Dogs don't have tails.

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...