Debate Rounds (4)
2.Human Being is defined as a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.
3.A minor difference between apes and humans is the human tendency of bipedalism.
4.We come from the same family; hominidae, which include chimpanzees, gorillas, humans, and orangutans.
5.A comparison between the common human and chimpanzee genome shows that 96% of DNA base pair sequences of humans and chimpanzees are the same.
6.If only gene segments are compared, there is a 98% similarity.
7.The genes that differ mostly control speech, smelling, hearing, digesting proteins, and susceptibility to certain diseases.
8.One of the most believed difference between humans and chimpanzees is the level of intelligence.
9.Humans, however, spend their entire lives reading, learning, and teaching others their past knowledge, because it is a dictate of society.
10.Apes do not try to increase their intelligence of technology.
11.Another major difference is linguistic skill.
12.Many primatologists will argue that apes have their own language, verbal and non-verbal.
13.Humans do not know things automatically, they must be taught, which is why there are schools.
14.Apes must be taught to further their knowledge as well.
15.American Sign Language can be taught to apes, as seen with Koko the gorilla, who can understand more than 1,000 signs and over 2,000 spoken words.
16.This is a significant step for apes because they are 6-7 million years behind in the evolutionary track.
17.The Humans vocal cords and modern skull have only developed over the last 100-50,000 years.
18. It's now clear that our primate cousins have demonstrated that they have inner lives and relationships, can communicate, and experience emotions.
19.Many groups of people were, at one point in time, denied certain unalienable rights.
20.For example, women suffrage began in 1848, but women were only allotted the right to vote over 70 years later in 1920.
21.Another example would be black suffrage, which started with their opposition of slavery starting in 1619, and were given the right to vote over 300 years later, in 1965.
22.The idea of ape rights is a relatively new idea, which has been around for less than thirty years.
23.Over the last fifteen years many countries such as; New Zealand, Spain, The UK, Sweden, Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands, extended personhood rights to great apes because of ethical reasons.
24.The US has taken a step forward, by significantly reducing the use of chimpanzees in biomedical research.
25.Therefore, Great Apes should not be denied rights, and should be considered as persons.
2.A human being is a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.
3.The research highlighted some key differences in the brain regions of humans and macaques, such as the ventrolateral frontal cortex circuits in the two species being different in the way that they interact with brain areas involved with hearing.
4.This could explain why monkeys perform very poorly in some auditory tasks and might suggest that we humans use auditory information in a different way when making decisions and selecting actions.
5.The research also revealed that a brain region known in humans as the lateral frontal pole in humans does not seem to have an equivalent area in the monkey.
6.That regions is involved with strategic planning, decision-making, and multi-tasking abilities.
7.This might relate to humans being particularly proficient in tasks that require strategic planning and decision making as well as 'multi-tasking".
8."Evolution" is conspiracy theory.
9.There"s the theory of evolution: that humans evolved from monkeys and there"s the theory that god made Adam and Eve and everything else of that nature. It all depends on what one believes in.
10.To your premise 13, yes humans don"t know anything automatically, but we learn to adapt and use our brain and resources quite effectively.
11.How is your premise 17 relevant?
12.To your premise 9, not all humans spend their entire lives learning to read, write, and teach" that"s an assumed premise because majority of society does.
13.I"m not sure what premises 19, 20, and 21 has to do with the argument, if you could clarify and connect it to why great apes should have rights that would be wonderful.
14.From a very young age, humans understand that; we have an innate ability to create new meanings by combining and ordering words in diverse ways.
15.One chimp name Nim had no such capacity, which is presumably true for all chimps.
16.Our ancestors stood up in the scrubby, dry areas of Africa.
17.Chimps in the forests did not.
18.Chimpanzees and gorillas live in social groups and show complex social behavior, but attempts to integrate them into human society have failed.
19.The chimps you see doing clever things in TV programs and films are juveniles, usually less than eight years old.
20.Juvenile chimps are quick to learn, and are amenable to human control, but an adult chimpanzee is a large and dangerous animal.
