frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Are humans all the same?

Debate Information

Are humans all the same?

My Opinion-
Over time humans evolved based on their area of the world and are different.

Are some better than others?
Are we generally different?


juretsearchjuweelove2debateWhyTrumpFascism



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • randalrandal 67 Pts   -  
    Yes, we all started the same, there fore we are the same.
    juretsearchkmelkevolution17sportsontermanetaifelkrspandamjuweeSchatzi11EmeryPearsonBaconToesand 1 other.
  • juretsearchjuretsearch 24 Pts   -  
    We are not the same. We don't look the same, act the same etc.
    avivEmeryPearsonFascism
  • PinoPino 85 Pts   -  
    Whilst the human race may have evolved from a common ancestor we separated into different branches at sometime during the evolutionary process which resulted in a number of distinct categories.
    I guess the most obvious visual difference is between black and white.
     However, the difference is significantly more complex than that as it is clear that the white skinned people of Europe developed a greater intelligence which enabled them to devise most of the inventions/discoveries and technological advances  that go to make up the vast majority of the everyday things we take for granted in the modern world.
    The good thing is that all of mankind can benefit from the white man's ingenuity with such innovations as electricity, the light bulb, the computer, antibiotics etc, etc.
    This difference is graphically illustrated when we compare the starving and diseased nations in parts of Africa with the developed countries of Europe and North America. 
    So, the difference and diversity of the human race is enormous. 



    melanielustEmeryPearsonBaconToesFascism
  • sportsontersportsonter 17 Pts   -  
    Humans are not the same at all.
    EmeryPearson
  • LogicLogic 279 Pts   -  
    We are not nearly the same. Some of us a manipulative, Some are honest and kind. Some are greedy and evil.  Some are humble and give as much as they can.  We are born equal and the same, But we all live differently. 
    EmeryPearson
  • avivaviv 27 Pts   -  

    In the physical sense, each group of humans evolved in a different way to adapt to the environment in which they lived. Mentally there is no race that is better or smarter. but yes, some people are better than others but it has nothing to do with race, It's more about education and morality.

    juwee
  • love2debatelove2debate 186 Pts   -  
    @aviv, at this point regardless of history its all about a combination of DNAand environmental factors.  We cannot completely ignore the race in answering this question since it drives so mch of our genetic make up 
    juweeEmeryPearsonFascism
  • juweejuwee 10 Pts   -  
    I agree with @aviv . It's not based on race nor religion, but more on education and how they grew up as well.
    aviv
  • Schatzi11Schatzi11 41 Pts   -  
    I disagree with @randal, no,  we are not all the same for those reasons. And our genetic makeup is different
    EmeryPearson
  • WhyTrumpWhyTrump 234 Pts   -  
    @aviv, I disagree.  We know that genes are important. There are material differences in genes between races.
    EmeryPearson
    WhyTrump - a good question
  • melanielustmelanielust 285 Pts   -  
    The question is very general so here's my interpretation

    There is a very large, very crucial difference between INHERENT difference and potential. All humans are naturally different in personality; different groups of people around the world are also different biologically, chemically, by nature because of their circumstance and environment. Just as how animal species in one type of biome adapt to their surroundings and evolve and develop different traits, so do humans. People who come from areas where historically they have been exposed to greater amounts of sunlight, like desert Africa, will have darker skin. People who have history in high-altitude regions will have larger lungs than usual to take in more air. The physical differences are by circumstance. There are also similar differences between the sexes, which MAY contribute to personality, but not consistently.

    HOWEVER, despite all these natural differences, humans are all still equal from birth, from both an evolutionary, legal, and (hopefully) moral point of view. There is a line that separates being DIFFERENT and being EQUAL. All humans should be treated equally under the law regarded their differences. We all have the same primitive goal; survival and passing on genes. We all have skin and bones and a brain and a heart. There is absolutely no reason that because of fundamental differences, humans should be regarded as/treated differently.
    agsr
  • love2debatelove2debate 186 Pts   -  
    @melanielust, legally I agree with you. I also support that race shouldn't be the basis of discrimination. That is slightly different than saying "the same". There are clearly material differences between races, and there are many differences between all of us.  There are many commonalities at the same time. So yes, we are all human, but not all the same
    EmeryPearson
  • EmeryPearsonEmeryPearson 151 Pts   -   edited May 2018
    Yes, we are the same, in the sense there are no subspecies of human. Race is defined by phenotypic differences, not by genotype. There is no genetic basis for race beyond phenotypes. This doesn't constitute sub-species, and therefore makes us the same.

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Homo-sapiens
  • sadolitesadolite 39 Pts   -  
    The question is to generic. Ya we all have the same basic shape. But that is where any similarities end.
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -   edited May 2018
    I shall let Pitbull do the talking.


