The Instigator
somethingaboutus
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
frozen_eclipse
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

do dog have brains?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/2/2014 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,379 times Debate No: 45102
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

somethingaboutus

Con

OK guys, serious, debate, topical question we have going on, we had a big twitter feud over this...
Dogs can’t talk, so do they have brains? Like, yes, they walk, but it’s because we’re telling them to walk. Just like if I were to tell my computer to turn off it would turn off, but it doesn’t mean my computer has a brain. How do you explain having a brain and not being able to talk?
frozen_eclipse

Pro

I affirm that dogs do have brains. Since my opponent posted no debate structure I will do so.

round 1.. acceptance

round 2.. arguments

round 3.. rebuttals

round 4.. further rebuttals

round 5.. conclusions/ no new evidence or contentions


Debate Round No. 1
somethingaboutus

Con

I would like to extend a warm hand of welcome to Mr. Frozen_Eclipse. I wish him the best of luck in refuting my points. Now, as the voters may or may not be aware, the inspiration for this incisive debate question was sparked by a YouTube video by the eminent philosopher, ex-stripper, and plus size lingerie model Trisha Paytas. The video in question is attached. In it, Ms. Paytas lays out cogent and well-thought reasons for why Dogs Do Not have Brains. I ask that my opponent and voters watch the video (only a mild 3:15 of viewing time) to get the highlights of her main argument, and highlights of other more voluptuous things as well.

I will now take the liberty of putting her argument in a text format. I find it slightly trying that my opponent seems anxious to one-up me even in the first round of the debate, going so far as to post a "format" for the debate. Of course, voters have the ultimate decision on whether or not this format is needed. But since this is indeed a debate, let me express my deepest derision for such a fanciful idea. Debate is about *ideas*, *education*, *learning*. Now, one of my main criticisms of what I expect Mr. Eclipse's argument to be is that it restricts these core tenets of debate. A format, the 'standardization' of debate, may appear to be a helpful organizational measure at first. But I know my highly intelligent voters will quickly see past this mirage towards the format's true intent: stifling creativity and different forms of debate. More pontification is not necessary: I shall act in all irreverence towards the "format."

Now, on to the question at hand: do dogs have brains? This question has plagued many thinkers over many generations. No one man or woman or animal or sentient life form has indeed conclusively solved the matter. But, if you suspend your disbelief, I believe that I am about to eliminate all doubt on the matter.

The first order of business is of course clarification: what indeed is meant by the question "do dogs have brains?" Now, as in my video, Ms. Paytas is clearly referring to dogs as in the dictionary sense of "a domesticated carnivorous mammal that typically has a long snout, an acute sense of smell, and a barking, howling, or whining voice. It is widely kept as a pet or for work or field sports." Now, the question is asking if these animals possess "brains." I shall also consult the dictionary on this matter, and if there is any attempt by my opponent, Mr. Eclipse, to refute the definition I provide, I suggest that he view the dictionary in question and take up the matter with the lexicographers themselves. As I consulted my copy of the Oxford Online Dictionary, I found the 2nd definition to be, and I quote: "intellectual capacity."

With the issue of meaning clarified, I further move on to answer the question. Do dogs (per the above definition) have brains? (per the above definition). Ms. Paytas lays out numerous logical, religious and common sense reasons for why dogs do not have brains, including the rather unfortunate incident of having her face mauled by one such creature. I trust those who have the time to be voting on such a monumental debate have approximately 3:15 minutes to spend watching the video in question, so I shall leave her to speak her bit. But consider my extensions of her logic below as well. Voters, what happens below shall indeed comprise the bulk of the debate.

Contention 1. If dogs are created by an omnipotent, omniscient, kindly and well-meaning God, how do you explain their behavior? They unhesitatingly use violence against creatures which even a modicum of intelligence would clearly reveal to be defenseless and peaceful, as in the case of a young Ms. Paytas who was mauled. This contention proves that either a) God does not adhere to any/all of the above descriptors or b) Dogs don't have brains (per above definition). I know good Christian voters wouldn't dare touch the a) option with a pole the length of Jesus's beard, so I ask them to vote for me on this contention. I couldn't care less about the opinions of infidels. They will all die and rot in hell soon enough.

Contention 2. If dogs can't talk, do they have brains? All creatures with brains, like humans, for example, are able to talk. However, creatures without brains (like say foreigners or apples) are unable to talk in a way that we are able to comprehend. Dogs don't talk, therefore they don't have brains.

Contention 3: If dogs follow their master's directions, do they have brains? In the experience of Ms. Paytas, she relates computers to dogs in that dogs and computers both follow directions, however computers don't have brains. Therefore, it logically follows that dogs also do not possess brains.

Contention 4: Dogs are scary, do they have brains? Now, on this I feel I must diverge from Ms. Paytas's arguments for a moment, as in my experience all the smart people with intellectual capacity I have encountered have scared me, and, in all honesty, frightened me to the point of hiding in the nearest restroom that did not contain awful smelling feces. However, this is just my anecdotal personal experience, and therefore does not deserve to be considerated in debate. So I will ask voters to consider that in the majority of cases, dumb people are equally if not more frightening than smart people, and dogs do not have brains.

Contention 5: Dogs are freaky. Now, at first, this may seem like a simple statement, bearing nothing less than 3 words and an infinitude of enrapturing brightness of thought. However, dogs are freaky. Humans are not freaky. Humans have brains. Therefore, dogs do not have brains. Again, a question so easily resolved I sometimes wonder if I am gifted with super human intelligence or simply ask stupid questions.