21. Adult chimps are far stronger than humans even though they are of similar size.
22. All apes are essentially wild animals, and although they can be kept in captivity they cannot be integrated into human society.
23.Therefore, Great Apes/Monkeys should not be considered humans and be denied rights.
Controversial: 25, 9
Non-Controversial: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18
The conclusion is of course controversial because the subject can be argued either way. Premise 9 is controversial as well because not all humans spend their lives learning to read and write.
Most of the premises are non-controversial because they"re researched facts and you can"t really disapprove of them unless you do the research over yourself.
Questions: Besides genetics, what else can you link in similarity to humans?
Can apes be taught to be human?
How can great apes be afforded rights and they don"t have the great ability to be proficient in decision making and strategic planning?
In response to premise nine, it does not matter at all what one actually believes in because just because someone believes something, that doesn"t make it true or a fact. Evolution has scientific backing, religion, does not.
Your premise ten is irrelevant. The efficiency of human adaptation is not what originally gave people rights. Rights were given only to people that met certain criteria, white, male, educated, and owned property.
My premise seventeen is relevant because it shows that even though humans did not always have the ability of speech, that didn"t diminish their language skills. Before speech, humans had the same form of language that great apes nowadays have, hand-gestures, bodily movement, grunts, etc. Which means that great apes are developing similarly, but seemingly faster, to humans and may soon develop the ability of cognitive function and articulation.
People from all walks of life can relate to the saying "you learn something new every day." Learning does not necessarily correlate to academia. You don"t need to be in school to learn things you didn"t already know before. The same can be said for teaching. For example, teaching a child how to walk, talk, and the difference from right and wrong. And as for reading, most things in life require the ability to read. From job applications to passing billboards, reading is a necessity in life. It is not a majority of society, it is everyone, in a literal sense.
Premises 19, 20, & 21 all show that people who now have rights. People who fought for those rights, people who others that don"t fall into those categories also fought for those groups of people to have rights. Not everyone believed those people had rights, just as people now believe that great apes should not have certain rights.
I do not see the relevance of premise fourteen.
In response to premise fifteen, just because one chimp was unable to do something, does not mean the majority of chimps are unable to do that same thing.
I do not see the relevance to premises sixteen and seventeen, as all great apes, including chimpanzees, have the ability to walk upright, albeit, for a short period of time.
In response to premises eighteen, nineteen, and twenty, studies done on feral children show that they cannot be integrated successfully into regular society, cannot even attempt regular social behavior. And the "chimps doing clever things on TV" are taught at a young age, much like people, how to follow commands and such.
In response to premise twenty two, it is quite obvious that something like a wild animal cannot be integrated well into human society, but apes can be taught how to behave and be more human-like. The same argument can be made as before, feral children/adults, can also fit into that category as "essentially wild animals" which can"t be integrated into human society, so by that reasoning, as soon as people lose their "human-like" qualities, they also lose their rights.
In response to question one, social function can be seen with great apes. They can communicate with each other, they have tribal boundaries, if a rival ape move into their territory, they will attack, much like war. It has also been recorded that they can create and use tools in order to get and eat food.
In response to question two, no apes cannot be taught how to be human, because the difference between apes and humans is not what they learn but genetics. Apes can be taught to b human-like though. For example trained commands, hand signs, etc.
In response to question three, I am not trying to argue that apes and humans are equal and apes should be afforded the same rights. I am simply arguing that apes should have certain rights, such as the right to be represented in court, also that certain crimes also apply to apes, like kidnapping, imprisonment, murder, rape, assault, etc. Not the rights that would include superior cognitive function, such as voting, because they cannot make such decisions, giving them that right would be redundant.
Monkeys shouldn"t be considered persons because they can be taught to do "human-like" things.
A monkey will never be what is defined a human, maybe slightly close, but never in the same category.
For example, Tommy, 26, lives on a trailer lot in Gloversville, New York, with only a television for company. Tommy is a chimpanzee, and if the organization seeking to free him and move him to a sanctuary wins a lawsuit it filed today, the result could have implications for how we view " and treat " our closest animal relatives.
