Most animals are persons

Much easier to prevent harm if animals are considered persons.

That is a blatant subject change. I literally never said anything about harming animals. The topic is whether animals would be considered people with my definition. Now you are resorting to red herrings since you are out of logical arguments. You also just repeated yourself instead of addressing anything I just said. If you don't have any logical arguments to make, then don't post anything. Or at least just say you disagree with my definition instead of resorting to fallacies.

Again, that is due to conditions which created animals as they are, and humans as humans are now. You wouldnt ever want to be treated like animals are treated, and its not like non-intelligent non-moral deserve to suffer. You are using human morality as an excuse to justify harm. I think thats the opposite of morality.

When I am talking about conditions, I'm just talking about something IRREGULAR that stops a a being (that would otherwise grow to achieve rational thought or understanding of right vs wrong). Conditions that fit that description are
1. Early death. Their brain didn't have time to develop the aforementioned things.
2. Mental illness. Their brain just doesn't function properly.

A regular, healthy, average human will attain both rational thought and understanding of right vs wrong. Therefore they are a person.

A regular, healthy, average animal will NEVER attain those attributes. No animal, regardless of circumstance, will ever or has ever attained either of those attributes. Therefore no animals are to considered 'persons'.

I answered both in one comment.

"I much prefer it when debaters work out definition disagreements prior to the debate"

Well, I do say that opponent must agree to definition in description.

"Do you guys want to do the debate"

I will return to our debate, got a bit carried away. But one can debate in comments and in debate now.

"Can you explain that position and provide evidence?"

You agreed there are conditions which stop some humans from being intelligent. If those conditions existed everywhere, no human would be intelligent. So human intelligence depends on the condition that nothing stops it. Also, human intelligence didnt come out of nothing. Animals simply had misfortune that conditions made them as they are now. They shouldnt suffer due to that.

Kritiks are launched for any number of reasons. Ultimately, definitions set the goalposts, and people love to move those when they can.

Of course, I much prefer it when debaters work out definition disagreements prior to the debate.

Do you guys want to do the debate. You guys really seem to disagree and clash against the topic

Well, I disagree with that. Can you explain that position and provide evidence?

What caused humans to be intelligent is the condition. Doesnt matter what you think the condition is there. Humans are not intelligent on their own now.

That is, frankly, incorrect. Humans are not 'intelligent' because of the environment they are in or the circumstances they encounter. Even more important though, you seem to be using the word 'intelligent' equivocally. I purposefully never used the word 'intelligent' in my definition, but used 'capable of rational thought' instead. Animals never have been and never will be capable of rational thought, and that is hardly due to "worldly conditions." They are by nature incapable of rational thought. Humans are by nature capable of rational thought. Animals are by nature incapable of understanding right vs wrong. Humans are by nature capable of understanding right vs wrong. Threrefore animals do not fit my definition.

Many things fit in such condition. Some humans became intelligent because conditions in the world enabled them to become. Animals didnt choose to be of weak intelligence, just as some humans didnt choose to be more intelligent. Its all due to conditions which enabled intelligence for some.

First off, when I say 'worldly condition' I am referring to a circumstance that prevents a being from becoming aware of right and wrong or rational thoughts. Things that fit into 'worldly condition' would be things like early death or mental illness. What I'm saying, quite simply, is if a being would grow to have the aforementioned traits, but is stopped by some sort of illness or early death, it is still considered a person. Early death and mental illness are not preventing animals from acquiring the traits. Therefore animals are to be considered as 'persons'

"where I showed what I meant by worldly conditions by listing possible circumstances"

So if some conditions dont allow a human to ever be intelligent or moral, why would some condition not allowing animal to be intelligent or moral be treated differently?

"Because world conditions didnt allow them. So animals are persons."

What in the world do you mean by this? I feel like that claim is both baseless and vague. Also, you conveniently left out the part where I showed what I meant by worldly conditions by listing possible circumstances.

I never really understood such type of kritiks. If you already agree to definition, then trying to argue against what you agreed is true seems inconsistent. Only if definition is self contradictive (for example, animals being defined as "persons and not persons"), would kritik make sense.

I really view this as a debate on if definition of personhood X would logically be applied to group Y.

If X is the optimal definition, would be its own debate. Of course were X a bastard definition (such as all persons have four wheels and a XM radio) that would invite Kritiks against it within this debate.

"Animals are incapable of either of those things in any circumstance"

Because world conditions didnt allow them. So animals are persons.

"if not stopped by worldly circumstances"

Yes. I changed my definition to encompass all humans. No my definition does not directly encompass animals now. My definition for person is currently:

A being that either will be capable of rational thinking or understanding right vs wrong OR that would be able to engage in either of those things if not stopped by worldly circumstances (such as death, mental illness, etc.)

Animals are incapable of either of those things in any circumstance. Therefore animals are not 'persons.'

"When I say "will be able to experience" I mean "will be able to experience (in the event that all goes well and they survive)" To put it simply: If a being WOULD understand right vs. wrong or rational thinking if nothing went wrong in their life, then I would count that being as a person."

Thats a different definition now. This is a conditional definition. You are saying "A is person because A would be intelligent if some B didnt happen".

Likewise, animals would be intelligent like humans if conditions allowed them to. So again, if things went wrong for animals to make them less intelligent than average human, then they are still persons like humans who had things go wrong for them are still persons anyway despite those humans never being intelligent or having much morality.

I knew you were going to say that lol 😂.
1. When I say "will be able to experience" I mean "will be able to experience (in the event that all goes well and they survive)" To put it simply: If a being WOULD understand right vs. wrong or rational thinking if nothing went wrong in their life, then I would count that being as a person. I'm not saying if something goes wrong that stops the being from achieving either of those things, then it no longer is considered a person. YOU are just trying to staw man attack me since I didn't spell it out for you. Well, now I have spelled it out for you. Are you happy?

idk thou ig it;s gonna b interesting so looking forward to it/ meow

"will be able to experience or have experienced one of them at some point in their lives"

So terminally ill 2 year olds and people with low IQ arent persons then, along with almost all mentally ill people there.

That's obviously not what I meant but I'll clarify that my definition includes beings that aren't capable of either of the things in their current state, but will be able to experience or have experienced one of them at some point in their lives. Also, I would just define person as a human being normally, but I'm saying the definition I have just given makes more sense for this sort of debate IMHO.

"I feel like a more fair/logical definition for a person would be a creature that is capable of rational thinking or understanding right vs wrong."

So babies arent persons? People with dementia arent persons then? People with very low IQ arent persons then?

I still say it's a little bit sneaky. I feel like a more fair/logical definition for a person would be a creature that is capable of rational thinking or understanding right vs wrong.

I cant define person as human, because then category "person" doesnt make sense here. It is just another word for human then.

Now, "person" is better defined by characteristics which make a person. Species cannot even be that characteristic, because then person would just be different word for species and would have no any use.

Con agreed to the definition. If he didnt read description, then thats not my fault. Most debates have description which affects actual topic.

I say it's sneaky because he says the Con is not allowed to challenge it at all. And, if Con didn't read the description thoroughly, he has a great disadvantage.

I disagree with it being sneaky, especially since it’s a common definition in use… Human beings still struggle with the issue of if /those/ humans count as people (or sometimes even human at all).

Which religion/s?

The debate

My comment or this debate???? I'm confused

Feels like this relies a lot on religion

I would define a person as a human being. That's also how the dictionary defines it

How would you define a person here?

Bro again with the sneaky definitions in the description?