Instigator / Pro
0
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Topic
#2566

Resolved: Two separate species of relatively equal intelligence, one humanoid, and one not, can cohabit a planet, maintaining peaceful, non-threatening cohabitation.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Description

Oromagi posted a comment in Forum: “I don't know about a colony but I'd certainly like to see a continuous human presence on Mars by 2100 (assuming that no life forms presently exist there).” I am intrigued by this trailing conditional statement. Whether or not any given intelligent species inhabits a planet, why would it matter that another intelligent species would want to cohabit that planet? We already share Earth with some relatively intelligent species, none of which, however, to date, enjoy a truly collaborative association with us via intelligent conversation. If two humanoid species, or one humanoid, and another non-humanoid happened to have roughly equivalent intelligence, would one necessarily fear the other? It makes for a good debate topic in which I propose to take the Pro position.

First, some conditions need to set-up, so, here’s the background for this debate:

There are two planets in a solar system, both having conditions adequately matching the survival needs of two separate creatures, such as Star Trek’s “Class M Planet” designation. [1]

Both planets have intelligent populations, but, to date, neither species inhabits the other planet, though they are aware of one another. They both have adequate technology to travel to the other planet, but, to date, have not done so. Their respective languages are not identical, but able to be mutually learned to converse with one another after a period of time, such as a linguist’s speech using vowels and consonants would learn a linguist’s speech of tongue clicks and glottals, and vice-versa.

One species on one planet decides to go to the other planet with the intent of establishing contact with the potential goal of shared co-habitation of both planets.

Resolved: Two separate species of relatively equal intelligence, one humanoid, and one not, can cohabit a planet, maintaining peaceful, non-threatening cohabitation.

Definitions:

Species: [OED] Senses relating to outward appearance or form.

Intelligence: [OED] The faculty of understanding; intellect: That faculty or sum of faculties of the mind or soul by which [a species] knows and reasons; power of thought.

Humanoid: [OED] Having human form, with human characteristics.

Non-humanoid: May be bipedal, may be quadruped

Cohabit: [OED] To dwell or live together

Planet: [OED] Any of various rocky or gaseous bodies that revolve in approximately elliptical orbits around a [star] and are visible by its reflected light.

Peaceful: [OED] Inclined to or in favor of peace; amicable, pacific, placid. [This is descriptive of the populations of both species as a whole. There may be individual disagreement]

Non-threatening: Neither species’ natural condition represents a quantified factor harmful to the other species’ habitat. [This does not imply that technical development by one species would be of no harm to the other species]

Debate protocol:

Rounds 1, 2: Argument, rebuttal, defense

Round 3: No new argument, rebuttal, defense, conclusion

All argument, defense, rebuttal, and sourcing will be listed within the context of the debate argument rounds only, except sourcing may also be listed within comments within the debate file to conserve maximum space for argumentation, but only during the argumentation phase. No other external reference may be made within the context of the debate argument rounds.

No waived rounds. No more than one round may be forfeited, or forfeiture of entire debate will result. Concession in any round is a debate loss.

All argument rounds will contain arguments, rebuttals, and defenses, plus 4th round conclusion. No declaration of victory will be made but in the 4th round.

Arguments, rebuttals, defenses, or conclusions may not address voters directly for voting suggestions beyond statement of validity for arguments, et al, made in all rounds.

[1] https://stexpanded.fandom.com/wiki/Class_M_planet

-->
@fauxlaw

It's fine. I'm a teenager of 16, a leftist, and gay. I can see why the stereotype would make you assume I am someone to be aggressive towards. I'm sure there is certain aspects we would agree on.

Yes, wiki is a good place to start, to track down leads and all.

And I totally get the keyboard thing, luckily I took a couple of classes in middle school, dodged a bullet there.

And while certain fallacies can be misinterpreted and such, as long as valid justified.

-->
@Theweakeredge

No, there is no question about it; I consider Wiki less reliable than no source at all. It not a bad place to start, but to finish and cite Wiki as a source is a dangerous precedent to set. For meaningless matters, I suppose it's ok, but if a better source can be found, the time should be taken to do so. Please check out my new debate with seldiora on wiki reliability once it gets started. And, in the future, I'll try to be less cynical toward you; I much prefer a positive association, while having differing opinions, although I think we'd find much to agree on.

re: c[o]unt: Yes, a cheeky accident. Well, cheeky is the wrong anatomy, but it was an accidental exclusion. I never learned to type properly [I call my method "search and destroy] because I use mostly the thumbs and first two fingers of both hands, and letters at the extremes of that range, like 'o' are sometimes stroked only as a near-miss and do not register, particularly from my right hand. I'm left-handed. Plus the fact that I am an abominable speller. Just in this paragraph, I have had to go back and correct three words. My biggest issue is stray letters that are added because my fingertips are too large for the size of the keyboard, and I go through a keyboards annually because I really have a heavy-handed typing style. I crash against my keys. That's a problem because although I find mac keyboards more robust than windows devices, mac keyboards, like everything apple, are damn expensive.