Contention 6: Would any creature that possesses brains attack such a 2 year old Trisha Paytas so violently that "literally 2 pitbulls ripped off my face in Moreno Valley, California, and my mom had to like call the cops, she ran out with a baseball bat, it was... intense"? I will let the sheer emotional power of this story wash over you until you finally compose yourself enough to quit sobbing and realize no animal with brains would commit such heinous acts. Therefore, dogs do not have brains.

Contention 7: "Maybe dogs have free will, so maybe they do have brains?" I anticipate my opponent taking this quote out of context from Ms. Paytas's video, so for the sake of the voters I will clarify this lapse in judgement on the part of Ms. Paytas. She does not actually believe that dogs have free will, note the use of 2 "maybes" as descriptors in the quote, indicating doubt. Moreover, she says this clearly to placate the dog lobbyists in the Capitol who scheme vicious and heartless ways to enact revenge on those who dare question the brains of dogs.

Contention 8: An argument of postmodernism. Now, as the sons and daughters of nations founded on the stolen land, broken promises and violent murder of peaceful indigenous peoples, how could we use the same fundamental assumptions of our forefathers to prove statements true or false? It would only lead us to the same fate. Therefore, dogs do not have brains and anything you say that does not agree with that statement means you support genocide.

Contention 9: Wow, you read this far? I'm quite impressed, and thankful. For y'alls sake, I'll leave it at 9 contentions for your genius voter minds to contemplate. And to put it ***TL;DR***: Dogs don't have brains and my opponent Mr. Eclipse is WRONG! Even though as a person I respect him and we can still be friends and lovers if he is into that sort of thing.
frozen_eclipse

Pro

let me start by saying structure is needed in a debate. If the rule of not introducing new arguments wasn't introduced a debater could post new arguments that could not be refitted. Thus the debate wouldn't be a fully discussed debate. Also without structure debates would be harder to follow. However since con disagrees with the structure we both will just ignore it for the sake of fairness.

I will now point some flawed logic con purports. I will number cons quotes.


1 "Dogs can’t talk, so do they have brains? Like, yes, they walk, but it’s because we’re telling them to walk."

This is not logic, this is a non sequitar fallacy of affirming the consequent. This happens when someone assumes a premise to be true however either way the premise is not related to the conclusion.
Con assumes dogs cant communicate. Science has proven that dogs do have their own forms of verbal and non verbal communication according to the source below..

http://www.petinsurance.com...

Maybe con meant that since dogs can not communicate with humans they must not have brains? Please clarify..

I want to add that an animals inability to talk does not indicate absence of a brain. For example, worms have brains yet they do not talk. So as we see the logic my opponent proposes is flawed. Dogs also do not need human direction to move. How do dogs move in the wild without human direction then? How have they evolved movement on their own if their movement was dependant on humans?

As we all see con cannot establish logical informed authority on the debate topic. Thus the legitimacy of cons case must be questioned for having any legitimacy.

do dogs have intellectual capacity?

Gregory Burns, a nueroscientist not only has scanned the actual brain of a dog but investigated the stimuli that motivate their brains using a fmri scan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

DDogs undoubtedly have brains. How could they be trained to sniff bombs, sit, help the blind, and learn to do the things we want them to?

My response to cons contentions...............................................................

1. unless one can prove the existence of god and the legitimacy of religious teachings, and why those teachings have authority religion is irrelevant in a non religious debate.Lets also remember we live in a survival of the fittest world. An attack on the weak has nothing to do with the lack of cognisance of any biological being. Again my opponent is lacking logical common sense in his arguments thus his arguments are fallible.

2. con seems to believe in a subjective type of reasoning. It seems that if he is unable to perceive something then it must not either exist or be true. He can not interpret a foreigners language thus he things they must not talk. This fallible form of logic seems to be the only logic in this debate. Just because a blind man never saw colors does not mean there never were colors.

3. This is once again non sequitar fallacious logic which I seem to be coming across alot. So since dolphins can be trained does that mean their computers? Of course not.

4,5,6. These are obviously once again unlogical I've already proven dogs have brains regardless of how one experiences a dog.

7. Violent attacks do not prove an absence of a brain.

8 . This is too unintelligible to respond

9. This is not a contention......and sure..lovers...


I will finish by saying cons case lacks knowledgeable authority on the topic, it also lacks logical reasons to support the resolution, therefore his case falls apart because the tree had no roots or seeds to start with. Since cons case falls apart the only logical conclusion to this debate is a pro vote.....thus I encourage the voters to vote in favor of the debater who has proven their case being pro.
Debate Round No. 2
somethingaboutus

Con

I'd like to thank Mr. Eclipse for his quick and thorough response. Now, I will address his claims. First, I am glad that he has decided not to prolong discussion on the use of a debate format, as his claims regarding that had already been addressed and refuted in my previous entry.

Now, he attacks my 'flawed' logic, noting a previous quote of mine, and charging that it is a non-sequitur. I'm afraid he seems to be confused on what flawed logic he thinks I am displaying. A non-sequitur (not a "non sequitar") is a logical fallacy in which the conclusion is not reached by its premise. Instead, he attacks the premise, saying that I assume that dogs cannot communicate and he argues that they can. He is mistaken that the logic I displayed previously was a non-sequitur, it in fact was not one, he is arguing that my premise is incorrect, *not* that the premise and the conclusion are disconnected. The logic behind my statement stands, and his claim that "As we all see con cannot establish logical informed authority on the debate topic. Thus the legitimacy of cons case must be questioned for having any legitimacy." should, ironically, be discarded by the voters as the very claim to have found a fallacy in my logic has been shown to be ignorance on his part.