Just because Tommy watches television, it doesn"t make him the bit most close to a human being.
But the mid-level appeals court said there is no precedent for treating animals as persons and no legal basis. "So far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights and duties," the judges wrote. Needless to say, unlike human beings, chimpanzees cannot bear any legal duties, submit to societal responsibilities or be held legally accountable for their actions."
Monkeys can"t abide by the laws that humans do. In human society we pay taxes, rent/mortgage, drive, etc. a monkey can"t do any of that. We can"t hold a monkey responsible for the actions that commit if they were considered persons.
As you said about teaching them while they"re young whereas to the human child is, they still don"t develop the ability to make vast and lifelong decisions that humans can. Although you can try and house-raise a monkey so they can try to fit into society, they will never live up to expectations whereas to if a child were placed in the wild and they could.
Here"s an example:
1. Raised by monkeys
when she was about five years old, Marina Chapman says she was kidnapped, probably for ransom, but was then abandoned in the Colombian jungle. For some five years, she lived out in the wild, where she was taken in by a group of capuchin monkeys, which experts say are known to accept young children into their fold. The animals taught young Marina how to catch birds and rabbits with her bare hands, so she was able to survive. She rejoined the human world when she was taken by hunters and sold to a brothel, from which she eventually escaped.
There"s more examples of cats, dogs, goats, etc. raising a human child.
Yes monkeys can be taught to do certain human-like tricks, but they can never do normal things a human does to go on day to day"can they cook? Or will they always eat bananas and sit and watch TV? " Of course it"s adorable but it does nothing to the human race.
In response to you saying my premise 10 is irrelevant: we"re not talking about what and who rights were originally for, we"re talking about now. I"m not talking about during slavery years you racist, race and property has nothing to do with what I am saying, and I"m talking about the human field in general meaning races and criteria now. I use the link between how one adapts and rights because monkeys can"t adapt to the lifestyle that humans live, they"re too much of a wild animal no matter what they were taught.
Although we all know this is a fictional movie, "Rise of the Planet of the Apes", gives an example of how even a house-raised, human treated monkey still couldn"t behave civilized and follow human society as he grew older.
The movie is about a house-raised chimpanzee, Ceasar, whose intelligence is increased from inheriting ALZ-112 from his mother during her pregnancy, and who is raised by Will for eight years. He leads an ape revolution against humanity.
Because an ape revolution against humanity was evolved, they couldn"t legally be held accountable for their actions, they couldn"t be sentenced to jail for years"be read their rights and etc. they were mostly killed.
Although Ceaser was increasingly smart, like most monkeys, he still didn"t have the human-like ability to be able to control his wrongful actions.
Ok so maybe animal rights should be a little stricter, but for them to be considered human and have the same rights as a humans is a little absurd.
The most fundamental learning for humans is being taught human-like things. People are taught how to read, write, communicate, etc. Such things do not just happen. Monkeys are much like feral children, if left in the wild for too long people will revert and become more animalistic, because it is their nature to survive. Society is taught and learned, people are taught that when they go against the rules in that society they are punished. People conform and act accordingly. Apes, as it seems, can be taught similarly. Starting at a young age, going through years of learning, they can be taught many of the same things as people. This is a matter of the mind. Seen with feral children, after a certain point even people cannot be taught things that a small child is expected to learn. They can never learn to read, write, or act in society, because their brain growth is stunted to be at about a toddler"s brain, even if that person is middle-aged. But feral people are still considered people, just animalistic or feral.
What you did not include about Tommy was that he was a movie monkey. He would appear in movies that required the role of a monkey and play a part with cues from a director, and be behaved around people. Just like an actor. Also something that you did not include was that Tommy"s owner was forcing Tommy to work in movies so that he could keep the money.
