Instigator / Pro
14
1553
rating
24
debates
56.25%
won
Topic
#517

Sea lions are seals

Status
Finished

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

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

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

Death23
Parameters
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
Contender / Con
8
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
won
Description

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.

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.

-->
@Ramshutu

I think the definition I advanced was paraphyletic. It included every extant pinniped except the walrus.

-->
@Ramshutu

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.

-->
@Death23

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.

-->
@Ramshutu

EDIT: I actually *DON'T* see "seal", by itself as a taxonomic term

-->
@Ramshutu

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.

-->
@Ramshutu

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)

-->
@Barney

This debate can use a well-reasoned vote.

-->
@oromagi

I'd take what he says with a grain of salt. He does it to everybody. I don't think it's personal.

-->
@oromagi

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

-->
@blamonkey
@whiteflame
@Logical-Master
@Ramshutu

Please vote

So I won't bother flagging it as it passes for valid even though it's not.

-->
@David
@oromagi

But virtuosos and the idiotic vote standards will allow your lie to pass for valid RFD.

-->
@oromagi

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.

-->
@Death23

Thank you, I pride myself on it.

You're quite good at convincing yourself of things that aren't so.

-->
@Death23

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

-->
@Ramshutu

will appreciate a vote.

-->
@keithprosser

You may view the voting rules here: https://www.debateart.com/rules

-->
@keithprosser

Yes, you are indeed meant to judge this in that way.

-->
@RationalMadman

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.

-->
@Death23

It's meant to be eared pinniped or the latin version.

sea lions moan LOUDER not lower.

-->
@Death23

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?

-->
@Death23

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.