In his first and only sourced, line-by-line refutation of my arguments, he contends that I assume dogs can't communicate, and says that science has proven that dogs do have their own forms of verbal and non verbal communication. Mr. Eclipse has clearly not read or fully comprehended the very quote he refutes, as I am arguing that because dogs cannot *talk*, they do not have brains. Non-verbal communication is mentioned nowhere in my claim, as many creatures that possess and do not possess brains communicate non-verbally, like trees for example. Furthermore, I was arguing that dogs cannot talk. Unless Mr. Eclipse is able to talk with dogs, which I'm relatively sure he cannot, my claim stands. He is trying to play a game of semantics, pretending to be confused by my language which was crystal clear that Dogs. Cannot. Talk. therefore, dogs do not have brains, or if it is clearer, intellectual capacity.

Onto whether dogs have intellectual capacity. He claims that Gregory Burns, a neuroscientist, has scanned the brain of a dog and investigated the stimuli that "motivate" their brains using an fMRI scan. However, in the linked article he provides, there is a photo of a sedated dog in a cylindrical tube. How can Mr. Burns investigate stimuli that supposedly causes neural stimulation when the dog is sedated in a tube? Furthermore, the vague language on both Mr. Eclipse's and the article's part never clearly states whether or not dogs are in fact capable of intellectual capacity, which has been defined in various ways which I contend to include logic, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness etc. Then he lists 4 reasons why dogs have brains: they can be trained to sniff bombs, sit, help the blind, and learn to do the things we want them to. Again, Mr. Eclipse clearly has not taken the time to read what I have written, sadly enough. Note that I say "Like, yes, they walk, but it’s because we’re telling them to walk." Ironically enough, he quotes this from me in his reponse. The ability to be trained is not indicative of intellectual capacity, otherwise computers could be said to have brains. Note that I am not arguing that dogs do not possess the physical organ of a brain, but that they do not in fact posess intellectual capacity, which apparently needs to be defined. I have provided a definition, as it seems to have been necessary.

Now, contention by contention.

C1: I made it clear that this specific contention was the domain of believers, as millions of people in the world and a great deal of potential voters on this site are believers. I have to prove nothing, a belief in God is the prerequisite for voting for me on this contention. Now, in your 'survival of the fittest' argument, you seem to be saying that intellectual capacity and attacking defenseless young children go hand-in-hand. I will let the voters contemplate this one. Dogs do not have brains. Extend C1.

C2: Oddly enough, Mr. Eclipse insinuates that I am blind. I am not blind, otherwise we would not be speaking. Unless*he can speak to dogs* then his argument has no real world element to back it up. There are no reputable reports of being able to talk to dogs that I am aware of. I extend my contention C2 that All creatures with brains, like humans, for example, are able to talk. However, creatures without brains (like say foreigners or apples) are unable to talk in a way that we are able to comprehend. Dogs don't talk, therefore they don't have brains.

C3: I have already addressed the claim that my logic is does not follow, or is a non-sequitur. If you cannot spell it or articulate it correctly, I see no reason why voters should have to consider your claim. And again, training is not indicative of intellectual capacity. Refer to above for what I contend to be intellectual capacity. Unless you believe the ability to be trained constitutes intellectual capacity, I don't see the point here. Extend C3.

C4: Is unlogical even a word? I think what you were aiming for was "illogical." You have not proven dogs have brains. What you proved is that one scientist sedated two dogs, and scanned them for neural activity. Don't get ahead of yourself.

C5: I would like to extend that dogs are freaky. Humans are not freaky. Humans have brains. Therefore, dogs do not have brains.

C6: I would like to extend this claim in its entirety, for shock value. And yes, *unprovoked senseless violence without any half intelligent claim to self defense is indicative of a lack of a brain.* Would any creature that possesses brains attack such a 2 year old Trisha Paytas so violently that "literally 2 pitbulls ripped off my face in Moreno Valley, California, and my mom had to like call the cops, she ran out with a baseball bat, it was... intense"? I will let the sheer emotional power of this story wash over you until you finally compose yourself enough to quit sobbing and realize no animal with brains would commit such heinous acts. Therefore, dogs do not have brains.

C7: Contention 7 has been conceded by my opponent. If he had nothing to say about it (he mixed up contentions 6 and 7) then it cannot be brought up later. Extend C7.

C8: I'm afraid my opponent is unable to respond to my simply worded, simply thought out argument. If he wants a simpler explanation, he should have contacted me... If he has nothing constructive to add by the next round, I will simply consider this a concession. Extend C8.

C9: While I am touched that Mr. Eclipse *supposedly* read this far, he actually misrepresented my arguments and took statements out of context, indicative of skimming my arguments. Moreover, he does not understand the logical fallacy of a non-sequitur.


