azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

imagine this:There are many of groups of apes in several areas of Africa millions of years ago. Over time there is a shift in climate - an ice age is beginning…For some groups of monkeys food is becoming more scarce; some groups even go extinct. A few groups have enough food if the men go out foraging for food during the day and bring back what they have to share with the women and children apes.Some days there aren't enough leaves and things to bring back, so they start eating berries, fruit, and sometimes left over carcasses that were the prey of other animals. They learn how to fend off the birds that are competing for those carcasses and how to avoid the predators. The apes that can do this best - walk far, coordinate with others, avoid predators, etc. are the ones that survive the longest and have children who generally share those same traits (passed on through their genes). Since more and more children of the group are from the apes that are successful at living long and having lots of kids, over time many children share the genes that make for successful apes in that environment. (Notice that apes in other environments haven't had to change and adapt because their food has not become scarce - they may have had different changes affecting their group.) Imagine one of these groups is in an environment where lots of sweat glands make apes lots more successful - they can walk further with less exhaustion, etc. Lots more sweat glands also means more but thinner body hair and lessens the need for panting to regulate body temperature. Less panting allows for better vocal communication. The new diet which now includes meat uses less energy for digestion - this allows the apes to be thinner and apes who use that extra energy for cognitive functions are more successful.You would now (over many generations) have come to a group of apes that seem very different to the initial apes - they walk further, are skinnier and more upright, have thinner body hair and more sweat glands, use more brain functions including for communication. Starting to sound familiar?A few changes in genes go a long way (we are still about 96% genetically the same as apes today even though they have changed to their environments as we have.)This is not meant to be the definitive version of how humans evolved, just something to give you an idea of how evolution works. I'm sure others on here could do a better job than I have, just wanted to take a stab at it.It is hard to see evolution taking place on a large scale because of the time it takes for the groups to be affected, but you can see changes in humans today - different countries have much different average height (5'2" in Indonesia vs 6' in the Netherlands), differing skin colors, eye shapes and colors. Genes are largely are inherited from parents, but can be changed based on your environment (diet, UV rays, amount of work/sleep, weather, air and water quality, etc.)Smaller scale changes are more easily observed within a small time scale - like drug-resistant bacteria - see alsoHope this helps.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

Perfect example on how much most Christan's understand evolution.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.

You do know that the tail bone is used to support muscles that are necessary for reproduction and excretion, correct? It is not vestigial.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

-_- -=Silence=- -_-
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

Awesome debate picture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

How do you know that it actually is a tail remnant and it's not just scientist "pretending" it is in an attempt to "prove" evolution? And, AND you still need to show me one of those "partially evolved" fossils that should be everywhere. We have monkey fossils, and we have human fossils. Why can't you show me a fossil of a half evolved human? And why is genetics a loss of information??!?!??! If we started out with less DNA then, some how end up with more, why don't we see that today? Why is all genetics a loss of information??
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

How do you know that it actually is a tail remnant and it's not just scientist "pretending" it is in an attempt to "prove" evolution?Scientists observed the bone with scrutiny, and had found all kinds of deformities and structural characteristics relating to the structure of an animal's tail. They identified these similarities, but acknowledged that the structure of our coccyx was just an under-developed version, continuously becoming less apparent through every new generation via Evolution.Why can't you show me a fossil of a half evolved human?Well, they have found some fossils of apish-humanoids, or Australopithechus Ramidus but I am doubtful. Perhaps their bones were easily corroded in the environments they chose to live in, or perhaps they haven't even found them yet. I'm no scientist, but what I do know for sure is that a creator wouldn't zap you into existence with remnants of a tail, which was supposed to be Evolved away, over time. Same as he wouldn't leave remnants of third-transparent eye-lids or useless, deformed parts of the body. And why is genetics a loss of information??!?!??! If we started out with less DNA then, some how end up with more, why don't we see that today? Why is all genetics a loss of information??Well, it includes multiple types of mutations making it possible introduce new information to the genome.Sorry, I'm relying on my year 9 science here. :P
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

"Well, it includes multiple types of mutations making it possible introduce new information to the genome.Sorry, I'm relying on my year 9 science here. :P"Yes, it includes multiple types of mutation that make it possible, but the fact still remains that it is improbable. The probability of a positive mutation is 7.269312095 x 10^54, or in other words, physically impossible.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.

