The Instigator
Dnick94
Con (against)
Losing
17 Points
The Contender
TheSkeptic
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points

Bigfoot can't and doesn't exist due to the lack of evidence and no fossil records supporting it.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 7 votes the winner is...
TheSkeptic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/11/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,696 times Debate No: 5701
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (7)

 

Dnick94

Con

I know that I'm the underdog of the debate when my position is CON.
However, I will attempt to attack this topic since I want to see how well I can fight this debate.
This debate doesn't have to be Lincoln-Douglas debate, but I would rather have it a formal debate than a informal debate. But if you want to response in an informal way, then I'm okay with that.

I think Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch can exist because Bigfoot has had a demonstrable impact as a cultural phenomenon and has become a popular symbol.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Although the scientific community disagrees with the existence of Bigfoot, this isn't the first time that the scientific community could be wrong. For example, geocentric model formed before in the 5th century BC and it lasted about two millenniums and one century before Galileo came into conflict with the Catholic Church over his support of Copernican astronomy, is often considered a defining moment in the history of the relationship between religion and science.
Therefore, the scientific community was wrong for 2100 years.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
So, possibly in the future, we can find evidence for the existence of Bigfoot.

Bigfoot one of the more famous examples of cryptozoology.
Cryptozoology is the study of and search for animals which fall outside of contemporary zoological catalogs. It consists of two primary fields of research:

* The search for living examples of animals taxonomically identified through fossil records, but which are believed to be extinct.
* The search for animals that fall outside of taxonomic records due to a lack of empirical evidence, but for which anecdotal evidence exists in the form of myths, legends, or undocumented sightings.

Those involved in that study are known as "cryptozoologists"; the animals they study are often referred to as "cryptids", a term coined by John Wall in 1983.

Because cryptozoologists do not universally follow the scientific method and devote a substantial portion of their efforts to investigations of cryptids that most scientists believe are unlikely to exist, cryptozoology has received little attention from the scientific community.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I have introduced the topic and will take the challenge I posed on myself when creating this topic and having the position of CON. I will let the taker of this debate to make the first arguments.
TheSkeptic

Pro

~Counterarguments~

1. Impact on culture.

Aliens, like your avatar picture (as of now), have a profound impact on culture. The myth about the NASA hoax landing on the Moon is also common, as is the myth about Loch Ness monster and other myriads of myths, legends, and folklore. Just because Big Foot has a demonstrable impact as cultural phenomenon doesn't point to the validity of its existence at all.

2. Scientific community being wrong.

Your point about Galileo shows how science is a self-repairing mechanism. Theories can and will be checked out as scientific evidence either proves or disproves it as time passes by.

The geocentric model had very little evidence, and most of it was trivial such as direct observation by looking in to the skies. The church adhered to this model due to mostly religious reasons, and this is why it was so hard for them to side with Galileo. It was until he brought solid scientific evidence was he eventually persuade the church.

Sure, there is a possibility that evidence for Bigfoot might come up. But that's equally possible for evidence for aliens and other myths to be validated. We shouldn't base our beliefs on something SOLELY with the reasoning that they MIGHT be validated in the future. This would usher for us to believe in practically everything, citing our reasoning as stated.

3. Cryptozoology

I can't see the point in this argument. So yes, there is a field that is dedicated to find evidence for Bigfoot and such creatures. This however isn't evidence, as is astrology isn't evidence for the claim that the positions of celestial bodies affect personality and human affairs.
Debate Round No. 1
Dnick94

Con

Thank you for accepting this topic for debate. I will now offer a rebuttal to my opponent's views.

1. Bigfoot has impacted on culture.
Bigfoot was a journalistic term generated in the middle of the last century during a rash of sightings in Northern California; its use is not unreasonable since the species has proportionally much bigger feet than those of human beings and, furthermore, the word has come to be recognized widely. A goodly selection of fanciful terms have been used by pioneers and later non-native inhabitants of North America for the occasional published and repeated encounters with Sasquatches.
Source: http://www.mythsdreamssymbols.com...

So how did Bigfoot came into existence into popular culture?
There have been many hundreds of alleged Bigfoot sightings. These are some of the most notable ones:

* 1924: Fred Beck claimed in an 1967 book that he and four other miners were attacked one night in July 1924, by several "apemen" throwing rocks at their cabin in an area later called Ape Canyon.The men went outside and shot at what Beck described as "mountain gorillas". The next morning, large footprints were claimed to be found around the cabin. Speleologist William Halliday argued in 1983 that the story arose from an incident in which hikers from a nearby camp had thrown rocks into the canyon. There are also local rumors that pranksters harassed the men and planned faked footprints.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Bigfoot wouldn't be made up because there are more than a few sightings of it.
For example, if I told the public that I found a monster in my back yard, no one is going to believe me. However, if I give the description of the monster and later on, 1000 more people have found the same monster and matched it with the description of mine, the monster will more likely to exist.

2. Science is a self-repairing mechanism.
"The geocentric model had very little evidence, and most of it was trivial such as direct observation by looking in to the skies."

That is why the scientific community was wrong about the geocentric model.

You agreed that there is a possibility that evidence for Bigfoot might come up. And it is also equally possible for evidence for aliens and other myths to be validated.

You said "We shouldn't base our beliefs on something SOLELY with the reasoning that they MIGHT be validated in the future. This would usher for us to believe in practically everything, citing our reasoning as stated."

But I disagree. There is evidence that Bigfoot existed, including eyewitnesses.

A. Native American artifacts
Legends and certain historical artifacts of the Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast have been presented as circumstantial evidence for Bigfoot. These artifacts are discussed at length by anthropologist Roderick Sprague in Carved Stone Heads of the Columbia and Sasquatch. Dozens of similar stone heads were recovered and most depict common animals. Sprague examines seven carved heads, which he argues have distinctively primate-like features.
Sprague sees the question of what inspired the carved stone heads as intriguing and unresolved.

