Instigator / Pro
8
1500
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#4800

Humans Are Animals

Status
Finished

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

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

After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Average_Person
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1516
rating
24
debates
85.42%
won
Description

No Religiuos Arguments

Round 1
Pro
#1
1)
Animals(definition)
a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and
nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.
-oxford dictionary

humans do/have all of those things


2)
"Humans and chimps share a surprising 98.8 percent of their DNA"
chimps are animals

Con
#2
Looks like pro did not specify any BOP whatsoever. Therefore, I shall.

BOP

BOP is “essentially” shared; I prove that humans aren’t animals, and pro must prove that humans are animals.

However, the pure mundane prompt says “humans are animals”, essentially meaning, without a doubt, humans ARE animals. Therefore, pro has more BOP to satisfy than con. 


The way I understand this debate, we’ll mostly be putting dictionary against dictionary. Anyhow, let’s go do exactly that, apparently.

Arg: N dictionary attacks

All bolded phrases are my own elaborations.


  • noun An animal organism other than a human, especially a mammal. This definition states that animals are “animal organisms” but humans.
  • noun A person who behaves in a bestial or brutish manner. Not everyone behaves in a brutish manner, some people are quite polite. 
  • noun A person having a specified aptitude or set of interests. 
    • Not everyone has a “specified aptitude”. If this “specified aptitude” were measured as IQ=200000, then nobody is an “animal”. Likewise, not everyone shares the same set of interests, and some may not even have interests in the first place.
  • adjective Relating to, characteristic of, or derived from an animal or animals, especially when not human. Definition itself excludes humans from animals.
  • one of the lower animals (see LOWER entry 3 sense 3) as distinguished from human beings
    • Meaning animals “lower” than humans are considered “animal”. Since something cannot be below itself, humans are not animals by definition.
  • a human being considered chiefly as physical or nonrational
    • Not all humans are considered “nonrational”. People have brains that are actually being used!
  • of or relating to the physical or sentient as contrasted with the intellectual or rational
    • Not every characteristic is “physical”. For example, “happiness” is purely intellectual and rational rather than physical sensations.
  • any such living thing other than a human being.
    • Humans are excluded from definition
  • pertaining to the physical, sensual, or carnal nature of humans, rather than their spiritual or intellectual nature:
    • Not every characteristic is “physical”. For example, “happiness” is purely intellectual and rational rather than physical sensations.
  • a living thing that is not a human being or plant
    • Humans are excluded
  • a person who behaves in a wild, aggressive, or unpleasant way
    • Not everyone is wild.
  • coming from the bodies of animals
    • Humans don’t come from the bodies of animals.

  • An animal is a living creature such as a dog, lion, or rabbit, rather than a bird, fish, insect, or human being.
    • Humans are excluded
  • Any living creature other than a human being can be referred to as an animal.
    • Humans are excluded
  • Animal products come from animals rather than from plants.
    • So I don’t think there are “animal products” that come from humans; rather from other living creatures that are not plants, bacteria, humans, or archaebacteria.
  •  any such organism other than a human being, esp. a mammal or, often, any four-footed creature
    • Humans are excluded
  • a brutish, debased, or inhuman person
    • Not everyone is a brutish human
  • physical rather than mental or spiritual; specif., sensual, gross, bestial, etc.
    • Not every “thought” is physical (e.g. happiness)
  • This dictionary has quite many definitions. I’d be happy to continue, but I don’t want to make this an eyesore to read.

Clearly many dictionaries state that humans are excluded/are often not described as animals, compared to just one definition that is essentially truism.


Refutations
Pro says:

Animals(definition)
a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and
nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.
-oxford dictionary

humans do/have all of those things

Consider that your arg relies on only one definition.

Also, consider the origins of the word:

Latin anima means “breath” or “soul,” and animalis, the adjective that comes from it, means “having breath or soul.” An animal such as a cat or dog can be seen to breathe. Plants breathe too, by taking in certain gases from the atmosphere and releasing others. However, this process cannot be observed by the naked eye. So the noun animal, which comes from animalis, was borrowed from Latin for that group of living beings that breathe visibly.

