The Instigator
Redman
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
Debater2008
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points

Does Bigfoot/Sasquatch exist or is the phenomena a complete hoax?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/8/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,171 times Debate No: 1525
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (9)

 

Redman

Pro

I believe such a creature exists. I do not know for 100% certainty that it does, but I have researched the subject extensively and found that we cannot rule out the animal's existence. It seems that the existing evidence, as theorhetical as it may be, sides with the belief that there is another form of ape on the planet which is manlike in both appearence and its' ability to walk on two feet (bipedalism). I know this is an unprovable argument, as we do not know either way for sure if Bigfoot exists, but I'd like to open the floor to this subject to see what rational people on both sides think.
Debater2008

Con

I believe it is made up. So many things are; vampires, unicrons, dragons, witches. Of all these creatures are derived from myths. Those who claim to have sighted such a creature either were lying, intoxicated, mentally unstable or simply wanted to believe so much that they convinced their selves. There is no proof that 'bigfoot' exists, and therefore there is no reason to believe he exists.
Debate Round No. 1
Redman

Pro

I have to admit, this debate is almost a waste of the time, for the simple fact that there is no scientific proof, for or against, the existence of such a creature like Bigfoot. I think the title of the debate should, appropriately, be changed to "Which is more likely: the existence of Bigfoot, or the Bigfoot Hoax?" Anyway, here is my argument for this round.

Vampires, Unicorns, Dragons and Witches are not in the same category as Bigfoot. All of the listed beings you have mentioned are fake in the scientific community, because they claim to have supernatural powers which defy laws of rationality. Vampires do not exist, because of their ability to fly and change form; Unicorns do not exist, because no being on the planet possesses what is defined as a "super natural power"; Dragons do not exist, because of the lack of evidence for something other than a mixture of a chemical oxidation with a fuel to create fire (i.e. the lack of ability to produce a fire from a respiratory system); definte "witch". In regards to Bigfoot, we are talking about a plausible phenomena: an animal/human undiscovered by modern science which is bipedal, excessively hairy and has a larger proportioned body to that of the modern average human.

Thousands upon thousands of footprints all across North America have been found, most predominantly in the pacific northwestern United States, consisting of California, Oregon and Washington, as well as parts of Canada. These footprints average 16 inches long, and are at points so precise that an actual toe print is taken (like a fingerprint, but on a big toe). A few of the footprints are so well defined that, in addition to toe prints, scientists have been able to classify deformities in the prints, indicating ridges and patterns to prints that would indicate an individual bigfoot with deformed feet. Casts of footprints have been around now for roughly 50 to 60 years. The oppossing 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 an secret fake Bigfoot society that is dedicated to making fake footprints all across North America, desiring to falsely make people believe that Bigfoot exists? To me, the first argument is more likely when discussing footprints.

The video and audio evidence of Bigfoot is obviously controversial, because most tapes are 1) of poor quality and 2) never distinguish any facial characteristics and the audio evidence is often said to be "possibly made by a human." Even if you throw out most of this evidence as fake, one must still account for the few pieces of footage of Bigfoot that are still so controversial: the Patterson/Gilm film, the Freeman footage and the Scott Herriott video of 1992. These three films are still being studied to this day! Out of the three, Patterson's is the most contested to be a hoax.

Although eye witness accounts are unreliable, because of the desire for fame and other fallacies, a couple have stood many shots and are somewhat credible. In 1924, there is the case of Albert Ostman who, seeking no publicity, told a private interviewer he was kidnapped by a family of Bigfoot. He told the story in 1957. Look it up. There is also the story of the "Bigfoot" or Minnesota Iceman of 1967, and of Jacko, the young bigfoot of Canada captured in 1884. The Jacko story is documented in the "The Colonist" of Victoria, British Columbia, July 4th 1884, under the title "What is it?"

My arugment 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. 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. 150 years of faking? Thousands of footprints, made by concrete plasters, individually, so not as to be repetitious? 30-50 people in monkey suites completely fooling modern scientists? Hundreds of eye witnesses seeing something that is not there, or mistaking what they see for something other than what it truly is? This does not seem plausible.

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 await your response.
Debater2008

Con

I have to admit I was not very well informed on bigfoot. For some reason, I had the impression this was some sort of creature that possessed supernatural abilities of some sort (this is why I compared them to vampires and such). As I now know more, I agree with you that it is possible they exist, but that they are surely very rare.
Thanks for the debate
Debate Round No. 2
Redman

Pro

No problem. You are right, the sightings are rare and if there is such a thing as Bigfoot, the population has to be low due to no actual specimen being found. I hold hope that such a creature exists, because it would turn the scientific community upside down. And the circumstantial evidence is not 100% solid, but it is enough to make many peole in the scientific community raise an eyebrow.
Debater2008

Con

I have to write something, but as we now agree it will just be this sentance.

Thanks for the debate
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Hypnodoc 6 years ago
Hypnodoc
I live in the northwest and I know of at least 200,000 Acres of deeply forested land that has never seen humans.

The fact is there is alot more forest than people think. I am an avid outdoorsman and even though bears are considered common I have only seen them twice in my life in the wild. My point here bing that just because you do not see something does not mean it is not there.

A sasquatch would have room to hide and would be at comfort within its environment, natural camoflage and a cautious and timid nature could allow such a creature to go un-noticed for quite some time.

In this world there are thousands of species that have only recently been discovered, Many large animals that were thought to be myth have been shown to exist in just the last few years.

As for the Anthropology there was a great ape species called Gigantopithicus that was a 10 foot tall gorilla, It is thought to have been all over asia and could have existed in the americas as well. This would be the most likley candidate for Big Foot.

There is far more reason to think they could exist than there is against.
Posted by Harlan 6 years ago
Harlan
How would these "bigfoot", which you say live all over the country (or based on these "footprints") not be seen by people and on animal planet and stuff. How is it even possible that they would so exist without ever being seen, other than TWO tapes. It just deosn't fit together.

Even the most RARE and ENDANGERED species can be found by people, and are videotaped, and are accesible to the publice and media.

Who would these bigfoot have evolved from?

As far as I can remember, there were no primates in northern America.

IN this society with people EVERYWHERE, a species, which apparently has very lare animals, and lives on land, cannot stay out of site like that.

It just does not make sense.
Posted by Debater2008 6 years ago
Debater2008
I have to admit I was not very well informed on bigfoot. For some reason, I had the impression this was some sort of creature that possessed supernatural abilities of some sort (this is why I compared them to vampires and such). As I now know more, I agree with you that it is possible they exist, but that they are surely very rare.
Thanks for the debate
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Redman 4 years ago
Redman
RedmanDebater2008Tied
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 Hypnodoc 6 years ago
Hypnodoc
RedmanDebater2008Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Derrida 6 years ago
Derrida
RedmanDebater2008Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Nichon 6 years ago
Nichon
RedmanDebater2008Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Jziggy 6 years ago
Jziggy
RedmanDebater2008Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Cindela 6 years ago
Cindela
RedmanDebater2008Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by smartcookie1884 6 years ago
smartcookie1884
RedmanDebater2008Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Chob 6 years ago
Chob
RedmanDebater2008Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Debater2008 6 years ago
Debater2008
RedmanDebater2008Tied
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