For a fun touch at the end, here's a cool font to grab your attention. But seriously, read what comes before this.
He attacks my authority. Who is he to claim some authoritative stance? I presented clear, defensible positions, I do not require a degree.
What does a tree or roots or seeds have to do with anything? o.O
My case does not fall apart... Mr. Eclipse was too lazy to address it. Reread what I said and go line-by-line. My contentions were either 1) given a blanket description as "unlogical" which I responded to, 2) described as unintelligible without any effort to understand it on his part or 3) dropped. I extended each contention... the ones that he specifically addressed and refuted I responded to and voters should consider each and every one of my contentions as voting issues for Con.
Pro has not proved that dogs have brains(intellectual capacity) and if he does not, he loses automatically. Furthermore, I think voters will agree that Pro's line-by-line refutations were horribly insufficient. Vote Con.



frozen_eclipse

Pro

This debates resolution is do dogs have brains however in cons last posting he clearly is trying to argue that since dogs can not talk in a way that we can understand we then conclusively can assume dogs don't not have brains......

this debating really getting ridiculous so I'm going to make this fast...., if I can prove that dogs have a brain then I win this debate......this was proven earlier but here's some more evidence......

http://www.livescience.com...

In this article it explains that scientist scanned a dogs brain which clearly indicates that dogs have brains


This website shows the brain of a dog and labels the different parts

http://sevendeadlysynapses.com...

This debates resolution asks if dogs have brains. To win this debate I simply need to show the dogs brain which I've done. This will be the end of my responses to this debate. This is not me giving in, I simply believe I have already won the war thus theirs no need for further battle. Also the contentions of con hold no water thus I'm spending no more time on them .

Debate Round No. 3
somethingaboutus

Con

Again, I'd like to thank Mr. Eclipse for his quick response. I shall address his last round quote by quote. 

"This debates resolution is do dogs have brains however in cons last posting he clearly is trying to argue that since
dogs can not talk in a way that we can understand we then conclusively can assume dogs don't not have brains......"


Indeed, Mr. Eclipse, that is one of my eight contentions. I am glad you are aware of that fact. Perhaps you agree? Wonderful.

"this debating really getting ridiculous so I'm going to make this fast...., "

Ridiculousness is entirely subjective and has no bearing on the outcome of this debate...

"if I can prove that dogs have a brain then I win this debate......
this was proven earlier but here's some more evidence......
"


Alright, the first part here is good, but the second part isn't... In the last round, I said that "Pro has not proved that
dogs have brains(intellectual capacity) and if he does not, he loses automatically.
" The reason behind my statement
in the last round is the proof you gave was a Washington Post article about a scientist who sedated two dogs and
strapped them into a cylinder that had an fMRI machine. It said nowhere that dogs have brains, the intellectual
capacity that I defined in round 2, which you had no objection to in any of the later rounds. I quote myself from Round 3:
"[intellectual capacity] has been defined in various ways which I contend to include logic, abstract thought,
understanding, self-awareness etc.
" This is not called proving dogs have brains.
This is called posting a link and then not responding to clearly stated and formatted refutations from your opponent.


"In this article it explains that scientist scanned a dogs brain which clearly indicates that dogs have brains"
Yes, in the last round I made it crystal clear (and I quote) that "I am not arguing that dogs do not
possess the physical organ of a brain, but that they do not in fact posess intellectual capacity,
which apparently needs to be defined.
"


"This website shows the brain of a dog and labels the different parts"
Cool, but again, irrelevant to the debate.

"This debates resolution asks if dogs have brains. To win this debate I simply need to show the dogs
brain which I've done.
"

Well, I can vouch for the fact that this debate did not ask you to simply look at the resolution,
disregard further Con arguments, and link to a couple news articles. It required you actually
taking to time to read what I wrote and responding to it, and I think the voters will agree
that you did not actually cross this threshold.


"This will be the end of my responses to this debate. This is not me giving in,
I simply believe I have already won the war thus theirs no need for further battle.
"

This is a calculated emotional trick designed to make the voters feel as though you settled the debate by the 3rd round,
as though your arguments were so conclusively infallible that you couldn't be bothered to continue.
Unfortunately, I have the right and the privilege to continue debating, and if you choose to cease debating,
then I will consider that a concession irrelevant of your intention.
All you would have to do in the following rounds would be to a). read what I read b). respond to it.
I think the voters will agree with me that simply ceasing debate constitutes a concession on your part,
no matter whether or not you wanted to win.


"Also the contentions of con hold no water thus I'm spending no more time on them."
Pro concedes 8 arguments.

Having addressed my opponents last round, I would like to extend one piece of offense from my first round,
quoting what I said and the answers of my opponent.

C8 rd1: An argument of postmodernism. Now, as the sons and daughters of nations founded on the stolen land, broken promises and violent murder of peaceful indigenous peoples, how could we use the same fundamental assumptions of our forefathers to prove statements true or false? It would only lead us to the same fate. Therefore, dogs do not have brains and anything you say that does not agree with that statement means you support genocide.


My opponent’s response: “This is too unintelligible to respond”


Be skeptical of Pro’s scientific evidence – The privileging of science is corrupted by social, political, and economic imperatives that complicate its claims to truth – It is elitist

(Nancy D. Campbell, Frontiers: A journal of womens studies, vol 30, 2009, p. 1-29, Muse, da: 6-23-2011, lido)

Embracing partisanship and struggle as they do, reconstructivists have taken to heart various critiques of objectivity…those advantaged by the status quo tend to operate in a state of denial about the maldistribution of costs and benefits of technoscience...social organization of technoscience exacerbates social inequality and consistently rewards the already affluent, while hurting the persistently poor...How can it be that well intentioned and well informed scholars seeking to refocus technoscientific R&D on the needs of the poor, broaden participation in research priority-setting, and reorient technoscientific innovation toward the creation of public goods miss the point that forms of “fairness” inattentive to power differentials lead to unfair processes and outcomes?....their disproportionately greater access to financial resources and expertise grant them control over research agendas and an infrastructure within which to pursue questions relevant to the social groups from which they come.

