Instigator
Points: 16

Chimpanzees are smarter than humans

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 6 votes the winner is ...
oromagi
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Science
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender
Points: 42
Description
No information
Round 1
Published:
In order for the title of this debate to be technically correct, chimpanzees in general do not have to be smarter than humans in general. There just has to be a plural number of chimpanzees who are smarter than a plural number of humans. There are very smart chimpanzees relative to other chimps, they can solve problems that human children can solve. But there are mentally impaired humans, many of them are total vegetables who literally can't do or understand anything and are less intelligent and responsive than the average 3 year old. On top of that, human fetuses can still technically be called humans and they literally don't know anything because their brains have barely developed yet.

I look forward to seeing how you try to get out of this one, lol.
Published:
Thanks sparrow but if you’ll forgive the pun, I call fowl.

In order for the title of this debate to be technically correct, chimpanzees in general do not have to be smarter than humans in general.
I’m afraid they do.   Pro instigated using ordinary English language and this contender accepted the debate in good faith with the understanding that “Chimpanzees are smarter than humans" would be the subject of this debate.  I'm holding Pro to the agreement implicit in his offering & my acceptance of this debate.

There just has to be a plural number of chimpanzees who are smarter than a plural number of humans.
If the instigator was merely mistaken and sincerely intended to only argue that some exceptional chimpanzees are smarter than some disabled humans then the correct move from Pro at this time would be to apologize to readers for wasting time and concede this debate.  I doubt this is the case, because Pro failed to offer any evidence in support of such a resolution-- just a single assertion and out. 

Voters will have to make the call but this debater is presuming that Sparrow is proceeding in bad faith, with no genuine intention of arguing Human intelligence vs. Chimps.

Sentences that are written with  sincerely definitional intention are properly written in fairly general, abstract terms.  So, for example, when Wikipedia says:

Sparrows are a family of small passerine birds.
The intention is never “some sparrows are birds,” but only always “[collectively] sparrows are birds.”  

In Modern English, when comparing two species of animals the common name for the species is properly used to represent the characteristics of that species in abstract, not extraordinary individuals.  For example, it would be incorrect to say, “Sparrows are larger than crows” even though there are certainly some large sparrows who are presently larger than some baby crows because regular English defaults to the abstract of sparrow vs. crow, the average representation of sparrow vs the average representation of crow.  Obviously, Pro’s command of the English is apparently sufficient to understand this elementary usage, so I think we’re forced to assume a bad faith argument.

I look forward to seeing how you try to get out of this one, lol.
When we say, “Cheaters never prosper,” we mean cheaters in general, cheaters in the abstract.  When we say “Chimpanzees are smarter,” we mean chimpanzees in general, chimpanzees in the abstract.

If voters are convinced that Pro’s R1 is a bad faith attempt to redirect the terms of this debate to a question that’s easier to defend, Con would ask voters to consider rewarding a conduct point accordingly.

DEFINITIONS

Let’s note that the debate instigator traditionally sets the definition of relevant terms as a part of establishing and explaining a claim.  Since Pro failed in this responsibility in both the debate description and R1 arguments, Con will take the liberty to define terms.

The Chimpanzee is a species of great ape native to the forests and savannahs of tropical Africa. Evidence from fossils and DNA sequencing shows that Pan is a sister taxon to the human lineage and are humans' closest living relatives.

Humans (Homo sapiens) are the only extant members of the subtribe Hominina. Together with chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans, they are part of the family Hominidae (the great apes, or hominids). " A terrestrial animal, humans are characterized by their erect posture and bipedal locomotion; high manual dexterity and heavy tool use compared to other animals; open-ended and complex language use compared to other animal communications; larger, more complex brains than other animals; and highly advanced and organized societies."

Smarter is the comparative form of smart:

Adjective

1.       Exhibiting social ability or cleverness.

2.       (informal) Exhibiting intellectual knowledge, such as that found in books.

If we go by the informal definition, then Con wins because no chimpanzee has ever exhibited something like literary intellectualism.

And the more formal sense is fairly problematic: to what extent can we compare society or cleverness across species?

THESIS: Chimpanzees are smarter than humans.

For Pro to win this debate, Pro must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that P. troglodytes exhibits superior social ability and cleverness when compared to H. sapiens.  Since Pro’s claim flies in the face of common sense and simple observation, the burden of proof lies entirely at Pro’s feet.  All Con has to do is show that Pro’s extraordinary claim is fairly dubious or at least  unproven.
 
