The Instigator
Pandas
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
OpponentDestroyer
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Dogs don't have tails.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
OpponentDestroyer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/28/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,330 times Debate No: 35999
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

Pandas

Pro

I'd like to debate on this topic. It is something often misunderstood by most people. First round acceptance only. I wish whoever accepts this challenge luck in all the rounds.
OpponentDestroyer

Con

I accept. Looking forward to your arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
Pandas

Pro

Obviously, the thing sticking out above the dog's butt is not a tail. It's a tumor. According to Darwin's Theory of Evolution, Natural Selection could cause animals to adapt by changing their physical properties like color or size, being called "microevolution", or cause them to evolve into new species through mutations, like the ancient whales living on the ground evolving into a whale living in the water.

In case of dogs, they had no tails in the past. However, mutation (could occur randomly that could be either interference, neutral, or beneficial) had occurred and caused the tumor to come out above the butt. After the dog reproduced, further generations also have tumors. As time pass, the tumors get longer and larger, become what is now known as the "tail". Scientists say that it is used to help the animal balance. It is true. However, scientists didn't know how or where the tail comes from.

In conclusion, it's not a tail. It's a tumor.
OpponentDestroyer

Con

My opponent has put forth an argument that dogs' tails are not in fact tails, but are actually tumors. I will attempt to show that this notion is illogical, and scientifically misinformed.

First of all, what is a tumor?

The English medical definition of "tumor" is as follows:

"An abnormal growth of tissue resulting from uncontrolled, progressive multiplication of cells and serving no physiological function; a neoplasm."[1]

A dog's tail cannot be defined as a "tumor," because a tumor is inherently abnormal, while tails are a normal part of the body that almost all dogs possess. Furthermore, there is an important physiological distinction between tumorous tissue and normal, healthy tissue. A tumor is characterized by having uncontrolled and progressive cell growth. This means that a tumor grows abnormally and doesn't stop growing. The tissue in dogs' tails do not display these abnormal characteristics and usually grow normally and then eventually stop growing.

Tumors also cannot be inherited, and therefore dogs' tails could not have evolved in the way that Pro has suggested. While Pro is correct that tumors are caused by genetic mutations, the type of mutation that Pro is talking about (known as a somatic mutation) is not inheritable.[2] A tumor is something that develops in an individual, not something that evolves across an entire species.

According to Pro's logic, our arms and legs are not normal limbs, but are in fact tumors. This is obviously ridiculous.

In conclusion, dogs' tails are made up of normal tissue and therefore cannot be considered tumors. Also, tumors are not inheritable, which puts a major hole in Pro's thesis.

Thank you. I turn the debate back to Pro.

Sources:

[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[2] http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
Pandas

Pro

I thanks the con for his arguments. Now onto my rebuttals:

In order to identify whether the so-called tail is a part of the body or a tumor, tumors must be specifically defined. There are three kinds of tumors: benign tumors, pre-malignant tumors, and malignant tumors. Ignore the benign tumors and the pre-malignant tumors and digging deeply into the malignant tumors, it is proven that malignant tumors are considered as a kind of cancer and is cancerous. Malignant tumors are caused when uncontrolled cells grow into chunks out of places of the body. The tail may have been made from malignant tumors growing on top of each other.

Next, let's look in cancer. Going straight to the familial cancer, it is unpredictable whether it is inheritable or not. Even though it is not confirmed that it is inheritable, it is also not confirmed that it is inheritable.

There may be a question on how did the tail stop growing. Well, the ansewr is simple. The ancestors of dogs may have eaten herbs that help stop cancer. Thereafter, dogs have tails. (controlled tumors grown on each other) Herbs are very secretive. Even nowadays, not all the herbs on earth are classified, let alone the fact that there were even more herbs in the olden days compared to nowadays.

Examples of herbs that could cure cancers (only ones that were classified) could be found here. http://www.canceractive.com...

