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
Tags
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
20
debates
87.5%
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.
- something that lives and moves but is not a human, bird, fish, or insect:
- Humans are excluded from definition
- an unpleasant, cruel person or someone who behaves badly:
- Not everyone is unpleasant or a cruel person.
- used to describe what type of person or thing someone or something is:
- Not everyone is described nor prefers to be described as an animal.
- made or obtained from an animal or animals:
- Humans are not “made” from an animal.
- relating to, or taking the form of, an animal or animals rather than a plant or human being:
- Humans are excluded
- relating to physical desires or needs, and not spiritual or mental ones:
- Not everyone, when talking, is relating to purely physical desires. (Example: I want to be happy ⇒ “happy” is not a physical desire, but rather a mental/emotional one.)
- In ordinary use, animal means all living beings except humans:
- Humans are excluded
- relating to physical needs or desires, such as to eat or reproduce:
- I have repeated the argument for this countless times; just scroll up.
- 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 andnervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.-oxford dictionaryhumans 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-
(we should debate more in the commenst it was a mistake only making it 2 rounds)
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.
- We have an understanding that we can die, and we do things in life to gain satisfaction before we die. Animals do not have the ability/intelligence to understand that they will die someday. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-big-questions/201207/we-are-not-animals
- We negotiate conflicts between each other much different than animals do; we have codes of conduct while animals just have some simple favor-based “sorry”.https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/reclaiming-childhood/201106/only-humans-have-morality-not-animals
- We have the ability to be creative with our thoughts and express it through art and technology
- We feel more empathy for each other than animals
- We have diverse culture and traditions, while it has not been documented that animals have any.
- We have an understanding of religion and the spiritual dimension, while animals do not.
- We have moral/ethical frameworks (codes of conduct) while animals just have some simple repayment systems
- We can think rationally
- We have pushed technology to its limits through innovation
- https://www.innovativeinsight.net/post/20-reasons-why-human-beings-are-considered-more-important-than-animals
- Humans have higher mental capabilities
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010027722001275
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 dnaso 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 messagesi 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 asmammals since we both are made of cells, have blood, need oxygen, need water, need food, are born/givebirth, 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 likechimps, dolphins, dogs, pigs etc have an intelligence comparable to toddler/children and obviouslychildren 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!
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:
See debate comments numbers #63 and #64.
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:
Pro gives the definition. Says that humans have similar DNA to animals.
Con gives much more definitions. Refutes the argument of similarity by saying that similar does not mean same.
In round 2, Pro repeats the similarity argument, but without refuting Con's refutation of similar not being same.
Pro concedes the definitions.
Pro makes a claim that toddlers have similar intelligence to animals. I accept that argument. However, the topic does not deal with toddlers specifically, but with all humans.
Pro states that we arent different enough from animals to be classified as something different.
Pro states that we evolved from monkeys.
Con says that there are multiple points where we stopped being animals.
Con brings up many differences which make humans different from animals, such as religion, reasoning, innovation, morality, technology...
I give win to Con. There are lots of differences between humans and animals, and similarities dont negate so many differences.
you said i commited 1 fallacy but i already debunked that istead i showed that you commited multiple fallacys and this isnt apart of the debate and people should vote based on what was said in the debate but i think people might miss the multiple fallacys you commited with bad logic and tried to explain why you won the debate while you were still debating also you replied without reading my comment
also you should vote based on who made the better arguments again im not saying that i made the better arguments but when you said
"I give win to Con. There are lots of differences between humans and animals, and similarities dont negate so many differences."
it gives me the impression that your just voting based on your opinion
we're already done with the debate, plus, you can't pick up arguments you already dropped.
I don't even think voters are allowed to consider what has been written in the comments unless it has been explicitly mentioned in the debate "X has happened" by both ppl on a consensus.
You should... prob stop. I don't influence how ppl vote. If you want to improve your arguments, I'll link a couple guides by one of the mods.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wgEoU2M4k7PvJZzvbwrjw8nOomkYqnBpDaLR4igvMe0/edit#heading=h.4gchlr7uwv2c
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dPsCqhJTfkhFxQKblrsbKxjunKfnQUlUG59B5h1XWuI/edit#heading=h.4gchlr7uwv2c
By the way-- if I have proved you committed fallacies in the debate, you can't just come being a discord mod in the comments.
This isn't an elementary school playground where you can throw mulch over and over again.
this isnt apart of the debate this is what i think of your arguments and for voters to not blindly look at your arguments when voting
(My Fourth Comment)
Sorry if i came off too aggresive i was pretty heated when i wrote the first half and dont take offense to this since this isnt an attack to your character this is an attack on your argument/your actions also im not arguing that i won interms of arguments
idt ur allowed to extend arguments in the comments --- we're already done with the debate
(my third comment)
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.
you didnt understand that correctly just like animals can evolve to better survive their enviorment
like evolve to be able to camouflage we arent as strong as bears, lions, tigers so us becoming so
intelligence can be classified as evolution for us to be able to survive better
"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."
i have proved why your defensive and offensive arguments are wrong and have shown how you commited multiple
fallacys and i explained in my second argument why i dont need to prove why humans are 100% animals
which shows you either
a) didnt read that or chose to ignore it or
b) you are lying so people would vote for you
My Subjective Conclusion-
you have lost on the biases that you have commited multiple fallacies and probably lied for votes plus
half of the people youi asked to vote are your friends
(My Second Comment)
tating 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.
