# Debate 1
## Proposition
> "bivalves are sentient because they have a brain."
## Argument
1. "The definition of brain needs to apply to all species... Not being such, it is speciesist intentionally.
2. If the definition of a brain doesn't apply to sponges, then your definition of brain is speciesist on your own lights.
### ImDemonWolf's Definition of a Brain
| **Definiendum** | **Definiens** |
|:-------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------------------- |
| **B** | something (x) is a brain |
| **M** | something (x) is a convoluted mass of nervous substance |
| **S** | something (x) is is encased within a skull |
| **c** | cerebral ganglia inside of a bivalve |
P1) Something is a brain if, and only if, something is a convoluted mass of nervous substance and is encased within a skull.
(∀x(Bx↔Mx∧Sx))
P2) The cerebral ganglia inside of a bivalve is convoluted masses of nervous substance.
(Mc)
P3) The cerebral ganglia inside of a bivalve is not encased within a skull.
(¬Sc)
C) Therefore, the cerebral ganglia inside of a bivalve is not a brain.
(∴¬Bc)
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Bx~4Mx~1Sx)),(Mc),(~3Sc)|=(~3Bc))
## Analysis
1. If your definition of a brain is so broad that it captures structures like cerebral ganglia, I don't see how you're not committed to the proposition that my body contains multiple brains. Do you sign off on that?
## Receipts
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230726122259.png]]
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230726125553.png]]
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230726125638.png]]
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230726125705.png]]
---
# Hashtags
#debate
#debate_opponents