So... what are you trying to conclude from this? That we were zapped into existence, even with body parts that were deformed through evolution due to their current lack of need? There is no logic that can be taken from that, so we must go along to say that it did work, and that we are here. Scientists have already observed this as possible in bacteria... and what ever is more plausible must be more correct, right? And you still have to explain why we have remnants of primal body parts to fit it in your lack of belief in evolution. (Assuming you do have a lack of belief in Evolution.)
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.

Firstly, that number is bogus. Every time I ask someone who cites these absurd figures for the arithmetic behind them, I receive the most stunning of silences. If you must know, studies on various Drosophila have shown that the odds of getting a harmful mutation are 70%-ish. That leaves 30% for neutral and positive.Now most of these non harmful mutations simply create copies of other genes, which are key to the addition of new information. These copies can be built upon without risk of damage to the being itself, as they are merely backups of the original.All the neutral and beneficial mutations are added to the gene pool, which increases in size for every generation. Which brings me on to something important: timescale.If we were discussing timescales of decades or centuries, and with different lifeforms in the thousands, then your criticisms would be justified. But instead, we're talking billions of years with trillions of different lifeforms. Really, with a 30% chance of getting a beneficial mutation, I'm pretty sure you could get one in 4 billion years.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

And how did you come up with this calculation? Its as if you pulled the number out of thin air.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.

First off this whole "scientific" story about dna being the controller of the cells activity one big lie. I've review many research project that prove that cells can fully operate with out the nucleus but died because they fail to replicate important protien structures key to their metablism. More over nucleus is nothing more then the sexal organ of the cells actually can't be genetically modified. Any genetic altertion done to the cell must already have relatable functions within the it's predetermine potentional capabilities.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

HAOIUEFHIUSDHFIKU#($&(#FUUUUCKKK YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU OK YOU MOTHERFUCKER.First, THE NEOCORTEX, THE FRONTAL FRONTAL FRONTAL PART OF THE BRAIN.The brain evolved from the inside out, as we can see from the very inner part of the brain which regulates breathing and the heart, and the core necessities of the body. From outside that, we get movement of muscles and whatnot, outside that, we get decision making, memory and more advanced senses, and outside that, we get planning, understanding and useful memory of how to do things, like how an ape can learn to use a computer, and outside that is what gives self awareness, deep thought, language, dexterous movement and advanced processes. The brain CLEARLY evolved, and the very fact that humans exist, and coinciding with the fossil record, shows that over time, humans got smarter as the necessity for intelligence increased, and that we CLEARLY evolved.You want to see a GAIN of information? Look at your opposable thumbs. They are VERY advanced. The brain as well.This all proves you wrong, yet, as I said above with the extreme, ultimate, most pristine and purest rage, you will NEVER be able to understand because you do not care about truth. You will not even try to understand.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.

Silence... Funny eh?
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.

Yess... The Silence...
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

You still need to provide a rebuttal to my argument. Silence may be golden, but I actually want to hear what you have to say.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

Irrelevant, irrelevant and irrelevant.What is relevant is how a damn tail used to be hanging from there. And how it evolved into how we use it today, after we left the trees.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

after we left the trees.We left, it followed. We tend to have a forest growing between our legs, unless it's lumber season.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.

Your argument was that this was proof that we had tails at one point. I rebuked it by showing that it proves nothing.You have no proof that we had tails at one point in our ancestral lineage.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

Lol wut?Scientific research has found remnants of what used to be a tail from our coccyx. That proves everything!Oh... so God made us with the under-developed remnants of a tail... makes perfect sense. The remnants of something must have the "something" to make it a remnant. It is clear that that something existed in one point in time.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

.-_- -=xXMore SilenceXx=- -_-.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.