You state that a mid-level court ruled that Tommy is not considered a person because he cannot be held accountable for his actions or submit to societal responsibilities, or in other words, go to jail or pay taxes, basically. But Tommy, specifically, would have the ability to pay taxes if he were paid in the first place, but his owner was paid instead. And the problem of going to jail or prison, would be that they would not be able to read a monkey their rights because they don"t have any. If they first got rights, then they would be able to be considered persons, because they can be held accountable for their actions.
I don"t really see the point of you using an example of a human child being raised by monkeys. It is irrelevant as it shows that they even have the capability of raising a child, keeping them alive for multiple years, and teaching that child how to survive on their own, (which is what a parent does).
If you are referring to great apes being taught sign language as "tricks" then perhaps you do not fully understand sign language. Koko can respond to questions by signing, the human signing the questions does not give Koko clues as to what she should answer. It is a clear example of apes having complex thought.
And to your racist comment, it should be an obvious link between persecuted groups trying to obtain rights and this debate. So, clearly I"m not the one being racist here by saying that civil rights has relevance to this case. You cannot discount the fact that human rights are ever-changing and including more people who were once not thought of as people. Also, monkeys can adapt, they do just as much as humans, that"s why there are many different species of monkeys/apes/etc.
The movie is clearly irrelevant as it is not fact but fiction designed for ratings. Though you are missing the parts where he was locked up in a cage and genetically tested on and treated less than nicely from some of the other scientists. Caesar gave the gene to other monkeys to increase their intelligence too. He was unhappy with the way that he and the other primates were being treated. And I"m not sure why you think that leading a revolution is not human like behavior, because with human history, it has happened countless times and for the same reasons; being treated heinously and believing they are better off without that current form of government.
It is not right to say that Caesar didn"t have the "human-like ability" to be able to control his wrongful actions. It seems as though you"ve never heard of crime. Many humans have used the argument that they were unable to control themselves when they were committing a crime.
The stunning similarities and scientifically proven genetic proximity between humans and other primates is why they should have most of the same rights that humans have.
I would like to stretch on what I mean when I say this. Just because a monkey is taught to:
Brush their teeth.
Give you a high-five.
Ride a miniature bike.
Or any other stupid tricks of that sort doesn"t make them any closer to a human than other trained animals.
Can they be taught to drive? Fly a plane? Design clothes? Highly doubt it. They can"t survive in human society if they want to be considered persons.
2. I did not include those things about Tommy because they were irrelevant. He was not forced in ways that would be deemed "animal cruelty". And once again, just because Tommy "behaved" around people, doesn"t mean that he"s any close to being a human being. Lots of animals are trained to play in movies and commercials but that doesn"t make them any more than an ordinary "trained" animal.
3. Tommy doesn"t have the ability to count money and understand mathematical concepts as a human so can what you"re saying is beyond absurd. The whole point of saying that monkeys cannot be held accountable for their actions is after the fact if they were considered humans and had rights so I think you"re misunderstanding me. What I said is IF monkeys WERE considered humans and HAD rights it would go wrong because HOW would one hold a monkey accountable for a crime same as a human when they have completely different learning mind concepts. If you were in court because a monkey killed someone and when you asked them "WHY?" and "WHERE WERE YOU THE NIGHT OF (BLAH)?" Could they honestly answer or even have a chance to prove themselves wrong as having human rights? I honestly think not. This is one example when I mean monkeys can"t be held accountable for their actions. Yes, monkeys ARE smart, BUT they can never come close to making life decisions and critical thinking in the human society.
4. You only point out that I talked about monkeys raising humans but under that paragraph I clearly stated:
There"s more examples of cats, dogs, goats, etc. raising a human child.
Meaning that not only monkeys have certain capabilities. Almost any other primate can do the same thing, so it makes them no different from any other one. Makes them no closer to having "human-like" capabilities than the next primate.
