NSDA Nationals 2018 - Big Questions Debate Final Round transcript

okay um so before I begin I have I'd like to take some time and thank some people and things my life that without any doubt were instrumental and me getting to this point so first and foremost I'd like to start off by thanking the National speech in debate Association for not only hosting this tournament but providing youth around the world with the amazing opportunity of being able to participate in this activity of Speech and Debate I also like to thank the John Templeton Foundation for sponsoring this new foreign debate that allows for debaters to explore philosophical questions about universe as well as their generous contributions to forensic programs across the country I like sit the I also like to thank them for provide providing young conservative youth with the voice and thanks to the Manti district for being gracious hosts of this tournament and students to Broward County for such gracious hosts in overcoming adversity this year there are also great people with great deal of people in a personal life that I would like to quickly go over and think first and foremost I'd like to thank my parents for not only financing my way here but also paying for my food this time without you not only would have not I've been able to be born into this world but I would not have been able to sustain myself for this long but really as first-generation immigrants you have sacrificed so much just as I can have more opportunities and live a better life and next I'd like to thank my coach mr.

Robbie Holland now obviously no successful debate program can exist without a coach but Holland you for me truly have gone far beyond someone just running a program no matter what I did you accepted me and showed me that you believed it believed in me all the way through this week you stayed up with me through the early morning not only to support me morally but also constantly giving me like prep help which to the extent only private consultants that I paid for would do and I'm aware that this kind of thing is something I can't take for granted I'm really happy to have you as a coach we actually also have a second coach named Michael Jennings who's actually not here with us today because he decided that his wedding was more important than this so that's all he gets next I'd like to thank the entire Andersen Speech and Debate team for being such a tight-knit community to come and support me every single one of you guys contributed to making my way here but in that community there are some particular people I don't want to talk to songs so I'm not go into that much detail by just really quickly I'd like to take my former coach Nathan DuPont he was not only the person to get me excited about speech and debate but he also had to deal with me as a freshman so that's pretty cool I'd like to thank also a former Kirk former and current members of members on his Speech and Debate team especially the PF team which is where I grew as a debater an Indu Christian Bryce William David thanks for teaching me how the debate now graduated my former PF partner Zack who also had to deal with me as a freshman thanks for not abandoning me and sticking with me you really helped a lot John David Robin thanks for being people who truly found the profound interest in big questions to be as much as I did and supporting me through this and just my daily life Callum David and Sarah I love you you guys know how important you are to me and finally mr.

David Erard know that you're one of the most caring people I've ever met and not only have you done so much for me beyond debate but you've also been a role model of the kind of person I want to be when I grow older and also thanks to my legs Travis body is that we are traveling with especially Evan you helped me prep late nights even when this was not your event so I really appreciate that this husband is truly amazing Ron and I appreciate every single person in my life genuinely anyway sorry about sorry I was a little bit long having said that is everybody ready an opponent yeah sweet I affirm the resolution resolved humans are fundamentally different from other animals to clarify the round I offer the following observations observation one alone to the Merriam Webster's dictionary fundamental is defined as a determining essential structure function this means that this debate should be on two things first just like how the essence of water is h2o this debate should be centered on what exactly the essential property of a human is and whether any other animals identify with our property second and this debate we must also discuss what maintains the harmony and bonds within human society and whether that central idea is different compared to that of other animals we should prefer this interpretation fundamental roots over others as not only is it the most widely accepted interpretations last definition but it also allows us to an opportunity to look at the difference of humans and animals on a much more holistic level giving us more grounds to debate my sole contention is the possession of an intellectual ability that far exceeds other biological necessity humans have shown this in two ways sub-point a is a creation and transfer Cobb abstract language according to NYU professor Thomas Nagel in his book what does it all mean when we use words such as tobacco we're able to reach and refer to all the tobacco that exists in the universe this is thanks for linguistic and cognitive capacity to ignore the many minut differences among the different tobacco's exist throughout the universe and identify the essential property of what it means to be tobacco this mental capacity of having abstract language has less due to properties in humans that are fun Lane different from other animals the first is conceptual thought professor of bioethics at Franciscan University Patrick Lee writes human beings are fundamentally different in kind from other animals and having a rational nature human beings perform acts with conceptual thought and such acts are fundamentally different kinds of access sensing perceiving or imaging and active understanding is the grasping of a nature shared by many things to understand is not just to know water by sensing it but to know what it is to be water by understanding we apprehend the nature held in common by many entities by contrast the object of these sensory powers is always at a particular place in time the contrast is evident among examination and language Winston Churchill is a name that refers to the determinate individual whereas nouns like