The Instigator
Marauder
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
sherlockmethod
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

It is most rational to believe there is a 'Bigfoot'

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 4 votes the winner is...
sherlockmethod
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/7/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,401 times Debate No: 11672
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

Marauder

Pro

This debate is over belief in the Sasquatch. I, Pro, will be arguing you should believe he exist at least within times as recent as European settlement. recent enough to ensure we are talking about its existence overlapping that of homosapiens. Not recent as in 40 thousand years ago.
whoever accepts, Con, will be arguing against belief in Sasquatch existing in any such recent times.

I thank whoever accepts this debate in advance
I will now proceed with my case

It is not in question if Bigfoot has ever existed, for his fossilised bones have long since been found. its species is called Gigantopithecus blacki. http://www.wynja.com... But according to the fossil record it did indeed go extinct 300,000 years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org... Yet sightings of this beast have been occurring since before the discovery of the fossils for Gigantopithecus. How can people be seeing a creature that has gone extinct?
More important still to ask, How can people be hallucinating something or just making it up when it really exist without foreknowledge of the creature. Are we to believe the existence of Bigfoot is a hoax that time travelers who already know about the creature living 300,000 years ago?

To me that would take a lot of faith in relying on the possibility of time travel we have yet to learn about. But as long as that rely's on unknowable factors you may ask isn't it still more reasonable to call it that hoax when the fossil record is a known fact. it had to have gone extinct far to long ago for people to have been sighting it to be telling the truth?

Actually the fossil record indicating its extinction does not rule out its continuing existence because Gigantopithecus would not be the first creature we know about to defy it. These creatures I refer to are called 'living fossils' http://en.wikipedia.org... and they are lots of known unquestionable examples of other living fossils today. http://www.cryptomundo.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.cryptomundo.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...
The most famous of those is probably the Coelacanth and you may remember learning about it in science class.

seeing as there is no lack of recent sightings http://albertasasquatchsightingreports.com...
it really is more reasonable to conclude some of them have got to be legitimate rather than pass them all off as hoaxes like some conspiracy theorist.

I await my opponents response.
sherlockmethod

Con

I thank my opponent for offering this debate, and look forward to a solid exchange. As the Con position, I will be arguing that believing in the existence of Sasquatch as late as European settlement in the US is not the most rational position one can hold concerning Bigfoot.

Gigantopithecus blacki (GB hereafter) – My opponent starts by citing this creature as Bigfoot. He does so to show that Sasquatch lived in the distant past so we should not be surprised to find one living in the Americas as late as European settlement. The first problem is that my opponent is assuming too much when claiming GB is analogous to Bigfoot. We simply do not know enough from the fossils to determine whether GB was bipedal or resembles a gorilla or a chimp for that matter. If the animal is a knuckle dragger, then GB does not fit any eye witness accounts of Bigfoot my opponent listed in RD 1, nor would the footprint evidence be valid as it would accompany marks consistent with an animal walking on, or at least using, all four limbs for movement. In addition, we have not uncovered any fossil remains of the creature outside of China, India, and SE Asia, nor have we found any fossil remains less than 300,000 years old (see wiki on GB, opponent's source). Most researchers looking into this species hold the view that GB was not bipedal. One prominent researcher disagreed http://en.wikipedia.org..., but his work did not muster enough data to pass the peer review process. Pro has only assumed that GB and Bigfoot are one and the same; he has not supported this statement. Although the partial mandibles found do allow for the potential of bipedal movement, we simply do not have the data to confirm this hypothesis.

In addition to the above information, we have to consider that if GB managed to cross over to North America in a very small population, then inbreeding depression would likely have occurred http://en.wikipedia.org... . Some species have a high resistance to inbreeding depression, but GB would not be such a species as many species resistant to inbreeding depression start with and maintain small gene pools such as species that develop on an island (with little competition) or produce an abundance of offspring at a time. GB appears to have been a dominate species covering a large land mass allowing for out breeding enhancement naturally. Such creatures as GB would be very susceptible to inbreeding depression. The cheetah is a great example of inbreeding depression http://www.telacommunications.com..., but the species did manage to survive. As stated above, the fact that a cheetah can produce 9 and 10 cubs at birth helped it dramatically as did human intervention. GB would not have these advantages as a great ape undiscovered by humans.