Well only parts of the body like fingers, and other stuffYah Fools
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

Surely you can see the deep implications given by these evolved body parts. Such as how we used to use our tails to hang from trees thousands of years ago.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.

To prove evolution scientists used micro-evolution as an example. However, the could not evolve the micro-organism into a different species from which derived from the original micro-organism, because they could not change the factor of how many genes an organism's species has. All humans have the same amount of genes as all other humans. Same with dogs too. The change in a species's genes are impossible, therefore neither is evolving from one species to the next.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

To prove evolution scientists used micro-evolution as an example.Partly, yes. Macro evolution is essentially lots of micro evolution. Not only that though, we have already observed speciation occur. We have already witnessed species evolve into different species. All you have to do is do the research, and you will find that evolution is a perfectly sound theory. Virtually no one in the scientific community disagrees with evolution. The theory is no longer up for debate. It has already met its burden of proof and been proven with mountains of evidence. The change in a species's genes are impossible, therefore neither is evolving from one species to the next.This would be false. How else is there genetic variation, if change in genes is impossible?
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.

To evolve into a different species you must first have a different number of genes. Pretty much every gene varies, the number however, with the corresponding species, does not. And there is no proof of a witnessed species evolving into a different species. And monkey to human is indeed a change in species. The species may have changed in certain aspects, but they have not changed into a different species. For example, many people have different shaped skulls. There are small differences. But all of us are still considered human beings because the skulls are essentially the same.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.

We don not share a common relation with them and we did not evolve from them.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

Yeah because 2 fully grown humans just popping into existence makes much more sense then evolution.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

nope god created them they did not pop out of nowhere they popped out from Gods hand
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.

Like jerking off?
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

Listen I don't have beef jerky with me right now I understand you do, but right right now I don't want any right now,but hey thanks for asking your actually really nice
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

If that's how you would like to call it...
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

Then where did all the blacks, browns, yellows, and reds come from? I'm confused...
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.

reds?,yellows? are you talking about skin colors,wait no your not your deciding to paint your own room those colors.Dude but those are really nice colors for painting thanks for sharing your ideas
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

Jerking all over the room now, eh? No thanks, I'll use the conventional paints.Even if I did I only got one color. Don't know about god, or you. Wait... shit is blackish-brownish, but that just doesn't sound right... Why should they be shit? Are you racist, KillerBee?
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.

SO YOU ARE A PAINTER WOW I GUESSED IT YES!!! You don't believe in God because you want to touch him with your grasping hands and you want to see him but you can't cause you could get killed. shit is blackish-brownish, but that just doesn't sound right... So now your a painter and now you want to change the color of your poop.You said it does not make sense. I think I should make a debate saying that nummi wants to change the color of his poop
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.

Allow me to end your confusion. Genetics is a loss of information. When God created Adam and Eve, they weren't white, I would guess that they were brown skinned. Their DNA contained all the information. As you may or may not be aware of, when you reproduce you lose information.For example, your Dad has errors in his genetic code. Maybe, you might come from an obese family; or maybe you might have a greater risk of getting a heart attack than other people. This is due to a loss of information in the DNA data. You might not contain the information to break down food as well as other people (thus obesity); or you may not have a strong heart. Your Mother has errors in her genetic code also. Maybe she has a greater risk of getting breast cancer than other women, or even heart attacks. Either way both your parents have errors in their genetic code.Now, when your parents reproduced, nothing was added. You dad has half of the chromosomes, your mom has the other half. When you were born, not only did you inherit genetic errors from you dad, you also inherited genetic errors from your mom; and have a new set of errors of your very own. So long story short, your Grandpa gave your dad genetic errors (who also acquired a new set), who gave you errors (as well as you having your own unique errors), and you will eventually pass these down to your children who will have new errors of their own.So back to Adam and Eve, they had perfect DNA. Their DNA contained all of the information of what we call "races". It's just as they reproduced, the DNA started to deteriorate. A "race" was born in which the genetic errors split with too much melanin in the DNA data (blacks), as well as one with a severe shortage of melanin (whites). While others retained a balance of melanin (Asians/Hispanics/Arabs). It all traces back to the fact that our DNA is deteriorating. A white couple, no matter how hard they try, cannot have a black child. And a black couple cannot have a white child. The DNA has been damaged beyond repair. It's funny how Hitler said whites are the master race, because the reason we are white is due to a genetic deficiency.That's also why evolution is wrong. It says we started out as "simple single celled organisms" and acquired more DNA. But anyone who has gone to Med School knows that that's wrong. Therefore, by genetics alone, evolution is physically impossible.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

