Instigator / Pro
0
1522
rating
14
debates
28.57%
won
Topic
#4358
Humans are fish (read description).
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
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
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 3,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1500
rating
1
debates
50.0%
won
Description
Humans are absolutely not fish, rather instead this is an argument that demonstrates how one can use smoke and mirrors to support their argument with an idiotic claim, in much the same way politicians do. BOP is on con.
PRO wins if they can use smoke and mirrors to deflect all of CON's points in a way that might be (even if it is only a small chance) convincing to someone utterly uneducated on the subject.
CON wins if they can show that humans aren't fish in a way that someone utterly uneducated on the subject would absolutely believe them with no room for doubt.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Humans are obviously fish. This is a basic fact that anyone with logic can understand. For my opponent, I would like to ask, what could possibly make you think humans aren't fish? After all, humans are, by definition, fish. The features humans have match perfectly with the features fish have. Burden of proof is on con so you must prove this obvious fact as being wrong; something that you would obviously be incapable of doing.
Con
#2
As I understand, we are debating whether it is generally appropriate to consider humans as one would consider a fish. I accept as stated that deceitfulness may be exhibited by Pro throughout the debate, and I will argue in good faith. I consider Pro as a participant rather than an opponent.
Many ideas can be rationalized that are not indicative of a realistic view of the world. I don't deny that Pro has some rationalization of sorts, but without presenting it I have no prior experience from which to relate. I have heard of people referring to a variety of sea creatures as fish, but never humans or really any vertebrate that typically walks the earth and breathes air outside of analogies to real fish in context. For analogy people may be referred to as one would a fish to illustrate that one is sought out, caught, or intertwined as experienced by people who catch fish.
As he walked by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon who is called Peter and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen. Jesus said to them, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” Immediately they left their nets and followed him. -Mark 4:18
Obviously to the apostles, the implements for catching actual fish were to be left behind for a great cause.
In a classical sense I could accept it if you conveyed that whales are fish as they have fins, a tail well suited to live their entire life swimming through the seas. In the general sense I would be able to relate to other things that dwell in water and move about with a fluid motion such as jellyfish and squid. Specifically, what I consider to be a fish in accordance with my own experience is a creature that lives in water that is capable of swimming for at least a portion of it's life, with a "backbone" and a tail or flexible set of fins, and at least in my experience having meat that is distinguishable from mammalian tissue.
My experience from seeing the world and conversing with native English speakers would include a variety of sharks, betta fish, carp or koi, and sturgeon. It would exclude water dwelling invertebrates like sea cucumber, crabs, or jellyfish. It would also exclude mammals, such as sea cows and whales along with dolphins. Though dictionaries are generally imperfect and therefore contain a questionable degree of inaccurate, unfulfilling, and unintuitive definitions I will cite a few in the next round to demonstrate an admittedly academic perspective, that is independent of my own.
Since no other creature has proficiently adopted English as a form of writing, I know that you are a human without needing to see you. We typically have two legs with feet and toes, two arms, a neck that clearly separates the face and head from the body. I don't need to go further as you can look in the mirror for a description.
Round 2
Pro
#3
I have heard of people referring to a variety of sea creatures as fish, but never humans or really any vertebrate that typically walks the earth and breathes air outside of analogies to real fish in context.
I find it doubtful that you haven't heard that humans are fish, but assuming you have lived your life ignorantly of this obvious fact. Just because you have never heard of vertebrates that walk the earth and breath air outside it of being fish does not discount humans as being fish. Clearly, as can be shown, humans are fish.
For analogy people may be referred to as one would a fish to illustrate that one is sought out, caught, or intertwined as experienced by people who catch fish.
This is just saying that just as a fisherman catches a fish, people can also become sought out, caught, or intertwined with each other. Effectively, this is an argument in my favor, of people indeed being fish. This is further evidence for my point that people are fish.
As he walked by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon who is called Peter and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen. Jesus said to them, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” Immediately they left their nets and followed him. -Mark 4:18Obviously to the apostles, the implements for catching actual fish were to be left behind for a great cause.