Scientific privilege is the centerpiece of genocide

(Alexander Hinton, prof at Rutgers, Ph.D. in Anthropology at Emory, Abstract, Annihilating Difference: The Anthropology of Genocide, p. 1-40, http://www.mendeley.com..., JMB, accessed 6-26-11)
Scientific accuracy contributed to a key meta-narrative of modernity–the teleological myth of progress and civilization...Although optimistic these narratives were only for a privileged few with indigenous populations often being devastated by such progress. But what of the right of the individual? The indigenous populations were effectively othered through a discourse full of binary oppositions...Genocidal acts against indigenous populations were framed in meta-narratives of modernity…modernity thrives on the essentialization of difference, which is important in that genocide on grand scales is linked to modernity. Several factors have contributed to the essentializing tendency…Science searches for regularity. This leads to a quantitative view of the world, including the essentialization of race in biology...these factors contributed to the paradigmatic genocide of the twentieth century - The Holocaust. German anthropologists were at the forefront of essentializing (through science) differences, which could other the Jews...Scientific myths are created to give 'truth' to difference… genocide is a product of modernity not an aberration; the episteme of essentializing tendencies underpin such violence at the level of the individual.

Genocide should be rejected categorically – it precedes other political considerations

(Barbara Harff, Prof of Political Science Emerita @ U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD, “Humanitarian Intervention As A Remedy For Genocide,”, p. 40, 1981)

Prohibition of genocide and affirmation of its opposite, the value of life, are an eternal ethical verity, one whose practical implications necessarily outweigh possible theoretical objections and as such should lift it above prevailing ideologies or politics. Genocide concerns and potentially affects all people. The essence of the state is the people. Without a people there would be no state or legal system. With genocide eventually there will be no people. Genocide is ultimately a threat to the existence of all. Since virtually every social group is a potential victim, genocide is a universal concern.

 
frozen_eclipse

Pro

I believe it is clear that con has misrepresented this debates resolution. He argues I quote, "I am not arguing that dogs do not possess the physical organ of a brain, but that they do not in fact posse's intellectual capacity,
which apparently needs to be defined."

Con has either this debate or does not realize that intellectual capacity and the word brain are not synonyms

Intellectual capacity is defined as follows
Intellectual capacity- the faculty of reasoning and understanding objectively, especially with regard to abstract or academic matters.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

We are not debating if dogs can reason or understand academic matters. Though con is apparently saying we are. In this debate we are debating if dogs have physical brains otherwise there is nothing to discuss. Con needs to stick to the debate topic. I can not accept that con actually believes an animal needs to understand reasoning, abstract thought, or academics to have a brain. If this was true then maybe all animals could talk.

Regardless I have decided to continue. Since con is new.

Con never provided a direct source to his definitions for the voters to see so I will do so.

Brain-1. An organ of soft nervous tissue contained in the skull of vertebrates, functioning as the coordinating center of sensation and intellectual and nervous activity.

2. intellectual capacity:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

We cannot accept only the second definition due to the fact that it is inaccurate.
Worms have brains, yet they are not Capable of intellectual capacity. The second definition is clearly not accurate enough so we need to either use the first or both definitions.

con questions my sources.

Petinsurance.com- this source was used to contradict cons non sequitar of affirming the consequent when he makes the statement..."Dogs can"t talk, so do they have brains? Like, yes, they walk, but it"s because we"re telling them to walk."

Not only is he wrong when he assumes dogs cant talk, he illogically concludes that dogs walk because we tell them too. The premise and conclusion are totally unrelated, false, and illogical. Unless con proves that dogs cant walk unless we tell
them to this point fails due to lack of disproving common sense, and lack of proof.

lets not forget that this publication explains that dogs do communicate. Just not in English or other languages we recognize. So as we see this point, The meat of cons case crumbles under.

Again this proves cons lack of logical authority on this debates resolution.

Washingtonpost....this source was a simple attempt to show that dogs have brains because nuerologists have already scanned them.

Con attempts to discredit and strawman the publication but I will point out his flawed attempts.

He says they strapped the dog down. Not true,(strawman) the article plainly says he trained the dog to enter and sit in the fmri machine so he can scan the brain.

He also says he sedated the dog. Not true,(strawman) the article plainly says this experiment results in the first ever non-sedated dogs to allow brain scans.

let me also state that me explaining that dogs can be trained to sniff bombs, help the blind, etc... shows that dogs are trainable and intelligent, Showing that dogs have intellectual capacity. It is the fact that they are able to learn what we want and do it without instruction sometimes that shows their intelligence.

I ask the voters to not give con conduct points due to the misrepresentation of my sources and manipulating you via lieing.

Lets revisit cons failed contentions again to thoroughly get rid of them. AGAIN.

1. He is saying that if a creature attacks a poor defenseless child they do jot have intellectual capacity thus they cannot have a brain. This is abstract flawed logic. Humans attack children. According to cons flawed logic that would mean humans have no intellectual capacity. Obviously we see cons contention lacks common sense. Or he just does not understand deductive and inductive reasoning and or logic. This also applies to cons entire stance evidently. For the sake of logic pro needs to win this debate.