B. Footprints
Photographs or plaster casts of presumed Sasquatch footprints are often cited by cryptozoologists as important evidence. It is from that that Bigfoot received its most widely used name. Advocates of Bigfoot claim that tracks provide enough evidence to determine whether a footprint is genuine or hoaxed without having a gold standard from which to work from (i.e. a cast made from a footprint that is universally agreed to have come from Bigfoot).[20] Coleman and Clark write that hoaxes are often clumsy in comparison to presumably genuine prints, which "show distinctive forensic features that to investigators indicate they are not fakes."[21] Notably, Krantz claimed to have two ways of determining if a footprint was genuine or a hoax. He did not reveal his two techniques due to concern that they would be used in future hoaxes.
One of the features that Krantz argues suggests that footprints are due to a real creature rather than hoaxers is pressure ridges. These are small mounds of soil created "by a horizontal push of the forefoot just before it leaves the ground." Krantz writes that "the push-off mound in midfootprint is one of the most impressive pieces of evidence to me," and argues that neither artificial wood nor rubber Bigfoot feet can create this feature, after trying to duplicate it.
Krantz writes: "The comfortable walking step for humans is about half the individual's standing height, or a trace more. Krantz also reports that reputed Sasquatch steps are "in excess of three feet", arguing that this enormous step would be difficult or impossible for hoaxers to create artificially by wearing fake feet.

C. Hair and blood
Hairs retrieved from a bush in 1968 near Riggins, Idaho were given to Roy Pinker, a police science instructor at California State University, Los Angeles. Pinker concluded that the hair samples did not match any samples from known animal species. Pinker also stated that he could not attribute them as being Bigfoot hairs without a Bigfoot hair sample to compare to. Dr. Jeff Meldrum at Idaho State University has other hair and DNA samples that are clearly primate in origin, but from no known primate species. Dr. Henner Fahrenbach in Arizona has several hair/DNA samples which he concludes are Sasquatch in origin—samples screened from hundreds of possible samples sent to him over the years. Many hair samples sent in for examination did not contain hair follicles, so DNA analysis was impossible.

D. Absence of fossil evidence
Bigfoot researchers argue that the absence of fossilized evidence is not evidence of Bigfoot's absence. Coleman and Patrick Huyghe argue that "no one will look for such fossils, if the creatures involved are not thought to exist in the first place". North American human remains are themselves quite rare outside of grave sites, although it is certain that large human populations existed in North America, as indicated by caches of discarded tools. It is worth noting that fossils can only form where and when conditions are suitable, such as tar pits, sink holes, swamps, and some caves. Just because there are no fossils evidence for Bigfoot, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Fossils are rare because they need suitable conditions to form.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

3. Nobody Looks for Bigfoot Remains

No serious work has ever been done to look for remains of surviving wood apes in areas where they are rumored to reside. No one should expect remains of such an elusive species to be found, collected and identified without some effort.

Very few remains of ancient wood apes have ever been found in Asia, where they were much more abundant. Millions of gigantos (a branch of the wood ape line) lived and died in Asia over the ages. All the remaining physical evidence we have of them could fit into a few shoe boxes. Fossils of any land animal are very rare.

Fossils or preserved bones of wood apes may exist in the Americas, but they will be exceedingly rare, because these animals are rare to begin with, and only a tiny fraction of that population will die in locations and soils that will preserve bones somehow. Odds are slim at best that any bones (which are normally fragmentary) will be found, collected and identified unless a focused effort is made to look for them. Until efforts are made in many places, over a long period of time, no one should be scratching their head wondering why "we" don't have any physical remains.

Source: http://www.mythsdreamssymbols.com...

4. Supporters often argue that cryptozoological evidence is evaluated not on its merits or failings, but rather based on opinions of researchers, or on prevailing paradigms or world views.
TheSkeptic

Pro

[Definition - Bigfoot]

Bigfoot is described in reports as being an ape between 6�€"15 feet (1.8�€"4.6 m) tall weighing in excess of 500 pounds (230 kg) and covered in dark brown or dark reddish hair.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

~Counterarguments~

1. Impact on culture.

Argumentum ad populum. Just because tons of people believe in Bigfoot, doesn't validate it's claim at all. Eyewitness accounts are unreliable and untestable; there's no way we can go back in the past and the same location they were and repeat such sightings. Anecdotes have no place in science, and thus eyewitness accounts should only be used as a clue for something to prompt scientists to search for.

It's true that many eyewitness accounts are similar in some ways. However, many times this would be the case that Bigfoot may be some mis-identification of some other animal, they are either hoaxes, or self-fulfilling prophecies.

2. Scientific evidence

"But I disagree. There is evidence that Bigfoot existed, including eyewitnesses."

--> So don't bring up the point about the geocentric model, or the possibility of evidence of Bigfoot appearing. They are irrelevant points if you assert there is ample evidence for the existence of Bigfoot.

**As a side note before I tackle all his "scientific evidence" for the existence of Bigfoot, I would like to comment that I ask of my opponent to not copy paste his arguments directly from Wikipedia. They are all from the search "Evidence regarding Bigfoot" and a simple side-to-side analysis shows my opponent simply copy pastes them. What is even MORE intriguing is that in the context of the paragraphs he copy-pastes, he actually leaves out sentences/phrases that DEFENDS MY SIDE. I will demonstrate in the rebuttals.**

A. Native American artifacts

Native Americans and other past indigenous tribes of America have commonly identified animals and natural phenomena into their folklore and culture. For example, they depicted lightening as a great big yellow bird that would screech through the sky as it flew.

Numerous tribes have what you would call "artifacts of Bigfoot". However, each differ in their own respective ways. For example, the Lummi was told throughout members, but the diet and activity of their "version of the Bigfoot" differed. Some native people would report about skoocooms, cannibalistic men who terrorized their villages. However, animals such as the skoocooms were shown to be supernatural, unlike other supposed artifacts proving Bigfoot. [2]

It's common for native tribes back then to identify numerous animals as being "larger-than-life". However, it does not prove to be, as you would say, circumstantial evidence for Bigfoot.

In the context of your argument, using the renowned anthropologist Roderick Sprague, he himself in the same paragraph you copy-pasted stated "that this does not necessarily support Bigfoot's existence". [3] This is the same for many anthropologists who looked into this Bigfoot case. Many times, the relics or artifacts show connections to many other things, such as monkeys or other primates; none ever making a connection to Bigfoot.

Finally, this argument is at best circular. Legends of Sasquatch came before modern sightings such as the infamous Patterson-Gimlin film. Stories of Sasquatch came from artifacts and legends such as these indigenous tribes, and to use them as evidence for Bigfoot is circular.

B. Footprints

This is hilarious. Right after this lengthy paragraph my opponent took from Wikipedia, he left out the last sentence: "However, anthropologists David Daegling and Dan Schmitt were able to create many different patterns of pressure ridges by walking with a complaint gait."

HAHA I think that speaks for itself. So you see, the footprints were and COULD be created, as demonstrated by the convenient line my opponent left out.