In conclusion, a tail is tumors stacked on top of each other.

http://cancer.stanford.edu...;
http://www.differencebetween.info...;

OpponentDestroyer

Con

I thank Pro for his rebuttals.

Pro has suggested that dogs' "tails" have developed from malignant (cancerous) tumors growing on top of each other. Oddly, this implies that all dogs today have cancer. Is that what Pro is proposing? Because I took my dog to the vet last week and the vet did not tell me my dog had cancer.

Pro then admits that such a malignant tumor, or cancer, may not be inheritable. In fact, I have already shown that it is proven that an acquired malignant tumor is NEVER inheritable. Let me elaborate:

In one sense, tumors can be inheritable. In another sense, they cannot be. One can inherit the predisposition to develop a tumor, but one cannot inherit an acquired tumor itself that has developed in one's parent. And let's remember that dogs have their tails from birth, so they cannot be "predisposed" tumors. This leaves only one possibility: dogs' tails are NOT tumors.

In response to my argument that tumors do not stop growing, Pro has argued that dogs consumed herbs that stopped their growth. But there's a major hole in this argument. Namely, the effects of the herbs would not carry over to the succeeding generations. For example, dogs today do not have access to any such herbs, and yet their tails grow normally.

I feel I have adequately addressed my opponent's rebuttals. I will now put forth a few new arguments that dogs' tails are not tumors, in support of my position that they are, in fact, tails.

A dog's tail is connected to its spine. It contains several vertebrae (bones) and muscles.[1] Ask any doctor, and they will tell you that a tumor doesn't contain bones or muscles. And they are, of course, correct. A tumor might develop around bones and muscles, but it doesn't contain bones or muscles of its own. So a dog's tail cannot be a tumor.

Also, a dog has the ability to control the movement of its tail. It is not possible to control the movement of a tumor.

Furthermore, Pro said in his first arguments in Round 2 that dogs originally did not have tails, and then a mutation occurred and a tumor developed and became the "tail." Not only does he not provide any proof of this, but there is a problem with this theory. Dogs were domesticated from wolves. That means that dogs came after wolves. And wolves had tails!

In conclusion, acquired malignant tumors cannot be inherited, and dogs' tails are connected to their spines, which means that they cannot be tumors. Therefore, dogs have tails.


Sources:
[1] http://www.petplace.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Pandas

Pro

I thank Con for his rebuttals

I am not proposing that all dogs today have cancer. What I am proposing is a different view of perspective at the world. How do we know what we know? How do we know our knowledge are accurate? The majority of the scientists in the past thought that the Earth was the center of the universe. The majority of the population of mankind thought that the Earth was flat. Those were all proven wrong. Without specifically looking into the dog's tail and identifying it, I believe it could not be confirmed just yet that it's a normal part of the dog. Being able to stand on one side and protecting his or her point of view is an important aspect for someone to be good at debating. However, being open-minded and "not following the majority" is sometimes required. Debates are not to win or lose. It is to share new ideas. According to Albert Einstein, "Imagination is more important than knowledge".

I would like to say that I did not admitt that malignant tumors may not be inheritable. What I have said is that it may or may not be inheritable. This, is also yet fully verified.

In one sense, tumors can be inheritable. In another sense, they cannot be. One can inherit the predisposition to develop a tumor, but one cannot inherit an acquired tumor itself that has developed in one's parent. And let's remember that dogs have their tails from birth, so they cannot be "predisposed" tumors. This leaves only one possibility: dogs' tails are NOT tumors.

In my point of view, this is just a theory told mouth to mouth. It is not confirmed or credited to whoever came up with the theory. I could make up some theory of my own and post on the internet and people would be saying it to someone else, making it "real" in the future.

As stated before, not all herbs have been classified, especially ones in the olden days. Herbs have unpredictable effects that humans could not possibly know unless they have seen with their own eyes. People thought cancer could not be cured, until herbs were found. A herb that a dog ate may have caused a new kind of antibodies to be able to generate within the body. It may be a while before these antibodies are produced that the tumors have time to grow. Then it would stop growing when the antibodies are produced.

