly again, and b) to disincentivise bad debating - he’s always going to continue to do this until he gets punished for doing it.

And, don’t buy the “don’t accept the debate” response that’s going to come because this creates an awful precedent for debating because a) debating is entirely about challenging people’s mindsets and exploring different ideas and ways of approaching problems, so saying people can’t use different methods to approach a topic is entirely counter-productive to debating, b) this only encourages people to make stricter rules to narrow who can argue for what and how they can make arguments in general, which hurts creativity and only encourages people to specifically design rules and definitions around ways to make it easier for them to win (i.e. violating the rules results in him just straight winning without any discussion of the topic) and c) just saying I shouldn’t have accepted doesn’t mean that his rules aren’t abusive and harmful. If anything I’m specifically the person who should’ve accepted as I’m one of the few people on here who not only knows to call him out on this kind of behavior, but also on how to call him out.

And, theory comes before his case because a) theory aims to establish how we ought to carry out debates in the first place, which means before we can even go about evaluating arguments in a debate setting we need to evaluate the impacts of the theory argument and whether or not he loses off of it, and b) it's nonsensical to say that his case comes first because his case operates in the very setting that I'm challenging i.e. this debate. If I'm winning on theory, then he automatically loses the debate before we even evaluate his case.



So, this makes the debate super easy to evaluate:

The interpretation is the overarching rule or principle I'm arguing ought to be applied to debates to ensure better debating. There's no way he's not violating this rule since the resolution is literally a truism -- there's no fairness in substantive ground for both sides in any way.

His violation of my proposed interpretation is bad because of the two standards I proposed -- being ground skew and reciprocity. These standards are important to debating because they ensure the continuation of the two principles that are essential to the activity of debate -- fairness and education. I explain why he ought to lose the debate straight up because of his violation of these two principles. You vote against him because the loss is the only real way to punish him for this kind of abuse: he created this debate as a way to get a free win, so punish him by giving him a loss instead.

And, don't buy his inevitable response of "if you don't like the resolution, don't accept the debate" because that's just a god awful argument for the reasons I outlined.

Debate Round No. 2
Death23

Pro

It's not a truism. I'd have to take the Con side and show you why it isn't, but I'll give you a few hints.

Look more closely and be more imaginative than googling and using the wikipedia for less than a minute. Realize that encyclopedias and dictionaries are descriptive and establish only presumptively what things are and what they are not. Words mean only the meaning that we give them. There is a higher authority on what something is and what something isn't than a dictionary. That authority is what the majority of people actually think they mean in that particular region; The fact that so many people accept these debates so readily is a significant indication that there is substantial disagreement about this issue.
Zaradi

Con

So the only real response to the theory argument Pro gives is that the resolution isn't a truism. His reasoning for why sea lions could not be seals is that there are higher authorities than wikipedia as to what is classified as something and that the fact that people accept this debate shows that there is disagreeement. There's a number of problems with this response:

1. Wikipedia cites this very higher source in the scientists that actually study the animals and categorize them according to their characteristics and genetics. You literally cite this majority that you speak of within your case. This makes the resolution a truism.

2. Whether or not there is disagreement has literally nothing to do with if something is a truism or not. It doesn't matter if one person or a million people disagree that 1+1=2 because that's literally the truth. This should become self-evident given that the vast majority of these people who you say are "readily accepting" your debates end up either conceding or forfeiting[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9].

To also provide context to this, only two debaters attempted to argue the resolution substantively. One lost[10] and the other didn't get votes[11].

3. The response you hint at exists outside of the scope of the resolution. The question you ask within the resolution is in the status quo, are sea lions considered seals? The answer to that is yes, that's literally how their characterized. Saying that the characterization of sea lions being seals is incorrect is something one could say, but given that the resolution is asking us a descriptive question (e.g. describe the world around us, describe sea lions relationship with seals, etc.) rather than a prescriptive question (e.g. prescribe how we ought to consider sea lions), the response doesn't actually address the resolution that you specifically created to try and farm wins.

Given this, he's clearly violating the theory argument. Apart for the one very quick and poorly articulated response to the violations, he drops literally everything else, including the interpretation, standards, and voters. Since this is the final round of debating, there's literally no chance for him to recover from this game-over mistake. And since I'm definitively showing that he's violating the interpretation, you negate the resolution straight up.

Just because I have like....6k characters left, let me make it very crystal clear how he's violating the interpretation. His resolution, as specified in the title and in the R1 is "Sea Lions are Seals". Not only is the resolution descriptive in nature in that it's asking are these two considered to be the same thing, but the arguments he gives in support of it are descriptive in that they describe how scientists categorize seals and sea lions in their specific families and genuses. To be short, it's literally asking the question of "Are sea lions definied as being seals right now" to which the answer is undeniably "yes".

This leaves me with zero substantive ground to take to address the resolution. To argue that the classifications are incorrect is to concede that it's currently defined that way in the first place, in which case the resolution is affirmed. Any kind of crazy kritical ground about classifications being harmful or discriminatory do the same thing. There's literally no possible advocacy that I can take to win the debate substantively. Hence, he violates the interpretation.

Violating the interpretation is bad because of the outlined reasons in the standards and voters, all of which go dropped.


This makes the debate crazy simple to evaluate:

Negate off of theory. He literally gives, like, 20 characters of a response to the violation and drops literally everything else. I'm giving you more than enough reasons to believe that the resolution and arguments he's providing are abusive and harmful to debate as an activity, and because of this he should lose, and he hasn't responded to any of it. Not only that, but he's dropped the analysis I give as to why theory has to come first in your evaluation of the round, so there's literally no way that he wins the debate.


