The Instigator
Con (against)
4 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Finding Figfoot: Fact or Fiction

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/31/2014 Category: TV
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 569 times Debate No: 64294
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




Randyn Carter
English 2
Ms. Key
Argument Paper

Finding Bigfoot: Fact or Fiction

Finding Bigfoot is an exciting television show that is played on Animal Planet. It is mostly shown on Sunday nights for the late night "passionate believers of the unknown." It involves a team of four people that go to different areas each week and find witness" that have been in sasquatch related problems. This show claims that they have have real evidence that bigfoot exists but clearly they haven"t got anything to make me believe that the statement is true.
On the T.V. show they have not had any video evidence. They have dramatized reenactments and "blurred" videos but they never seem to have actual video evidence that shows a bigfoot. Photographs have been taken of twisted branches, old tracks left in snow, and anything similar to that thinking that they have evidence that a sasquatch has been there (Ralford). Since they don"t have video or photographic evidence then how do we know it"s real? We don"t, the statistics show.
Some of the stories are so unrealistic that even the cast members think that it didn"t happen, so how do we know any of them are real? Finding bigfoot is designed for the cast members to travel to different places each week and find new stories or witness". When they arrive they listen to the witness" story and see which one is the most realistic After they choose they use various technical gear to pretend to find "evidence". Each episode contains the basic stuff any reality T.V. show uses: silly fast cutting, silly re-creations, silly night vision footage, silly sound effects, and silly head mounted cameras to build excitement for the viewers for almost nothing. On the show Matt Moneymaker states unintentional humorous statements such as: bigfeet like peanut butter, they like to walk on electric power lines, and that bigfeet like to slaughter and eat deer. For some odd reason Matt was upset when the final product came, although he made some of the unrealistic statements himself. Bobo, a cast member, was also upset as well as the others. He stated that " We are getting screwed. The producers have made our work seem very unrealistic. Sorry to all of you squatchers that are bummed". Find Bigfoot"s own cats members were debunking the show right in the review (Moody). This supports my claim because Bobo wants the viewers to watch Finding Bigfoot because it is shocking, suspenseful, and scintillating but he doesn"t want them to watch something fake.
My opponents claim is that there are a lot of witness" and reenactments of stories that have happened in different places. When I watched this show I actually kind of believed what they were doing was real, but later on I figured out that it was all a hoax. by doing this research I have figured out that the producers do so much editing to each piece that it makes it seem very unreal. The cast members think what they are doing is completely real but in fact it"s not. I believe that they are trying to make you believe that it is all the producer"s fault but if it"s unreal from the beginning, then its the entire shows fault.
In my opinion, having a lot of witness" and stories in so many different places basically means that there are a lot of sasquatch in the U.S., but clearly there aren"t because we have no solid evidence that they are real. As my opponents were saying earlier, there are many witness" and reenactments of stories but the reenactments are dramatized and there is a great possibility that it"s not real. Even if we do have evidence, "The important criterion however is not quantity but the quality of it" (Ralford). Having a lot of evidence evidence but poor quality does not add up to be strong evidence. I"m not even going to mention how fake it looks when the cast members use their thermal cameras and video a "sasquatch" when really it looks like a boulder, bear, or even a human. In conclusion from my evidence provided above, bigfoot is not real. Therefore Finding Bigfoot should stop being aired on Animal Planet because if bigfoot is not real, then there is no point to have a group of people go out and try to find something that they are never going to find.

Works Cited
"Bobo"s Got His Hands on Sasquatch DNA." YouTube. N.p.,n.p. Web. 30 Oct. 2014.

Korf, Kal K, and Michael Kocis. "Exposing Roger Patterson"s 1967 Film Hoax." Skeptical
Inquirer Vol. 28, No. 4. July/Aug. 2004: 35+ SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 28 Oct. 2014

Moody, Lance. "Bigfoot Hunters Expose Their Own Show, Finding Bigfoot in Review- Not a
Ghost!" "Not a Ghost!" N.p.,n.d. Web. 28 Oct. 2014.

Ralford, Benjamin. "Bigfoot at 50: Evaluating a Half Century of Bigfoot Evidence." Skeptical Inquirer. March/April 2002: 29-34. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 28 Oct. 2014.


First of all Figfoot is not a thing. And finding Bigfoot is fake. Bigfoot was just a scary story to tell at campfires and then people decided to make a show to grab attention. "Bigfoot" in shows are either big monkeys or gorilla's or a guy in a suite. Someone MADE UP a story about bigfoot. It's not a true story. I mean if it was true then myths told long ago could all be true. It's just fiction.
Debate Round No. 1
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by DaPro7822 1 year ago
Oh what tyranny!

The Figfoot has been hiding in the leafy fig trees, using the leaves as his ultimate disguise. If you pick a fig from his tree, you will be suffocated with his/her ever lasting supply of fig insides! The nation as reportedly found 0 of these attacks occur. Oh somebody, please save us!

Please make sure to title your debate correctly, because the opponent can use it to her/his advantage.

Who ever chooses to take on this round, just remember:

Beware of the Mighty Figfoot!
Posted by welliott 1 year ago
Don't even try to find the notorious Figfoot. He took my friends arm and I have wasted half my life trying to hunt him down for eating my fig as a child.
Posted by Bubbagump282 1 year ago
Ah, yes, the Figfoot. I've searched many a year for the beast, following his fruity tracks to no avail.
Posted by ShikenNuggets 1 year ago
What exactly is a 'Figfoot'?
Posted by AnaghaR 1 year ago
Yes, I was just thinking that!
Posted by UndeniableReality 1 year ago
Anyone else realize it says "Figfoot"?
Posted by sherlockholmesfan2798 1 year ago
This isn't a debate. This is you stating your stance upon this matter. To post your stance, please go to either the "opinions" section or the forums.
Posted by Sfaulkner 1 year ago
Finding Bigfoot was such ridiculousness.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gave major supporting evidence and his arguments were more superior.