SOCIAL

To that end, let’s examine human vs. chimp sociality.  It is generally accepted that all primates have developed highly social brains compared to most other animals.  However, humans alone retain the capacity to infer the mental states of individuals in the group while reciprocally enabling others to read one’s own mental state.  Chimpanzee intelligence by contrast in overwhelmingly Machiavellian in the sense of self-interest and egocentric calculation.  Scientists have termed this evolutionary adaptation in humans the “deep social mind,” and ability normally achieved by humans by the first year of life and no other species.  Scientists hypothesize that human adaptations in eye color and eye shape specifically improve interhuman mind reading, which in turn enabled distinctly human social adaptations that increase mind capacity beyond the individual- self-awareness and symbolic language, for example. [1][2][3][4]

CLEVERER

Like “smart” or “intelligent,” this adjective is hard to apply across species because every species’ brain is more or less adapted to survivability, which ultimately trumps any capacity to figure out puzzles or break into containers as the clever way to go.  Con posits that the key to defining one species as cleverer than another is flexibility:  to what degree can an animal generalize learned rules to solve new problems? Chimpanzees have famously been observed using sticks and honey to fish termites out of nests, for example, but have not been observed applying this adaptation to new situations (using berries instead of honey for example, or using the stick to spear a mouse or fish)   

In terms of adaptive flexibility, humans are without parallel:

“After discrimination learning between two stimuli that lie on a continuum, animals typically exhibit generalization on the basis of similarity to the physical features of the stimuli, often producing a peak-shifted gradient. However, post-discrimination generalization in humans usually resembles a monotonically increasing (e.g., linear) gradient that is better characterized as following a relational rule describing the difference between the stimuli….The conditions under which these studies have obtained peak shift are suggestive of a common feature-driven mechanism of generalization between humans and animals. For example, peak shift can be found when deriving a relational rule is difficult due to the complexity of the stimuli. Other demonstrations of peak shift in discrimination learning rely on using speeded responses during training with the stimuli presented as incidental cues, degrading the contingency between the training stimuli and the correct response, or interleaving two qualitatively distinct sets of stimuli to decrease the opportunity for stimulus comparison between trials. Taken together, these demonstrations suggest that when the training stimuli and procedures minimize the opportunity to form a relational rule, humans generalize on the basis of physical stimulus features, and in a manner that produces the peak shift phenomenon.” [5]
Another strong indicator for the relative cleverness of a species would be the rate of innovation.  That is, how often do chimps or humans come up with a new solution (like termite fishing) relative to other species? 

Humans are again superior to any other animal in this respect, so much so that examples are unnecessary except to say that some consequences of successful human innovation, overpopulation and climate change, for example, outstrip other animals capacity to innovatively respond up to and exceeding the point of extinction. [6]

Con expects that these brief objections ought to be sufficient to refute Pro’s case as presented so far.  As stated, I’m not yet convinced that Pro is seeking an actual debate in good faith but we can look to the quality of Pro’s response in R2 for improved discernability.
 
[1]Dunbar, R. I. M. 1998. The social brain hypothesis. Evolutionary Anthropology 6: 178-91
[2]Whiten, A. 1999. The evolution of deep social mind in humans. In M. Corballis and S. E. G. Lea (eds), The Descent of Mind. Psychological perspectives on hominid evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 173-193
[3]Whiten, A. and R. W. Byrne 1988. The manipulation of attention in primate tactical deception. In R. Byrne and A. Whiten (eds), Machiavellian Intelligence: Social expertise and the evolution of intellect in monkeys, apes, and humans. Oxford: Clarendon Press
[4] Knight, C. and C. Power (2012). Social conditions for the evolutionary emergence of language. In M. Tallerman and K. Gibson (eds), Handbook of Language Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 346-49.
[5] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0203805



Round 2
Published:
Chimpanzees are smarter than humans means there are any number of plural chimpanzees that are smarter than any number of plural humans. This was the intended meaning from the beginning and if you didn't see that coming that's on you. I may be a lying, deceptive scum bag but hey, nice guys finish last. Unless you can debunk this, you cannot debunk the intended resolution which semantically fits the debate title.