So two brothers abandon fishing out at sea to fish out at land (and become "fishers of men" as demonstrated by the quote). In this case, the people are obviously going to fish the species of fish of humans, as humans are fish. After all, you fish fish (that is why fishing fish is named fishing), and thus saying that people are "fishers of men" implies that men are fish as fishing refers to catching fish; ergo it means "we are catching the fish species of man", which further proves that people are fish.
A mistake you made here was saying that the apostates left behind catching actual fish to go to a great cause, but as the "great cause" refers to catching more fish (in this instance of the species of man), they were always going to be catching actual fish before or after being promoted to their "great cause". Again, this acts as further proof that people are fish.
Since no other creature has proficiently adopted English as a form of writing, I know that you are a human without needing to see you. We typically have two legs with feet and toes, two arms, a neck that clearly separates the face and head from the body. I don't need to go further as you can look in the mirror for a description.
I am described by that. However, so what? You are just describing properties that fish have. As I have things like two leg with feet and toes, two arms, a neck, etc, that proves that I am a fish because fish also have those features. This is further proof that I am a fish!
Open your eyes and see the clear evidence that people are fish!
Con
#4
As he walked by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon who is called Peter and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen. Jesus said to them, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” Immediately they left their nets and followed him. -Mark 4:18
I note a correction. This can be found by turning to Mathew 4:18, or Mark 1:16.
The New Testament of the Bible is probably the most popular and widely accessible book series of all time. Billions of copies exist. They are distributed in every country, even where doing so may be penalized by law and custom. Christians have been working day and night for 5 centuries since the advent of the printing press, and in that time it is said that the gospel has been made available in over 1000 languages. The people who have resources to become literate in English as a second language are most likely going to be able to access a bible to reference. So, even if you have a less than ideal understanding of English you can efficiently verify that Pro doesn't have a realistic grasp by reading a bible written in your preferred language.
If you live among a predominantly English-speaking community then your area is influenced heavily by Christianity, so you can ask your local expert on the subject.
The majority of dictionaries I looked through feature an illustration of a perch.
Oxford Dictionary - Contemporary
1 In popular language, any animal living exclusively in the water; primarily denoting vertebrate animals provided with fins and destitute of limbs; but extended to include various cetaceans, crustaceans, molluscs, etc. In modern scientific language (to which popular usage now tends to approximate) restricted to a class of vertebrate animals, provided with gills throughout life, and cold-blooded; the limbs, if present, are modified into fins, and supplemented by unpaired median fins.
(American) Sayings - Unabridged Webster's
1 Drink like a Fish - To drink alcohol in excess.
2 Fish out of water - A person out of his or her proper or accustomed environment.
3 Neither fish nor fowl - Having no specific character or conviction.
4 Other Fish to fry - Other matters to tend to.
Contemporary Webster's College Dictionary
1 Any of the three classes (jawless, cartilaginous, and bony fishes) of coldblooded vertebrate animals living in water and having fins, permanent gills for breathing, and, usually, scales.
2 Loosely, any animal living in water only as a dolphin, crab, or oyster: often used in combination.
3 The flesh of a fish used as food.
4 A person thought of as like a fish in being easily lured by bait, lacking intelligence or emotion etc...
Pro made a point earlier about analogies somehow supporting their theory. Drawing a similarity between things which are otherwise quite unalike is what makes an analogy.
All information verified by sourcing an authentic hardcopy.
Round 3
Pro
#5
There is no difference between both of the Bible quotes you gave. Clearly, you are struggling to make an argument because people are fish and fumbled.
1 In popular language, any animal living exclusively in the water; primarily denoting vertebrate animals provided with fins and destitute of limbs; but extended to include various cetaceans, crustaceans, molluscs, etc. In modern scientific language (to which popular usage now tends to approximate) restricted to a class of vertebrate animals, provided with gills throughout life, and cold-blooded; the limbs, if present, are modified into fins, and supplemented by unpaired median fins.