2. Just because con cannot comprehend language in a way he understands does not mean the object communicating lacks intelligent capability. Just because I choose to speak English instead of Korean, and con cannot understand it does not then support that there is no talking going on or that I have no intellectual capability or brain.
Con also falsely assumes I can not speak to dogs. I speak to my dog everyday

I never said con was blind. My exact words were, ". Just because a blind man never saw colors does not mean there never were colors." I was speaking about blind men in general for the sake of a parable. Unless con is blind which I doubt it is obvious that im not talking about him.

3.Once again this is flawed logic of affirming the consequent. Computers following programmable code has nothing to do with equaling biological beings and dogs have brains. This point collapses because of lacking common sense. Common sense is definitely not common anymore.

4. And 5... dogs being scary or freaky and how you perceive humans supports no logical conclusion relating to dogs or this debate. This is simply rambling. Human emotions have nothing to do with canine biology. If you think so please prove it. You can't thus this fails.

6. A human shot a one year old.....humans have brains....http://www.nbcnews.com...

A man killed a 2 y.o baby...humans have brains........http://www.nbclosangeles.com...

con also attempts pathos which fails while his case lacks, ethos, and logos as well.

7.There is no video here, paytas or whatever her name is gave you no legal permission to represent her or any authority to use her thoughts or beliefs. This is piracy in my opinion. Also im not debating her I am debating you because she is not here to defend herself. This contention also has no basis.

8. I do not support genocide. Once again illogical assumption on cons part. Im not explaining why we follow l8gic established by our forefathers. This is irrelevant and I ask con to stay on topic since staying on topic is logical.

9. This not a contention thus it is dropped.

The suggestion of genocide and the rest of those irrelevant responses are irrelevant and does not deserve a refutation.

conduct points needs to be awarded to pro for con not sticking to the resolution and contentions that are relevant.

I have gone along with this debate, its format, and definitions. I have proven dogs to have brains physically and also have intellectual capacity. I have destroyed cons case while mines remains firm. I have logically proven that this resolutions only logical response is a pro vote. So the only reasonable response to this debate is a pro vote.
Debate Round No. 4
somethingaboutus

Con

Ah, so this is *not* the end of Mr. Eclipse's responses to this debate. How interesting. It just goes to show that he really means what he says. /sarcasm What a disingenuous way to treat your opponent.

Definitions
He says that I have misrepresented this debates resolution, in that I use the word brain to mean intellectual capacity, saying I don't understand the word brain is not synonymous with intellectual capacity. It is abusive for him to contest this now. Why did he not address it in the last rounds?
I extend my contention that brains as used in this context refers to dogs possessing intellectual capacity. This was sourced from the Oxford Online Dictionary's second entry on "brain." I said this in the 2nd round.
Case
Lol, I only extended the last of my contentions. Which was contention 8. I will address what you said about it.
"I do not support genocide." By using elitist scientific evidence, which causes genocide, you in fact do support genocide. Simply stating that you don't support it does not refute my claim. "I'm not explaining why we follow l8gic established by our forefathers. This is irrelevant and I ask con to stay on topic since staying on topic is logical."Ironic to have you tell me to stay on topic. If you can't explain any good reasons for using scientific logic, then you effectively have conceded this contention.

A Voter's Guide to the Debate


Conduct: I read all of my opponent's arguments, and responded to them, quoting what my opponent said and what I had to say on the matter. I never misconstrued my opponent, as I always quoted what he said, leaving the voter to decide. He says I lied about what he said, misrepresented him, and manipulated him. That’s laughable: I quoted him on everything he said! I never insulted my opponent, and instead showed him respect throughout the course of the debate. My opponent misconstrued my contentions, and called them unintelligible and [sic] unlogical. My opponent was derisive, mean spirited and never made an effort to make the voters or me feel welcome. Furthermore, his argumentation lacked proper flow (it did not address specifically what I said) and it had a distinct feel of laziness, as if simply posting articles with a one sentence description in debate was proper conduct. Then he decides to “quit” and then not “quit”. His conduct in this debate should be the very reason why it should go to Con.



Grammar/Spelling: My grammar and spelling throughout the course of the debate was impeccable, with no mistakes. My opponent mispelled a couple words: "unlogical", "non sequitar", "cognisance", "DDogs", "nueroscientist" [rd2&rd4], lieing [rd4], and made numerous grammatical errors: "their" instead of "there", "this debating really getting ridiculous" [rd3] "things" instead of "thinks" [rd2],wrong tense of “do” [rd4]. Grammar and Spelling is necessary in debate for reasons of precision, aiding comprehension, maintaining logical continuity, and upholding the standard of debate as an intellectual tradition.



Concessions: Contentions 4, 5, 6 were grouped in round 2 as "obviously... unlogical[sic]I've already proven dogs have brains regardless of how one experiences a dog." Also in round 2, Contention 7 was conceded outright, whereas contention 8 was described as "too unintelligible to respond." In round 3, all 8 contentions were addressed with a single sentence: "Also the contentions of con hold no water thus I'm spending no more time on them." I addressed every single one of Pro's arguments, again quoting what he said and what I had to say in response. In fact, I numbered each one of my contentions for easy description on both Pro's part and for the sake of the voters. In the last round, I went for one argument, Contention 8. My opponent feels it necessary to address arguments I chose not to extend for the sake of space, but you should disregard them. I have clearly opted not to go for them. Again, he "quits" but not really.