Also, in rebuttal to the stride remark: "Krantz, himself, reported an instance of a high-school hoaxer creating 8 feet (2.4 m) long Bigfoot strides up a steep slope by strapping fake feet on backwards and running down the slope." [4]

So in fact, it IS possible once again to replicate Bigfoot gaits and footprints. The funny thing is when dealing with hoaxers, they are quite inconsistent. Models have been found with toes ranging from 2 digits to 6 digits, an irregular and unaccounted for fact.

C. Hair and blood

Of course, another clear instant of leaving out important lines. All the sampling and analysis my opponent shown examples of gave the same result: inconclusive. This is because they have no set to compare with, but the bigger thing is that when DNA came along (I actually saw this on History Channel), the "evidence" given Pinker was concluded to most likely be from a black bear. The same with all other samples; they are either some of bear, primate, or human, or inconclusive. They are inconclusive usually due to the sample being not well preserved and damaged. In fact, a hoaxer can bring a sample NOT indigenous to North America, therefore making the possibility of the lab IN North America having the needed set being low. [5]

D. Absence of fossil evidence

Yeah, once again, he left out important information. True, fossils are rare. However, we have many fossils of primates and chimpanzees and other animals IN the conditions such as tropical rain forests where the possibility of getting a fossil is very low. Yet, we have tons of fossils from said forests, while Bigfoot seems to nowhere. [6]

E. Nobody looks for Bigfoot remains

Okay, then go find some fossils. Come back when you have some.

F. Crytozoology and opinion

Then get yourself out this muck. GO GET EVIDENCE.

~Conclusion~

The view amongst the scientific community is justified, because of the numerous hoaxes, lack of evidence, and the improbability of Bigfoot: such a large primate, living in North America in areas not suitable for apes who normally live in Asia and Africa tropics. My opponent's evidence has been shown to be lacking and disproved. I have shown how using the same Wikipedia link, he has singled out phrases and lines that would disprove his pseudo scientific Bigfoot pal. Sounds like a Creationist tactic.

---References---
1. http://www.csicop.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
5. http://en.wikipedia.org...
6. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Dnick94

Con

Thank you for your brilliant reply and answers.

1. Eyewitnesses Accounts

It's true that eyewitness accounts can be faked. However, there were many eyewitness accounts of Sasquatch long before Wallace's high jinks in 1958.

Ray Wallace did not create Bigfoot, and the fact that he staged many elaborate hoaxes does not wipe away the evidence that exists or the many thousands of eyewitness accounts of the creature. Many Bigfoot researchers knew Wallace as a prankster and have long suspected that he was behind some of the footprints, sightings and photographs that have appeared over the years. It is only now that his family has confirmed the hoaxes. His hoax came from the idea that large, hairy, upright-walking, ape-like creatures had been seen in that part of the country for generations. Before "Bigfoot" became a popular name for the beast, it was known as the Sasquatch, a Native American word meaning "crazy man of the forest." Sasquatch was known to Native Americans for hundreds of years.

Apart from the Native Americans' long tradition of the Sasquatch, a long list of sight history of sightings could be found at http://paranormal.about.com... and http://paranormal.about.com....

Those who who choose to ignore the large amount of anecdotal evidence, the footprints and the anomalous hair samples (like my opponent), we would found small groups of them by now or scientific evidence that they exist. My opponent would ask,"How could a population of such creatures evade man for so long?" The fact that populations could not remain hidden from civilization for long periods of time is untrue. In fact, in November, 2002, a new, secret population of orangutans was discovered on the island of Borneo according to BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk.... We are discovering new species every year so it wouldn't be unreasonable to imagine that colonies of intelligent primates could be living in the unexplored wilderness of North America.
Source: http://paranormal.about.com...

2. Scientific evidence

A. Native American artifacts
I have nothing to say, because I'm almost out of time, thinking for an agruement.
But even if Native American artifacts don't prove that Bigfoot is real, I have to disagree that it is circular. As noted before, there is a long history of eyewitnesses accounts before modern sightings such as the infamous Patterson-Gimlin film.

B. Footprints
When you study foot prints very closely there is a tremendous amount of information that can be obtained. Variations in toe positions, weight shifts, weight distribution, lift off, heel strike, stride, depth of impression, pressure ridges, all of these can be used to detect fakes and to gain information on the creature that made them. The information gained from Bigfoot tracks indicates an anatomical structure that is very different from a human foot. A fallen arch, more evenly sized toes, a double ball, a shorter forepart and longer heel. A foot designed for a very heavy bipedal creature.

A man that weights about 200 pounds would make 1/4 of an inch deep impression while Bigfoot makes an inch deep impression. Therefore, you can infer that he weighs about 800 pounds. Combine this with a step length of 4-6 feet and the many other subtle clues that indicate a flexible and anatomically functioning foot. To fake this a man would have to be running over rough terrain and large obstacles, while carrying 600 pounds of weight and wearing a very mechanically sophisticated, and practically impossible to construct, pair of boots. Bigfoot tracks are regularly found in very rugged and remote places that a hoaxer could not expect some one, just by chance, to find them. Therefore, a hoaxer would to go through an impossible amount of effort. considering the number of Bigfoot tracks that have been found through out North America.

There are other Bigfoot researches other than Prof. Grover S. Krantz such as Jimmy Chilcutt and Jeff Meldrum who are both experts who could be better than Krantz.
Source: http://www.geocities.com...

C. Hoaxes
A lot of hoaxes have not been positively proven to be fake, but are generally considered to be fake by most Bigfoot researchers. Many proponents of Bigfoot admit that many of sightings are hoaxes or misidentified animals. Loren Coleman, a cryptozoologist, and Diane Stocking have estimated that as many as 70 to 80 percent of sightings are not real. This means that 20 to 30 percent is real and so Bigfoot can exist. The remaining sightings, that small portion of reports that can't be explained away, intrigue researchers and keep the pursuit active.
Source: http://www.csicop.org...

D. Hair and blood
"They are inconclusive usually due to the sample being not well preserved and damaged."
I disagree: The DNA tests used on somatic samples give very limited information as there is no known Bigfoot sample to compare it to. The process can only compare the unknown sample to a set of known samples, which necessarily lacks samples of all known animals. Therefore, why don't people used DNA test on every species on the planet? Because they lack samples of all known animals.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

E. Absence of fossil evidence
One of the most often used arguments my opponent used is "Where are the bones? How come no one has found a dead body? Where is the physical evidence?" This becomes a very weak argument when you see the reality of the situation. Most of our population is congested in large cities which occupy very little of the total land mass. Our entire world population could fit in a mega city smaller than the state of Texas. The Pacific Northwest offers the largest area of uninhabited and unexplored land in North America.