Published:
Chimpanzees are smarter than humans means there are any number of plural chimpanzees that are smarter than any number of plural humans.
This statement is even less true than previous attempts at thesis.  There are only about 300,000 chimpanzees left in the world.  So, any number is pretty simple to falsify:  for example, there are not one million chimpanzees that are smarter than humans because there are not one million chimpanzees.  Pro's intentions become less discernible as Pro attempts to find a misdirection that might be defensible.  I hope voters will agree that we've established that Pro has no serious intentions here.

When USA Today asks "Are dogs smarter than cats?" we know what USA Today means, don't we?  USA Today is NOT asking whether any number of plural dogs are smarter than any number of plural cats.  That would not be news. USA Today is speaking of the set of all dogs represented by some abstract or ideal median characteristics and the set of all cats represented by some abstract, stupider median characteristics.

Does the aphorism, "cheaters never prosper" refer to some small subset of cheaters or does it refer to cheaters in abstract, in general?

This was the intended meaning from the beginning and if you didn't see that coming that's on you.
Of course, the instigator of the debate has the responsibility to communicate intention clearly.  If Pro intended to say, "There are any number of plural chimpanzees that are smarter than any number of plural humans" and not "Chimpanzees are smarter than humans" than it was Pro's responsibility to write that statement clearly before the handshake of debate acceptance.  Re-editing the thesis multiple times after acceptance is simply poor conduct.  I'd encourage Pro to apologize to readers for conduct and concede this debate.

I may be a lying, deceptive scum bag but hey, nice guys finish last.
I'd point out that Pro's current ranking on the leaderboards is 137th out of 142 debaters.  If Pro's claim is true, then Pro must be one of the nicest debaters this site has ever seen.

Unless you can debunk this, you cannot debunk the intended resolution which semantically fits the debate title.

Can I debunk Mike Adams, the legendary charlatan from Natural News?  Well, OK.

Adam's headline reads:

"Genius female chimpanzee found to be smarter than U.S. high school students""


If Pro had read the scientific study itself rather than the fakest of fake news generated about the study, Pro would have discovered that the study quite clearly found that the intelligence of human children was far more sophisticated than chimpanzees:

"The appearance of the social cluster in children but not in chimpanzees was quite intriguing. Herrmann et al. argued that if the emergence of the spatial cluster reflected the existence of an ancient cognitive component present across many taxa, the existence of the social cognition cluster in humans may indicate just the opposite—as it may reflect one of the most recent cognitive developments in human evolution. Although some of the same abilities tested are also shared by chimpanzees, they appear neither as a bundle nor early in ontogeny as they appear in humans."
No high school students are ever mentioned or studied.  These are British scientists studying chimpanzees in Africa and so the United States is never mentioned in the article.  Adam's accounts of Natasha's skill set: avoiding traps, disabling electric fences, etc exists nowhere in the study and seem to be entirely fabricated.  In fact, the majority of the claims in the article seem to be entirely invented.

That's pretty typical behavior for this website.  Wikipedia states:

Natural News (formerly NewsTarget, which is now a separate sister site) is a conspiracy website that sells various dietary supplements, and promotes alternative medicine, controversial nutrition and health claims, fake news, and various conspiracy theories, such as "chemtrails", chemophobic claims (including the purported dangers of fluoride in drinking water, anti-perspirants, laundry detergent, monosodium glutamate, aspartame, and purported health problems caused by allegedly "toxic" ingredients in vaccines, including the now-discredited link to autism. It has also spread conspiracy theories about the Zika virus allegedly being spread by genetically modified mosquitoes and purported adverse effects of genetically modified crops, as well as the farming practices associated with and foods derived from them.  The site's founder, Michael Allen "Mike" Adams, was the subject of controversy after posting a blog entry implying a call for violence against proponents of GMO foods, and then allegedly creating another website with a list of names of alleged supporters. He has been accused of using "pseudoscience to sell his lies". Adams has described vaccines as "medical child abuse".
Natural News is occasionally banned from social media sites for encouraging acts of violence against scientists and science. 

So, boom.  Debunked.

To the extent that Pro's link to this source increases the viewership or legitimacy of Natural News or Mike Adams, Con suggests that Pro's R2 constitutes a potential act of harm in the real world (decreasing Measles vaccination rates, for example).  Con asks Pro to desist from linking to this site in future and to mitigate any present harm caused by apologizing for said conduct and conceding this debate.