10) i already explained this i didnt mean that we are the same as chimps i meant we are to similar
to not even be considered as an animal and i was asking about what you meant when you said-
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."
because that is not at all what i said another fallacy(strawman)
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).
11) that wasnt my only argument and if i commited fallacy of composition that would mean i said something
like "some humans have similar dna to chimps that means all humans have similar dna to chimps" and i didnt
say humans and chimps are the same i said they are similar
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...
"Scientists have figured out a way to make robots made of cells, use blood, sweat, breathe"
12) first frog cells not just cells also if you reply could you tell me when they say that the xenobots
"use blood, sweat, breath"
drink water, eat organisms for fuel"
they literally say they dont eat-
"The xenobots then spend a little over a week crawling or swimming around a dish before disintegrating (as they don’t eat, their lifespan is limited)."
"and can reproduce."
they say "self-replication" not reproduction
For obvious reasons, robots can die (e.g. hardware failures, they explode, software failures).
its not a fact it could very much be argued if it should be considered death
"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."
bro that definition literally includes humans as animals
"Robots don’t even have a taxonomic rank Therefore, they cannot be mammals and thereby cannot be robots"
probably cause the article was released in 2023 april 8 and how are robots not robots
"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."
we dont really have unique brains our brains are just capable of more also not everyone
can read, write, make nuclear bombs, create technology so that is fallacy of composition and this doesnt adress my point
"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."
first some animals are cable of farming also this would mean people before these points are animals also
there can only be 1 point since if we became humans we cant stop being humans
"Also, this started our complex society structure, something animals don’t have."
some animals have society structure not as complex as ours but they still have it
"Therefore, there are multiple points “where we stopped being animals” due to events “significant enough … to separate it”
again there can only be one point
(First Comment)
please read before replying
"We have an understanding that we can die, and we do things in life to gain satisfaction before we die. Animals do not
have the ability/intelligence to understand that they will die someday.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-big-questions/201207/we-are-not-animals
We negotiate conflicts between each other much different than animals do; we have codes of conduct while animals just have some simple favor-based “sorry”.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/reclaiming-childhood/201106/only-humans-have-morality-not-animals
We have the ability to be creative with our thoughts and express it through art and technology
We feel more empathy for each other than animals
We have diverse culture and traditions, while it has not been documented that animals have any."
basically all of these are because of intelligence so-
1) animals might not know that they will die obviously know that they can die and animals do things for
satisfaction
2) animals obviously are able to express themselfs
3) empathy comes under intelligence and some people just cant feel empathy
4) your culture argument is a fallacy since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
We have an understanding of religion and the spiritual dimension, while animals do not.
5) no evidence for that provided
We have moral/ethical frameworks (codes of conduct) while animals just have some simple repayment systems
again no evidence provided and its a known fact that some animals have ethical frameworks
We can think rationally
6) no evidence provided and it again obvious that animal can think rationally
https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/shows/uh-moment/2017/11/15/250805/uh-moment-do-animals-think-rationally/#:~:text=New%20research%20
published%20by%20assistant,engage%20in%20rational%20decision%20making.
We have pushed technology to its limits through innovation
https://www.innovativeinsight.net/post/20-reasons-why-human-beings-are-considered-more-important-than-animals
7) animals are capable of toolmaking so it we could have just proggressed faster
Humans have higher mental capabilities
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010027722001275
8) some people dont have better mental capabilities than animals and they are still humans
Refutations
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.
9) alot of them exlude fish amd birds which are very obviously animals also its easy to cherry pick
definition that suit your argument i only picked one since it was the most popular one
Some definitin i found on the FRONT PAGE OF GOOGLE
Animals are multicellular, eukaryotic organisms in the biological kingdom Animalia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal
Animals
a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and
nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.
Animal
any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled
organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (such as protozoans) that typically
differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the
capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (such as proteins), in
being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for
spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/animal
maybe but i think rm doesnt like me and being bias is something he would do
Also --- I'm like 99% sure that kind of bias doesn't exist too much here on debateart as in IRL
The question is--- would they see it? Just as much as any other debate unless I ping them specifically and they get a notification.
you could have just said everyone who sees this please vote since your friends have the capability to be biased
... and I know them on the site? I can't (comfortably) ping a random guy and ask them to vote.
half of those are your friends
hello i request your vote if you may?
alot of my family member say humans arent animals and i think humans should be classified as animals
(i tried to argue with them but their argument are just humans are not animals and thats it)
Are you trying to argue truism bruh
stop being stupid