Chimpanzees are smarter than humans
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 6 votes and with 26 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
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.
Sparrows are a family of small passerine birds.
I look forward to seeing how you try to get out of this one, lol.
SOCIAL
“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]
[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
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.
"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."
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".
Chimpanzee beats humans at memory test:Chimps better at solving problems than children
Adjective1. Exhibiting social ability or cleverness.2. (informal) Exhibiting intellectual knowledge, such as that found in books.
"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.
"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."
"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."
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.
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.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/692
plagiarism. Not a single original argument.
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.
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.
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.
HAHAHAHAHHAA
I don't think Sparrow is type1's account. Wylted and I have different accounts and he once plagiarized my argument on a topic.
Not a problem. I always try to make the best RFD I can.
Well reasoned as ever, Virt. Thx for the vote
We are still looking into that. On another note, what do you think of my RFD overall?
“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?