Sea lions are seals

I only agree with my opponent on one aspect, that this debate is, in the grand scheme, about the definition of sea lions and seals, however, what pro seems to misunderstand is that the very definition itself is under criticism. In this debate, pro has made substantial logical fallacies without supporting evidence or facts, as well as contradictions to his own premises. A. Pro makes appeal to authority fallacy. Pro has significantly lacked counter-arguments other than to say that dictionaries are the most reputable sources one can use for definitions. However, as stated before, definitions can and have been shown in history to be wrong or misunderstandings of what actually is occurring and therefore must be changed. Dictionaries only report definitions that are most popular by majority of population. The majority, however, does not mean that the ideal is right, as was seen when everyone at one point thought the earth was the center of the universe. Thus, when we have a debate about the definition, that means that the dictionaries are at question as well and require supporting evidence to show why that definition is valid, which pro does not provide. Pro’s sole dismissal of my evidence and ideals, showing the difference between seals and sea lions, is based on the appeal to authority [1]. Pro thus relies on circular reasoning to attack my assertions. In pro’s logic: sea lions are seals because of his given definitions, and the given definitions are valid because sea lions are seals. B. Pro fails to address arguments showing differences. Pro tires to persuade the audience that the supporting evidence for my arguments are invalid (as seen above) or are too lengthy to read. While pro argues that quotation is needed for better detail of the source, failure to go through an opponent's source because of its length is a problem for Pro, not mine. On the other hand, pro has only sent dictionary definitions of seals without any scientific studies, taxonomic studies, biological or morphological articles to support these claims. In addition, pro has sourced incomplete books as reference so that I cannot completely check and see if anything is out of context. I argue that in this debate Pro’s arguments are on the same level of using the bible for debate, where every word and definition is taken as absolute fact and somehow that removes the burden for Pro to show any other correlating or substantial evidence. C. Pro’s conclusion about dismissing my arguments is misplaced. While pro quickly dismisses arguments, evidence, and testimonies from my various sources, pro does not realize that, if anything, I have shown that there is not a convergence in the definition of seals, which would validate my claim that there needs to be an in-depth investigation on the placement and definition of seals and sea lions. Furthermore this weakens pro’s assertion that reasonable people would come to the same conclusion and therefore leads to the conclusion that pro’s definitions are not fact, for if they were, there would not be such a great divergence. D. Pro’s contradiction still holds and is significant in this debate. Pro tries to convince the audience that the contradiction from above was not significant and is nitpicking. However I must address some key points to why the contradiction holds and why it significantly weakens pro’s argument. 1. Pro’s sources make a point to distinguish between sea lions, fur seals, seals, and walruses. Thus, the definitions do not make a set point with where seals end and what really counts as seals. This is considerable if pro’s premise is to distinguish between some groups of the pinnipeds but not the others. 2. Pro’s sources are very general to a point where they are not useful pieces of evidence. Some of pro’s sources even go to say that seals are “mammals that mainly live in cold regions.” Clearly that could also include walruses, sea lions, but also dolphins, whales, etc. Which parts of those definitions are we suppose to use if they all are different? I answer that we should not be picking and choosing if the definitions are valid. 3. If Pro is going to state that dictionaries and the other sources are the most authoritative and reputable then it weakens pro’s argument when pro later picks and chooses which of their own sources we are suppose to take to heart. If anything the source showing the contradiction further shows that there is not an absolute definition to the term seal and supports my assertions that older definitions are misunderstanding the distinction between seals and sea lions. Summary: I have shown that definitions of an organism are based on taxonomic studies using morphology, physiology, behavior, and genetics to help relate species to other species. However, as many definitions of the natural world were made a long ago in history, the definitions in dictionaries may be misleading to the natural world and therefore invalid. We must then look into supporting evidence as to what makes animals under a nomenclature the same or different. I have shown that seals and sea lions have significant differences to be considered two separate entities. Pro has failed to effectively provide supporting or counter evidence other than dictionaries, since pro’s appeals to authority are suppose to be absolute. On the other hand, I have shown pro has committed contradictions, generalizations, as well as illogical fallacies, and subsequently weakened pro’s premises. Therefore, I conclude that pro’s conclusion is also invalid. Source: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org...