Round 3
Published:
Chimpanzee beats humans at memory test:
Chimps better at solving problems than children

I have now president multiple examples of chimps being smarter than humans. Unless you want to argue that children and the mentally disabled aren't humans, I have won. You wouldn't do that would you? You don't HATE children and disabled people do you? Don't be racist, concede this debate right now.

Published:
Thanks, Sparrow.

Chimpanzee beats humans at memory test:
Chimps better at solving problems than children
Let's recall that Pro was so pleased at declaring his weak semantic trap at the top of R1 that Pro forgot to define and support any argument.  That left Con with the task of defining terms and laying out supports.  Let's also recall that Con used Wiktionary's first definition for "smart:"

Adjective

1.       Exhibiting social ability or cleverness.

2.       (informal) Exhibiting intellectual knowledge, such as that found in books.
Pro did not object to this definition or offer another, therefore this definition stands.

Readers will note that neither memory nor problem-solving are factors in the determination of "smart" for the purposes of this debate.  The determinant factors are social ability and cleverness.  Therefore, neither of Pro's YouTube  videos serve as evidence in Pro's defense.

Pro again fails to actually go and read the studies that his YouTube links cite.

The first study soundly refutes Pro' argument in its second sentence:

"The general assumption is that, as with many other cognitive functions, it is inferior to that of humans; some data, however, suggest that, in some circumstances, chimpanzee memory may indeed be superior to human memory.
Even in the case of memory, irrelevant as it stands in relation to our definition of "smart", chimpanzees only demonstrate better memory in some rarefied circumstances and generally chimps are cognitively inferior, even in memory. 

We should note that the six chimpanzees studied had been regularly practicing this test for at least two years while human opportunities for practice were limited to the time of this study.

We should also note that only one chimpanzee outperformed human subjects.  Rather than finding evidence of superior intelligence,  S. Inoue et. al. hypothesized that this performance demonstrated possible evidence of eidetic imagery in chimps. 

"Eidetic imagery has been defined as the memory capability to retain an accurate, detailed image of a complex scene or pattern. It is known to be present in a relatively high percentage of normal children, and then the ability declines with age."
Which raises the question: if eidetic imagery is more present in primate children than adults, why weren't human children included in this study?

So- Pro's claim, "Chimpanzee beats humans at memory test" fails to reflect the study's findings which is more accurately stated as "One well-rehearsed young chimp with possible photographic memory beat some unrehearsed adult humans without photographic memory at one game designed to test for photographic memory."  Does that qualify as smarter?  Not by this debate's definition, it doesn't.

The second study refutes Pro's claim entirely.  The problem in this study is a fairly simple puzzle box.  The study found that as the trick to unlocking the box was made apparent, chimps tended to skip unnecessary steps and go right for the treat, whereas human children tended to carefully imitate the instructor's step, however apparently unnecessary.  The study found that this demonstrated superior human intelligence in that:

"chimpanzees are able to perform seemingly complex tool-use behaviours because they form useful rules about how the tools can be used, rather than a conceptual understudying of the causal principles involved.  Studies of human children suggest that they may have a more conceptual understanding of causality than chimpanzees, seeking causal explanations for observed effects, and that such a conceptual interpretation of causality may be unique to humans."
(emphasis mine)

Humans understood that they were in a learning dynamic and sought to understand both cause and effect while chimps were only interested in the most efficient path to reward.  Humans also preferred imitation to emulation in deference to the context of  the teacher/student relationship, demonstrating the superior social skills inherent to our present definition of "smart, smarter."

So Pro's claim,"Chimps better at solving problems than children" is Pro's faulty deduction from watching a 3 min YouTube video where again, actually reading the cited study comes to the opposite conclusion: chimps emulate tasks while humans learn principles.

In conclusion, Con makes the following voter recommendations:

ARGUMENTS: Con

Pro's opening argument "Chimpanzees are smarter than humans" was  manifestly false and abandoned by Pro from the get-go in favor of a semantic hail mary "some chimpanzees are smarter than some humans" which was then abandoned for "any number of chimpanzees are smarter than any number of humans" which is also manifestly false.  Pro objects to the late submission of Pro's second thesis but also notes that Pro fails to summon up a case for this thesis. Smart was never defined by Pro and Con's definition of smart excludes the one chimp with eidetic memory and the chimps who were merely emulating teachers for the treat rather than engaging in the principles being taught.  Therefore, even the cheap trick argument of Pro's stands as unsubstantiated by any evidence.  Voters will remember that Con placed the Burden of Proof on Pro entirely and Pro did not object to this rather obvious assignment.