All dictionaries are run by an evil organization trying to mask the truth. This false definition is part of that. As BOP is on con, you must prove that this evil organization does not exist. To clarify, you cannot simply claim it does not exist because there is lack of proof because you have burden of proof, you must show that the organization, without a shadow of a doubt, isn't being controlled by this evil organization. To clarify further, if you argue that any of these dictionaries are being run by non-evil organizations, you MUST prove that an evil organization isn't secretly controlling the organization. This is something you cannot do, as if it is secretive, you would never be able to find any proof against what I am saying.
1 Drink like a Fish - To drink alcohol in excess.
Who is only known species to drink alcohol in excess? Humans. So, if to drink this a fish means to drink alcohol in excess, we can infer humans are fish.
2 Fish out of water - A person out of his or her proper or accustomed environment.
Water-vapor is around humans in the air all the time. So a fish (human) being out of water (water-vapor in the air) must refer to an environment outside of any water, which is space. In other, a fish (human) is outside of water (space), which clearly implies that humans are fish.
3 Neither fish nor fowl - Having no specific character or conviction.
This saying is irrelevant. It's like saying that "It's raining cats and dogs" means that cats and dogs actually rain from the sky.
4 Other Fish to fry - Other matters to tend to.
Again, this is irrelevant. This is repeating what I said before, but it's like saying that "It's raining cats and dogs" means that cats and dogs actually rain from the sky.
Regarding your definition argument, please refer to my previous argument about an evil organization running all of the definitions.
Open your eyes and see the truth; people are fish! My opponent cannot argue against my points in any cohesive manner, and my points make perfect sense! They are just using smoke and mirrors to confuse the truth! Be on the right side of history, recognize that people are fish!
Con
#6
All dictionaries are run by an evil organization trying to mask the truth. This false definition is part of that. As BOP is on con, you must prove that this evil organization does not exist. To clarify, you cannot simply claim it does not exist because there is lack of proof because you have burden of proof, you must show that the organization, without a shadow of a doubt, isn't being controlled by this evil organization. To clarify further, if you argue that any of these dictionaries are being run by non-evil organizations, you MUST prove that an evil organization isn't secretly controlling the organization. This is something you cannot do, as if it is secretive, you would never be able to find any proof against what I am saying.
There's an obscure, nameless organization that Pro argues you should believe in. I'm quite open to the idea that people who write famous dictionaries have an agenda that maybe isn't really secret, but also isn't exactly known. However, I don't think there is a strong reason to believe in a single organization that influenced all of them. During the early 1800's Noah Webster was involved in American politics, and I'm confident he wrote his dictionary with patriotic interests mind. In the 1840's the rights were purchased by G & C Merriam Co, hence the familiar name of "Merriam Webster" that we know today, who had their own interests which probably changed over time. Sometime during the 1900's the rights were again purchased, this time by Encyclopedia Britannica which had its own interests. The Oxford dictionary, which was not begun until the late 1800's in England, is many times larger than any Webster dictionary I have seen. I have no doubt a different approach is taken, but as can be seen it comes to a similar conclusion.
In round 3, Pro is simultaneously arguing that an unabridged Merrium-Webster dictionary has the (apparently) correct usage and supports his theory, whilst arguing that the same dictionary is run by an organization intent on deceiving the reader. Which is it?
No content
Looks like there is nothing here yet
Totally meant to grade this one.
Oh my goodness I'm so sorry! You didn't need to lose more sleep for a less serious debate like this one, you could've just forfeited a round! Thank you for doing it, though.
I took an extra hour of my time to finish this debate after being deprived of sleep for about a day and a half. Hope it's appreciated.
Thanks for a thoughtful debate BennyEmerald
Thanks! I figured that it would be an interesting case study for a debate to focus on how one can confuse a debate. I'm trying to use most of the ways that people in real life actually confuse the truth. Like in the round I just published (R3), I blamed the definitions not supporting my cause on an "evil organization", mimicking anti-vaxxers saying that evidence against them was made by big pharma. I was tempted to call this organization big fish but figured that was too on the nose.
Nice to see others are enjoying this as well. Keep up the good work
Oh this is a fun one!
That is a good ChatGPT mimicry, if that even exists.
Though some humans are reptilian. At least some people want you to believe so.