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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Argument: Pro's arguments were, hands down, more convincing than Con's, demonstrated by the error Con makes in round two, with regard to the battery vs. engine analogy as metaphors for instinct vs. learned behavior, that the two are a 50-50 split, when, clearly, that is not how automobiles function with regard to those two functions because, while the battery initiates a car's function, once the engine has started, the battery play's virtually only a minor role in any function; the supply of power is due to the alternator, which actually recharges the battery. It is not a 50-50 split. As Pro argued, learned behavior, such as language, while instinctual with regard to a baby's babble, represents only a minor role compared to the learned behavior of language as an adolescent and adult. Pro, therefore, contrary to Con's claim that Pro dropped the argument, fulfilled a proper rebuttal. Points to Pro.

Sourcing: Pro's sourcing went much further in supporting his argument, while even demonstrating Con's sources failing to bolster his arguments. Examples: Both in the battery/engine argument and the Ship of Perseus argument, Pro demonstrated Con's sources supporting Pro's position. Points to Pro

S&G: Tie

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

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Childrearing and socialization
Pro did a very good job here, particularly that we would would on four limbs if raised that way.
Con does decent pointing out the n value of 1, pointing out specifically the texas sharpshooter fallacy... Before shooting himself in the foot, by talking about the unique languages we learn based on where in the world we live.
The debate mainly goes back and forth on this point, with con insisting it's instinct since babies babble, which relates to a car analogy about how much movement comes from the battery (instinct) and how much from the engine (learning).

Instinct lead to unique behaviors
Con does better with arguing that our instincts guided us, even aiding in walking. Pro defends that con's own link indicated that walking for humans is learned.

Ship of Theseus
Con builds on this as a thought experiment, and pro wisely points out that it's not more than that. I think pro goes a little far in treating this as outside content (getting a voter to ponder an idea should be good), but his defense against this leading to any conclusion is solid.

Conclusion:
In pondering this I give credit to con, since without any instinct, we would not be able to learn anything (we would be minerals instead of animals, and I haven't noticed any unique behaviors from rocks). However, it's not the silver bullet he seems to think it is, as I don't see that bridging the gap to our unique behaviors (language, walking, hunting, etc.) not primarily being learned. Specifically when con's own source agreed those things are learned.

Ultimately, I can agree with the premise that to seek to learn is instinctive, but that still leaves the unique expressed behaviors (to the benefit or detriment of the organism) seems to be learned (even more so with learning conceded as overcoming instinct).

Sources
Dolphins being unable to instinctively adapt back to the wild is a really good piece of evidence, which is hard to get out of my head, and I would have liked to see a direct response. The major place pro gets this for, is catching con cherry picking from sources, so flipping con's own KateAnswers one against him. Con does better with a .gov source on curiosity (which supported that instinct plays a role in learning), but it was not enough to bring this back into the default tied range.