    EmeryPearson
  • BaconToesBaconToes 236 Pts   -  
    Same- a) of an identical type; exactly similar.
    b) identical; not different

    Are all humans similar in the way they act? Nope, there are disabled people, elderly, children, etc.
    As @EmeryPearson said, we are all Homo Sapiens, so that makes us in the same group. Even though we are in the same group, our DNA varies from each other, sometimes significantly.

    http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/resources/whats_a_genome/Chp4_1.shtml  ;
    i fart cows
  • FascismFascism 344 Pts   -  
    We are not all the same. Each race is best suited to its own land origin. 

    Africans are best suited to living in Africa. 
    Europeans are best suited to living in Europe. 
    And so on. 
    EmeryPearson
  • FredsnephewFredsnephew 361 Pts   -  
    Fascism said:
    We are not all the same. Each race is best suited to its own land origin. 

    Africans are best suited to living in Africa. 
    Europeans are best suited to living in Europe. 
    And so on. 

    Who do you think are the "best suited" to living in the U.S.A.
    someone234EmeryPearson
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    Fascism said:
    We are not all the same. Each race is best suited to its own land origin. 

    Africans are best suited to living in Africa. 
    Europeans are best suited to living in Europe. 
    And so on. 

    Who do you think are the "best suited" to living in the U.S.A.

    Tell it how it is Fred's Nephew! Bury that Fascist in a concentration camp of his own making. 
    EmeryPearsonFascism
  • EmeryPearsonEmeryPearson 151 Pts   -  
    @Fascism
    "We are not all the same. Each race is best suited to its own land origin. 

    Africans are best suited to living in Africa. 
    Europeans are best suited to living in Europe. 
    And so on. "


    Race doesn't denote a homogeneous subspecies . If you had some genetics to back up your opinion. I'd take you more seriously. Race is defined by phenotype. 

    To put that in comparison, you can group people by blood type (Also a phenotype). By your logic, it would be just reasonable to suggest people are best suited to what continent by blood type. As your basically arguing, phenotypes constitute some sort of magical geographical advantage. Are people with Type O blood best suited to South America, as nearly everyone in south America shares the Type O phenotype? Is your logic consistent?

    https://www2.palomar.edu/anthro/vary/vary_3.htm
    https://www2.palomar.edu/anthro/blood/ABO_system.htm
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/genotype-phenotype/
    Fascism
  • NopeNope 397 Pts   -  
    EmeryPearson

    People who are better suited for there environment does not mean that every one of their aspects benefits them in a environment better then other people. 
  • EmeryPearsonEmeryPearson 151 Pts   -  
    @Nope

    So the argument is not that phenotypes in general offer geographical benefits, it's specific phenotypes? Can you identify which ones?
    Fascism
  • FascismFascism 344 Pts   -   edited May 2018
    @EmeryPearson ;

    As @Nope said, not every one of their aspects benefits them in an environment better than other people, but if a population stays in an area for a long period of time, they develop some benefits. 

    The whole reason different phenotypes exist is because of environmental interactions with genes. It is in the definition:
    phenotype - the set of observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment.

    This is why there are more dark skinned people in Africa and more light skinned people in Europe. The skin color helps them better adapt to the climate. The idea of phenotypes supports my arguments since they are dependent on the environment, so in turn, the land origin. Race doesn't have to be a homogenous subspecies for my argument to be valid. 
    EmeryPearson
  • FascismFascism 344 Pts   -   edited May 2018
    @Fredsnephew ;

    Fascism said:
    We are not all the same. Each race is best suited to its own land origin. 

    Africans are best suited to living in Africa. 
    Europeans are best suited to living in Europe. 
    And so on. 

    Who do you think are the "best suited" to living in the U.S.A.

    It is hard to say since the environment of the land of current day USA has changed dramatically ever since its exposure to the Columbian Exchange and its exposure to the Old World. 

    Before the Old World met up with America because of Columbus, it would be the race or races of Native Americans that inhabited current day USA that would be best suited to its lands. 

    However, in the newer America with the newer environment I don't know which race is best suited. The race or races of the Natives which I previously mentioned might be best suited since their race has had the longest time to adapt to its environment, but it could also be European Americans. Although European Americans haven't had as much time to adapt to the environment, they have changed the environment to an extent possibly to favor them. 
    EmeryPearson
  • EmeryPearsonEmeryPearson 151 Pts   -  
    "As @Nope said, not every one of their aspects benefits them in an environment better than other people, but if a population stays in an area for a long period of time, they develop some benefits. "

    Or they develop negative haplotypes, rather than positive. Evolution is not some arching line towards improvement, it does not function this way, there is no set direction. This is a misrepresentation of Evolution.

    "The skin color helps them better adapt to the climate. The idea of phenotypes supports my arguments since they are dependent on the environment, so in turn, the land origin."