Arguments: As I mentioned previously, I have responded to each one of Pro's arguments, and even a cursory glance through the past debate will reveal this to be the case. This again is largely a voter decision, but consider again that even if you feel my arguments to be "ridiculous," if my opponent does not address them properly you have no choice but to vote Con, as otherwise the conduct of both debaters is being jettisoned in favor of the personal opinion of the voters. I will now present my synopsis of what was argued and why I had superior arguments. I addressed above in Concessions and in round 3 that I felt that my contentions for dogs not having brains were improperly addressed by Pro, and please see above for the quotes and reasoning behind my judgement of inadequacy. In the 3rd round, I said: "Pro has not proved that dogs have brains(intellectual capacity) and if he does not, he loses automatically." My opponent said: "This debates resolution asks if dogs have brains. To win this debate I simply need to show the dogs brain which I've done." First, let us begin with what we both agree upon in this debate. In order for Pro to win, he must prove that dogs have brains(intellectual capacity, defined in rd3 and quoted in rd4.) Pro raised *no objections* to the definition I provided. Now, here is where the agreement ends and the disagreement begins. He says that he has proven dogs have brains per the definition. His evidence? One Washington Post summary of one experiment with 2 dogs in rd3 that talks about how one scientist with an fMRI strapped two dogs in a cylinder and scanned their brains(the organ). I raised questions with his evidence in a whole paragraph in rd3, whereas he simply provided a link to the article. The evidence, I contend, does not address the question of intellectual capacity in dogs, per the definition(again for your convenience quoted from rd3:"[intellectual capacity] has been defined in various ways which I contend to include logic, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness etc.". My arguments about its problems were not answered. His last bits of evidence that dogs have brains were a livescience article in which THE EXACT SAME SCIENTIST AND STUDY Gregory Burns's findings were summarized. This is not new evidence, it is simply a restatement of previous evidence that Pro posted and then did not extend. This evidence should be grouped and discarded by the voters. His third and last piece of evidence is a website in which the brain(organ) of a dog is labeled. As mentioned above, this is irrelevant to the debate, and if he cared enough to actually read my arguments, he would not be copying and pasting links of irrelevant website articles. In summary, he believes two articles about the same subject with clear and frankly obvious problems (one scientist, two dogs, published in a free, open, online journal), and one completely irrelevant and untopical piece of evidence outweigh eight contentions for the reasonable doubt of whether or not dogs have brains. And note, if he does not prove that dogs have brains, the entirety of Case goes to Con.



With Pro's only 3 pieces of offense addressed, let me move to my own arguments. I will extend one last argument, Contention 8. Remember, this final extension isnot crucial to winning the debate, because 1) Pro conceded case(he quit in the 3rd round) 2) Burden of proof is on Pro 3) Pro’s only offense were addressed and refuted.

Extend Campbell 09 evidence--Be skeptical of Pro’s scientific evidence – The privileging of science is corrupted by social, political, and economic imperatives that complicate its claims to truth – It is elitist

ExtendHinton 11 evidence--Scientific privilege is the centerpiece of genocide

Extend Harff 81 evidence--Genocide should be rejected categorically – it precedes other political considerations

In summary, that is why you should vote Con. Good debate. But again, please remember that Pro claimed he was going to quit last round. UNFAIR!!!! :)
frozen_eclipse

Pro

Let me begin by saying if my opponent feels insulted him i wiill apologize for that.

The issue of misrepresentation

con definitely was ambiguous and misleading with his core argument which was, " "I am not arguing that dogs do not possess the physical organ of a brain, but that they do not in fact posse's intellectual capacity,
which apparently needs to be defined." He is not only trying to ignore key definitions in this debate but he is also trying to narrow this debate into one alternate, unsatisfactory definition.

if he wanted this debate to be about the intellectual capability of dogs he should have done so in the resolution instead of narrowing the debate after the first round. Otherwise your trying to trap your opponent with semantics or other means.

Yes the second definition of brain is intellectual capacity. However I have proven this definition to be insufficient. The lexicographers I'm sure knew this as which is probably why this is not the first definition. As I said in my third round, "We cannot accept only the second definition due to the fact that it is inaccurate.
Worms have brains, yet they are not Capable of intellectual capacity. The second definition is clearly not accurate enough so we need to either use the first or both definitions." ( sorry about this format it will not let me change it)

here is the acceptable primary definition

Brain-1. An organ of soft nervous tissue contained in the skull of vertebrates, functioning as the coordinating center of sensation and intellectual and nervous activity.


http://www.oxforddictionaries.com......

The second definition cannot be used primary or the definition would be illogical and incorrect. However the se and definition can be used in conjunction with the primary definition and make sense. Thus we cannot accept cons attempted semantics.

Here's some of my points that con has ignored thus he concedes to them.



Petinsurance.com- this source was used to contradict cons non sequitar of affirming the consequent when he makes the statement..."Dogs can"t talk, so do they have brains? Like, yes, they walk, but it"s because we"re telling them to walk."
Not only is he wrong when he assumes dogs cant talk, he illogically concludes that dogs walk because we tell them too. The premise and conclusion are totally unrelated, false, and illogical. Unless con proves that dogs cant walk unless we tell
them to this point fails due to lack of disproving common sense, and lack of proof.

lets not forget that this publication explains that dogs do communicate. Just not in English or other languages we recognize. So as we see this point, The meat of cons case crumbles under.

I want to point out also that even if we only use cons 2nd definition I still have proven dogs to be intelligent by their trainability. Thus they have intellectual capability.

Con never attacked my refutation of his contentions thus he must concede to them. He claims I never refuted his, obviously I refuted them all individualy or as a related group.

con has chosen to ignore many things but I don't have space to repeat it all.