However, if Bigfoot turns out to be Gigantopithecus then there has been good physical evidence in the form of bones all along. One other thing to consider is that there is no fossil record of any of the great apes. Neither has anyone ever found any of their bones in the wild. The only known fossils are of its mandible and teeth.
Source: http://www.geocities.com...

F. Nobody looks for Bigfoot remains except Bigfoot researchers.
It is true and my opponent has no argument against it.

G. Crytozoology
Even if I get the evidence, it is evaluated not on its merits or failings, but rather based on opinions of researchers, or on prevailing paradigms or world views. Therefore, mainstream scientist will dismiss it.

There are several species cited as examples for continuing cryptozoological efforts:
* Cryptzoologists claim the Mountain gorilla (Gorilla gorilla) was previously dismissed as folklore/myth, due to lack of evidence and fossils, before being confirmed in 1902.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Conclusion

The view amongst the scientific community is justified, because there are possibilities that Bigfoot exist.

Quoted from http://nl.newsbank.com...
"Schaller said that he is troubled that no Bigfoot remains have ever been uncovered, and no feces samples have been found to allow DNA testing. Schaller notes: "There have been so many sightings over the years, even if you throw out 95 percent of them, there ought to be some explanation for the rest. I think a hard-eyed look is absolutely essential."

I agree that Bigfoot deserves to be analyzed more carefully whether the evidence was hoaxed or not. There is no evidence indicated that Bigfoot never existed unlike the geocentric model when it was disproved.
TheSkeptic

Pro

~Counterarguments~

1. Eyewitness accounts

*Have the voters note my opponent has dropped his point about impact on culture.

A personal anecdote is NOT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

Do not include "evidence" from footprints and anomalous hair samples under "Eyewitness accounts". I'll address it on the later points.

You will notice two things about that. First, the orangutans were found in Borneo which happens to be an island. It is broken up in sections to the possession of countries Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei. So off the bat we know that not very developed countries own, and the island in itself is mostly rural: full of undiscovered land and places dominated by animals; it has a diverse rain forest not found in America. [1]

The reason why it took so long is that parts of it were and are still largely unexplored and properly charted. Such a biodiversity makes it hard for anyone to find all the animals, or a specific one at least. Finally Bigfoot is toted to be found in AMERICA, in many places where tons of people live very close to. It's also taller and bigger than a man, and doesn't stay amongst trees up high; it walks around also.

2. Scientific evidence

A. Native American artifacts

*My opponent has conceded this point. In response to his last part, using Native American artifacts to prove Bigfoot IS circular, since legends from Bigfoot, aka Sasquatch are DERIVED from Native American artifacts. It's like someone 100 years from now and pointing to a Bigfoot toy store and saying that's evidence for the existence of Bigfoot.

B. Footprints

Voters, do not let the lengthy response my opponent has most likely copy-pasted fool you. He merely restated what he said last round, in a much more detailed manner. As I have stated before in my refutation in Round 2, it HAS been found that such "realistic" footprints CAN be replicated by a human with some props.

*He fails to refute my claim that hoaxers are inconsistent, and there are many footprints of said Bigfoot with different amount of toes, from 2 - 6.

C. Hoaxes

Interesting, that you cite a CRYPTOZOOLOGIST who says most are hoaxes. Obviously, Loren Coleman, said cryptozoologist, would believe the other ones are real. Ask a serious anthropologist; you'll get a different response (which is no, there aren't real Bigfoot).

D. Hair and blood

If my opponent did some adequate research, and not quote everything from Bigfoot websites, he would understand a couple things. FIRST, many samples are faulty, i.e. damaged. SECONDLY, many samples were found before DNA testing, and haven't been subjected to DNA tests. FINALLY, those who have are either from some other animal like a bear, or can be brought by a hoaxer who takes a sample from ANOTHER COUNTRY. Here's a scenario for you:

The hoaxer takes some hair from an animal indigenous to only, let's say, Ireland. He then brings the sample to a lab in NORTH AMERICA, where the animal would NOT be found. Thus, when they do DNA analysis it would come up inconclusive North American lab would not have the set of DNA anomalies for animals found only in Ireland.
*Note to voters once again this is a point my opponent has failed to refute.

E. Absence of fossil evidence

We find fossil evidence of many other animals, and such a large animal like Bigfoot should at least have SOME remain. We can't simply state that since Bigfoot MAY be there, and we just don't have fossil evidence for it, we should believe it still exists. That begs for us to believe in any mythological creature; we can argue using your same logic here.

Most fossil evidence of great apes are mandibles and teeth and sulls. SO WHAT? We can get a lot from this, and we do have a working fossil record: http://en.wikipedia.org...

When did I ever state Bigfoot wasn't Gigantopithecus? However, do realize that it is considered an extinct genus of ape, so you still have a big payload to prove there are some that still exist. Seriously, it's like a 10 foot 1,200 pound ape; the largest ever.

*My opponent fails to refute my point about most if not all primates living in the tropics, while Bigfoot living in temperate latitudes in the northern hemisphere.

F. Nobody looks for Bigfoot remains except Bigfoot researchers.

That's because THIS WASN'T AN ARGUMENT TO BEGIN WITH. It's more like cryptozoloogists whining.

G. Cryptozoology and opinion

It's one thing to say nobody looks for Bigfoot remains because its cryptozoolgy pseudoscientific BEE-ESS, but another to say that the scientific community will not evaluate any evidence due to personal bias. Sure, scientists have their biases, but much less than normal people. It's clear we dismiss it due to the LACK OF EVIDENCE.

~Conclusion~

"The view amongst the scientific community is justified, because there are possibilities that Bigfoot exist."

--> What an awkward sentence, the view amongst the scientific community is that BIGFOOT DOESN'T EXIST.

"There is no evidence indicated that Bigfoot never existed..."

--> The burden of proof is on you to show Bigfoot existed.

"...unlike the geocentric model when it was disproved."

The model was a theory. It was disproved due to it's lack of evidence supporting it. Likewise, the Bigfoot myth is dismissed due to lack of evidence. It's YOUR BURDEN OF PROOF.

I personally believe that a little more research should be going into Bigfoot. However, nothing has conclusively been found yet, and until then there is no proof that Bigfoot exists.

===Points my opponent dropped/conceded/failed to refute===
*Dropped point about impact on culture
*Conceded point about Native American artifacts
*Failed to refute my claim that hoaxers are inconsistent
*Failed to refute point about samples from other countries
*Failed to refute point about where primates live compared to Bigfoot

---References---
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Dnick94

Con

Arguments

1. Impact on culture
I did NOT dropped my point about impact on culture.
I just didn't state it in my last argument.

In fact, Bigfoot had had demonstrable impact as a popular culture phenomenon that led to a law regarding Bigfoot in 1969 declaring that "any willful, wanton slaying of such creatures shall be deemed a felony", subject to substantial fine and/or imprisonment. The fact that this legislation was passed on April 1 did not escape notice, but County Commissioner Conrad Lundy said that "this is not an April Fool's Day joke ... there is reason to believe such an animal exists."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

2. Eyewitness accounts

"A personal anecdote is NOT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE."
I never said eyewitness accounts was scientific evidence.
I didn't even include "evidence" from footprints and hair samples under "Eyewitness accounts.
I just made a point for people who chooses to ignore the evidence. Just because we don't see them, doesn't mean that they don't exist. A number of new species are still being discovered every year.

Bigfoot may be found in America, but many people don't live near it. Sightings of Bigfoot are reported mainly in the Pacific Northwest. The Pacific Northwest, is a region in the northwest of North America consisting of California, Oregon and Washington, as well as parts of Canada. Because many areas have plentiful rainfall, the Pacific Northwest has some of North America's most lush and extensive forests, and at one time, the largest trees in the world. Most of the human population of the Pacific Northwest is concentrated in the Vancouver-Seattle-Portland corridor and the human population currently is approximately 11 million people. The reason that Bigfoot was rarely found was because "parts of it were and are still largely unexplored and properly charted" and the Pacific Northwest is a very uninhabited land. The first survey to systematically explore the forest canopy in the Carmanah Valley of Vancouver Island yielded 15,000 new species, a third of all invertebrates known to exist in all of Canada.

"Ohio has a lot of forested areas where a Sasquatch can hide," Powell said. "There are large tracts of forested land, even in metropolitan areas. The creatures operate basically at night so they aren't sighted. A lot of sightings aren't reported because people fear ridicule."
If Bigfoot is nocturnal, then we would have less chances of seeing one, especially in an uninhabited land where most of the human population is in the Vancouver-Seattle-Portland corridor with many forested areas where Bigfoot can hide.

Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.bigfootencounters.com...

3. Scientific evidence

A. Native American artifacts

My opponent falsely claimed that I conceded this point. I SPECIFICALLY said "I have nothing to say, because I'm almost out of time, thinking for an argument." Due to the lack of time and limited character space, I couldn't put my argument for Native American in Round 2.

Stories about sightings of Bigfoot-like creatures amongst Native Americans provide evidence that the Bigfoot phenomenon is not culture specific, lending even more evidence to the idea that it is not caused by a mass hallucination, since mass hallucinations don't jump cultures very well. The stories also show that the phenomenon is a continuous one which has occurred in the Pacific Northwest for more than 150 years. Bigfoot sighting stories and footprint stories from indigenous cultures have been written down for the past 150 years; the oral history of big foot sightings amongst Native Americans is much older. If the "Bigfoot phenomenon" is mostly caused by deliberate human fabrication, the written stories suggest it's been a long term hoax operating over a 150 year time span, and all across the United States and Canada. It could not be caused by a single hoaxer, since no one individual can live that long, but could be caused by one or more groups of hoaxers.

Sighting report frequencies do not correlate well with human population density. If the sighting reports were generally due to hoaxing, the frequency of the reports would be expected to correlate well with human population density. It's intriguing to note that the data show that this is not the case.

The distribution of the geographic place names associated with Bigfoot do not correlate well with human population density either. If one had to pick one pattern to describe in general the location of the greatest frequency of place names, they could be said to correlate with the summit peaks of the mountain ranges of the United States. Since this terrain is considered to be favored by Bigfoot, this makes for an interesting deduction from the place name data.
The only way such a hoax could be perpetrated would be in the event that a secret organization has existed for the past 150 years whose goal it was to trick the people of North America into believing in a false hominid that does not truly exist.
Source: http://home.nycap.rr.com...?

B. Footprints
A strong piece of evidence which suggests that the footprints are not due to a hoax or hoaxers is from Dr. W. Henner Farenbach. He states that groups of hoaxers who didn't conspire together would almost certainly result in a non-Gaussian distribution for the database of footprint lengths.
Source: http://home.nycap.rr.com...?

Thousands upon thousands of footprints all across North America have been found, most predominantly in the Pacific Northwest. The opposing argument to this claim is that all the footprints are fakes, made by pranksters who wanted to play practical jokes on their local communities. Maybe once, twice, even 30 to 40 times. But a couple thousand? Is there a secret fake Bigfoot society that is dedicated to making fake footprints all across North America, desiring to falsely make people believe that Bigfoot exists?

MOST alleged Bigfoot tracks have five toes, but some casts show creatures with two, three, four, or even six toes.
There are more Bigfoot tracks that show consistency that have five toes and you can infer that the lesser amount of footprints of inconsistency and variation are made by hoaxers. Therefore, Bigfoot has five toes and other footprints that that varies with a different amount of toes from 2 - 6 are known as hoaxes.
Sources: http://www.csicop.org...

C. Hair and Blood

Many samples are NOT faulty. We just have nothing to compare these hair sample data to. Dr. W. Henner Farenbach is among those scientists actively testing hair samples for identification using genetic material. Dr. Fehrenbach can't tell for sure that it's Bigfoot hair without a "real" Bigfoot for comparison, but he can determine what it's not - and these hairs didn't come from any animal currently known to science. Therefore, anyone can give him a sample from another country and still identify with another animal currently known to science. If anyone gives him a sample that didn't come from any organism, then his DNA tests can indicate whether if the sample data is organic or inorganic.
Source: http://home.nycap.rr.com...?

D. Absence of fossil evidence
F. Nobody looks for Bigfoot remains except Bigfoot researchers.
G. Cryptozoology and opinion
To be used in the next round due to limited characters.

Conclusion: Due to aforementioned reasons, Bigfoot can exist.
TheSkeptic

Pro

~Counterarguments~

1. Impact on Culture

About dropping your point - If that were to happen on your last round it would've been voted against you, even if you couldn't post it due to some other reason. It is simply assumed you dropped your point until otherwise.

My opponent seems to constantly sidestep my rebuttal. Just because something has an impact on culture has NO MERIT on the validity of it's existence. It should be wondered why only Skamania County (the place my opponent cited) is amongst the few if not the only places that makes a law regarding Bigfoot at all.

2. Eyewitness accounts

"I never said eyewitness accounts was scientific evidence."

--> Then my opponent's point about eyewitness accounts should be conceded.

The bulk of the rest of my opponent's argument basically states that just because people haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Well then give us some evidence for it otherwise. Presumably you would use somatic evidence and footprints, therefore my opponent's argument about "Eyewitness Accounts" should be conceded, since he has stated already it isn't scientific evidence.

3. Scientific evidence

A. Native American artifacts

"My opponent falsely claimed that I conceded this point. I SPECIFICALLY said "I have nothing to say, because I'm almost out of time, thinking for an argument." Due to the lack of time and limited character space, I couldn't put my argument for Native American in Round 2."

--> That's your fault you ran out of time. Read what I said in the beginning. But no matter, if you come with a feasible argument that I'd be glad to tackle it.

In response to my opponent's actual argument pertaining to Native American artifacts, he has failed to refute my point about Native American artifacts being a circular argument, since the MYTH of Bigfoot arrived FROM Native American artifacts. He also has failed to note in my much earlier argument the fact that Native American artifacts differ many times, so while it may be transcendental in some Indian cultures, they may all have differing characteristics.

The rest of my opponent's argument fails to account for something else: mis-identification of animals. This happens frequently with many other mythical creatures such as the Loch Ness, and could very well account for Bigfoot. Why my opponent includes sighting in part of "Native american artifacts" puzzles me.

B. Footprints

For the many footprints that are found to be hoaxed, not only can the people who find them be hoaxing them, but many times they are found to footprints of another animal. [1]

C. Hair and Blood

*Note that my opponent has failed to refute my point about hoaxes from the last round in argument 2C.

Most samples ARE faulty for a number of reasons. Contrary to popular belief, a simple hair can't be consittuted to DNA analysis, we need the root or blood. Not only are all samples inconclusive, but many times they are found by animals.

"Therefore, anyone can give him a sample from another country and still identify with another animal currently known to science"

--> If his lab were to have a sample of every known specimen known to man.

What is really tricky about any evidence for Bigfoot is that there is no universally accepted standard for which is right or wrong. We have the prints and the DNA of a bear, so when we go out and look for them, we know what to look for. Bigfoot hasn't a falsifiability mechanism in it, which is why so many purported "real evidence for Bigfoot" are hoaxes, fake, or inconclusive samples.

Points D-G will be tackled in the next round, as my opponent states.

~Conclusion~

My opponent loves to dabble in copy-pasting long arguments, but all of them have failed on a scientific premise. He always goes back to the same argument, and I have refuted them many times. His eyewitness accounts part is self-admitted to be not scientific evidence, Native American artifacts is circular, and his footprints/somatic evidence arguments fail to address my point about labs without samples, hoaxes, and mis-identification of other animals.

---References---
1. http://www.csicop.org...

===Points my opponent failed to refute===
*Native American Artifacts is a circular argument
*Hoaxes in Round 3 - Contention 2C
Debate Round No. 4
Dnick94

Con

Arguments:

1. Impact on Culture

*It seems that my opponents thinks that it is my fault that I ran out of characters.
I shall remind him that he once also couldn't post an argument in a round and if that were to happen on his last round it would've been voted against him: http://www.debate.org...

Bigfoot had impacted on culture as my opponent noted. Of course, it has no merit on the validity of it's existence, but it gives people ideas that it might exist. Dragons, unicorns, vampires, and werewolves have impacted on culture, but no one claims that they exist. The impact of culture that Bigfoot had supports the possibilities that it exist and it is also why Bigfoot fall onto cryptozoology in the first place.

Throughout the country and the world individuals, politicians, and organizations have fought to gain legal protection for imaginary monsters of all shapes and sizes. Sometimes they've even been successful. Only Skamania County and few other places makes a law regarding Bigfoot, because many people are unsuccessful in passing bills that become laws regarding Bigfoot.
Source: http://www.grist.org...

2. Eyewitness accounts

We don't always use scientific evidence to prove everything we believe in such as God, afterlife, religions, and creationism.

We don't see God, but most people think that it exist. We have never seen macroevolution, but most scientist thinks that it exist.

Bigfoot may have came from Native American stories, but apart from the Native Americans' long tradition of the Sasquatch, white men exploring the North American wilderness confirmed the existence of the creature: http://paranormal.about.com...

So there were people seeing Bigfoot before they got evidence from Native Americans artifacts.

3. Native American artifacts

The bulk of the rest of my argument basically states that stories of Bigfoot provide evidence that the Bigfoot phenomenon is not culture specific, meaning it is not a mass hallucinations since mass hallucinations don't jump cultures very well.

My opponents failed to refute that the "Bigfoot phenomenon" was not organized by a group of hoaxers as a long term hoax operating over a 150 year time span, and all across the United States and Canada." I wouldn't think that it was possible or the hoaxers would have extremely intelligent to fool modern scientists.

My opponent also fail to refute that sighting report frequencies and the distribution of the geographic place names associated do not correlate well with human population density.

Therefore, I shouldn't concede my argument that eyewitness accounts are evidence even if they are not scientific evidence.

How can you misidentify Bigfoot for other creatures, when their are no native primates in North America or at least no animal that looks like Bigfoot for that matter? You can say that people have misidentify it with brown and black bears, but if you look at both of them, you can see that they don't have a strong resemblance to Bigfoot. By the way, Bigfoots are typically 7-10 feet tall, weighing 500-800 pounds: how many men do you know that are, at the least, 6 and half feet tall weighing 300 pounds? This is obviously assuming the witnesses are accurately describing the size of the creatures.

* I include sightings in part of "Native American artifacts," because the legend of Bigfoot may came from Native Americans and that their artifacts were derived from their sightings.

4. Scientific evidence

*It may be my fault I ran out of time, but it isn't my fault that I ran out of characters, or was it?

A. Footprints

There are no footprints that looks like Bigfoot. The website that you cited: http://www.csicop.org... gave no information that false footprints are found to be footprints of another animal. More often, footprints are hoaxed then misidentified if any.

My opponent failed to refute that most alleged Bigfoot tracks have five toes, but the hoaxes are the ones that show inconsistency and variation.

B. Hair and Blood

What website tells you that most samples are faulty? All the evidence are inconclusive because there is no universally accepted standard for which is right or wrong. However, if they invented a computer containing all samples of every known specimen known to man, then they would have a better chance to get better evidence for Bigfoot.

But there is a way to have an accepted standard for Bigfoot's DNA: if we shoot or kill one. But we can't because poaching is hunting in disregard of hunting laws. In most states, a hunter can be arrested and prosecuted for poaching merely for being equipped to hunt animals not specifically permitted in that season.
Other factors why a hunter hadn't shot Bigfoot are:
1. A sighting or encounter is more likely to happen when the person sees a Bigfoot before the Bigfoot sees the person.
2. Dogs have never smelled Bigfoot before, reducing the possibility of training it to follow its scent.
3. There aren't many people who regularly, or even occasionally hunt for Bigfoot with the intent to kill one.
4. It is unlawful to merely carry a rifle in most forests during most seasons of the year.
5. The geographic restrictions of the forests alone reduce the odds substantially.
6. The rarity of these animals combined with their own elusive habits also lowers the odds drastically.
Source: http://home.nycap.rr.com...?

D. Absence of fossil evidence

Regions like eastern Ohio which have poorly drained soils clay produce extremely fragile bones if any. The clay contributes to a low pH acidic and prevents water from easily percolating out of the soil and evaporating. The acidic soil/water increases the rate of mineral leaching. Therefore, it is not likely to find a fossil in those areas. The places that have fossils are: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Notice how much fossils are found in the forest of Ohio and in the Northern Pacific where Bigfoot are likely to exist.
Other reason why we never found a fossils are:
1. They bury their dead.
2. They conceal themselves before death, and the remains are therefore hidden.
3. Scavengers eat the remains.
Source: http://home.nycap.rr.com...?

E. Nobody looks for Bigfoot remains except Bigfoot researchers.

Some credible academic scientists have spent some time examining the phenomenon, some becoming more convinced of the reality behind the phenomenon, and some becoming more skeptical of the reality behind it as time passed. It's a pretty courageous thing for any academic scientist who depends on his or her reputation for credibility, to stick their neck out and suggest that Bigfoot is real. No scientist is willing to go further than that and risk the loss of credibility by speculating about the possible existence of Bigfoot.
Source: http://home.nycap.rr.com...?

G. Cryptozoology and opinion

In the last 200 years, we have found the Mountain gorilla, coelacanth, megamouth shark, and the Hoan Kiem Turtle (originally thought to to be a local legend and classified as a cryptid). Therefore continuing cryptozoological efforts is not worthless and they're the only way we can discover new species that are unusual to us.

Conclusion:

My argument for this round sums up as follows: though there is no concrete evidence, such as a specimen, that Bigfoot exists, the circumstantial evidence for the existence of Bigfoot out weighs the idea of a continental hoax.
TheSkeptic

Pro

"I shall remind him that he once also couldn't post an argument in a round and if that were to happen on his last round it would've been voted against him"

--> You're right, it would've been counted against me if by the end of the debate I failed to refute an argument. This same logic applies to my opponent; I simply pointed out which parts he has failed to address for the voter's and perhaps even his convenience/sake.

~Counterarguments~

1. Impact on culture

"Of course, it has no merit on the validity of it's existence" ... "The impact of culture that Bigfoot had supports the possibilities that it exist"

These are quoted from my opponent and are obviously at contradiction. Bigfoot's impact on culture can't have NO MERIT on the validity of it's existence and at the same support the POSSIBILITY IT EXISTS. My opponent has admitted that Bigfoot's impact on culture has no merit, and thus he has conceded this point unwittingly.

His recurring point about laws being made about Bigfoot is irrelevant: they aren't proof for Bigfoot's existence in reality, only in people's mind.

2. Eyewitness accounts

"We don't always use scientific evidence to prove everything we believe in such as God, afterlife, religions, and creationism."

--> We would call those people IGNORANT.

"We don't see God, but most people think that it exist. "

--> We would call those people IGNORANT.

"We have never seen macroevolution..."

--> We would call people who say this IGNORANT.

My opponent states other people have witnessed Bigfoot. Doesn't matter, as my opponent and I have stated, eyewitness accounts are not scientific evidence. Ergo, he unwittingly concedes this point.

3. Native American artifacts

"My opponents failed to refute that the "Bigfoot phenomenon" was not organized by a group of hoaxers as a long term hoax operating over a 150 year time span, and all across the United States and Canada." I wouldn't think that it was possible or the hoaxers would have extremely intelligent to fool modern scientists."

--> Because that was never my point to begin with. If you intend that to be a counterargument, I'd HAVE TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT RELEVANT TO THAT. It's common sense, and why you brought it up is questionable.

People mis-identify many animals numerous times. It depends on so many factors, like the time of the day, the climate, how far away the animal is, how fast it was, how long you saw it, etc.

4. Scientific evidence

A. Footprints

My apologies for missing the part my opponent posted about footprints and inconsistencies, it seems he enjoys playing the "my opponent didn't refute so so" game along with me. Let me go ahead and destroy his argument with his own cited source from Round 4.

Not only does http://www.csicop.org... give a clear picture on the right handside of the page of a common example of a mis-identified Bigfoot track, it has references to back it up; no baseless claims. In rebuttal to his claim that toes with 2-6 excluding 5 are mostly hoaxes, but the ones with 5 toes are real. What my opponent doesn't realize is this makes it an even HARDER case for him to prove, since not only are 5-toed tracks easy and logical for hoaxers to recreate, but it shows that any other "wacky footprint" one may present can be thrown away, since by my opponent's own standard Bigfoot has 5 toes. This would NOT be an argument against me, since it still stand that it can be hoaxed.

My opponent has effectively dropped all other arguments and rebuttals concerning Footprints.

B. Hair and Blood

Most BIGFOOT samples are either faulty, doesn't have the root, or is inconclusive. The REASON for being inconclusive is because of the lab not containing samples of every animal in the world, but only the ones native to its country/region. This is a point my opponent fails numerous times to refute.

The rest of my opponent's argument is just a new argument, completely dropping all other ones. How in the world would the "difficulties of hunting Bigfoot" be an argument for it's existence? This is just a bizarre argument, and a moot one.

D. Absence of fossil evidence

You know, it's quite suspicious when the website my opponent commonly cites has no references...anyway back to the argument at hand.

Not only does the link my opponent gave show Ohio having a fossil bed, in his OWN argument my opponent refutes himself: "Notice how much fossils are found in the forest of Ohio and in the Northern Pacific where Bigfoot are likely to exist."

And lastly, when did Animals know how to bury their dead as my opponent claims? If they did, wouldn't that HELP fossils come up?!

Similarly so, my opponent has dropped his point about Gigantopithecus and the mandibles of primates. EVEN if he was correct that it is difficult for Bigfoot to be found in fossils, it STILL doesn't mean this is an argument FOR the existence of Bigfoot. If I had used the absence of fossil evidence as an ARGUMENT, then this would've been valid as a COUNTERARGUMENT, but I never posed it and ergo this whole argument fails at the seams.

E. Nobody looks for Bigfoot remains except Bigfoot researchers

This has been and still is NOT AN ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF BIGFOOT. My opponent is basically committing the appeal to authority fallacy, by stating since some respectable scientists pursue a career in Bigfoot, this is evidence for Bigfoot's existence.

F. Cryptozoology and opinion

So what? This is NOT AN ARGUMENT FOR BIGFOOT's EXISTENCE. Heck, I never even stated that cryptozoology is a worthless effort (though methodologically many of them fail), so this is once again a bizarre and pointless argument.

~Conclusion

Not only has my opponent dropped and failed to refute countless argument along the way of this tediously long debate, he constantly digresses and brings up new and useless information. Particularly, his last few argument are total muck, and I have refuted even his reasonable ones.

As my opponent has stated, "there is no concrete evidence, such as a specimen, that Bigfoot exists". The circumstantial evidence he states points to NOT ONLY hoaxes, but mis-identifications; of course something he fails to refute.

In conclusion, my opponent's point utterly fail, and thus you should vote for PRO if you haven't died from reading all this by now.

===Points my opponent failed to refute/dropped===
*Dropped point about impact culture unwittingly
*Dropped point about eyewitness accounts unwittingly
*Failed to refute point about Native American artifacts being circular
*Failed to refute point about Gigantopithecus
*Failed to refute point about primate mandibles
*Failed to refute other points about Footprints i.e. hoaxers, mis-identification
*Failed to refute point about labs containing samples only for native animals
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Hushed 6 years ago
Hushed
In a real debate round (High School, or College level) when you take evidence, and then cut out the part that goes against your side, or make the card misleading its called clipping a card. Usually there are harsh consequences for clipping cards.

Paramount, if its impossible to prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist (And I agree.), then the debate will always go con. I don't feel this is a fair way to look at it. Just take out the word 'can't', and its a more fair debate.

My vote goes to TheSkeptic.
Posted by TheSkeptic 6 years ago
TheSkeptic
Forget it, I don't wanna debate you in the comment section; not something I enjoy.
Posted by Paramountdesktop 6 years ago
Paramountdesktop
Anyway, back to my original point, I don't like the proposition. -_-
Posted by Paramountdesktop 6 years ago
Paramountdesktop
"I have shown why the areas Bigfoot is supposed to live don't have primates. The burden of proof was on him. He failed, and thus I won the debate."

Again, you proved that there is a lack of evidence.

"It's a law of the universe? Show me. Bigfoot can exist, but so can many other things. My opponent has failed his burden of proof."

Don't confuse "can exist" and "does exist". "Can exist" simply means that it is possible for it to exist at some point in time and somewhere in the universe.

Anything conceivable can exist.

Something like a five-sided square cannot exist in our universe, for it is not conceivable.
Posted by TheSkeptic 6 years ago
TheSkeptic
"No, you have just shown that there is a lack of evidence. A LACK of evidence does not debunk the existence of something."

--> I have shown why the areas Bigfoot is supposed to live don't have primates. The burden of proof was on him. He failed, and thus I won the debate.

"Bigfoot CAN exist. Anything conceivable CAN exist. It's a law of the universe."

--> It's a law of the universe? Show me. Bigfoot can exist, but so can many other things. My opponent has failed his burden of proof.
Posted by Paramountdesktop 6 years ago
Paramountdesktop
LOL, is this a minidebate?

"I have also shown why Bigfoot can't exist in the areas it is purported to."

No, you have just shown that there is a lack of evidence. A LACK of evidence does not debunk the existence of something.

"The burden of proof was on him."

Just stating why I don't like the proposition. There is no way that you can form convincing arguments. You cannot prove that Bigfoot doesn't not exist. You can only prove that is does exist.

"If Bigfoot existed in some other form that wasn't the characteristics of Bigfoot, then it's not Bigfoot. Common sense."

There are many conceptions of Bigfoot.

Bigfoot CAN exist. Anything conceivable CAN exist. It's a law of the universe.
Posted by TheSkeptic 6 years ago
TheSkeptic
"I don't like the proposition. Bigfoot CAN'T and DOESN'T exist due to the LACK of evidence and fossil records supporting it? A LACK of evidence does not debunk the existence of something."

--> I have also shown why Bigfoot can't exist in the areas it is purported to.

"And in the case of Bigfoot, you can prove that it exists, but you cannot prove that it DOESN'T exist. That's why Bigfoot remains legend."

--> The burden of proof was on him.

"Of course Bigfoot CAN exist. Everything conceivable can exist in some form."

--> If Bigfoot existed in some other form that wasn't the characteristics of Bigfoot, then it's not Bigfoot. Common sense.
Posted by Paramountdesktop 6 years ago
Paramountdesktop
I don't like the proposition. Bigfoot CAN'T and DOESN'T exist due to the LACK of evidence and fossil records supporting it? A LACK of evidence does not debunk the existence of something.

And in the case of Bigfoot, you can prove that it exists, but you cannot prove that it DOESN'T exist. That's why Bigfoot remains legend.

Of course Bigfoot CAN exist. Everything conceivable can exist in some form.

Because of the context of this debate, I'm leaning towards Dnick94.
Posted by Wayne 6 years ago
Wayne
if you have unlimited rounds, i am sure there never would be one side conceding
Posted by TheSkeptic 6 years ago
TheSkeptic
Most rounds are 3.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Hushed 6 years ago
Hushed
Dnick94TheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 6 years ago
InquireTruth
Dnick94TheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 6 years ago
JBlake
Dnick94TheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Mangani 6 years ago
Mangani
Dnick94TheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 6 years ago
s0m31john
Dnick94TheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Paramountdesktop 6 years ago
Paramountdesktop
Dnick94TheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 6 years ago
TheSkeptic
Dnick94TheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06