human and organism are common names if we say organisms are composed of cells the word organism designates a class extends indefinitely into the past and future human beings Grassi universal nature by which similars are grouped together rationality is being able to conceptualize and apply deliver forms of past and present thoughts to make decisions and more generally to think abstractly without material references rationality and conceptual thought are fundamental human characteristics and there are the foundational basis of what separates us from other animals the second is the development of complex mathematical models that provides us with a fundamentally different means of organizing our society according to Boston University the set theory and mathematics is quite literally the abstract collection of objects in other words the capacity of abstract language is a prerequisite to comprehending / making it in the first place something that is exclusive to humans this is critical as according to the stanford encyclopedia set theory is one of the greatest achievements of modern mathematics containing all concepts methods and results of math in it it has served to systemize and unify all mathematical arguments and radiates powerful influence to all branches of mathematics this is our professor at furriers writes in his book labyrinth of thought the sets constitute the fun foundation of mathematics this is critical as ian-sue there are the telegraph writes this mathematical abilities and understandings found exclusively in humanists greatly affect her understanding of daily occurrences such as sounds and how we as a society live lives such as in creation of sports development of Technology and breeding daily vegetables sus leads to a fundamentally different way in which human society is maintained and bonded compared to other animals and nothing near this cowboy ears caliber is found anywhere in the animal kingdom sub-point B is the establishment of a universal moral code humans are the only species shown to be truly capable being self legislative all also having the ability to confront choices purely on the basis of morality looks at Karl Cohen professor of philosophy at University of Michigan who writes the human beings have the level of intelligence to grass through human reason the binding character moral law as well as the self conscious participation in an objective ethical order humans were the only beings with organic membership to an organic moral community no other animal is capable possessing this unique universal moral and autonomy to self-governing these laws humans are also capable of confronting choices are purely moral animals simply lack this judgment of free of moral judgment a free moral judgment Helene Goldberg of Open University explains why this level morality is fun Wayne different from that of other animals saying humans and animals negotiate conflict by fundamentally different means behaviors that seem to be out of morality is simply just out of evolution or just to minimize conflict and strengthen social ties among group dwelling animals human beings however negotiate conflict in human beings human beings however negotiate conflict through socially created values and codes of conduct that is far beyond the biological necessity of reducing conflict additionally we must understand that through the Nagle evidence having in order to have systems of morality such as the ontology require the level and degree of significantly significant degree of abstract thought and abstract language found in humans and without that prerequisite no other entity can actually possess these this time of universal moral will and for these reasons I'm proud to affirm so before we begin I too would like to extend a couple of thank-yous so first to my coaches mr.

Michael I truly couldn't have envisioned a better way to spend my last tournament with you everything you've taught me these past two years extend far beyond debate and I couldn't be more grateful next Lorinda I've truly loved working so closely with you these past few months and your extensive philosophical knowledge continues to amaze me and Brandon you couldn't be here today but your impact both on my debating abilities and my character at large have been so extensive and it's the reason you have transformed me into what I am today next to my parents your endless love and support continues to drive me every single day and I owe all of my success to you and to my brothers Eli and Mark thank you for setting the bar so high and continually driving me to do better and to my teammates and friends both here and back at home thank you for always being there to support me helping or making me laugh and making this activity so enjoyable and finally to the John Templeton Foundation thank you for supporting this nation's youth by continuing to fund this program hopefully your efforts and supporting big questions debate will resonate with countless schools across the nation who do not support the Speech and Debate community so with that I will read my negative constructive is everyone ready let's begin I negate fundamental is defined by Random House as relating to basic and primitive structure the burden of the affirmative is to identify in a difference in kind as opposed to a difference in degree contention one neurological pattern processing to fully understand the implications of the mammalian brain structure we must first understand how it functions the fundamental function of the brain is to encode and integrate information acquired from the environment through sensory inputs and then generate behavioral responses this function is known as pattern processing pattern processing requires the brain regions of the hippocampus and the prefrontal cortex both of which are ubiquitous in the moon in class pattern processing begins with our eyes and ears when they're open they're continually detecting images and sounds the details of which are encoded in nerve cell circuits in the visual and auditory regions of the cerebral cortex the nerely encoded visual and auditory patterns are then transferred into hippocampal circuits via neurons in the prefrontal cortex pattern processing abilities enable the development of social bonds and networks pattern processing explains the physical neurology behind mammalian communication with the natural world thus proving humans and animals to be fundamentally similar on a physical level contention to metaphysical consciousness neural Darwinism is a large-scale school of thought of brain function initially proposed in 1978 by the American biologist Gerald