The Instigator
JoongYin
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
SitaraPorDios
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

The Origin of Language

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...
SitaraPorDios
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/18/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 982 times Debate No: 36784
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

JoongYin

Pro

In the Wikipedia's http://en.wikipedia.org..., experts say, "Monkeys and apes often attempt to deceive one another, while at the same time remaining constantly on guard against falling victim to deception themselves. Paradoxically, it is precisely primates' resistance to deception that blocks the evolution of their signalling systems along language-like lines. Language is ruled out because the best way to guard against being deceived is to ignore all signals except those that are instantly verifiable. Therefore, my question is this, is the origin of language a mutation? And also, why are primates trying to deceive each other causing them to be unable to learn languages ?
I believe language is a mutation in 1 or more primate(s) that caused them the inability to be resistant to deception.
SitaraPorDios

Con

I accept. I have a rather odd view of the evolution of language. I believe that the spoken word developed as a more convenient way for animals to communicate. Whether you believe that God or evolution did it, it just makes sense. Language began as a behavior, and after that was ingrained into the human consciousness.
Debate Round No. 1
JoongYin

Pro

I doubt evolution or religion has anything to do with language. I think it is a mutation that was passed down then spread. But then the question lies, why are we related to the primates but why can't they speak? Is it because they were the ones that were too far to be passed the gene of inability to resist deception through noise.
SitaraPorDios

Con

A lot of things start as a variation or abnormality. Maybe one our anscesters got tired of drawing things, and began verbally communicating, and that behavior in turn imprinted on the human brain the instinct to verbally communicate.
Debate Round No. 2
JoongYin

Pro

JoongYin forfeited this round.
SitaraPorDios

Con

SitaraPorDios forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
JoongYin

Pro

I don't really have anything for this round.
SitaraPorDios

Con

SitaraPorDios forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
JoongYin

Pro

This is the End.
SitaraPorDios

Con

SitaraPorDios forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by adiffer 4 years ago
adiffer
No matter what people believe is going on in the minds of people and other primates, there is the physiological difference in us that enables complex speech. Our larynx is lower than our cousin species putting us at risk of choking to death while eating or drinking that the others don't face. For that risk to survive genetically, humans with the trait must have stood a a much higher chance of reproducing successfully to make up for it.

I'd argue the mere fact that speech developed in the face of this risk of death is evidence that speech is VERY useful. No doubt speech can be used to mislead, but that should drive intelligence more than the physiological mechanism for speech.
Posted by DebaterAgent 4 years ago
DebaterAgent
I don't think this will work out as a "debate"
Posted by DanT 4 years ago
DanT
Yahoo Answers is that way ->

What is the Pro stance, and what is the Con stance? You can't expect someone to accept without knowing the resolution.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
This isn't a topic of debate, since you're not taking a side. There's a forum section of the site, you know...
Posted by boom101 4 years ago
boom101
I have to admit, I have had similar thoughts... I'd like to see this debate
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bsh1 4 years ago
bsh1
JoongYinSitaraPorDiosTied
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: This could have been conducted more thoroughly. Noam Chomsky has some interesting ideas on language; so do behaviorists and various developmental psychologists. Pulling experts like them into the debate would've been nice. Ultimately, I am not convinced that language is genetic, hence the Con vote.