    Then by your logic, then black people would do well in any environment that has a high quantity of sunlight. They would be suited to Africa, South America, Antarctica, Central America, Southern United States, Middle East, Oceanic islands, etc. Your logic does not follow.

    "The idea of phenotypes supports my arguments since they are dependent on the environment, so in turn, the land origin. Race doesn't have to be a homogenous subspecies for my argument to be valid. "

    Then apply your logic consistently. If the phenotype increased melatonin allows you to live in areas with high sunlight, you would definitely not be limited to Africa as you suggest.




    Fascism
  • FascismFascism 344 Pts   -  
    @EmeryPearson ;

    Evolution can result in negative adaptations, but generally over a long time it develops positive genes. There are some cases in which negative adaptations occur, but once again, generally they result in positive results and adaptations are usually positive especially over a long time. 

    Skin color is not the only phenotype that determines the efficiency of a race to succeed in an environment. 

    See the source image

    This map of indigenous people's skin color fairly matches your map of global horizontal irradiance. I'm only including indigenous people because many of the current inhabitants of certain lands are not part of a race which originates from that land. For example, Australia consists of many people who are white. Their race does not originate from Australia. 
    EmeryPearson
  • EmeryPearsonEmeryPearson 151 Pts   -   edited May 2018
    "Evolution can result in negative adaptations, but generally over a long time it develops positive genes. There are some cases in which negative adaptations occur, but once again, generally they result in positive results and adaptations are usually positive especially over a long time. "

    The more geographically isolated a population is, the more likelihood to pass down negative haplotypes. Human genetic isolation is not a positive.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3077314/
    Even in America, self-imposed genetic isolation causes genetic disease cluster groups.

    "Skin color is not the only phenotype that determines the efficiency of a race to succeed in an environment. "

    Oh? You had not mentioned this. Which other Phenotypes indicate geographical benefits? Are you also claiming that race is comprised of multiple phenotypes? Which ones apply for which 'race'? Would deviations in a single phenotype denote a separate race?

    "This map of indigenous people's skin color fairly matches your map of global horizontal irradiance. I'm only including indigenous people because many of the current inhabitants of certain lands are not part of a race which originates from that land. For example, Australia consists of many people who are white. Their race does not originate from Australia. "

    Then you concede, darker skin color is beneficial for areas outside Africa? 
    Fascism
  • FascismFascism 344 Pts   -  
    @EmeryPearson ;

    I hadn't said anything about isolation. No race is pure. Outside interaction has shaped every single race to an extent. So my point stands. Generally over a long period of time, positive genes are produced. 

    "Oh? You had not mentioned this."
    I stated:
    "The idea of phenotypes supports my arguments since they are dependent on the environment, so in turn, the land origin."
    I used phenotypes in the plural form and also used "they" to refer to them. I also said:
    "The whole reason different phenotypes exist is because of environmental interactions with genes."
    Again, phenotypes is plural. 
    This would imply that my skin color example was just one example and that I was referring to multiple phenotypes. 

    Another phenotype that can help a certain race is sickle cell anemia. Sickle cell anemia is only good for people in a certain area of land. In parts of Africa where malaria is a problem, sickle cell anemia has helped them survive more efficiently. 
    Whenever malaria is not a problem this disease does not manifest in many people. The few people which do get this disease reproduce less than the other people. The disease still remains in the population, but is usually recessive. 
    Whenever malaria is a threat, the disease actually increases in occurrences because it provides some immunity to malaria. The people with the disease now are able to reproduce more similarly compared to the people without the disease. After the malaria threat is gone, the disease can become less prominent again. 
    This increases the survivability of this certain race. If a European population is put in a similar circumstance, it would do only negligibly better when malaria isn't a threat since it doesn't have the anemia, but considerably worse when it is a threat. 
    The reason the sickle cell anemia mutation has survived in the African population is because of the net benefit it gives to the population. If it appeared in another race's population which isn't affected by , it wouldn't be as prominent since it provides no benefit to the environment. 

    "Then you concede, darker skin color is beneficial for areas outside Africa?"
    I never argued against this. I only said dark skin color isn't good for the European climate as an example, but not for every single area outside Africa. 
    Plus, once again, that was just a single example between two specific races. Skin color isn't the only phenotype that matters. So just because dark skin is good for Africa and another place doesn't mean Africans can efficiently survive in that other place. 
    EmeryPearson
  • EmeryPearsonEmeryPearson 151 Pts   -  
    "I hadn't said anything about isolation. No race is pure."

    "As @Nope said, not every one of their aspects benefits them in an environment better than other people, but if a population stays in an area for a long period of time, they develop some benefits. "

    This seems to be a contradiction. Without geographical isolation, you don't have 'race', or phenotypes. 