Edelman Edelman distinguishes between two types of consciousness sensory consciousness is the awareness of the present and immediate pass through senses for example a person's experience of the blueness of the ocean or the feeling of pain proto consciousness is an individual's accessibility to their history and plans Edelman's theory focuses on two nervous system organizations the brainstem and limbic systems on one side and that thalamus and GU cerebral cortex on the other side not only do humans and animals both possess sensory and proto consciousness but the brain structures that make this possible are essential to the acquisition of certain cognitive abilities such as metacognition and mentally time-travelling which proves that animals are capable of thought in the metaphysical world metaphysics include non tangible concepts such as justice or morality which are often referred to as universals these two neural complexes empirically generate the ability for animals most commonly rats to completely contemplate such universals the metaphysical world is merely an extension of the physical world proving humans and animals to be fundamentally similar both on a neurological and metaphysical basis contention three behavioral sciences sub-point a dopamine dopamine is a neurotransmitter that plays an enormous role in this decision-making processes of humans and other animals a team of researchers from Salk Institute of Biological Sciences discovered that dopamine governs choices so precisely that the brain chemical level right before a decision allows researchers to accurately predict the outcome researchers designed an experiment in which mice were forced to make a decision between two levers in order to win a treat the researchers used a technique called optogenetics that uses beams of light to manipulate the animals brain dopamine levels they found they were able to manipulate the mice to move from one lever to the other just by increasing or decreasing dopamine levels similarly a Virginia Tech research team conducted a human experiment involving a similar decision-making process the results parallel that of the mice experiment thus proving mammalian behavior in decision-making processes are governed by whichever choice has a greater dopamine level the function of dopamine in mammalian bodies is threefold first in the prefrontal cortex dopamine secretions effects memory learning processes and how information is retained second dopamine is the central chemical in the brain that regulates how you perceive and experience pleasure third in order for the basal ganglia the brain structure that controls bodily movements to function it relies on a suppression of a specific amount of dopamine from neighboring neurons thus because dopamine governs human and animal decision-making processes it is a fundamental feature in regards to mammalian behavior sub-point B classical and operant conditioning these are two different ways in which humans and other animals are programmed to behave classical conditioning is based on conditioning a response to a certain stimuli the conditioned response is typically a reflex one of the best known examples of classical conditioning is Pavlov's experiments on domestic dogs Russian behavior Zevon Pavlov classically conditioned his dog to drool every time he rang a bell by creating an illusion to make the dog think that the that he will receive meat over time he came to associate the stimulus or the sound of the bell with the drooling response in operant conditioning however an animal's behavior is conditioned by the consequences that follow that is a behavior will happen either more or less often depending on its results animals and humans learn by the principles of operant conditioning everyday we learn when we push the power button on the remote control that the TV comes on these two different types of conditioning demonstrate how human and non-human animals actions and behaviors are governed by the same processes thank you ready for across okay cool since I spoke first my other first question sure okay so at the very top you say that we have to look at a difference in kind versus difference in degree right okay well these are worn for this okay so basically we're looking into difference in kind it's connected back to my definition right I'd find fundamental as relating to basic primitive structure it also relates to your definition as the essential structure the only way to determine what if something is truly fundamentally different is if it exists in something in absolutely no capacity so what difference in degree would be if it exists in something in a certain capacity that means it still exists therefore it's not fundamentally so you're citing Adler yeah sure okay cool you can have a question sure so on your at sub point B you talked about a universal moral code that has got that governs human behavior what is this so for example right when I like when I tell someone when we when I tell someone don't steal or when we make the process of to the action to not steal we don't decide that based on oh if I steal this this and this will happen thus I won't steal we don't steal because of the fundamental idea that stealing is different and we're able to comprehend that the fact that animals don't aren't governed by a moral code animals are not animals animals can't be governed by a moral code because everything they do is based on consequentialism and the nega okay because what Nagel specifically tells you in my case is an in order to be governed by a universal moral code you have to have the your the level of abstract language and complexity of it must be that of humans and that's a prerequisite to have the ability to think in the abstract to be moral because when I say don't steal I don't have to name off every single different scenario in which you could steal I just have to say don't steal and you're able to come and you're able to comprehend the abstract meaning of what stealing is right okay because if I can prove that animals do have abstract thought and that's a prerequisite to it absolutely not absolutely not you have to prove that animal abstract language is as complex as humans because name is that just be a difference in degree because no okay so let me kind of run through that link change sure at that level so animal human abstract language animal abstract language differences can be seen as a difference in degree however that large difference degree of humans materializes into what is fundamentally different which is us offering under universal morality that's the framework that I proposed may have