Another problem with accepting sightings of Bigfoot is the range. Bigfoot sightings in North America alone cover the area as far north as Alberta, Canada and as far south as Florida. http://bigfootsightings.org... Combining this evidence with the fact that GB would have started with a very small population, coming from a very large population; therefore, subject to inbreeding depression. We have to except that the species managed to flourish for over 300,000 years in order to cover this range without succumbing to human hunters or leaving a trace in the fossil record. Unlike the cheetah, mentioned above, The GB would not be producing 9 to 10 offspring at birth. And even the low cheetah population left an abundant fossil record. To date, no fossils of any great apes, other than humans, have been found in North America.

Although the data is limited, the most logical position to hold would be one supported by this data without too much extrapolation, and the data does not suggest that the creature lived in North America, nor that it lived later than 300,000 years ago, nor can we say with much certainty if GB was bipedal like Bigfoot sightings indicate. At this point in history, maintaining the existence of GB in North America is not the most rational position for one to hold.

Living Fossils-Yes, we have found creatures alive today that scientists hypothesized were extinct, but this is not the definition of a living fossil. A living fossil is one where a species appears to be very similar to its "fossil" relative. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Nothing in the evolution of life prohibits a parent population from existing alongside a population which branched off at an earlier time. When creatures are found in the fossil record, scientists can only use inductive reasoning to determine extinction. They form a hypothesis and as more data comes to light, the hypothesis becomes stronger or weaker. Nothing in science is absolute, nothing. Some hypotheses are simply stronger than others. The proposed extinct species we have found are usually oceanic creatures like Coelacanth and Chlamydoselachus anguineus or they are small or they live in remote regions of the world like the others my opponent listed (Laotian rock rat, Purple frog). We do not, however, find large land animals. We can say with a high degree of certainty that T-Rex is extinct. We can do so because it is a very large land predator that would leave some noticeable impact on its surrounding environment. Also, the fossil evidence will show no T-Rex bones in latter rock layers.

GB fits the category of T-Rex more than that of the proposed extinct species my opponent listed. GB may have been 10 feet tall and weighed over 1,000 lbs and it lived on land. Claiming that a creature of this size maintaining a population capable of allowing for reproduction for the last 300,000 years all the while leaving no indication of its existence (outside of sketchy eyewitness accounts and footprints of dubious quality) is not the most logical position to hold.

My opponent speaks of time machines in his argument, and my best guess is that he wishes to show that sightings of a creature prior to knowledge of the existence of such a creature in the fossil record must indicate the sightings are real and creature still lives, or lived up to European exploration of America, or hoaxers had a time machine which is more amazing than accepting Bigfoot. The logical flaw here is that Pro has not established that Bigfoot sightings are really sightings of GB. He has not established that GB resembles proposed Bigfoot sightings. He uses his unsupported claim to support the reliability of the eyewitness accounts. Once he does this, he uses the eyewitness accounts to support his original claim. This is a simple case of circular logic and is, therefore, invalid.

Eyewitness Accounts:
Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. http://agora.stanford.edu... Even in cases where the eyewitness has taken an oath under penalty of law, the account should be viewed with skepticism. In cases with Bigfoot, aliens, pink elephants, and fairies, etc, the witness is free to extrapolate and the more fantastic the claim the more attention it garners. The eyewitnesses may truly believe they saw something fantastic, but without independent verification we have no way to know. The problem with many of these accounts is that they are too old to verify independently or when others try to locate physical evidence of the encounter, it is mysteriously absent. I do not wish to call any of these good people liars, but I must rely on the physical evidence and the knowledge science has gained about great apes in modern times. Using the latter two, I must dismiss the accounts has hoaxes, fabrications, or an overactive imagination.