Fallacious is in the eye of the beholder. Not to mention, however, that my reach for metaphor is extensive. Sometimes I miss. That's life in the pages.

-->
@fauxlaw

How absolutely fascinating, despite the fact of your established "authorhood" and you being the "wordsmith" so to speak, your responses are quite lackluster. Elaborate, I suppose, but fallacy ridden nonetheless.

All who have commented are encouraged to vote

-->
@fauxlaw

Except we both know that:

A) "Wiki" isn't the best source for claiming something reliable or not, and B) Seldiora likes to challenge themselves, its why he accepts and creates so many different debates. Even if they did disagree and find your lack of sourcing they wouldn't call it out.

No, no, I was simply calling out the fact, I care not if Seldiora did or didn't.

Plus, in addition, your words, "my opponent's source" tells me you aren't quite convinced by Wiki as a source either. I only clarify the specifics due to something you said, "I try to make every word c(o)unt)." (Sorry couldn't resist) Therefore when approaching your words, one should take careful note of the potential motivation behind each word.

-->
@Theweakeredge

Yes, mocking is a correct assessment.
The point:
1. As you point out, my opponent did not call out the allegation that my source was not valid; therefore, it was accepted, even by tacit acceptance.
2. IN this instance, the Tower of Babel may have been entirely fictitious, but fiction can be a legitimate source for the same reason you allege: "effective because...of the philosophical principle it explains." Your words. You must live by the application of them. Indeed, Wiki, my opponent's source [in another debate] rated as "reliable," says of the Bible that "These texts include theologically-focused historical accounts."

-->
@fauxlaw

I don't think you unintelligent, so this hogwash of a response must be your mocking of me. Regardless my point stands. Christopher Hitchen's Razor is not effective because it is his, but because of the philosophical principle it explains, the BoP. As it states: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

You never demonstrated the Bible to be of valid historic use, and the fact that you do not address that part of my comment is telling.

-->
@Theweakeredge

Christopher Hitchens, while maybe the most recent of irreverent anti-theists, may have been tearing at his own foundation with the publication of "God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" four years before his death in 2011. By mere mention of God is the grounding that there is something there against which he is opposed. Opposition to an idea does not, by itself, negate the idea. Not a great ending for a life-long critic siding with divine non-existence. So, of what formal authority is the man's dulling razor? I can afford to reply to his razor, "Who's razor, and why should it necessarily be sharper than mine?" After all, I'm still alive, and I was born but 5 months after Hitchens, and still have my sharpening leather strap in good use. And, yeah, I use a straight razor. Bic and Gillette are for girly men.

-->
@fauxlaw

I find it interesting that Seldiora did not object to you claiming the bible as history and providing no evidence of such, making that entire section dismissible according to Hitchen's razor.

-->
@fauxlaw
@seldiora

Read about seldiora's 100th debate here.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5038-dart-bard-4th-edition-11-1-2020?page=1

-->
@Intelligence_06

Class M, which is descriptive of neither Jupiter, nor an astroid. Fictitious, yes, but still based on some science, and, who said fiction cannot contain truth, other than a few on this site, and elsewhere, who do not recognize variant origins of truth. Particularly since the whole set-up of conditions in this debate are fictitious. Fiction can be supported by truth. Fiction is imaginary, but suspension of disbelief, the armor of fiction, says you can believe it, anyway.

-->
@fauxlaw

How big the planet?

If it is the size of Jupiter, then I doubt they will ever cross paths.

If it is the size of an asteroid, then I am amazed if they even can have enough spaces for both individuals.

-->
@seldiora

Congratulations!. Looks like you're #3 in the population of debaters in number of debates engaged. Thanks for accepting. I wish you best of luck, but I promise I won't back you [bad joke!] Seriously, let's have a good, enjoyable debate!

100th debate, yay!

-->
@Barney

Hold that thought through my round 1, if anyone accepts the debate. Otherwise, giving the store away is not my thing.

-->
@RationalMadman

I try to make every word cunt. However, as I have indicated before, in this open period during the debate challenge, negotiation is always on the table/

So long as neither is human... we can’t even do that with ourselves.

-->
@fauxlaw

Makes me think of dolphins

-->
@fauxlaw

As a professional writer, you must know the difference between the word 'can' and 'probably will'. At the moment you will always win this debate as Pro due to the BoP being 'can'.