a question okay cool so let's go up to the top you talk it let's go back to the framework debate of difference in kind versus degrees so you agree that you're basically citing Adler right I mean I'm not specifically citing out okay that who what other philosopher besides have their rights of the resolution so by Adler is the only credible person that writes about your specific framework correct okay well that's not you don't have to cite someone to have you know I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying you do I just want to make sure that Adler is your personal other affirms the resolution I don't have to agree with everything Adler says rather I just use this one interpretation he has but it's even my interpretation so you can't even make that substantially ok that's fine I'll start prep starting now I guess off prep I have a minute 17 okay um for the judges it's gonna be framework and then it's gonna be on the framework and then just kind of top down and then I'll just be weighing and talking about my case if time allows starting on the con everyone's ready yep all right let's begin on the affirmative 8 we both proposed the same definite dictionary definition of fundamental what we disagree on the interpretation what that means in the context of this resolution having said that let's going to how she interpret says she says they in order to be a fundamental difference there must be a difference in kind well she doesn't wait we the important thing here is that the only reliable philosopher that actually writes about this framework is going to be allergy doesn't say either specifically because she's very well aware of alders conclusions under his own framework back he wrote remember the Abner Evans said the adler evidence my opponent is reading off has two parts the first is either on machines which is might know what my opponent is signing off of however the issue here is that the only very next session titled Adler on man as section where he explicitly applies that framework to the context of this resolution in other words the degree of kind between humans and animals mean that's the only section that we should look to you he says quotes when the difference in kind cannot thus be reduced to a difference in degree it remains a difference in kind the intellectual human mind has properties that cannot be reduced to a difference in degree from the minds of other mammals the difference in kind is radical not superficial and at the point where my opponents alter under his framework and a Harvard professor concludes under framework affirmative you prefer a Harvard professors interpretation of his own framework over any high schoolers in addition at the point at this point you have to vote off my point on conceptual thought because my opponents author says the argument operates in a world of conceptual thought where it deals with the objects are not perception precedent nor can they ever be disability makes it a radical difference it can you draw a line from I flow all the across the flow buts let's go on to like let's go on to how she's interpreting fundamental let me tell you why you prefer my definition she says that fundamental is like the basic primitive structure but there are three reasons why you don't by the genetic and molecular similarities are proof of fundamental difference first is that this viewpoint is infinitely regressive and reductionist when you go down to this rabbit hole what the most basic basic Meiko things are you go far beyond that that's just the genes and neurons as those are also composed of things like atoms that point everything in the universe is fundamentally the same I can say that I am fundamentally the same as a fiery singer sharing my laptop because we at the end of the day or just a blob of atoms buying my post framer allows for this infinite regression which justifies are the same as the ceiling marlene goldberg of open universes explains that this kind of Philistine however we're forces to ignore these central differences that result as a result advanced structure and my opponent just stops this race to the bottom at the point that strategically benefits sandwich ace no sense either go all the way or not this is why the Business Insider writes in 2016 that went practically evaluating the fundamental aspects of humanity all scientists in the context of this resolution look at how that materializes into the way we live in how our society is shaped so at that point this place is this race is modeling creates a double line for my opponent either stay consistent go all the way to all the way to the bottom which is not DNA this atoms in admit that this position permits no half ground that no debate because nothing can be fun Lane different or go with my Fermi which not only is appropriate in the context to taste debate it's also the most widely accepted definition and the questions a big questions to be the widely accepted definition should always be preferred as it increases accessibility and accessibility and we're talking about when when when we're talking out like real life things increases education because we can get what we get out of it from debate and apply to actual things now going to her first contention about going to your first contention where she talks about how like everything is essentially just like all the neural networks and everything I agree but we don't define this as he fundamental similarity we define this as just similar things and we look at the end result stay consistent make sure it's clear but then I want her second contention where she talked some metaphysical things and she cites at oh man how saying like animals exhibit like certain like the critical forms of consciousness in both humans and animals but the issue here is an element Edelman ultimately concludes that quote identifications of animal analogues to these processes we require demonstration of very close homology so far not achieved in other words Edelman also agrees that these similarities animals have a human traits aren't to the degree of humanity that's one it's really important later on I'll give you that weighing analysis later but then let's go down to you like to dopamine more it was going on dopamine saying everything operates and opening the issue here is the first gene called th vs. we involved in the old opium production is only exclusive to humans the human dopamine operates off of that gene that doesn't exist in humans at the point where human doping production and the way dopamine affects humans is fundamentally different even under framework as structure level you have to