Instigator / Pro

Being single as a human is more similar to being a dog than being a noble


The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

After 2 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Con

Dog: a domesticated carnivorous mammal that typically has a long snout, an acute sense of smell, nonretractable claws, and a barking, howling, or whining voice.

Noble: belonging to a hereditary class with high social or political status; aristocratic, having or showing fine personal qualities or high moral principles and ideals.

Single: someone who is not involved in any type of serious romantic relationship, including long-term dating, engagement, marriage, or someone who is 'single by choice'

Round 1
At first, pro side looks impossible: Noble is human. Dog is not. So con side wins, right? Well, not necessarily.

1) Single humans in modern society have long since gone past the noble standard preset by the medieval ages. As,the%20battlefield%20or%20in%20council. notes:
- Nobles are warlike
- Nobles were expected to conduct and prepare for war
-  every noble must be the "vassal" of some "lord." 
In fact, the ONLY thing nobles and single men have in common is that they are expected to act chivalrous to women, and even then, is being single really necessarily being kind to women? This could potentially be misinterpreted as a romantic notion in modern society, and as such, it would be unwise to have a single man act similar to noble (kissing women's hands or such) As you can see, being single is very very different from being a noble.

2) Living condition. As here. states, 80% of dogs are free to wander the wild, unrestrained by relationships or otherwise (unless in mating season, lol). It is widely known that at the very least, dogs have basic survival ability and thus we can reason that they have food, drink, shelter. The poverty guideline is vague, but this article says " In 2017, this line was set at $12,060 for a single person", so let's assume it's right, and the "dog's bare minimum for survival". As Pew Research center shows, "those making more than $118,000 make up the upper-income bracket". Great. We established the dog, and the upper class. However, the average income capita of worldwide s actually *lower* than even the Dog's necessity for survival ($10,298)! Hence this is far more similar than being a dog than being a noble! Indeed, looking upon how many people in the world are homeless and wandering around for need of food and survival, it is becoming more and more clear that being single is more like a dog than a noble (as married people need to have enough resources to sustain both of them, and hence you would not see people in relations very often in developing countries, where people act like dogs).

3) Low political status. Consider that America has not had a unmarried president since 1884. This clearly goes against the traditions and definition of "noble". Dogs have no political status and this only goes to confirm this. 

4) Statistics
"Figure 1 indicates that a majority of middle- and upper-class Americans are married, whereas only a minority of working-class Americans are married. " (from here) Enough said. Okay fine, I will try to avoid Texas Sharpshooter fallacy by explaining the reasoning behind this. Washington Monthly states, "The endurance of marriage among elites—and, it seems, elites alone—is important not just as a cultural anomaly. As the class divide in marriage grows, elites are compounding the advantages of their status, especially for their kids. Since the release of Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s now-famed report on the breakdown of black families in 1965, researchers have amassed a growing mountain of evidence that family structure and marriage matter. Compared to children living with single parents, or even with parents who are cohabiting, kids raised in married-parent households are much less likely to grow up in poverty, more likely to do better in school, and more likely to move up the economic ladder even if they start out poor." As you can see, the nobles/upper-class just keep extending their impossibility to be related to be single. 

Conclusion: I understand how dirty my arguments seem, considering I can I BB likely only considered Chinese people, but this is a very vague topic so I made it worldwide instead. After all, nobles are a European standard with feudalism, and as such I feel like it would only be proper to include all cultures' people and how they are much too far from being a noble, and far closer to being a dog, especially if you are single. Vote for pro.

The BoP rests on Pro: So if Con proved that a single person is as similar to a noble compared to being a dog, Con also wins.

I will summarize my premises below.

P1: Single people and nobles are both people
P2: Dogs aren't people
P3: People are people
P4: People are more similar to people compared to dogs
C: Single people are more similar to nobles than to dogs

Argument: Pure truism!

We should know that the first 4 premises are truisms. With that logic, it should be concluded that since people are more similar to people and less similar to non-human beings, single people(that are human) and nobles(also human) are more similar, compared to dogs(non-human).


