Instigator / Pro
14
1581
rating
38
debates
64.47%
won
Topic
#2372

Unique behavior in highly intelligent species is largely learned, not instinctual

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
0
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
1

After 2 votes and with 11 points ahead, the winner is...

K_Michael
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
3
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Description

Unique: exclusive to a particular group.
Behavior: all the ways animals interact with other organisms and the physical environment; a change in the activity of an organism in response to a stimulus, an external or internal cue or combo of cues.
Highly intelligent species: Animals that are widely considered to have human or near-human intelligence, such as corvids, primates, and cetaceans.

-->
@RationalMadman

You: "I think the sources is barely enough explanation of why Con didn't earn the point too."

My vote: "Examples: Both in the battery/engine argument and the Ship of Perseus argument, Pro demonstrated Con's sources supporting Pro's position."

What more do you want? I specifically showed two examples where Con's sourcing failed by supporting Pro's argument. I notice you did not bother to vote at all.

-->
@Barney

Wrong interpretation. You have to read my words in their order. I stated: "Con's last round argument that Pro dropped the 50-50 split..." an accusation levied by Con, was followed by, "...lost conduct for failure to recognize Pro's rebuttal," a statement of conclusion of the drop. The problem was, Con offered a last-round defense, as my last comment indicated, which was incoherent, meeting the discipline of conduct points voting. It matters not that I could see what Con was trying to do, but Con didn't know their argument was incoherent. As a voter, that was my assessment; that Con didn't understand, and therefore displayed incoherent conduct.

-->
@fauxlaw

As you can see in #16, I was specifically asked to review your conduct allotment. Had I not been asked, I never would have looked, so it isn't some inch I cannot scratch regarding you.

As you stated inside your vote that you understood perfectly well that they outright dropped the points, implies that it did not render the debate incoherent to you.

-->
@Barney

You're going to have to do better than that in calling my vote out because both arguments by Con re: car batteries and babies babbling were effectively rebutted by Pro, and I found Con's final round defense ineffective, and, in fact, incoherent, per the definition of conduct voting. The defense simply did not make sense. That is incoherence, according to my dictionary, the OED. Face it, man, you just have a itch you cannot scratch in my regard.

-->
@fauxlaw

Your vote assigns conduct for: "Conduct: Con's last round argument that Pro dropped the 50-50 split lost conduct for failure to recognize Pro's rebuttal. point to Pro"

This is outside the time window for point adjustments now, but in future please do a little better on conduct. What it sounds like is you awarded conduct for someone dropping points, which is already handled just fine with the argumentation points. Still, thank you for putting the effort in to cast a vote; but please try to do a little better in future.

From the voting policy: "Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic"
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy

-->
@Barney
@MisterChris

I report fauxlaw's vote for the Conduct point allocation.

I think the sources is barely enough explanation of why Con didn't earn the point too, it only says why Pro did.

I can't physically report the vote as the period is over, so I am tagging you here.

Final bump for votes

I just spent an hour writing an RFD, the karma gods owe me a few votes over here.

bump

-->
@RationalMadman

Good to know, thx!

Instinctual is a futile word because instinctive already existed and is more grammatically correct considering that 'distinctive' 'destructive' etc are done by 'ive'.

bump

-->
@RationalMadman
@Barney
@Ramshutu
@oromagi
@Trent0405

Tagging top of the leaderboard for votes.

bump

-->
@Intelligence_06

Are you interested in voting?

-->
@K_Michael

oops I meant I move the floor to pro but whatevs

-->
@seldiora

so this?
https://zhidao.baidu.com/question/2057750902777520227.html

-->
@Intelligence_06

no, I'm just a baka. Remember that seldiora takes debates 9sk disagrees with

-->
@seldiora

"I am not convinced even whiteflame can win con side on this one"

We got one who claims to be better than whiteflame.

actually, I am very curious how you counter the blurring of what is instinct and learned. I'm just gonna leave this here for future me: https://www.edge.org/response-detail/11453#:~:text=And%20yet%20the%20capacity%20to,though%20every%20language%20is%20learned.

I am not convinced even whiteflame can win con side on this one