affirm I'll take a little bit of practice okay that's good it's a minute use two minutes left okay in this speech I'm going to attack the affirmative case and then move on to the negative and I'll start with framework seven ready okay first discussing framework basically in response to my framework my opponent says that adler would affirm today's resolution therefore we would have firm but rather I never even cite Adler in the first place my opponent wants to bind me into Adler's interpretation of the resolution but rather it's my own interpretation and secondly he says that we prefer a philosopher over a high school debater but realize the whole purpose of debate in the first place is to interpret the resolution in the way we wish and then back it up with evidence but it's so at that point you wouldn't listen to either of us we wouldn't be here today if we don't listen to high schoolers but then further than that he says that fun the fundamental definition means that everything my fundamental definition means that everything in the world is fundamentally similar but that's not at all what I'm saying rather I'm saying that we look to basic and primitive structure and sure essential structure meaning that if something is absolutely essential to humans that exist in any capacity and other animals then you would affirm but I'm going to show you that every difference that he points out is rather a difference in degree meaning it exists in humans and animals just to a different capacity with that let's go to the affirmative first contention where he talks about in his sub point a about the ability to think in the abstract first we looked at Corvallis 13 who explains the warrant as to how animals have this ability they explain that a widespread network in the brain known as the default mode network is involved in autonomous mental activity including mental time travel this network has been identified in humans as well as in rats a critical region the network in the hippocampus which is active in humans both when they recall past episodes and imagined future ones this gives biologists reason to believe that animals do in fact have the ability to think in the abstract then secondly the University of Georgia conducted an empirical study that further proved this analysis when rats aren't a well-known maze the sequential firing of so-called play cells in the hippocampus suggests that the rats can cognitively sweep ahead considering one path and then the other before making a decision about to go at that point you buy my warrant and the empirical evidence I give you at this point my opponent has not even given you a warrant as to why animals cannot think in the abstract but then further than that go to my opponents sub point B where he talks about a universal moral code first and foremost we don't have to be held to the same moral threshold or animals don't have to be held to the same world threshold that humans are to prove that they have morality they do in fact have morality it's not we're not how to animals aren't held to the same exact moral threshold we see morality portrayed in predator prey complexes we see morality with the when animals portray instances of altruism and justice and things like that but then third realized that animals are able to understand and comprehend things in the exact same way as humans he told you this is a huge part about thinking in the abstract and having a moral code he tells you that being able to understand is the prerequisite to morality but then we look to Matson 14 who explains that all in mammals are able to comprehend and to make decisions and choices based upon the prior learning experience experiences the superior intellectual capabilities of humans are solely the results of the increase in the number of neurons and synapses there is no uniqueness in the structural or functional properties at that point that proves literally that it's a difference in degree but then we go to the negative side of the flow on the first intention my opponent basically says that it's not a fundamental similarity and no way does he actually attack the content of what I'm saying but then further than that I would argue that pattern processing is absolutely essential to our structure that's his definition considering it's the way that we interact with the world and that's fundamentally similar to other animals because animals use pattern processing as well so you extend the content and then the second contention I talk about metaphysical consciousness my opponent basically says that Adam Edelman will also affirm today's resolution therefore you don't buy what I'm saying but here's the thing this is a really big cop-out of what I'm actually talking about he doesn't actually address this idea of sensory and proto consciousness and then further than that on contention three sub point a I talked about dopamine my opponent basically says that in humans there exists a certain gene that regulates dopamine he doesn't prove I this is fundamentally different thank you they are the first question sure I'll get cool so let's go back to the framework on Adler you say that the point of high school debate is to talk about things that maybe even professionals can point of this argument was to prove that I think I can interpret the resolution absolutely I don't have to be binded to a story so I think I think the reason why we're able to do that in many instances of high school debate is because there is credible literature on both sides of interpreting the affirmative and the negev at the point where the only credible literature that actually talks about this framework and framing humans and animals concludes affirmative howl duty under how do how can we conclude that you how can we ever affirm okay so I would answer that with a question for you just because I agree with one thing someone says does that mean I have to agree with every single word that comes out of their mouth but at the but if that with that somewhat with that one thing that someone is saying is completely justified and he it completely justified think you do have to agree with it right wait so if something is justified if someone says something that's justified I have to agree with every other thing they said not automatically mean that's no that's not what I'm saying but the thing is I'm just all I'm saying is that you prefer the Harvard professors interpretation of his own framework over any high school professors interpretation that's why I'm talking also very different that's cool that's cool you can explain your framework yes so let me kind of go through this