Tangentially, Pro argued that "Chimpanzees are smarter than humans" can sometimes "technically" mean "Some excellent chimps are smarter than some deficient humans" but Con has argued in favor of the application of ordinary human understandings of Modern English when defining a debate's thesis: just as "Sparrows are birds," refers to the set of all sparrows; "Cheaters never prosper" refers to the set of all cheaters, "Chimps are smarter"  refers to the set of all chimpanzees.

SOURCES: Con

Voters should remember that Pro has referenced three scientific studies in support of his case.  In all three cases, Pro failed to cite or read the actual study and in all three cases, Pro badly mis-characterized the scientists' findings. One source was pulled from a well-known conspiracy website, the other two were just YouTube TV clips.

CONDUCT: Con

Voters are asked to consider whether Pro's multiple re-directs of thesis constitute argument in bad faith and award conduct accordingly.

Voters are also asked to consider whether Pro's use of Natural News as a source, when that source has been famously, publicly sanctioned for societal harms such as advocating violence against scientists and accusing vaccinators of child abuse does not constitute a sufficiently egregious misuse of sources to merit deduction in conduct.

Thanks to voters in advance for their kind consideration.
Added:
HAHAHAHAHHAA
#6
Added:
--> @oromagi
I don't think Sparrow is type1's account. Wylted and I have different accounts and he once plagiarized my argument on a topic.
#5
Added:
--> @oromagi
Not a problem. I always try to make the best RFD I can.
#4
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
Well reasoned as ever, Virt. Thx for the vote
Contender
#3
Added:
--> @oromagi
We are still looking into that. On another note, what do you think of my RFD overall?
#2
Added:
--> @RationalMadman, @Virtuoso, @Sparrow
“Conduct to Con as Pro blatantly plagiarized from Type1's debate”. Oh no! LOL is RatMan’s theory proving out? Sparrow! What’s going on here?
Contender
#1
#6
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
And this is a neat little semantic trap debate! Though one that is completely obvious.
Basically sparrow is arguing that some chimpanzees are smarter than some humans — his opponent is arguing that humans as a species are smarter than chimpanzees as a whole.
I think each side proved their particular contention - and neither side spends much time refuting the others central thesis outside the definitions and the application, so it now becomes which definition is correct.
Con points out the most obvious interpretation of the resolution is that it applies to the species; and proceeds to explain the rules of English with regards to animals and collectives. Con points out if pro wanted a debate on whether some chimps are smarter than some humans, he should have defined the debate that way.
The remainder of the semantics involve con pointing out that pro is intentionally using a semantic trap unfairly. Resolution is king, and the resolution to be upheld is the one as written, and the one any reasonable human being would infer from looking at the title and definition.
If pro wishes to not loses these sort of debates because people misunderstand his resolution - perhaps he should be more clear about what he means in the debate definition and title. I side with con on this one, and believe the resolution should be generalized.
In terms of the remaining points: pro cited a number of studies to support his position in terms of memory, generalized intelligence - con turned almost all of these around against pro - by highlighting key fundamental omissions that mean the study is of a single well trained chimp, or is otherwise less a generic quality of Chimps than perhaps one specific example.
As a result of this, pro offers no real argument that holds water for his position nor to support the core of the resolution.
Arguments to con.
Conduct: Pro doesn’t engage in good faith. He attempts a semantic debate - which he tries to bait with a common definition then switch to another. This is antithetical to debate - and highly disrespectful to other debates. It should be treated as such and warrants a conduct mark down.
Sources: con offered decent sources, the plos example, and smithsonian magazine were used well to bolster the support for his initial position by improving the inherent warrant with supportative data
Pro, used multiple sources too, how shoots himself in the foot twice: his natural news example destroyed his warrant as con points out he was omitting a key element of the underlying study that supported cons position. Con pointed out that pros source was indeed fake news.
The second study about memory, again ends up being woeful for pro - utterly undermining his position when the underlying sources are pulled up.
In this regard, cons sources help improve his warrant - pro misquotes and undermines his own position with his sources.
Sources to con too.
#5
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Arguments:
1. Pro set a semantics bomb, con defused it.
2. Con walked pro through how to argue this, pro ignored it in favor of pointing to the already defused bomb.
3. Con demonstrated various ways humans are winning against Chimps (not to mention the rest of the planet).
