azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

The fossil record does not exactly need the missing links to be true to make it true, for what it is supposed to be served as evidence. Plus, fossils are rather rare and take quite a bit to form.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

The fossil record does not exactly need the missing links to be true to make it true, for what it is supposed to be served as evidence. Plus, fossils are rather rare and take quite a bit to form.I was probably a bit harsh on you earlier, so my apologies. What these religious nutbags would have you believe is that the existence of a missing link disproves the entirety of the rest of the fossil record. When people are prepared to twist language and reality to that extent to defend their broken belief system, you probably aren't going to get much in the way of rational conversation out of them.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

True, although I'd like to see what they might say. (Apparently they won't let me submit this without making this 50 characters, I'm writing this)
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

n the 17th century, Nicholas Steno shook the world of science, noting the similarity between shark teeth and the rocks commonly known as "tongue stones." This was our first understanding that fossils were a record of past life.Two centuries later, Mary Ann Mantell picked up a tooth, which her husband Gideon thought to be of a large iguana, but it turned out to be the tooth of a dinosaur, Iguanodon. This discovery sent the powerful message that many fossils represented forms of life that are no longer with us today.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

Today we may take fossils for granted, but we continue to learn from them. Each new fossil contains additional clues that increase our understanding of life's history and help us to answer questions about their evolutionary story.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

Evolutionary theory predicts that related organisms will share similarities that are derived from common ancestors. Similar characteristics due to relatedness are known as homologies. Homologies can be revealed by comparing the anatomies of different living things, looking at cellular similarities and differences, studying embryological development, and studying vestigial structures within individual organisms.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

As these individuals noted, vestiges can be especially puzzling features of organisms, since these "hypocritical" structures profess something that they do not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do not perform. However, common descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. Existing species have different structures and perform different functions. If all living organisms descended from a common ancestor, then both functions and structures necessarily have been gained and lost in each lineage during macroevolutionary history. Therefore, from common descent and the constraint of gradualism, we predict that many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions. Note that the exact evolutionary mechanism which created a vestigial structure is irrelevant as long as the mechanism is a gradual one.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

There are many examples of rudimentary and nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence, snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles. Most pythons (which are legless snakes) carry vestigial pelvises hidden beneath their skin (Cohn 2001; Cohn and Tickle 1999). The vestigial pelvis in pythons is not attached to vertebrae (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity. Some lizards carry rudimentary, vestigial legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside (Raynaud and Kan 1992).
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet have rudimentary, vestigial eyes (Besharse and Brandon 1976; Durand et al. 1993; Jeffery 2001; Kos et al. 2001). The eyes of the Mexican tetra have a lens, a degenerate retina, a degenerate optic nerve, and a sclera, even though the tetra cannot see (Jeffery 2001). The blind salamanders have eyes with retinas and lenses, yet the eyelids grow over the eye, sealing them from outside light (Durand et al. 1993; Kos et al. 2001).
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

Dandelions reproduce without fertilization (a condition known as apomixis), yet they retain flowers and produce pollen (both are sexual organs normally used for sexual fertilization) (Mes et al. 2002). Flowers and pollen are thus useless characters for dandelions in terms of sexual reproduction.There are many examples of flightless beetles (such as the weevils of the genus Lucanidae) which retain perfectly formed wings housed underneath fused wing covers. All of these examples can be explained in terms of the beneficial functions and structures of the organisms' predicted ancestors (Futuyma 1998, pp. 122-123).
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

The ancestors of humans are known to have been herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as wisdom teeth). Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and in one third of all individuals they are malformed and impacted (Hattab et al. 1995; Schersten et al. 1989). These useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death (Litonjua 1996; Obiechina et al. 2001; Rakprasitkul 2001; Tevepaugh and Dodson 1995).
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

Another vestige of our herbivorous ancestry is the vermiform appendix. While this intestinal structure may retain a function of some sort, perhaps in the development of the immune system, it is a rudimentary version of the much larger caecum that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals. For a detailed discussion of the vestigiality of the human vermiform appendix, see The vestigiality of the human vermiform appendix: A modern reappraisal.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

Yet another human vestigial structure is the coccyx, the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external tails protruding from the back. Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult. The coccyx is a developmental remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system (for more detail see the sections on the embryonic human tail and the atavistic human tail). Our internal tail is unnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications), with the only complaint, in a small fraction of patients, being that the removal of the coccyx sadly did not remove their pain (Grossovan and Dam 1995; Perkins et al. 2003; Postacchini Massobrio 1983; Ramsey et al. 2003; Shaposhnikov 1997; Wray 1991). Our small, rudimentary, fused caudal vertebrae might have some minor and inessential functions, but these vertebrae are useless for balance and grasping, their usual functions in other mammals.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

No organism can have a vestigial structure that was not previously functional in one of its ancestors. Thus, for each species, the standard phylogenetic tree makes a huge number of predictions about vestigial characters that are allowed and those that are impossible for any given species.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

Shared derived characters and molecular sequence data, not vestigial characters, determine the phylogeny and the characteristics of predicted common ancestors. Thus, if common descent is false, vestigial characters very possibly could lack an evolutionary explanation. For example, whales are classified as mammals according to many criteria, such as having mammary glands, a placenta, one bone in the lower jaw, etc. Snakes likewise are classified as reptiles by several other derived features. However, it is theoretically possible that snakes or whales could have been classified as fish (as Linnaeus originally did). If this were the case, the vestigial legs of whales or the vestigial pelvises of snakes would make no sense evolutionarily and would be inconsistent with common descent.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: Yes I agree.