holding chain so what I'm saying is I didn't when in terms of Commons for putting the fundamental difference between humans and animals in the scientific community use here's how it goes down what the scientific community looks at is like how do these basic primitive structures like neurons and things materialize into ways of living that are fundamentally different from other areas for instance we can argue that animals do possess a degree of abstract language but the really critical thing here is naval tells you as long as animals don't possess that level of complexity of abstract language like humans you wish all of our evidence actually says they only possesses a degree of it not 100% of it that that level of like that level cognitive ability materializes into what is fundamental Universal world cutter humans then we already agreed to others interpretation that we're just talking about difference and kind as opposed to a difference in degree yes and then your level of complexity a difference of degree no because universal morality not as single not any intermediate form of it is found in any other animals in the animal kingdom so even underestimate let's talk about that sure does that mean that humanimal 's have to have the same moral threshold in order to have morality I argue that animals don't have morality at all at the point where all of their moral actions are just based on consequence they don't they can just some capacity of morale no no no it is that you cannot tell something morality if the actor is not consciously acting ethically right well it's the last time your dog you can animal if animals possess some sort of capacity for morality does that mean they are moral your I mean that's kind of like asking if someone has an apple in her hand does you have an apple like okay so it is right we're ready well animals just don't have morality in the first place okay I'll start prep time starting now Oh guys stop prep I have 12 seconds remaining it's so it's gonna be framework and then framework and then down the neg and the app I'll signpost ran before again to the actual framework stuff you extend other ones she admits that we always refer the hardware professors interpretation over any other high school debater especially when no other probable literature actually concludes otherwise under her own framework but having said that let me the ends who I we I so in even if you don't work with unity disregard that extend my definition definition my merriam-webster you both agree it is essential structure slash function of something but the issue here is that you understand says well you see essential structure not what is it central to the structure function this is critical because think of this way right hydrogen is essential to the structure and function of both h2o and h3o however the essence really central properties you are considered completely different in that way when we determine the essential property of humans it only makes sense that we look out into how does micro level advances like increase in your all's essentially materialized into these different properties and you have to prefer this definition for the prefer my interpretation fundamental look at the end result for three reasons first you drop so I double bind analysis that tells you that her point of view is infinitely aggressive and she only like with no warrant stops I think level not only helps her but secondly she also never regards that this is the most widely interpreted interpreted way of in this context and then you prefer that for three reasons the first is because big questions debate is meant to synthesize viewpoints of experts across all scientific a technical distant disciplinary second in order for our claims about claims about human and animal nature's of similar with similarities to be widely accepted we must start from the widely accepted view point in the third is simply education accessibility only use the most widely accepted definition is accessible to all programs around the world but there's also more literature on a and we don't debate a weird skewed ground at that point you have to prefer my interpretation of what fundamental differences now let's go into how you vote f because I am the only side that actually answers how this end result materializes so essentially my opponents serve essentially so my opponents way breaking it right down is recruiting about is infinite is infinitely aggressive and you're performing where it's how you stop and look at the end result of how those basic building blocks materialized here's the link chain into how I win how I win and why you should affirm yes of the most basic level humans just have more genes in more neurons et cetera but this increase in number and neurons forever leads to this break complex degree of abstract language now well you can argue that this is just a difference in degree the difference becomes fundamental when that at one that level complex abstract language materializes into humans being the only moral being so offered under this universal moral code such deontological way we live our lives now it's just like how the extra hydrogen atom in h3o completely changes the essence of a problem from h2o we at this point know that the universal moral code is exclusive to humans my navel evidence that she drops explicitly says having abstract language in the complexity to the degree of humans is a prerequisite they're having this Universal world code and all of her studies eventually can only say that animals possess it to a certain degree not sea level of humans but now she's going to come up here and try this how humans are about animals are also like moral actors but understand in order to be truly ethical it requires the capacity to intentionally act under a certain moral frame or it can be argued that certain observable behaviors an animal exhibits quality as a consequential in the world framework however it is critical that the actor must be doing so intentionally for it to cause it to the act of ethics for these reasons you have to affirm okay okay that's good so a little bit above a minute left like a second all right I'm gonna go framework and see a see is everyone ready yep okay so the framework debate is very very simple we both already agreed to Adler's interpretation even though he binded me to it which is a difference in kind as opposed to a difference in degree he himself agreed to it at that point it's very simple if humans possess this unique capacity that makes us so radically different from other animals then you would affirm but if animals have that capacity