Wow, so many errors, the illusion of knowledge....where do I start? When you reproduce, you do not lose information. Everything after that is baseless speculation. Therefore, by this statement alone, your hypothesis is invalid. Mutations are capable of adding new information to the human genome. But anyone who has gone to Med School knows that that's wrong.No, everyone who goes to med school knows that evolution is correct.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.

"When you reproduce, you do not lose information. Everything after that is baseless speculation. Therefore, by this statement alone, your hypothesis is invalid."Wow, so many errors with this statement, the illusion of knowlege.....here let me start.As a third year med student, I can tell you it's a fact that genetics is a loss of information. That's why antibiotics must be changed every 20 years or so. The bacteria lose the genetic information necessary to break down the antibiotic as a poison, so we have to change the poison into something they can break down. Get educated. You are doing nothing but making yourself look like a fool.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

Third year medical student? You're either not a med student, or you must not be paying attention in class. it's a fact that genetics is a loss of information Nonsense. Where are your sources? DNA is not constantly losing information. Your understanding of the antibiotic issue needs work. Do you even know how antibiotics work? Antibiotics are a selective poison. They only affect the target bacteria, while leaving the body's cells alone (ideally). The way you described antibiotics is completely opposite to what I described. If the bacteria lose the genetic information to break down the antibiotic as a poison, then that means the bacteria would be obliterated by the antibiotic. If we change the poison (antibiotic) into something they can break down, then the antibiotic will have little to no effect on them. So the "med student" thinks that DNA is constantly losing information, and has a completely upside view on how antibiotics work. 3 year med student? Don't bull shit me. You're not a med student.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.

Get educated, ya little troll. Here is the information you are looking for.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

Thank you for admitting defeat, by ignoring all my responses. You're not a med student. Or, if you are, you're a terrible one at that. Your website is an infamous website known to promote the bible and god over science and reason. It's similar to the Discovery Institute. From Wikipedia: Answers in Genesis (AiG) is a non-profit Christian apologetics ministry with a particular focus on supporting young Earth creationism and a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis.Christian apologetics focused on supporting young earth creationism, and a literal interpretation of Genesis. They don't care about science, only pseudoscience that supports their goals. Do you believe the earth is a mere ~10 thousand years old as well? That's what this website says....Sorry if I embarrassed you. It's time you learned to use google and use reliable sources. Also, don't lie about your education. It's obvious to the people who actually have one.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.

"Your website is an infamous website known to promote the bible and god over science and reason. It's similar to the Discovery Institute."At least I posted a website. Here are all your arguments summed up:1. "Your wrong!" (no link to information)2. "Your wrong!" (no link to information)3. "Your wrong!" (no link to information)And, I could argue any website you post will promote evolution over science and reason. Remember, an argument works both ways."Christian apologetics focused on supporting young earth creationism, and a literal interpretation of Genesis. They don't care about science, only pseudoscience that supports their goals."Well you haven't been able to refute it yet....so far so good."Do you believe the earth is a mere ~10 thousand years old as well? That's what this website says...."And you believe the earth is billions of years old??