5. I never stated that sign language was trick I KNOW that sign language isn"t a trick there"s obviously deaf humans who communicate through sign language. Please don"t insult my intelligence thank you. And bringing out that sign language is one thing a monkey can do I"ll ask again, can they cook? Can they learn to read and write? Real English? Wake up, go to work every day, become a judge? I doubt it. When I say tricks I mean anything that circus animals like elephants, tigers, etc. They"re all the same. I"m not sure who Koko is I never remembered you stating anything about a Koko. And to "Koko" singing in response doesn"t make her/him any different from a house dog or parrot singing in response so I don"t see the relevance. If you care to explain then I would be delighted to listen.
To my racist comment, if there"s an obvious link between persecuted groups trying to obtain rights and this debate. Please care to inform me. Ok blacks weren"t considered people of that time but THEY WERE NEVER ANIMALS. The obvious is that the white man was a redneck. Even looking back during slavery times just because our skin was darker doesn"t mean that we were monkeys. We still walked, talked, cooked, worked, etc. as the white man so please spare me.
I understand that the movie was fiction I"m pretty sure I stated that. Thanks for saying it again. If you claim the movie was irrelevant then you shouldn"t have explained yourself.
And this bring me back to my premise, "monkeys can"t be held accountable for their actions". Yes great human rebellions and revolutions were held in the past but unlike monkeys, leaders who were caught were either killed or sentenced to jail.
"Or any other stupid tricks of that sort doesn"t make them any closer to a human than other trained animals."
So if I"ve offended your "intelligence" somehow, I shall not point out your obvious argumentative flaws.
1.By the logic you are using, people are only highly trained animals. They learn to do things like drive, fly, etc. because other people teach them how based on the made-up standards of society. Whether they can be taught those things, I do not know, I"m sure they hold the metal facilities in order to do complex things.
2.What you would deem animal cruelty is not what others might see it as. The group fighting for Tommy"s rights see Tommy being held in cages in solitary confinement as though he were a prisoner. More often than not monkeys "behave" around people, trained or not, unless they feel threatened. It"s more likely for a human to commit a crime or do something wrong, than a monkey.
3.Again, you cannot just assume that monkeys do not have the ability to do something. They have the complexity for sign language, they might have the ability to understand basic mathematics. First off, a police officer would be asking the question "why"?, not anyone in court. Secondly, if the monkey knew sign language, the officer could just ask that way. Society also has in place protections for people who do not speak or understand English, for example Miranda Rights, because just because someone doesn"t speak English or understand the American legal system doesn"t mean that they are not entitled to their rights. Thirdly, and most importantly, for anyone to answer the question why, they would incriminate themselves, and they have the legal right not to answer. The Fifth Amendment protects people from that specific circumstance. No one actually has to cooperate with the police, and they are innocent until PROVEN guilty, and it would be the polices" job to prove beyond reasonable doubt that that crime was committed by a monkey, so unless you"re saying monkeys cannot have rights because police officers can no longer do their jobs then this argument is irrelevant.
4.Those animals do not have nearly as many similar traits to humans as monkeys do. The fact that they can do this one thing does not take away from the fact that this is another example of the similarity between humans and other primates.
5.To your question, "can they cook?" the answer is yes. Kanzi, a bonobo chimpanzee, taught HIMSELF how to start a fire and cook things using sticks to hold it over the fire. And as for the reading/writing question, the answer to that would be yes as well, studies show that baboons can distinguish printed English words from nonsense sequence of letters. If they were taught like children then I"m positive that scientists could develop that skill. And to refresh your memory, I referenced Koko in my first round. There is a difference between Koko signing a response and a parrot mimicking the sounds you make or a dog following people"s eyes or being trained with treats. Koko would be asked a question, and with no help from people, answer that question with a relevant response. Not only that but if she were watching television and saw something upsetting then she would sign "sad" or some such word, it is not a trick or nonsense, its progress.
6.Not only were blacks not considered people during the time of slavery, they WERE THOUGHT OF AND SEEN AS ANIMALS, even by credible scientists. They were less than people, hence the 3/5ths compromise, and treated as animals. What"s racist to say is "the obvious is that the white man was a redneck a**hole." First of all, not all white people even owned slaves. Secondly, not all black people were slaves, some were slave owners. Thirdly, slaves were sold to Europeans by African Chiefs, and they were already enslaved to their chief. And you seem to be thinking of slaves as though they are modern black people. No, barely any slaves could read or write, let alone both, and they could not speak proper English. They could only do any of that after they were TAUGHT.
