I believe vampires are real because of the fact that the stories must have been pasted down for years for a reason. The tales of Vampires have been told for centuries, people who have died and Been reborn into blood thirsty hunters. These myths must have come from somewhere. It is almost impossible to fabricate a creature in such detail and have enough people to believe it that people were burned or staked for it as a crime.
If the legends are fake then where did they come from? And why do so many people believe it?
I will first respond to your comments before making my case in terms of science and reason against the motion in latter rounds. Firstly, people pass down stories for a number of reasons, for entertainment purposes in a time when many people could not read nor write, or more likely that people really believed that these myths were correct. It is human nature to question and learn about the world and these stories are just one of the ways that people share their knowledge about such folklore which scared and fascinated them, as is seen in the plethora of myths in traditions that have existed throughout history. These myths originated in Slavic culture, with no associations, contrary to popular belief, with Valid the impaler. This slavic mysticism that you accept comes in addition to a whole host of demons, deities and spiritualism as these early people struggled to understand concepts such as life after death and the soul, intertwining with european culture as these populations spread.
Next, I will start by answering the statement placed In the comment section by General_Grievous. Yes, the human body can not survive on blood alone but that would most likely Change if the body was dead.
Although, there is no strong evidence to prove that vampires do or do not exsist, I thank Craighawley215 for bringing the ruler Vlad III to my attention. The ruler drank blood from his victims as he believed it would give him powers, some of which were more strength and better hearing.
This backs up the legends of Vampires and their super abilities said to be caused from the blood of their victims.
As I explained before, the connection between vampire folklore and Vlad the impaler is a fallacy; popularised due to the count being the name on which Bram Stokers horror novel Dracula was based. Accusations that "The ruler drank blood from his victims as he believed it would give him powers" is also false; in fact his prominence grew due to the impaling technique he used to scare his enemies and to enforce the laws in addition to a reputation for cruelty and sadism - brought about by Vlad and his brother being captured from their home by the ottoman empire at the age of 13. Your response to General_Grievous" comment was also incorrect as if the body was dead, as you state, it would simply rot and decay leaving nothing but bones and worm-food. Physicists Costas Efthimiou and Sohang Gandhi published a paper explaining why the existence of vampires was a mathematical impossibility; explaining by virtue of geometric progression how vampires would quickly deplete their entire food supply.
True, he may not have bit and drank the blood of his victim's. But things change over time for entertainment purposes or to stop people from knowing the truth. Tales of Vampires have existed for decades, so long that it is definitely changed.
Most things in books or films are made up for example the twilight series,in these books the Vampires do not burn but sparkle in the sunlight. My point is that the way rules Vlad III drunk his victims blood could be the factual way a vampire drinks th blood of his/her victim. Think about it if vampires bit their victims humans would have known by now however if they were drinking the blood after the victims dead, who would notice.
I do believe that vampires exsist but not as movies or books present them. A true vampire drinks blood to stay alive and is stronger and faster than the natural human as they don't need to breath making it so they never have to stop running helping them to develop speed.
First I'd like to iron out some discrepancies within your idea of a vampire, blood cannot be used as a food source, there is no reason to consume it unless to keep the vampire from rotting, in which case, the vampire wouldn't be dead. You're right to say this is a belief because their is no more evidence in support of this supernatural entity than there is for Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster; even with a shared burden of proof, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, yet I have been provided with none. I have explained why vampires are mathematically impossible, which is coupled with the Anthropancy principle, which states that vampires non-existence is necessary for our existence; we exist, therefore vampires don't. What you propose also has severe repercussions in that the whole of natural biology is disproved, a feat only possible with the existence of some magical realm; an idea that Ochams Razor does not take kindly to.
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were very weak. His argument would suggest that fairies, pixies, leprechauns and unicorns etc. are all real, simply because they can't have been conceived simply as part of someone's imagination. Con made rational counters to Pro, who resorted to non-meaningful conjecturing. This one goes to Con.