I want to although poiint out that con definitely tried to add false information to two of my sources while ignoring the many other sources I have.

Here's my proof that he lied.






He says they strapped the dog down. Not true,(straw man) the article plainly says he trained the dog to enter and sit in the fmri machine so he can scan the brain.( refer to source for truth)


He also says he sedated the dog. Not true,(straw man) the article plainly says this experiment results in the first ever non-sedated dogs to allow brain scans. ( refer to source for proof)


He concedes to my other sources and points relating to them since he never addressed them at all.

conduct

It seems con is panicking here and trying to divert attention however I will address him.

If he feels I have offended him I formerly apologized earlier. However he needs to realize he has said some unpleasant things as well.

saying I support genocide without any real reason is quite an insult.

also lieing about my sources is very poor conduct.

not sticking to the resolution and talking about genocide and why we shouldn't trust scientific evidence is disrespectful to a serious debater.

etc...

Let me counter that really quick because I'm sure someone will use that against me.

science is the only logical system that can accurately test, qualify and quantify data by experiment. Scientists are trained to use the scientific method in their findings and they report them for scrutiny from the entire world of scientists. So yes we can trust science, and scientific sources. After all without science we would not understand maths relation to the universe, science also has a record of producing about every advancement of the human race. This con cannot refute.

About genocide my opponents source does not exist and it seems he plagiarized a large portion of that entire post from a source completely unrelated all you need to do is type this into Google and search for it and you will find it again and other underlined portions from his case.....

"Scientific myths are created to give 'truth' to difference… genocide is a product of modernity not an aberration; the episteme of essentializing tendencies underpin such violence at the level of the individual."

it is obvious that he plagiarized this and and other portions for that reason alone needs to loose all points. Plagiarism is not taken lightly on this site.

About not addressing definitions earlier

con legitimately chose to ignore structure though I warned him what could happen so I can refute your definitions at anytime I want since you chose to ignore having any structure in This debate.

About spelling

con has misspelled words probably just as much as I have. He even misspelled the resolution...neither of us should get spelling points. My auto type is not good and spell check does not catch everything nor do our eyes.

in conclusion

I have corrected cons use of definition and proven why his definition alone cannot be accepted.

I have defeated all of cons contentions and proven them to lack the logic to stand under scrutiny.

I have defeated cons main argument of dogs not being able to talk u true because they do talk.

I defeated his contentions twice.

con tried to say I gave up when he defeated his own claim. By saying not really, even though I never said I give up I only said cons contentions did not have any sense. I Also thought I had won at this point but realised that that would be unfair so I continued.

con tried to lie about my sources but I proved him wrong with those same sources. He never addressed any other sources I had or the points they came with.

he concedes to my case due to the fact that he can not refute my refutation .

Not only did he use the contentions from somone elses video ( stealing them) He plagiarized a portion of his case. Any plagiarising should result in a automatic loss.

Not only have a proven dogs have intellectual capacity because they can learn and help others, I have also proven them to have a physical brain that fits the first definition by showing a picture of a brain map of a dog and also showing that scientists have scanned the physical brain and saw the interior themselves.

I have done a thorough job destroying cons case. I am also the debater who stuck to the resolution and took this debate seriously by using logic in my rounds.....thus a pro vote is the only logical response to this debate.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by somethingaboutus 3 years ago
somethingaboutus
Haha, I did not strawman your argument. Note that I QUOTED YOU ON EVERYTHING YOU SAID. How could that possibly be strawmanning you? Moreover, what you did do was post 2 articles about the same study (with only 2 dogs? like really thats all they could find?) and one that labeled a brain in the dog... which had nothing to do with my argument. I'll play a game with you, but if that game is this debate you are losing sorely... and PS it's "amuse" not amuze... ;D best of luck to you Mr. Eclipse
Posted by frozen_eclipse 3 years ago
frozen_eclipse
Strawmanning...really...this is what your reduced too?.......okay ill play this game with you..., it will amuze me in the end
Posted by somethingaboutus 3 years ago
somethingaboutus
In response to Mr. Frozen_Eclipse, I am indeed serious: if I was not serious why would I take the time to answer a serious question like this? I'm not entirely sure what you meant by "your religious contentions can be defeated by religion itself", so I hope you clarify that. My whole case dies if you simply locate an X-Ray and MRI? You probably did not actually take the time to read my argument or watch the video. *smh*.
Furthermore, all my points lack originality? Who said that debate requires new arguments? We need to study and debate the merits of the thought that preceded us unless we are only going to repeat the same mistakes we have made throughout history. I await your response, Mr. Frozen_Eclipse. And I hope you do take the time to respond contention by contention.
Posted by frozen_eclipse 3 years ago
frozen_eclipse
You cant be serious.....your religious contentions can be defeated by religion itself.....

Your whole case dies if I simply locate an x ray and a mri......

and all of your points lack originality, your simply paraphrasing someone elses arguments.....smh
Posted by somethingaboutus 3 years ago
somethingaboutus
In response to Mr.(?) Jifpop09, first a correction: in *their head. Secondly, your callous and close-minded position insinuates that anything you claim to be a 'fact' is immune from criticism. Positions like these stifle debate and in real world situations lead to totalitarian governments which grossly deteriorate the well-being of their people. I suggest that you learn how to spell and to think before spouting your bigoted opinions online.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
It's a fact that dogs have brains in there head. This can't even be debated.
No votes have been placed for this debate.