7.Had I not explained why it was irrelevant, you would have tried to argue that it was.
8.You keep trying to hold monkeys and humans to a different standard for the same actions. No, people, no matter how bad, were not justly killed without a proper trial, but monkeys would have been shot on sight. If primates were given rights then they would be put to trial too. So it seems redundant to say that they can"t have a trial because they don"t have rights but they don"t have rights because they can"t have a trial.
2. If you don"t have evidence that is more likely for a human to commit a crime than a monkey please don"t state it. Thank you.
3. You"re misleading the whole point and running with something just to keep babbling. OK since you want to mislead my whole point of my premise 3 I meant, "IF A MONKEY WAS IN COURT FOR A MURDER AND THE LAWYER ASKED THEM SPECIFIC QUESTIONS COULD THEY HONESTLY AND POSSIBLY ANSWER IT IN A FULL COMPLEX SENTENCE OF AN ALIBI OR CALL OUT WITNESSES FOR THEMSELVES?! I THINK NOT. SO"the whole big paragraph was not worth the time. Next.
4. The only "similarity" that monkeys have closer to us human than the rest is genetics. So just because their genetics are closer to us doesn"t mean a thing. They still fall into the same category as any other animal. That"s like saying if a bear looked like us then they one step closer to being human. Absolutely absurd.
5. The fact that you only have "evidence" of one monkey name Koko rests my case. Ok so, you decided to use an example but I"m afraid to convince that a whole entire population of monkeys can do the same thing one was taught is once again absurd. That"s like saying that a human was taught to be a genius so the entire human population has the ability to be geniuses as well. You still haven"t proven that they can actually cook and read and write. When I use these things as an example I"m not talking about a stupid tiki hut of sticks and rocks, I"m talking about an actual monkey, in the house, with a cookbook, frying chicken and cooking macaroni without burning the house down. When I say read and write I mean actually intellectual words of the human dictionary not monkey talk that one human trainer can understand.
6. You"re trying to justify racism and like I mentioned before this debate has nothing to do with racism so please stop it. You"re wasting my time. If you wish to have a debate on racism next then so be it.
7. I wouldn"t have smart a just keep it pushing.
8. "You keep trying to hold monkeys and humans to a different standard for the same actions. " OF COURSE I AM. MONKEYS AND HUMAN AREN"T THE SAME. YOU SOUND NUTS GIRL.
No, "people, no matter how bad, were not justly killed without a proper trial, but monkeys would have been shot on sight. If primates were given rights then they would be put to trial too." HOW COULD A PRIMATE GO TO TRIAL IF THEY DON"T EVEN HAVE THE PROPER ABILITY TO STAND UP FOR THEMSELVES AND HOLD A CASE? I CANNOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH, MONKEYS CANNOT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS. IF THEY ALL COULD WALK AND TALK AND THINK AND COMM NUTICATE EFFECTIVELY TO ALL HUMAN KIND DON"T YOU THINK THEY WOULD"VE BEEN HAD HUAMN RIGHTS? GENTICS MAKES THEM NO CLOSER TO HUMANS THAN A CHILD TO HIS DEAD-BEAT DAD SO PLEASE SPARE ME.
I don"t think you have logical evidence to support anything you"ve debated this long. All I seem to keep getting is opinion after opinion. Maybe you should read up on some more about monkeys because the only ones that you seem to think is around today is the commercial trained ones.
Again, MONKEYS SHOULDN"T BE CONSIDERED HUMANS NOR HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS HUMANS.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Commondebator 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to con for insulting pro in the last round. No sides used sources nor justification for their arguments. However, the claims that pro made were not refuted by con. Con simply said "its a conspiracy" and providing no further reasoning. Pro won by an inch. . .
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.