Sea lions are seals
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
I will be Pro. In other words, I will be arguing that sea lions are seals.
You will be Con. In other words, you will be arguing that sea lions are not seals.
Rules:
Round 1 is only for opening arguments // making your case. Con shall not use round 1 to rebut or otherwise respond to Pro's round 1 arguments .
Round 2 is only for rebuttals to round 1 arguments. Pro shall not use round 2 to rebut or otherwise respond to Con's round 2 arguments.
Judges shall not consider arguments that weren't possible to respond to in compliance with these rules as dropped arguments.
Pro and Con shall not plagiarize, but may reuse their own work.
You forfeit, you lose.
Arguments:
Pros argument depends on all pinnipeds being “seals”. He provides sources to back this up which refer to pinnipeds as seals.
Out of his sources, coincidentally, the Brittanica dictionary defines seal as any of the 32 species of pinniped - con missed that there are actually 34 species of pinniped, and could have used that but didn’t.
Throughout the debate, pro primarily relied on these definitions.
Pro did not offer any argument or sources that explicitly said “Sea lions are seals”, However at least two of his sources came as close as is possible to doing that without being quite that explicit.
On the other hand con did not offer any arguments or sources that explicitly said “Sea lions are not seals either”, however con did offer up multiple examples where sources and information indicate that sea lions are different from seals.
Pro explained that cons sources differentiated sea lions and seals as they are using a narrower definition, but cast the sources that differentiate as not authoritative to define the meaning of the words.
As con has no opportunity to refute, I have to consider that.
A large thrust of cons argument is that only “true seals”, are actual seals. I found this argument wholly lacking, relying on a fairly tenuous dictionary reference and not really relying on any sources - as pro pointed out.
I tend to give more benefit of the doubt to debate positions that appear unwinnable due to definition.
However, cons only argument that pushed me his way was sources that said sea lions were different from seals: but he didn’t do enough, IMO, to justify why all dictionary definitions, and encyclopedias were wrong. To win this, pro not just to separate seals from seal lions, but to explain why this separation is more valid than the definitions con provided. Simply arguing that only true seals are seals, and scientists named the group wrong is not sufficient.
If con had pointed out the Brittanica source 34/32 species thing or similar, and if he had mentioned the word paraphyly, and used examples - I would have awarded the win. But in my view, he fell short in this respect.
Arguments to pro.
enjoyable debate, interesting subject. Essentially, a semantic debate pitting genus vs species, generic vs specific. Analogously, the genus populus is commonly called poplar- even though aspen trees and cottonwoods are conspicuously different from what English speakers call poplar trees, they are all correctly termed poplar trees as a genus. One can generically refer to a grove of aspen and cottonwood as a poplar grove, even in the absence of any specific species popularly called poplar. Likewise, any group of pinnipeds may be referred to generically as seals, even if no species named seal is present. Pro could have been more explicit in the first round, but leaves Con little room to run from a well established syllogism. Con makes a valiant effort but never addresses the central contention: seal applies to genus as well as species. Arguing that sea lions are a different species from any other species called seal has no impact on genus nomenclature. Con is arguing "it should not be so" which does not contradict "it is true today." I'll fault Con somewhat for bringing Wikipedia in for examination, since that source confirms Pro's sources and reminds the reader that Con is arguing against ordinary linguistic and taxonomic convention. Con also cited Oxford to define "true" which strengthens Pro's Oxford definitions for seal and sea lion. Does Con suggest that Oxford can be trusted to define his word but not Pro's? Still, I won't give a source point to Pro since Con had all the heavy lifting research-wise and I disagree with Pro that Con's sources were less than reliable. I admire Con's argument but ultimately he only attacked the central premise at the species level and ignored the genus application.
BREAKING NEWS: The sea lion's style of terrestrial locomotion is called the "galumph" after Lewis Carrol's "Jabberwocky"- possibly a portmanteau of triumph and gallop.
No, they are fucking well not.
It is has been established that sea lions are merely ionized seals.
I think the definition I advanced was paraphyletic. It included every extant pinniped except the walrus.
someone needs to tell it to your fuckign face; you are absolutely oblivious to who has or has not won a debate, you say it's winnable and nitpick 2 fucking words I didn't say that you would say, it's an utter sham of a voter you are.
I see seal a bit like lizard or fish - they are exclusatoy and paraphyletic. I was actually thinking of accepting this before RM, as this was pretty winnable.