Dogs can control their tails half of the time. The other half of the time, they move on instinct. This may be the effect of the species having the disease (tumors growing on top of each other) for so many generations that the nerves start to grow into the tumors and that the dogs could start controlling the tumors above their butt.

As stated before, the tumors may have been with the dogs for so long that it became a part of the dog, growing muscles and bones of its own that are connected to the dog's.

Also, a dog has the ability to control the movement of its tail. It is not possible to control the movement of a tumor.

Half of the time they have the ability to control the movement of their tails. However, sometimes they do not.

Wolves are the older "generations" of dogs. Dogs are tamed wolves taken from the wild. Wolves are like wild stray dogs.

In conclusion, dogs don't have tails. They so-called tails are tumors topping on each other.

http://dogcare.dailypuppy.com...;
OpponentDestroyer

Con

Being able to stand on one side and protecting his or her point of view is an important aspect for someone to be good at debating. However, being open-minded and "not following the majority" is sometimes required. Debates are not to win or lose. It is to share new ideas. According to Albert Einstein, "Imagination is more important than knowledge".

I can agree somewhat, but I would like to remind Pro that he has made a claim that is contrary to what most people believe, and he has the burden of proof to prove that dogs do not have tails. So far I think he has failed to provide evidence for his claim, and his arguments have been weak at best.

It HAS been fully verified that malignant tumors are not inheritable. As I said before, one can inherit a gene that turns into cancer, but one cannot inherit cancer itself. The same applies to a malignant tumor, which is essentially the same as cancer.[1]

As stated before, not all herbs have been classified, especially ones in the olden days. Herbs have unpredictable effects that humans could not possibly know unless they have seen with their own eyes. People thought cancer could not be cured, until herbs were found. A herb that a dog ate may have caused a new kind of antibodies to be able to generate within the body. It may be a while before these antibodies are produced that the tumors have time to grow. Then it would stop growing when the antibodies are produced.

Even if this were possible, there is absolutely no evidence for this. It is nothing but a theory that Pro has invented, and has no weight in this debate.

Dogs can control their tails half of the time. The other half of the time, they move on instinct. This may be the effect of the species having the disease (tumors growing on top of each other) for so many generations that the nerves start to grow into the tumors and that the dogs could start controlling the tumors above their butt.

As stated before, the tumors may have been with the dogs for so long that it became a part of the dog, growing muscles and bones of its own that are connected to the dog's.

Again, this is nothing but a theory. Pro has given no evidence to support it.

I feel that Pro has done little else than repeat his arguments which I have already refuted.

Pro has presented a hypothesis that dogs' tails are actually tumors. I have given several reasons why this is ridiculous, yet Pro continues to defend the idea for the same reasons.

According to Occam's razor:

"when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

Pro's theory gives an explanation for how dogs got their tails. He says they are not tails at all, but are in fact tumors. There is no sufficient reason to believe this, however. It is a totally unsubstantiated claim.

My position is that we should continue to believe dogs' tails are simply, just that -- tails. We should believe this because it is a simpler explanation, and Pro has no evidence to support his claim.

I apologize if I have been slightly incoherent or unclear in this round. I rushed my arguments last minute. I hope Pro and the "audience" understand what I have tried to say.

Sources:
[1] http://www.cancer.org...
Debate Round No. 4
Pandas

Pro

First of all, I would like to thank the Con for showing me how to cite your information to your sources. I just knew when read his arguments.

I would like to get to the main point where the Con had stated that my theories are just theories with no weight. First of all, I would like to say that the only "trustable" and "heavy" proofs are your experiences. Do we even know what cancer really is? Are scientists lying about all these advancements just to get funds from us? We have no idea. They may be just making up theories while living in mansions disguised as laboratories. Therefore, it is on use saying that my theories are weightless because theories are theories. When one has not experienced it first-hand, it is impossible to tell whether it's true or not. I could be making up things with evidences that sound true and post it on the internet; it is very likely thousands of people will believe it whatsoever.