adjust to a lesser degree then you wouldn't engage it's a very simple interpretation he's trying to put this impossible burden on me telling you that any difference at how no matter how minut and no matter how small the degree may be is fundamental first of all he doesn't explain to you why but even further than that we'll get into that in the contention level now so the first contention on the AC basically in response to my attacks first of all he dropped the card so extend those later but he responds to the attack he basically continues to say that humans have such complex it has such a high complexity of language but realized ask yourself why that's important the importance of language is to communicate I've already proven that communication is ubeat ubiquitous in the mammalian class but then further than that I explained that the process by which animals communicate is the exact same as the process by which humans communicate it's called pattern processing he has yet to respond to this I talked about in my first contention then further than that he has no warrant as to why human communication is so complex he told you it's complex first of all he doesn't tell you how nor does he tell you why I tell you both of those judges when weighing today each argument in today's brown ask yourself those questions you'll realize that he rarely answers them in today's round so you extend the idea that pattern processing is ubiquitous in the mini mammalian class because of our sensory inputs and because the details of which of did the details of ours the sensory what's that we have our engraved in the nerve cell circuit switcher then deposited in the hippocampal regions of our brain what that means is that humans and animals pattern or a process information in the same exact way they learn and comprehend in the same exact way meaning they communicate in the same exact way just not as complex as us but then go to some point or you extend the cards that I give you first Korbel is 13 basically what that's talking about is the ability for animals to think in the abstract it's due to the default mode network in our brain he doesn't respond to this you extend it through what this proves is that animals to have the ability to think in the abstract then further you send the University of Georgia card that proves that mice have the ability to mentally sweep ahead meaning mentally time-travel meaning thinking in the abstract at that point you extend the empirical evidence then even further than that I cite this Mattson 14 card which explains that animals learn and comprehend in the same exact way as humans then you go to the NC and realize that he dropped everything the first contention again pattern processing you extended all the way through what this means is that the way in which humans that interact with the natural world is identical to animals second contention I talk about consciousness again you extend it realize animals to have the ability to think in the metaphysical world and in contention three both dopamine and classical and operant conditioning you draw it through the flow and realize that we behave the same exact way thank you I'll use the rest of my throat starting now okay it's gonna be it start off with the voter framework and then voters again I'll signpost ya easiest place you can vote is the concession on either where we tells you that even the under the only person that actually writes throughout the framework concludes affirmative and adirs explicitly saying so you vote off of that when she can see that that's the most reliable way of interpreting it but even without that let me tell you ever winning so in terms of the framework definition remember we net she drops all of the reasons why you prefer my interpretation of what a fundamental difference is in the context today's resolution verses hers what she says is what she says is that we break it down into the microscopic levels which he drops mine double bond where I tell you that's essentially infinitely regressive you stop it will house the scientific community actually views it and a clear end which is the end result of how all of that materializes now that's going to be the biggest voter in cities around we're at the point where she cannot prove to you with a single one of her studies that anything any other animal possesses possesses the abstract language of complex thinking to the degree of humans she's saying she's like it she's trying to model that argument by saying like I'm trying to say a significant degree is the difference in kind that is not at all what I'm saying I've been really clear we need to look at how those small neurological differences how these these degrees the difference materialized into things are fundamentally different Nagel is the biggest voter in Caesar our Nagel tells you that in order to possess a universal moral code a universal moral code the level of complexity abstract languages humans is a prerequisite to having any sort of that Universal world code now Shira tries to respond to this at the warrant level saying I don't give a warrant asked like how human how animals like aren't as advanced as humans at first is that my whole Burkhart specifically mentions now currently humans are the only ons only ones with this complexity of language she says that like and then she's and it definitely is her burden to show a single example of an animal case study that shows animals having abstract language to the degree of humans and and and and my second warrant to why like animals don't have the solve a complex city is that it simply has not been observed yet but remember we're debating about our what we know currently it would be abusive for it to say that in the future somehow we're gonna find an animal that has abstract language to degree of humans currently we do not and that is what materializes into the great amount of fungal difference and out if you buy into that linked chain you automatically default affirmative because in their last speech she did not touch on a single point as you know how animals could a not be immoral actors because he cannot be aware that they're acting ethically but secondly she also agrees that humans are the only ones who operate all these deontological frameworks so let me boil down how this goes first Eva Adler anyway because under I'm sorry but but then she says that like I have to prove a difference in kind of note in your media crowd let me make that very clear no other animal possesses any even diluted sort of life under universal moral code you look at how fun in the context of this resolution fundamental