This is a simple one. I have proven that single people are more similar to nobles compared to dogs, Vote Con.
Round 2
Con has completely dropped every single one of my contentions and given an empty claim that assumes just because single people and noble people are both human beings, that means being single is more similar to being noble than being a dog. But it is entirely plausible that your actions cause you to seem like an animal and not deserve human rights. Would Con even say that serial killers are still yet more similar to nobles to dogs, despite mercilessly executing people in a way that lets most people think, how is this even a person? Indeed. What about a person who has lost all sanity and can only crawl on all fours, eating slobbery and wandering in the wild, acting completely like a dog, is this still more similar to nobles than to dogs? No. He is not. From statistics and old values, single people are hardly noble as demonstrated and far closer to being a dog.

I will now restate my arguments since Con refused to meet any of them
1) Single humans in modern society have long since gone past the noble standard preset by the medieval ages.
2) Living condition for single is closer to Dog than noble
3) Low political status.
4) Statistics (single are not noble, and nobles are not single)

Con has been far too general. What determines what a noble or dog, can be determined based on actions, on their background, on their situation. As such, being single shares more in common than dog's living style than a noble's living style. Consider that, noble only considers high class and having high morals. Even dogs themselves have displayed a hint of nobility in artistic portrayal ( As such, pro has won the debate. Vote for pro.
Pro never mentioned that the resolution is "Single people are more similar in social function to a dog than a noble". He never said the modifier "Social function". Nor did Pro mention that humans are less similar to other humans than dogs. Argument extended. Vote Con.
Round 3
my dude, Similar's very definition is " having characteristics in common strictly comparable". Have you heard of the phrase, "comparing apple to oranges"? Despite both being fruit, they are still very different in shape, color, size, etc. If we draw upon the table with the traits of being single, being noble, and being a dog, you will find that con's argument is extremely poor

$10,000/yr|| $100,000/yr || $"12,000"/yr
No war || Warlike || no war
aren't romantic || chivalrous || aren't romantic
no politic power || high politic power || no politic power
low social status || high social status || low social status
often homeless || have a home || often homeless
don't serve a lord || serve a lord || don't serve a lord

As you can see, singles are far more similar to dog than noble. Con is being absurd and avoiding every single argument. He has also completely failed to negate the fact that "noble" ideas can extend beyond mere humanity (especially since the literal Chinese translation is "high class"). I have won in every single contention and destroyed con's argument.

Vote for pro.
My opponent is making new arguments in the final round. I will do so as a response.

Rebuttal: Are you really sure about that?

I can make more comparisons and contrast like my opponent did.

SINGLE                           || NOBLE                             || DOG
Speak human language  || Speak human language   || Bark
May cook                        || May cook                         || May not cook
Walk on 2 legs                || Walk on 2 legs                 || Walk on 4 legs
May ride a horse             || May ride a horse               || May not ride a horse
Can read this thing         || Can read this thing           || Cannot read this thing
Cook with pans               || Cook with pans                || Does not cook with pans
Live in a house                || Live in a house                || Live in a cage
May Drink beer regularly || May Drink beer regularly || May not drink beer regularly

(All above should be commons sense by now)

Within behavior, there are a lot more common in social behavior and biological instincts. There are also that both single people and nobles look, more or less, like this[1], while dogs like this[2]; you can list all the anatomical differences here in substitution because it would be pure wastage of time and space.

As you can see, of behavioral and anatomical differences, Single people are more similar to nobles than dogs. Dogs operate distinctively compared to the other two considering they aren't the same species. My opponent is listing only the social generalizations but fails to realize that humans' lives are more similar to other humans', especially in details, such as both single people and nobles cook by themselves, live in houses constructed by humans(Dogs don't live in places CONSTRUCTED by DOGS), drink alcoholic beverages themselves at meetings, as well as using entertainment devices constructed by their own species. Just listing several social generalizations does not make single people more similar to dogs. I have simply listed more behavioral, anatomical, and social comparisons that show single people are simply more similar to nobles than dogs. Vote for Con.

The BoP is on Pro and if I prove that his evidence is insufficient, he thus loses. I have disproved him by giving counter-evidence to other areas that would not make single people more similar to dogs instead of nobles. Vote for Con.