Secondly, according to Occam's razor:

"When you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

My theory: It is not a tail but tumors stacked up on top of each other. These tumors could be inherited and herbs that increases and produces new kinds of antibodies were eaten. The tumors were there for so long that the dogs gained control over them.

Con's theory: A dog's tail is connected to its spine. It contains several vertebrae (bones) and muscles. Ask any doctor, and they will tell you that a tumor doesn't contain bones or muscles. And they are, of course, correct. A tumor might develop aroundbones and muscles, but it doesn't contain bones or muscles of its own. So a dog's tail cannot be a tumor. Also, a dog has the ability to control the movement of its tail. It is not possible to control the movement of a tumor.

Using my sense of judgement, my theory is shorter and is easier to understand. Therefore it is simpler. According to Occam's razor, my theory is better.

I would like to end my round here and would like to thank the Con again for accepting this debate. It was fun and enjoyable, especially when the topic isn't so serious. I wish him luck in the final round and in the voting period. Thank you.
OpponentDestroyer

Con

Pro's first point is fallacious. He has simply questioned the foundation of my arguments and evidence, which is not sufficient to refute me. We are in a debate, and in a debate, the contending parties should each argue by presenting logical arguments and evidence. I feel I have provided more evidence that is factual and scientific in nature, while Pro made up several very specific theories, without any supportive evidence. I have even refuted his theories by presenting evidence (in the form of scientific knowledge) that severely contradicts his theories.

I would like to elaborate on my point about Occam's razor. According to Wikipedia:

"Occam's razor is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic and problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. In other words, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one."

"Fewest assumptions" is the key part, here. An "assumption" is a belief formed without proof.

Pro has also misunderstood my "theory." Actually, I don't really have a theory. My position in this debate it that it is a self-evident fact that dogs have tails, based on the standard definition of "tail" and the fact that I have seen a dog's tail with my own eyes (Pro said himself, experiences are the most trustable proofs). Reasonably speaking, I actually make NO assumptions. ZERO.

Pro, on the other hand, as I have already stated, provided several arguments, each heavily based on assumptions, without any proofs. Let's go over them again:

Pro has claimed that dogs do not have tails. He has attempted to support this claim with the following arguments:
  • "The thing coming out above the dog's butt" is not a tail, it is a number of malignant tumors growing on top of each other.
  • This is because a mutation occurred that caused the tumor to form.
  • After reproduction, the tumors, which may or may not be inheritable, may have been passed on to the following generations.
  • These tumors may have stopped growing because the dogs ate unclassified herbs which caused antibodies to generate within the body. The antibodies then stopped the tumors from growing.

It should be strikingly obvious at this point who has made more assumptions. This is clearly Pro. Therefore, according to Occam's razor, my position is better.

Finally, I would like to thank Pro for the debate. I also enjoyed myself and it helped me improve my debating skills, being a topic that is more creative and not overly complicated.

Thanks again,

OpponentDestroyer

Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Piccini 3 years ago
Piccini
Really easy one for Con. Looking forward to the next rounds.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Piccini 3 years ago
Piccini
PandasOpponentDestroyerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Fun debate by Pro, but good job for Con rebutting it scientifically. Pro hasn't managed to sustain his argument.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 3 years ago
InVinoVeritas
PandasOpponentDestroyerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Props to Pro for making me laugh with the whole "tumor" idea, but Con put forward a more scientific, logical explanation here.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
PandasOpponentDestroyerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: On a shorter debate I may have given the point to pro for putting such good work into his case, yet his case turned into a mere argument by assertion when he kept repeating his basic points without sufficiently adding anything to them. Whereas con countered them, and gave informative information on why it could not be considered a tumor/cancer/chain of cancers. Both did very well on sources.