EDIT: I actually *DON'T* see "seal", by itself as a taxonomic term
Appreciate the vote.
In a world where logicians and scientists are defeated by linguistic magicians, we are in the world of bullshit-being-paramount indeed.
I actually see "seal", by itself, as a taxonomic term and don't view its definition as prescriptive and beholden to some scientific authority on taxonomy. In taxonomy all the terms that use "seal" (e.g. "true seal"; "eared seal"; etc.) are multi-word terms. "Seal" alone strikes me as more of a layman's term and definitions would then be descriptive (i.e. the ultimate authority for its meaning would be how its used in common parlance and other contexts to some extent)
This debate can use a well-reasoned vote.
I'd take what he says with a grain of salt. He does it to everybody. I don't think it's personal.
I was fully aware of Pro's line of reasoning, Pro has copy pasted their R1 from their DDO account which is the same username.
I was prepared fully for all angles of semantics vs science and how to prove that it's the English semantics which are at fault, not the science.
I'll object to being called liar & would remind Con that continuing arguments as well as ad homming voters in the comments section are both generally considered bad form.
I have a certain sympathy for Con since I too believed before reading this debate that sea lions and seals were rather distinct species. I remember my California friends telling me that sea lions descend from bear-like ancestors, seals descend from weasel-like ancestors. The subject makes a perfect trap for a debate because most non-biologists aren't aware that the conventional understanding was entirely upturned after 21st century genetic analysis. Now we know that sea lions are a relatively recent off-shoot of northern fur seals and that some fur seals are more closely related to sea lions than to other fur seals and therefore the fur seal/sea lion subfamily distinction has been eliminated in modern taxonomies. All seals, including sea lions are descended from a bear-like form, contrary to what physiology alone would suggest.
Here is the 2001 study that changed the paradigm: "Phylogenetic Relationships within the Eared Seals (Otariidae: Carnivora): Implications for the Historical Biogeography of the Family"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790301910127?via%3Dihub
Please vote
So I won't bother flagging it as it passes for valid even though it's not.
But virtuosos and the idiotic vote standards will allow your lie to pass for valid RFD.
I did attack the genus level. I said it's pinniped and that a pinniped is not seal which is why seal is specified every single time it's mentioned so as to separate it from non-seal pinnipeds. Read my R2.
Thank you, I pride myself on it.
You're quite good at convincing yourself of things that aren't so.
The naming and semantics is the only line of argumentation you have. The rest is defeated by science and by the logic of the naming paths.
I could not win on your side against me on my side.
TBH the "naming error" isn't persuasive because it comes across as somewhat arrogant. It's not really a counter-argument because my argument didn't place much weight on the fact that eared seals have "seal" in the taxonomic name. I don't consider taxonomic terms to have much weight here. For example, dolphins are known as "toothed whales" in taxonomy, but nobody would call them whales. Rather, my argument was largely based on my sources. The strongest argument for Con I could think of was that there exists, to a certain extent, the usage of "seal" in the sense of referring exclusively to true seals or fur seals as opposed to sea lions despite the fact that this sense of the word doesn't appear in most dictionaries. That sense of the word may be implied by the context, and it's perhaps especially implied when discussing the two together in the same sentence. The wording of the resolution itself arguably implies this sense of the word.
I meant Round 1 = R1 oh my god, I did not mean R2 is my R1
will appreciate a vote.
You may view the voting rules here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
Yes, you are indeed meant to judge this in that way.
It is possible to win a debate supporting a false premise because one is judged on the quality of rhetoric.
I have no idea if a sea lion is seal, but i I did I would try to forget what i know and give my vote tothe best argument either way - isn't that what formal debating is about?
those are the only 2 errors I see.
It's meant to be eared pinniped or the latin version.
sea lions moan LOUDER not lower.
Exactly.
"seal-variants with sea lions being a different third-group who share enough with 'fur seals' to be considered closer to them than the true seals to have the family of the " - Was something supposed to be after that?
Yes I will not reply to your r2 in my r2
The rules state that "Pro shall not use round 2 to rebut or otherwise respond to Con's round 2 arguments." This was an error. It should read as "Con shall not use round 2 to rebut or otherwise respond to Pro's round 2 arguments." It's functionally an inconequential error because the content restriction was implied by the prior statement.
You're wylted?
You'd be surprised how many people think that sea lions are not seals.
Do not accept truism debates unless they are made by the false side.
This debate is a fact and is impossible to lose.