Instigator / Pro
16
1495
rating
47
debates
48.94%
won
Topic
#834

Chimpanzees are smarter than humans

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
18
Better sources
4
12
Better legibility
6
6
Better conduct
0
6

After 6 votes and with 26 points ahead, the winner is...

oromagi
Parameters
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
Contender / Con
42
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Description

No information

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

https://www.debateart.com/debates/692

plagiarism. Not a single original argument.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.