difference is how those micro level differences materialized into the end results the end result is humans possessing the universal moral code and that in itself is different from other animals in kind because no other animals possess any degree of universal moral code she's gonna come up here and say that it dropped a bunch of studies but understand the important thing is it as as none of those studies actually explicitly say animals possess characteristics that are advanced as humans you cannot buy anything that's why don't address every single one because none of them ever all that have the same conclusion and they all eventually end up affirming at the time in the speech I'll just address framework framing of the round and then key voting issues is everyone ready okay let's begin this round is going to be very very simple mainly because my opponent provides a lot of claims none of which are warranted by actual neurological analyses with that let's talk about framework so basically his idea that adler affirms today's round therefore we would affirm because i use a blur is simply absurd first of all i never cited adler in the first place second of all just because adler uses a similar interpretation does not mean he can bind me to every single word that comes out of Adler's mouth with that we agree on framework we agree that the fundamental means a basic essential structure and we agree that he has to prove a difference in kind a difference in kind as opposed to a difference in degree with that let's go to the first key voting issue it's going to be abstract thought again he continually says abstract thought is uniquely human because it hasn't not been observed in other animals but I give you three cards telling you that it absolutely has first of all I give you the warrant which is why it's or how it's been observed in other animals it's because of our neural structure called the default mode network it's located in our frontal lobe it basically grants other animals the ability to think in the abstract then I give you the empirical evidence which proves that animals can think in the abstract again that was the mice experiment which proved that through using brain scanners the University of Georgia researchers concluded that the rats were able to submit cognitively sweep ahead and think about one path and then the other so at that point I give you the warrant and the empirical evidence none of which he has provided you in today's round with that the second key voting issue is going to be morality again he continually says that animals don't have morals but I tell you they absolutely do sure they're not held to the same moral threshold as other as humans are but they do have morals this is portrayed in the predator-prey complex again we already agreed on the framework that he has to prove a difference in kind and because animals have morals meaning morality exists in some capacity and animals as it does in humans that's a difference in degree not in kind the third key bony issues going to be pattern processing my opponent has not attacked this in the entirety of today's round talk about this in my first contention basically it's the idea that the way in which humans retain and process and transfer information is absolutely identical to the way in which animals do this it's because of our sensory inputs they're encoded in nerve cell circuits which are then deposited in the hippocampal region of our brain which we can then use those patterns to process and transfer information to other animals and to interact with the natural world he drops us what this shows is that humans and animals act the exact same on a behavioral and neurological level realized start today's entire round my opponent has not shown as to not show the warrant as to why animals can't neurologically communicate with others then the fourth key voting issue is going to be behavioral sciences this is my fourth contention again or third contention he drops as he does not respond to it basically what this is saying is that we will all us as well as other animals will always be governed by whichever choice has a greater dopamine level then I talk about classical and operant conditioning basically it's the idea that us and other animals respond to certain stimuli in the exact same way thank you good round the round [Applause] as our judges complete their decisions I like to congratulate both competitors who will be awarded a total of $15,000 in scholarship from the John B Templeton Foundation tonight at the award ceremony please give a round of applause for Miss Claire Abood from Jackson High School in Ohio and soon and soon Joe Cho from LC Anderson high school from Texas at this time please welcome to the stage the finalists in big questions debate which was held this week in conjunction with the national tournament and presented by the John Templeton Foundation tonight we recognize the top four teams in big questions a debate format supported by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation this year students have grappled with complex worldview questions as they debate both sides of the topic resolved humans are fundamentally different from other animals tournaments districts and classrooms that hold big questions debate are eligible to receive thousands of dollars per event in the first two years of this three year grant the National Speech and Debate Association gave away a million dollars and we have another half million dollars to give away to eligible events during the last year of this grant the 2018-2019 season these debates can be held as tournament events school scrimmages or classroom events as long as the application requirements are met please welcome president Crabtree back to the stage to congratulate the finalists your winners in the 2018 big questions of aid semi-finalists in 4th place receiving a $2,500 scholarship from the John Templeton Foundation Jennifer Wang from Lincoln East High School in Nebraska coached by John Holden and Rachel Stevens semi-finalists in third place receiving a $2,000 five $2,500 scholarship from the John Templeton Foundation Kyler Brunner from Morristown West High School in Tennessee cut slices and terror [Applause] placing second and receiving a $5,000 scholarship from the John Templeton Foundation clear about from Jackson High School in Ohio coach liar rule Orenda Johnson and your champion receiving a $10,000 scholarship $10,000 scholarship from the John Templeton Foundation and winning on a 4-3 decision Seung Jo joy from LC Anderson High School in Texas coached by Robbie pollen [Applause] you [Applause] you