Therefore, I can logically state that plants are animals. Technically, an A/C unit breathes in air and breathes out air by taking in gasses from the house and outputting them in the same house. According to this logic, a manmade A/C unit is an animal. 

Which is obviously false, essentially proving that the original definition has been morphed over and over again into contemporary language, where it is not used to describe humans.

Moving on.

Humans and chimps share a surprising 98.8 percent of their DNA

Okay. So we have a list of numbers down below.

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 

So since 25/26 = 96.1% of those numbers are 2, according to your logic, all numbers in the list are two since 2=2.

Instant fallacy within your argument here. I believe it is called the fallacy of composition, where you are assuming truth (humans are animals b/c chimps are) about an entire group if only part of a group (in this case, 98.8% of a human) is true (shared with chimps).

Looking forward to r2.
Round 2
Pro
#3
defensive "arguments"
1) well first i would like to say that when i made the title humans are animals i meant it as in i think
they are and con thinks they arent so i didnt mean it as a fact at the end of the day what we are debating
is subjective also i dont want this to turn into a definition debate so that was a mistake on my part
so i wont be arguing against dictionaries since some of the ones you stated contradict themselfs by
sying any livivng thing then exclude humans and a couple of them even include humans


2) i dont really understand your numbers argument so could you explain that a bit more

3) with my dna argument i wanted to show that animals and chimps especially have pretty close dna
so i find it odd that humans get their own classification
(sorry if my first arguments were a little lackluster this is my first debate and from your messages
i didnt even know if you were gonna argue)


arguments
1) we arent diffrent enough from animals to be classified as something else we should be classified as
mammals since we both are made of cells, have blood, need oxygen, need water, need food, are born/give
birth, die etc...

2) the only reason i can think of is because of our intelligence but many animals like
chimps, dolphins, dogs, pigs etc have an intelligence comparable to toddler/children and obviously
children are human
sources-
3) we evolved from monkeys so there should be a point where we stopped being animals but that point
is impossible to pinpoint because something signifigiant enough would need to seperate it

4) us becoming so intelligence and advancing so much could be classified as evolution since we werent
strong enough we needed to evolve and become smart enough to build tool, communicate, and survive in
general
sources-

Con
#4
Thanks for R2.

Args
Most of my args are actually within my refutations.

But anyhow, here’s a list of reasons to distinguish us from animals.

Most of my args are down below in refutations


Refutations

1) well first i would like to say that when i made the title humans are animals i meant it as in i think they are and con thinks they arent so i didnt mean it as a fact at the end of the day what we are debating is subjective also i dont want this to turn into a definition debate so that was a mistake on my part so i wont be arguing against dictionaries since some of the ones you stated contradict themselfs by sying any livivng thing then exclude humans and a couple of them even include humans

Please note none of my definitions explicitly include humans, making it not contradictory. Also, this arg is essentialy dictionary attacks from 6 dictionaries proving multiple definitions in modern society for the word “animal” to not be a referent to humans. Also by stating “ i wont be arguing against dictionaries”, you’re basically dropping the argument of the fact that many definitions for “animal” are not inclusive of (all) humans.

2) i dont really understand your numbers argument so could you explain that a bit more

I don’t believe I need to, all I’m stating is that because something is similar or partially common/indicative of a group, it does not mean that you can pinpoint direct correlation/truth of the entire group. If we are only 98.8% similar to a chimp, it does not mean the attribute of an “animal” of a chimp can be applied to us. 

Let me show you an example using https://nigms.nih.gov/education/Inside-Life-Science/Pages/Genetics-by-the-Numbers.aspx.. Humans have DNA that is 99.6% similar between all humans. However, my friend has blonde hair, and I have black. We are only 99.6% similar, not 100% same. Therefore, you cannot generalize the fact that “I should be considered as one who has blonde hair because my friend also has blonde hair” purely because of similarity alone. Likewise, you cannot generalize that humans are animals because chimps are purely based on similarity alone (which is exactly what you are doing, essentially an applied version of fallacy of composition).