Accepting GB as Bigfoot and claiming the species lived to within the last couple hundred years is not the most logical position to hold.
Debate Round No. 1
Marauder

Pro

THE BIGFOOT EXPLINATION
I thank my opponent for further explaining the nature of Living Fossils so I don't have to. As he explained just because something is a living fossil doesn't mean it is exactly the same creature as the fossil just in our time. For example what was a three lobe fined fish now has two lobe fins. But other than a difference in the loss of genetic information we still find it appropriate to label as the same parent species.
This accounts for much of my opponents criticisms against GB being the Sasquatch. Sightings of Bigfoot generally give it a height of 6 to 7 feet, meaning sometimes taller than humans, however not quite the 10 feet of GB. That loss in genetic information for height is easily expected.
My opponent did admit it's completely possible that GB was bipedal, and the only reason most professionals would agree it wasn't is because they generalize GB against the walking methods of modern monkey's. But as we see even with that generalization the data was strong enough to convince at least one expert to dissent from common view. I don't know if my opponent considers professionals to dissent in such a way for whimsical reasons but I don't.
My opponent brings up inbreeding, that because GB was susceptible to inbreeding it would not survive 300,000. But we mustn't forget that all species has had to overcome inbreeding when they first evolved. When you are the first in your species you'll find your options for what you are going to reproduce with are rather limited. How has every species on the planet come to where they are in-spite of this? The answer is random genetic mutation. Mutations like being bipedal perhaps. And thanks to a factor like walking or running on two legs would help this creature dwarf any competition North America could offer it. What is the worse this creature would face? the bears, moose, cougars? Even granted the general weakening of the GB it dwarfs these others in terms of competition.
One of the points my opponent brought up against Sasquatch being a living fossil was that its too big. That the only mammals that are living fossils are small creatures. This is blatantly false as there is a six foot tall beast listed in my opponents own source. He must be counting on the fact that you would not check the list out for you self to take notice of (insert link here). This horse may be a foot shorter than most sighting of Bigfoot but its certainly bigger over all.
The footprints are not quite as dubious as my opponent would have you believe. Taking the Cripplefoot tracks Dutch professor A.G. de Wilde of the University of Groningen examined the prints, and concluded that they were "not from some dead object with ridges in it, but come from a living object able to spread its toes." Those tracks showed microscopic dermal ridges. Primatologist John Napier identified the tracks as having clubfoot, thus there called the Cripplefoot tracks. Impressions of the thenar eminence muscle are left in these tracks, because of its importance in a hand with an opposable thumb this particular set of tracks if a hoax is a rather complicated hoax. The person behind would need be familiar with the anatomy of the human hand, witch does not sound like a prankster just trying to get some ‘kicks'
THE ALTERNATIVE
In choosing to not believe in the Sasquatch's existence, just what are we believing in respect to North Americas long history of sightings of this thing. My opponent clearly got my time travel point well enough, and I concede he has shown its circular. But I can make the same point about foreknowledge legitimizing the claims even if I can t convince you Bigfoot is GB. The Native Americans have told of this creature for some time, predating any time they could have been told about any kind of monkey.
Though my opponent say's he doesn't like doing so, he say's calling eyewitness's liars is more believable for him than saying Bigfoot is GB having traveled to North America across the Ice bridge. He finds it easier to accept that it's a conspiracy in essence. For when one person lies you just call it a lie, it becomes a conspiracy when we are talking about lots of people lying the same lie. If we are to accept Bigfoot as a lie who are we to believe has orchestrated this lie, having the lie passed down to themselves to carry on since as far back as the Bigfoot lie goes into Native American history? Perhaps my opponent will wish to tell you the Masons are doing it! All good conspiracies tie back to them somehow. The Illuminate perhaps! Or is the government that did it this time? Any of those three as the orchestrates of ‘the Bigfoot lie' you can easily see takes way more extrapolation than I can ever make for you just taking the easy explanation that it's a real creature. If this is a conspiracy can we not say with certainty it's a stupid one? To what ends is it for? Is the answer going to be so stupid sounding that it belongs on a Scooby-Doo cartoon, like ‘we've been dressing up as it for years to scare you meddling kids away from our uncharted goldmine' Witch belief do you think requires more imagination now to explain it? The imagination required to see pink elephants in your room pales in comparison to the imagination needed to be conspiracy theorist.
The soft evidence of the creature on camera, or footprints can not be passed off as misremembering events, those have to be blamed on a conspiracy if we are to not accept the Sasquatch left the tracks or walked in front of a camera. For what motive could these be left? My opponent might tell you that it is just pranksters, or attention seekers. But this is very hard to believe as far as the ‘attention seekers' goes for many of the tracks like the Cripplefoot tracks go unclaimed as the works of anyone. So if someone did it for attention, they failed at getting it, for we do not know who they are. And the Cripplefoot tracks are rather elaborate as I covered earlier for a prankster. The prankster use of Bigfoot is just to spook ones friends that they brought with them to a campout. But to leave tracks and never take credit for them? What kind of joke is this? It is perhaps the most lame prank in history if it is a prank for there is nothing funny to it. No one is the victim of this prank, and its hardly a prank if no one is ‘had' by it. So its not a prank or just an attention seeker, this brings us back to saying it was old man Jenkins trying to keep those meddling kids off his land, and their dog too!
As for the non footprint kind of soft evidence, the eyewitness testimony; they are undoubtedly some that are everything my opponent criticizes them to be. Some aren't even ‘eye' witness but ‘ear' witness really, where the individual heard an odd screaming sound. But even granted that some are like that they are still plenty of people who have subjected themselves to a lie detector come out as honest and were ‘eye' witnesses in every sense of the word. You know I've never heard of a Bigfoot witness as being judged a liar by a lie detector. Explaining these cases away hinge on how the memory is can be distorted to have false data without that data introduced to the holder of the memory. I do not disagree with my opponent's source at all on this matter, you cannot have no bias when telling people you saw Bigfoot. In light of this the question we need to ask ourselves ‘what are the limits of what false data I can remember?' Could the native americans have distorted memories of seeing a bipedal monkey without seeing monkeys before? I can understand misremembering that you saw a coyote when in fact it was a wolf, or perhaps a wolf with a bear. But can it really make me think the bear was a bipedal monkey? My opponent has not shown that one can misrember if a horse had wings or not, so I ask him can we misremember what a horse looked like, adding the winged detail? For it seems like there would be limits to how faulty our memories can get.
sherlockmethod