There is no standard with which to even consider a pro victory.
Sources:
Pro had the YouTube (would have only been good evidence were they recorded by Chimps...) and conspiracy theory site (likely an attempt to show how dumb humans were, that any believe that crap), whereas con had a ton of sources, of particular note was the smithsonianmag.com removing any doubt about how we're winning.
Conduct:
(not going to grade this on the plagiarism, as they are not copy/pasted, but merely similar work from the same human... maybe it was an attempt at showing lack of human creativity compared to chimps and dogs?)
Pro accusing con of being a racist etc etc etc scum, seals this. The debate itself being semantics could be counted as just really weak arguments he could not move beyond, but the personal attacks are inexcusable. ... Oh and yes, con kept a level head rather than resorting to Ad Hominems.
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/692
plagiarism. Not a single original argument.
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro did not meet his burden of proof. While Pro cited specific--though not credible--examples of intelligent Chimpanzees, this was not sufficient to prove a general claim like the one being made by the topic. Because only Con offered any arguments which could count towards fulfilling the BOP in the round, they naturally capture argument points. Pro didn't make any effort to rebuff Con's claims substantively, instead focusing on an argument about redefining the BOP. This means that I have to buy Con's substantive claim that Chimpanzees are not generally more intelligent that humans. There are two reasons to reject Pro's BOP chicanery: (1) it was unfair (see below), and (2) Con is quite correct that the plain meaning of the text is different from Pro's understanding of it (Pro doesn't push back on this except to repeat his original assertion). Arguments to Con.
Pro's use of secondary sources of questionable provenance and accuracy undermined his arguments. This was particularly evident when Con, using a primary source study, debunked an article Pro cited which inaccurately represented that study. Not only did this undermine the credibility of Pro's position, but it also allowed Con to effectively turn Pro's evidence against them. Con's use of sources was clearly superior to Pro's. Sources to Con.
Let's deal with the pink gorilla in the room: plagiarism. This is clearly unethical--a form of intellectual theft. Similarly, the disingenuous attempt to contort the commonsense meaning of the resolution as obviously unfair. Bare plurals refer to generalities, and thus, Pro's attempt to creatively reinterpret the topic was an attempt to entrap Con. Conduct to Con.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
I would like to thank both opponents for this debate.
PLAGIARISM
Pro has plagiarized his/her entire argument from the following website:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/692
I ask the other voters to consider this when voting on conduct as well.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Conduct to Con as Pro blatantly plagiarized from Type1's debate: https://www.debateart.com/debates/692
Arguments: We must look at the debate resolution as one would typically read and understand the resolution. As such, I accept Con's understanding that this debate asks us to weigh the two species together and look at the two species on balance and as a whole.
A big problem in Pro's argument is that he never defines what "smarter" means. Con takes advantage of this and a comparative form of smart. I'll list the definition he provided here:
1. Exhibiting social ability or cleverness.
2. (informal) Exhibiting intellectual knowledge, such as that found in books.
This definition is not challenged by Pro. Therefore this is the definition I must accept when weighing this debate. Con further negates the resolution by showing key areas in which humans are significantly smarter than chimps (socially, cleverness, and literary intelligence). Pro never challenges this and instead provides three poor sources (more on this later). Con successfully challenges his argument by showing that they don't meet the definition of 'smart' that Pro failed to challenge. Thus I'm forced to vote Con.
<Sources>
Let's now look at sources. When comparing two things one needs to provide solid evidence for their assertions. Pro's R1 provided no sources or evidence for their assertions. I follow the principle "what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" thus I completely dismiss Pro's R1.
When weighing sources, Pro's Natural News source is bad. Con challenges this source as being "has been famously, publicly sanctioned for societal harms such as advocating violence against scientists and accusing vaccinators of child abuse does." He further proves this point in R2 by providing evidence that Natural News sensationalizes and falsely reported the study. This alone, however, is not poor conduct.
Con provides a lot of sources and evidence for his claims. First, having a definition of "smart" and "smarter" helps us to weigh the context of this debate. For example, the PLOS One journal entry is peer-reviewed with a reputable backing. Thus sources go to Con.