Another refutation: consider that 98% of our DNA is “junk” and actually can’t produce any proteins. (https://nigms.nih.gov/education/Inside-Life-Science/Pages/Genetics-by-the-Numbers.aspx)


3) with my dna argument i wanted to show that animals and chimps especially have pretty close dna
so i find it odd that humans get their own classification
(sorry if my first arguments were a little lackluster this is my first debate and from your messages
i didnt even know if you were gonna argue)

Again, please refer above. You can’t infer that humans are animals because chimps are because of similarity alone rather than the two being the exact same (which they are not).

1) we arent diffrent enough from animals to be classified as something else we should be classified as
mammals since we both are made of cells, have blood, need oxygen, need water, need food, are born/give
birth, die etc...

Using these resources in my next refutation:

Scientists have figured out a way to make robots made of cells, use blood,  sweat, breathe, get goosebumps, drink water, eat organisms for fuel, and can reproduce. For obvious reasons, robots can die (e.g. hardware failures, they explode, software failures). Essentially, these robots are “mammals” according to your argument and thereby “animals”. However, this is quite not the case. Consider the definition of mammal (https://www.wordnik.com/words/mammal):

Any of various warm-blooded vertebrate animals of the class Mammalia, including humans, characterized by a covering of hair on the skin and, in the female, milk-producing mammary glands for nourishing the young.

Robots don’t even have a taxonomic rank. Therefore, they cannot be mammals and thereby cannot be robots, essentially making your argument invalid by counterexample.

2) the only reason i can think of is because of our intelligence but many animals like
chimps, dolphins, dogs, pigs etc have an intelligence comparable to toddler/children and obviously
children are human

Also consider the accomplishments we have done due to our intellect. We are able to read and write, make nuclear bombs, create technology, have much higher IQ than animals due to our unique brains. 

(https://theconversation.com/what-is-it-about-the-human-brain-that-makes-us-smarter-than-other-animals-new-research-gives-intriguing-answer-183848). In fact, due to this said brain, we are able to achieve complex depth estimation with our two eyes and have a new synergistic method of processing instructions in our brains. Essentially, this ability provides a capability for attention, learning, working memory, social and numerical cognition.

Multiple reasons why we can be distinguished from animals.

 3) we evolved from monkeys so there should be a point where we stopped being animals but that point is impossible to pinpoint because something signifigiant enough would need to seperate it

Multiple points exist. The most recent, as historians identify it, is the birth of the Anthropocene era due to the Trinity test in 1945 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene)

The whole point of defining the anthropocene era is to define advanced human impacts on the world, something animals would not be able to do right now and distinguish humans from capabilities of other animals. 

There is also the Neolithic Revolution at about 11700 years ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution), where farming and agriculture was first invented. In fact, many animals still live as hunter-gatherers, not being able to farm which is a uniquely human trait. 

Also, this started our complex society structure, something animals don’t have.

Therefore, there are multiple points “where we stopped being animals” due to events “significant enough … to separate it”

4) us becoming so intelligence and advancing so much could be classified as evolution since we werent strong enough we needed to evolve and become smart enough to build tool, communicate, and survive in general

So what I understand is you’re saying humans are animals because we evolved? Wouldn’t that make us different from animals? That would be contradictory.

Conclusion
  • I have successfully refuted all of Pro’s arguments
  • Pro has dropped all dictionary attacks of the word “animal”.
  • Pro has dropped his fallacy of composition due to similarities among humans and chimps
  • There are multiple reasons and points in time to separate us from animals
  • We have grown traits such as distance estimation and have constructed complex societies with agriculture, which animals cannot do.
  • I have proved multiple reasons why humans can be distinguished from animals
  • Pro did not satisfy his 100% BOP since he hasn’t provided evidence that humans are FULLY, 100%, ANIMALS.

Voters, thank you for reading this debate, and please vote Con!