Con

I thank my opponent for his response and after reviewing his second round, I still support the Con position.

Pro makes several claims concerning evolution so I will try to gather them into one point. Species do not evolve in the way Pro suggests. Please remember populations evolve, not individuals. A creature that underwent a mutation that lowered its reproductive chances is not likely to survive. His example of the "first" member of a species is a misrepresentation of evolution. All species do not go through a period of inbreeding depression as the population as a whole becomes modified by descent, not just a few members. We do have instances of what is called the "founder effect" and, yes, it can be triggered by traveling long distances. http://en.wikipedia.org... Human populations are subject to this effect, but it is mainly found in island populations. Such events are rare though because inbreeding depression is usually detrimental to the species. I did not say inbreeding depression made the existence of GB in modern times impossible. I don't use that word often and use it more rarely when discussing science. I made clear what phenomena we must accept in order to put GB in North America and showed that, without evidence, this position is not the most logical to hold.

In addition, Pro makes much of a dissenting scientist concerning the bipedal movement of GB. I cannot think of one idea in science that did not, or does not presently, have detractors. All the scientists studying this creature concede that bipedal movement is possible, but, other than one, consider it unlikely. So much like the necessity of the founder effect, and overcoming inbreeding depression, GB must be bipedal to be Bigfoot unless Pro wishes to add yet another assumption in respect to GB developing bipedalism in the last 300,000 years. We have no evidence of any of these events, nothing. I do not find accepting these events, without evidence, just to get GB into North America to be the most rational position concerning this issue.