A lot of people get bullied over their lifetime and after period of a long time some people might commit suicide.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: Yes I agree.

Yes it does. A speaker came to my school today and was talking about cyberbullying and it was a quite interesting too!
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: Yes I agree.

And what did your speaker say Srom so we know what your full argument is.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: Yes I agree.

Well he said that cyber bullying isn't funny and that it kills people because people who bully the victims are cowards, and trolls who think its funny but its not and if someone commits suicide you could be charged with man slaughter.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: Yes I agree.

Well said kiddo. I agree. .
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: Yes I agree.

Thank you for your support! :)
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: Yes I agree.

You bet. :)
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: Yes I agree.

I agree as people suicided because of cyberbullying online.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: No I don't agree

If that is the case. Then it's not the cyber bullying doing the killing. It's insecure people who should not be allowed access to the internet, where rude people do exist.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: Yes I agree.

Yeah and people has died just because of cyberbullying on social media such as Amanda Todd
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: Yes I agree.

Wow! This turned into a powder keg of a debate! I suspect this is going to be a top rated topic! Well done!
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: Yes I agree.

Yes, there's a wealth of data indicating that many young people are taking their lives in response to cyberbullying. I think part of the problem is that my generation doesn't really understand how cyber interactions have become the new norm. We still see face-to-face interactions and the norm and struggle to understand why anyone would get worked up over cyberbullying. But, in todays world, ones cyber identity has become their defacto real identity and cyber shaming via bully, with its potential to be more visible than face-to-face bullying, seems to amplify the shame some people feel.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: No I don't agree

I guess this isn't really much of a dispute but this one part... I think part of the problem is that my generation doesn't really understand how cyber interactions have become the new norm... struggle to understand why anyone would get worked up over cyberbullying.The problem is you're looking for logical reasoning. There is none. It's just plain stupidity, evolution in action. There is no reasoning to "understand" when some young person shoots himself in the face because he got pissed at something that happened to his character in Everquest. It's just poor parenting, lack of supervision, madness and stupidity.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: Yes I agree.

It's just poor parenting, lack of supervision, madness and stupidity.It sounds like you might be inclined to think that suicides related to cyberbullying are a result of petty issues and attention-seeking. That really isn't the case. We're not talking about bullying by anonymous people in distant locations. We're talking about the more damaging cyberbullying that occurs, lets say, when kids attending the same school or who might know one another socially IRL bully one another online in such a way that EVERYONE in that school is privy to the bullying.And exactly how closely should an adolescent (e.g. 16y.o.) be supervised. I agree they should still have some level of supervision; but it should be minimal. Adolescent development indicates that this is a period where some independence is a necessarily milestone.You're giving the bully a free pass and putting the blame on the victim and the parents.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: No I don't agree

We're not talking about bullying by anonymous people in distant locations.We're talking about that also. Kids don't exclusively kill themselves because their classmates are harassing them, they also commit suicide because anonymous people far away they don't know are making fun of them. We're talking about the more damaging cyberbullying that occurs, lets say, when kids attending the same school or who might know one another socially IRL bully one another online in such a way that EVERYONE in that school is privy to the bullying....and there's still absolutely nothing here to tell me why the victim doesn't just press that little red 'x' in the corner of the screen and be done with it. If I could've pressed a little button any of the times I was getting physically abused and ended it when I did I would've; people who are the victim of cyber bullying actually have that option.Internet trolls are a fact of life. They are a new fact of life, one that came into existence with the frequent use of computers, but a fact of life nonetheless. There's nothing we can really do to stop internet trolls. They simply have to be ignored. If your solution when dealing with internet trolls is to kill yourself, well, that's natural selection in the age of computers.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: Yes I agree.

Online presence has become an extension of our identity. The consequence is that our identity through childhood is stored for all time. Cyberbullying includes cyberstalking and slander such that it impacts the perception of online identity. Since the damage appears irreparable because of the relative permanence of information online, young individuals may despair.Suicide is an act of despair.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: Yes I agree.

Cyberbullies can prey on anybody since on social media they can pretend to be anyone...
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: Yes I agree.

I almost killed myself due to cyber bullying by conservative Christians.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: Yes I agree.

If you down vote without making a logical comment down voter, you are a coward. Probably a conservative Christian Republican.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: Yes I agree.

Sad, but the truth. There are some sick people who get their kicks from CyberBullying.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: No I don't agree

Cars kill a lot more... so??? Should we ban cars?
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: Yes I agree.