    "Another phenotype that can help a certain race is sickle cell anemia. Sickle cell anemia is only good for people in a certain area of land. In parts of Africa where malaria is a problem, sickle cell anemia has helped them survive more efficiently. "

    You're still suggesting that people of different phenotypes are adapted to lands outside their origin. Malaria is present in South America, Africa, India, South Asia, and more. Just as intense sunlight is present in many environments. In fact, in many cases, it overlaps.




    You're providing a good case on how phenotypes are well suited for lands outside their origin. 


    "I never argued against this. I only said dark skin color isn't good for the European climate as an example, but not for every single area outside Africa. "

    How is this true? If you have darker skin, you experience less skin cancer even at higher latitudes such as europe. This would arguably make darker skin better suited to anywhere with sunlight. You're logic doesn't follow. You can't provide why darker skin is less of advantage outside of intense sunlight.

    America for example, the darker your skin, the less skin cancer. 



    "Plus, once again, that was just a single example between two specific races. Skin color isn't the only phenotype that matters. So just because dark skin is good for Africa and another place doesn't mean Africans can efficiently survive in that other place. "

    Which phenotypes define said races? You have yet to define them, yet claim multiple phenotypes matter in defining race. You also have not proven that dark skin is any less advantageous in different environments, or that sickle cell is not advantageous in alternate environments.

    So far, I can only infer by your direct examples (As you have yet to define race) that Sickle Cell + Black pigmentation = Black Race. If your lacking Sickle Cell, are you not a member of said race?
    Fascism
  • sadolitesadolite 39 Pts   -  
    This question can easily be answered in 3 words "People are different"
  • AmericanFurryBoyAmericanFurryBoy 531 Pts   -  
    People are different. There are people of all abilities, race, and sex. 
    That’s one of the reasons I believe No Lives Matter
    Not every quote you read on the internet is true- Abraham Lincoln
  • BaconToesBaconToes 236 Pts   -  
    People are different. There are people of all abilities, race, and sex. 
    That’s one of the reasons I believe No Lives Matter
    So if I run you over with a car, you wouldn't mind?
    i fart cows
  • sadolitesadolite 39 Pts   -  
    "So if I run you over with a car, you wouldn't mind?" They would mind, it just wouldn't matter if they did. I tend to agree, people are rather useless and pointless for the most part. 
  • BaconToesBaconToes 236 Pts   -  
    sadolite said:
    "So if I run you over with a car, you wouldn't mind?" They would mind, it just wouldn't matter if they did. I tend to agree, people are rather useless and pointless for the most part. 
    If he really believed his life didn't matter, that his life is useless and pointless, what is the point of living? 
    i fart cows
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5965 Pts   -  
    Humans are absolutely not the same, and even if we assume that at the moment of birth humans are essentially clones of each other, with no differences whatsoever - then these differences will develop over their lifetime.

    Our brain is an interesting device. It work by receiving sensory inputs, transmitting them through the network of neurons and producing an output that alters how our brain processes similar inputs in the future. Different sensory inputs received over the course of the decades lead to completely different neural networks, resulting in completely different personalities.

    For example, suppose one person lives in a friendly, supportive, wealthy society, in an awesome area. The person lives the life of joy and does not know any pain and misery. Their brain has adapted to welcome social interactions, to encourage them to try new things, to be open to new ideas and to be outspoken and cheerful.

    Take another person now, who lives in an abusive family in a very bad criminal neighborhood. The person has to deal with a lot of conflicts, anger, pain, frustration on an everyday basis. Their brain has adapted to the circumstances and learned to always expect the worst from others, to be ready to pounce or to flee, to fight back when needed, to take in the hits. This person will likely be very harsh and anxious, constantly expecting something horrible to happen, treating others as potential threats.

    Imagine these two people meeting and interacting. Will you be able to tell the difference between them by just looking at them from the side? Absolutely. They are absolutely different individuals, with different experiences, views, beliefs, values, behaviors.

    ---

    It certainly applies to areas as well. While, say, Swedes and Finnish might not be that different at the first glance, you can easily tell a difference between an American and a Zimbabwean. Even a South Korean and a North Korean will be like creatures from different galaxies, if you watch them closely.

    Personally, as someone from the former Soviet Union, I often can tell people from there at airports or in tourist areas by just glancing at them. I do not even need to hear them talk; often seeing how they walk and how they look at other people is enough. Post-Soviet people tend to be very defensive and reserved, they are afraid of opening up, they rarely can relax and they constantly observe the situation around them, expecting something to happen. Having lived in Soviet Union, where people had no rights and could be tossed in a dungeon at any moment for no reason, and then in the post-USSR of 90-s, where mafia ruled the streets, their brains evolved in a way ensuring their survival in those conditions - and when they move to the conditions where those skills are no longer necessary, such as the First World democracies, the brains do not magically throw the past experiences away. Those experiences have shaped these individuals, and it usually takes decades for the brains to completely "upgrade their software", erasing the obsolete functions.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch