The Instigator
Lilyamina
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
iamnotwhoiam
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

CRYPTIDS: They're real.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
iamnotwhoiam
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/11/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,152 times Debate No: 28100
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

Lilyamina

Pro

Cryptids are basically creatures that are known to either be fake or real. Examples of a cryptid would be BigFoot,the Jersey Devil and Thunderbird. In my opinion, they're real...they just don't want to be found. In this debate, you can either choose a cryptid to battle on and start right away or battle right from the start on any crypid that comes into your mind. I actually want to be a cryptozoologist when I grow up so I know a couple things or two. Don' tbe a WUSS. I promise that I will debate fair and good.
iamnotwhoiam

Con

I accept the debate. Burden of Proof is naturally on you. Why don't we do the Loch Ness monster? Or you can pick another. You start in round 2 then we have equal rounds. Also, I have nothing to refute until I've heard your case. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Lilyamina

Pro

Best of luck to you too. Alright, Nessie. So far there has only been photos of Nessie or documentaries talking about "mysterious shadows in the Lake". Maybe some of the people who claimed to Nessie are liars and maybe they aren't. But it's not like there's some secret organization to make up animals and spread them across the world to entertain or irritate the people. There are also carcasses found around the world of what looks to be a Mokele Mbembe which is another cryptid. If we find bodies and we find proof then who's to say that Nessie isn't real?
iamnotwhoiam

Con

We should have defined cryptid in the last round. I hope my opponent doesn't mind doing it now.

A cryptid (from the Greek krypto meaning "hide") is a creature or plant whose existence has been suggested but is unrecognized by scientific consensus and often regarded as highly unlikely.

Cryptids are not small creatures. They are significant. Eberhart argues that they must be "big, weird, dangerous or significant to humans in some way."[1]

Cryptids are also scientifically controversial. They involve types of creatures not thought to exist, or to be long extinct.

I hope my opponent is happy with this definition of cryptids.


Nessie

My opponent has not provided any evidence that the Loch Ness monster exists.

At the reputed size, it would have to be a dinosaur. Large dinosaurs died out 65-66 million years ago.[2][3][4]

The claim that a dinosaur family have survived in one lake over millions of years is an extraordinary claim. What is special about the lake that dinosaurs would survive in it but nowhere else?

Further, if Nessie was a dinosaur, she would have to come up for air, and there would then be several sightings a day.

There are no convincing photographs or film of the Loch Ness monster.

Since there is no convincing evidence for the Loch Ness monster, there is no reason to believe it exists.

Maybe some of the people who have sighted Nessie are liars, as my opponent says. It is likely the rest of them were genuinely deceived. It is easy to misinterpret a log or a wave or even a hill beyond the loch as something else.

Eyewitness testimony is unreliable. People are prone to remember things that were not part of the original scene. They often fill in gaps based on what they expect to see.[5][6]

A study in the 1990s reported that almost 39% of people have hallucinatory experiences, 27% of which were daytime hallucinations.[7]

In 2003, the BBC sponsored a full search of the Loch using 600 separate sonar beams and satellite tracking. The search had enough resolution to pick up a small buoy. No animal of any substantial size was found whatsoever and despite high hopes, the scientists involved in the expedition admitted that this essentially proved the Loch Ness monster was only a myth.[8]

As for Mokele Mbembe, I challenge my opponent to present the evidence of these alleged bodies.

Obviously the idea of strange and undiscovered creatures is attractive to people, and stems from an active imagination considering the many possibilities, as well as interest in "what is out there". I suggest that a productive use of this impulse would be to aim to study biology or zoology. There are a great number of genuine species yet to be discovered, and many of the animals out there are amazing indeed. However, dinosaurs are unfortunately very unlikely to be extant.

I hope my opponent will now provide evidence for her claims.


[1] Eberhart, George M. "Mysterious Creatures: Creating A Cryptozoological Encyclopedia." 2005. Journal of Scientific Exploration. Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 103–113
[2] http://www.sciencedaily.com...
[3] http://www.nhm.ac.uk...
[4] Fortey, R (1999). Life: A Natural History of the First Four Billion Years of Life on Earth. Vintage. pp. 238–260
[5] http://agora.stanford.edu...
[6] http://scienceblogs.com...
[7] http://www.psy-journal.com...
[8] http://news.bbc.co.uk...

Debate Round No. 2
Lilyamina

Pro

Lilyamina forfeited this round.
iamnotwhoiam

Con

It seems my opponent is not going to provide evidence for cryptids. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
Lilyamina

Pro

Go CHOKE ON A ROosTER
iamnotwhoiam

Con

I thank my opponent for her suggestion. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
Lilyamina

Pro

Lilyamina forfeited this round.
iamnotwhoiam

Con

Thanks for reading.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Lilyamina 4 years ago
Lilyamina
"PRO"...is a girl.
Posted by Jarhyn 4 years ago
Jarhyn
I will gladly accept PRO for this debate, on the grounds that PRO clean and update his challenge to present clear and acceptable mutual rules for this debate.

1) First round is acceptance, second round is argument, third round is rebuttal and additional supporting arguments, fourth round is pure rebuttal and closing.
2) Responses shall be directed towards the previous rounds(s) only.
3) No direct "vote pandering". An argument ought stand on its own, without appeals to emotion or ad hominem.
4) No "sneaky ****erism". This is defined as making declarations to win an argument rather than making an attempt to investigate whether a claim is actually valid or supported by reason. The winning argument here is to be determined as that argument which stands up to reason, not which argument/person people subjectively like more. In accepting, CON agrees that any votes which do not reflect an objective evaluation of the arguments (subjective votes) are invalid and to be ignored or retracted.
5) No extended arguments, except if mutually agreed upon.
6) BoP must be met for all claims of existence of some thing or phenomena; arguments from authority, bald quotation, and appeal to emotion shall not be considered valid forms of argument.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by drafterman 4 years ago
drafterman
LilyaminaiamnotwhoiamTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 4 years ago
DoctorDeku
LilyaminaiamnotwhoiamTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
LilyaminaiamnotwhoiamTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.