This is a debate regarding causation, not of the remedy.Regardless, understanding the etiology of modern suicides could enable us to develop better psych programs to improve the ability to resolve conflict, especially in the cases of the cyberbully and of the cyberbullied.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: No I don't agree

So what are you disputing exactly? Cars don't kill more people than internet bullying?
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: Yes I agree.

Whether cars kill more people are not is immaterial. The question is regarding whether cyberbullying kills many people.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: No I don't agree

Forget it... obviously you don't understand how this works.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: Yes I agree.

No but cyberbullying torture the mind mentally which is worse than being killed quickly.Would you rather be tortured to death or quickly get over it & die?
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: No I don't agree

I wanna be tortured... I'm kind of into that sort of stuff.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: No I don't agree

It has made people kill themselves but I'm sure the number isn't that substantial.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: Yes I agree.

The potential for kids to use the internet as a weapon for bulling is enormous. Estimating that more than 13 million children aged six to 17 were victims of cyber bullying, a poll also revealed that more than two million of those victims told no one about being attacked. One-third of all teens (ages 12-17) and one-sixth of children (ages 6-11) have had mean, threatening or embarrassing things said about them online. 10 percent of the teens and four percent of the younger children were threatened online with physical harm. 16 percent of the teens and preteens who were victims told no one about it. About half of children ages 6-11 told their parents. Only 30 percent of older kids told their parents. Preteens were as likely to receive harmful messages at school (45 percent) as at home (44 percent). Older children received 30 percent of harmful messages at school and 70 percent at home. 17 percent of preteens and seven percent of teens said they were worried about bullying as they start a new school year. 8 percent of those effected by cyber bullying try to commit suicide.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: No I don't agree

The potential for kids to use the internet as a weapon for bulling is enormous. How so, if I ever have an disagreement with a person online to the point where I feel I'm being attacked, I leave. I don't think I'd have that option if i was being mugged with a weapon of physical abuse.Estimating that more than 13 million children aged six to 17 were victims of cyber bullying, a poll also revealed that more than two million of those victims told no one about being attacked.Of those numbers, how many of them were killed by the bullying. I've been bullied, on this very site, I'm admitting it now. I feel no need to kill myself, if I did, I would not come back here, or I'd do something about getting the persecutor banned rather than leaving myself.One-third of all teens (ages 12-17) and one-sixth of children (ages 6-11) have had mean, threatening or embarrassing things said about them online.People are going to talk trash that's inevitable. No one is doing any physical harm by saying "You're an idiot" or "Eat my ass". If those words offend you, don't read them.10 percent of the teens and four percent of the younger children were threatened online with physical harm.Physical harm? Now how, pray tell, would a person online cause a person across the globe physical harm? 8 percent of those effected by cyber bullying try to commit suicide.Of all the facts, the outcome is this. A measly 8% of people not mature enough to take some internet comments in stride, and or leave them be. That's not substantial.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: Yes I agree.

Teens attach themselves to their social media sites. Do you understand the full capability of cyberbullying? You do not have to be online at all. Just because you don't feel like you have the need to die others do. Also it can used as a threat for physical violence. The last thing you said and your entire argument tells me that you are other understand the full form of cyberbullying.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: Yes I agree.

The reason why people kill themselves is because they are being bullied. Cyberbulling is an extension of bullying, but more people have acess to the internet, so it can kill a wider amount of people than regular bullying
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: No I don't agree

Well asides from me not counting them killing themselves as the direct fault of the cyber bullying, with all of the numbers that have been presented we have mostly decided that because it comes down to opinion that some believe it's not a large number others believe it may be.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: No I don't agree

Duplicate
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: No I don't agree

doubtful seeing as cyber-bullying is the easiest form of bullying to get away from.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: No I don't agree

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Integer a iaculis diam. Nam quam leo, pharetra et porttitor quis, gravida in turpis. Sed enim dolor, tincidunt vel risus id, mollis auctor neque. Integer ante enim, placerat et pulvinar sit amet, pellentesque a est. Mauris sollicitudin nibh ac mauris commodo vestibulum. Maecenas aliquet nisi quis mi egestas, ac molestie enim commodo. Aliquam accumsan urna et arcu aliquet, sit amet convallis justo cursus. Donec sollicitudin suscipit magna sed vulputate. Curabitur elementum mollis enim, sit amet fermentum dolor imperdiet a. Phasellus ultricies massa rhoncus augue pellentesque, a mollis tellus iaculis. Morbi fringilla odio et malesuada venenatis.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: No I don't agree

People kill people, and people kill themselves. Everyone should know better than to listen to someone over the internet .
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: No I don't agree

Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of peopleThat is what I am disputing. Cyber bullying, the act of insulting, threatening, and or offending others online, has not literally killed anyone.I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but when I see these comments "I've been cyber bullied" I think "Grow a spine". It doesn't take rocket science level education to realize you can just leave a conversation.Bullying in school, where you are threatened and the likelihood that the threat could be carried out is evident, is far different than being threatened online by a person you'll most likely never meet, in a situation you can leave at anytime by pressing the red x in the corner, the circle button on your monitor, or modem, etc. There are tons of ways to avoid being bullied online, so there is no reason it should be life threatening.