Very quickly, I do not accept the results of lie detector tests. The courts agree with me on this one too. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Living Fossils: I explained very clearly that living fossils were not ones thought to be extinct and were later found alive. My opponent suggests that I hoped others would not review my source as a specific horse was listed as a living fossil. I invite voters to examine this creature and the read the article. We have known about this horse for a long time and preservation efforts have been implemented to save it. The horse went extinct in the wild, but we had some in captivity and they have since been reintroduced. I did not list it specifically because we have known about it for ages now. http://en.wikipedia.org... This creature has nothing to do with species thought to be extinct only to turn up again alive today. The others I listed fit the latter description and my analogy to T-Rex still holds. We need to look at very large land creatures covering very large areas as Big Foot sightings cover a large swath of North America. I did not say the possibility does not exist, only that we must accept this creature has managed this without leaving any biological evidence of its existence.

We just found a rather large lizard that we did not know existed, but local people knew. They ate it. http://www.heraldsun.com.au...
The problem was biologists simply did not do much work in the region. If we do find land species they are generally small or operate in limited areas that biologists do not frequent and have not appeared in the fossil record so we are not looking for them. The US and Canada are not such regions. Upon review of my statement, I see some ambiguity when I stated we do not find large land animals. I stated this after explaining that species thought extinct generally fall into the categories I listed. I should have used a semicolon to allude to the categories related to the statement that I listed previously. Taken as a whole, the statement is still correct.

Please note how the locals spoke of the creature and were able to provide biological evidence of its existence. We do not find this when dealing with Bigfoot or its distant cousin the Yeti.

My opponent explains that GB would have had little competition when settling in North America, seemingly trying to overcome the inbreeding depression problem, but he creates a bigger problem that I addressed in RD 1. If the species made it past the depression, and the competition was not strong, then it could proliferate to account for sightings, but must do so without leaving a single trace of biological evidence over a range of thousands of miles for over 300,000 years. Pro, this is the problem and it is one you must address as a whole since your position is being proposed as the most logical.

The Footprint:
http://home.clara.net...
http://www.bigfootencounters.com...

The first source provides pro and con sources on this issue but the article I linked, written by a member of the department of Anthropology from the University of Florida makes clear the reasoning we need to use when dealing with this type of evidence. First, the researchers looking at the print do not consider the subsequent actions of the discoverer to be valid, as Marx has perpetrated other big foot hoaxes (source 2). They ignore this evidence because they dismiss the hoax hypothesis outright. Katz dismisses it because:

"If someone faked [these footprints] with all the subtle hints of anatomy design, he had to be a real genius, an expert at anatomy, very inventive, an original thinker. He had to outclass me in those areas, and I don't think anyone outclasses me in those areas, at least not since Leonardo daVinci (sic). So I say such a person is impossible, therefore the tracks are real."

Arrogance dismisses these tracks as a hoax, not science. As stated in source 1, this is called an argument from incredulity and is invalid. Since a hoax could not be dismissed concerning the tracks the researchers erred in not assessing the finder's other Bigfoot hoaxes.

Sightings:
As I stated in Rd 1, some of the eye witness or "ear" witnesses may fully believe they saw or heard something fantastic, but we simply do not have anything to hang our hats on. The hair samples turn out to be nothing special, http://www.livescience.com...
the footprints fall in line with crop circles more than actual proof of existence concerning the creature. I have made clear on this site that I deplore conspiracy theories and I am not proposing one here. I do not think we have a mythical group of people working hard to expose a seemingly mythical creature. Every continent with the exception of Antarctica has a "hairy man" legend. http://en.wikipedia.org... The Native Americans also have a vampire legend and a werewolf legend, and so does everyone else. I do not accept the existence of werewolves, vampires, or Bigfoot. I will take the legends as legends until Dracula, the Wolf Man or Sasquatch manage to produce biological evidence; no conspiracies needed. I cannot say what some people saw or heard, and to be frank…they can't say for sure either. The most logical position to hold at this point is that the existence of GB in North America is very unlikely.
Debate Round No. 2
Marauder

Pro

I am glad you still support the Con position as I need you to keep it for the remainder of the debate to have someone to argue with.

Since my opponent hit on this briefly so shall I but with a non-wikapidea source http://www.truthorlie.com... There statistics are indeed much higher than wikapidea indicates. The question you should ask yourselves is would the reasons for inaccuracy be present in the Bigfoot witnesses?

I wish to point out that I was not trying to make much out of dissenting scientist, but dissenting professional scientist. I am aware that amateur's without any name recognition would very quickly leap for the opportunity to dissent from common view as it is their best shot at gaining recognition. But professionals mostly only have reputation to lose for doing so.

My opponent for some reason thinks the fact that GB would be a land mammal living fossil would matter. that the large reptiles would not count http://en.wikipedia.org... And has pointed out that large creatures would definitely leave much trace like footprints, fur and such witch he has already admitted there being and claimed are not evidence though. I could try defending the soft evidence twice but instead I would like to point out just because it is big does not mean it will not remain elusive. Once a escaped tiger was loose in the city and remained under the radar for a week. One of numerous existing land mammals traits is there knack for stealth. If it doesn't want you to see it you will not. There's a Native American game I learned in scouts that best illustrates this point. the game is designed to teach stealth so one can best hunt game like dear. One person is chosen to be the dear and they stand on a stump in the woods somewhere where they are playing and they turn there backs every so often and count to 3 at minimum before turning. the rest of the players must close in close enough to attack while the player on the stump has turned around. If he spots you and points you out you are out of the game. One would think that it is key to have something to hide behind to remain elusive to the one on the stump but in fact there has been times when a player remained in clear sight of the one on the stump but they weren't caught because they remained perfectly still. inches away and they didn't catch any notice because of how still they were. Hidden behind nothing. For many animals stealth comes so naturally that you wont likely see them unless they want you to.
Fur can be left but it remains possible that it could just be that of a coyote its uncounted, just like if I was looking for a bear where I live and find bear feecies I cant count that as evidence, it could be that of a raccoon, whose feecies is very similar.

Also since this hasn't been brought up yet the more recent of video footage of it has been dismissed at large as a bear with mangy; I believe this does a fair job at showing how this doest fit with this footage very well. http://www.bfro.net...

My opponent dismisses the assessment of the Cripplefoot tracks as complex and too elaborate for hoaxers because Krants is being 'arrogant'. Even if it is arragent for him to assume there are no others out there who can add this detail to fake tracks other than himself does not negate that fact that the tracks are elaborate.
My whole point with these tracks is how are we to relate what they are to motive? Pranksters are not elaborate and there motives are for spooking there friends when camping. If one is a prankster leaving tracks just in principle is not the method you would use. If you where determined to prank your friends while camping and left tracks you would discover disappointment when its time to leave and no one even looks down to notice your hard work at making a real looking Bigfoot footprint. then there's the attention seeking motive my opponent proposed witch I also refuted as no one has gained any attention from this except the supposedly fictitious creature itself.