Sources:

[1] - http://www.debate.org...
[2] - http://www.debate.org...
[3] - http://www.debate.org...
[4] - http://www.debate.org...
[5] - http://www.debate.org...
[6] - http://www.debate.org...
[7] - http://www.debate.org...
[8] - http://www.debate.org...
[9] - http://www.debate.org...
[10] - http://www.debate.org...
[11] - http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 8 months ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
There's plenty that Zaradi could have argued here. The common definition of "seal" differentiates it from a Sea Lion: https://www.google.com...

He could have argued other definitions of Sea Lion such as the mythical creature or simply a land lion that is swimming. The possibilities are endless. Or he could have commented in the comments section and asked about the debate being unfair. Death23 didn't respond to the theory argument because it would mean making Zaradi's arguments for him. Debates on DDO are optional to accept so it is not on Death23 to "prove" that the neg has ground to argue on.

I could easily argue a debate that says "Killer whales are whales, not dolphins" for instance and point out that Killer Whales may indeed be dolphins, but since all dolphins are whales, that's not a misnomer as some people insist.

I dunno, use your imagination.
Posted by tejretics 11 months ago
tejretics
It doesn't matter if there is negative ground, it matters if *you* proved there was negative ground. You should have shown there was negative ground *inside the debate.* I can't make arguments for you.
Posted by Death23 11 months ago
Death23
tej u challenged me to take the con side of this debate. I gathered evidence, built a case, and then I told u I was ready to debate it. u flaked. in this debate here, the only way I could win was by introducing real doubt as to the truth of the resolution. to do that I would have had to reveal significant parts of the case I built. Winning here wasn't worth showing my cards, and fyi I don't think sea lions are seals.
Posted by tejretics 11 months ago
tejretics
Con negates via theory. The shell is easy to vote on. All Pro challenges is that the resolution is a truism, and concedes the interpretation, standards, etc. Pro says the resolution isn't a truism because there's "substantial disagreement" on the issue, the main warrant being many people accepted their previous debates. Con refuted this by showing that everyone who accepted the "sea lions are seals" debate conceded or forfeited. And substantial disagreement among the ordinary person isn't substantial disagreement among scientists. Con shows that most scientists agree that sea lions are seals. Pro fails to show that Con has any ground to argue, and Con demonstrates that he indeed doesn't have grounds to argue in this debate. Seeing as Pro concedes all theory except violation, and Con proves there's violation, it's a clear Con win.

Vote Con
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Lexus// Mod action: NOT Removed<

1 points to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Con proved to me that fairness is a voter for today's round through his theory. If the resolution can literally never be negated, then why even start the debate? Pro drops all of his voter, interp, violation, etc. just saying that they need to argue better when providing no real response. So, I see that fairness is a voter. As for topical arguments, I don't see any that are justifiable under this framework, so I will leave those blank and give con the conduct point for the pro's violation.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter sufficiently justifies the conduct point based on fairness.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: AngryBlogger// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Source). Reasons for voting decision: Con by far better arguments. Pro just copies and pastes the same exact arguments, and spams this debate discussion non stop. Clearly doesn't understand a Sea Lion is A SEA LION. Anyhow, con was well conducted.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't justify conduct, merely stating that one side had better conduct without explaining why. (2) The voter insufficiently justifies arguments. He needs to point to specific arguments made by both sides, explain why some failed and some succeeded, and make a decision on that basis. This RFD is overgeneralized.
************************************************************************
Posted by Death23 11 months ago
Death23
Con's conduct argument is predicated entirely on Con's assertion that the resolution is a truism. That assertion was challenged by Pro. RFD's for conduct should explain why Pro's challenge of that assertion was unsuccessful or unconvincing. Pro's challenge should not be straw-manned.
Posted by Rosalie 11 months ago
Rosalie
Why can't you ever just actually argue against the resolution..... -.- not naming names.
Posted by dsjpk5 11 months ago
dsjpk5
Ok, so here's a new rule he can employ in the future:

Rules:

1. Use of theory shells will result in an automatic 7 point loss.
Posted by dsjpk5 11 months ago
dsjpk5
So how is what zaradi did not a kritik?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
Death23ZaradiTied
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: Pro just drops way too much of the abuse argument Con's giving me. There's really not much choice for me here, and while I agree that there are ways to address the resolution on the negation, Pro really doesn't give me reason to believe they exist. Even if he did, the reality that one side of this debate only requires the bare minimum of research time and effort to support, whereas the other requires extensive research into alternate classification systems and a deep knowledge of why commonly used ones like the ones Pro presents are wrong, still leaves the debate heavily slanted in Pro's favor. But that's besides the point. Con does more than enough to show that, for the purposes of this debate, the resolution is a truism and therefore both unfair and uneducational. Pro's suggestion of an argument showcases a weak understanding of the resolution and it's required burdens. Given that and the lack of response to Con's standards and voters, it's an easy decision for Con.
Vote Placed by tejretics 11 months ago
tejretics
Death23ZaradiTied
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: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by Lexus 11 months ago
Lexus
Death23ZaradiTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con proved to me that fairness is a voter for today's round through his theory. If the resolution can literally never be negated, then why even start the debate? Pro drops all of his voter, interp, violation, etc. just saying that they need to argue better when providing no real response. So, I see that fairness is a voter. As for topical arguments, I don't see any that are justifiable under this framework, so I will leave those blank and give con the conduct point for the pro's violation.