That leaves conspiracy theory. My opponent has been evasive with admitting this alternative because he does not fancy himself a conspiracy theorist. But I am afraid that is all that is left for you when speaking of motive for such a 'hoax'. Old man Jenkins is clearly trying to keep us off his land! The belief in this belongs on cartoons not when discussing Bigfoot for real. And my opponent must feel the same as he will not claim to believe the conspiracy. But that is what is indicated when we refuse to call it real.
The immensity of this same lie is exemplified even more by my opponent when he brings up the Yeti and various other 'Bigfoot' all over the world. this takes some organization to to pull that off. people imaginations are not going to come up with same thing everywhere by accident. the same prank is not going to be pulled so vastly different lands since before these lands interacted on accident. Are we to take the weak position that it was 'coincidence'?

if there is one thing you have noticed with anything my opponent or myself has said about how Bigfoot could or could not exist is that either way is truly a possible reality. But at the end of the day when the matter isn't ultimately resolved without doubt what are you going to believe. Its most rational to pick on that is an explanation and that absence of explanation. calling all this coincidence is just an absence of explanation, to actually try to explain how this 'Bigfoot lie' has happened all over the world for a very long time among people who have never seen monkeys other than this one takes a conspiracy theory quite vast. or you could just accept the explanation that uses facts we know about in science to understand how it exist if it does exist. Occams razor would have us take the one with least assumptions. http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor you could make one assumption, that its real, and find an explanation is possible with a few more assumption. or you could make an assumption for ever person you call liar, deluded, that otherwise have come of as good sane people, the assumption that there's a boogieman out their making footprints to sustain a myth to get the best of people who he will never meet or trying to keep you off his land, ect, ect..

Are you hesitant to believe there is a Bigfoot because the creature is so fantastic sounding? open your eyes and see that the Earth is full of non cryptozoolgical creature even more fantastic to learn of than this one. Are you hesitant because the thought of it existing scares you? carry a gun, I think you can take it, plus bears can be as scary as this creature. Fantastic should not be considered to equal unrational. However paranoid conspiracies should.
sherlockmethod

Con

I thank my opponent for his final round, but I intend to conclude not offer another round of arguments as he did in his final round. I will address his new points briefly and since he brought them up in the final round, I within DDO standards by replying.

The polygraph: Very quickly, these tests are not accurate and the site my opponent links sells polygraph services for 500 to 1000 dollars to anyone (think your husband is cheating? Call 1-800 Imanass and we will set it straight for only 1000 dollars) of course they will tell you the results are near 100%. Psychics say the same thing.

My opponent's last round was convoluted, but he still does not understand that no conspiracy is needed in this case. I have explained this already.

The new video is so grainy that we cannot say what is there. I ask again, where is the biological evidence? You should have 300,000 years of it.

My opponent wishes to apply Occam's razor to this case and I welcome it considering all the assumptions and additions he must add to make GB alive today. I have already listed them in previous rounds.

Pro was the instigator in this debate and has failed to uphold the resolution. His job was to show that believing in Bigfoot is the most rational position to hold and at the end of this debate the voter is still left with grainy videos, footprints by known hoaxers, and an arrogant professional scientist. This is not enough. Great claims require great evidence. Pro has not even provided good evidence in this case. I urge a vote for Con.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
Since when has asking questions been enough to qualify as debate?

I did look more thourouhly in your sources though again and found the the name Parker, it said he confessed he made them to test Krantz skill. I'm amazed you didnt capitalize on that fact in your debate.
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
I do not continue debates in the comments section; I linked all the source material in the debate.
Posted by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
who are the hoaxers for the cripplefoot tracks? you said their known in the last round. Who are they?
Posted by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
when going through spell check it corrected Bigfoots to Bigfoot. this got me to wondering

if Bigfoot is used pluarly, what do you say, like the spell check Bigfoot, or like I put Bigfoot's or does it change to feet like Bigfeet?
Posted by mrmrlol 7 years ago
mrmrlol
actually, bigfoot has been spotted in many states, as far north as Canada, and as far east as new jersey.
Posted by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
I have always evied Oragon and the west cost at large cause I was under the impression that Bigfoot sighting only occured in that region. It make me very happy to discover its been seen as far east as florida.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by micktravis 7 years ago
micktravis
MaraudersherlockmethodTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Doctor_Murray 7 years ago
Doctor_Murray
MaraudersherlockmethodTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
MaraudersherlockmethodTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Vote Placed by Vigrant 7 years ago
Vigrant
MaraudersherlockmethodTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:04