The Instigator
DonutBoy17
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
RainbowDash52
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Sasquatch does not exist

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
RainbowDash52
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/18/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,973 times Debate No: 56825
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

DonutBoy17

Pro

I will provide evidence that Sasquatch does not exist by using facts, scientific data, opinions, and just plain common sense. I will provide a few reasons and points that support my argument each round as well as rebuttal points made by my opponent. The opponent may use the first round argument however he/she pleases.
RainbowDash52

Con

Since Sasquatch is better known as Bigfoot [3], I will use the term Bigfoot.

In the past there have been several animals that were believed to be mythical that turned out to actually exist, including the Okapi (African unicorn), the Giant Squid (Kraken), the Gorilla, and more. [1][2] Since it is often the case that creatures whom many believed to be fictional actually exist, it would be logical for Bigfoot to exist. This in addition to the abundant number of Bigfoot sightings is more than enough for there to be at least a reasonable chance that Bigfoot exists.

[1] http://listverse.com...
[2] http://www.blastr.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
DonutBoy17

Pro

It is true that species such as the Okapi, Giant Squid, and Gorilla weren't believed to exist and then turned out to be real. But lets look a litter closer at this fact. The Okapi and Gorilla were believed to be mythical until their discovery in 1901 and 1902. Those discoveries happened over 100 years ago when our scientific and technological abilities were far less capable. The last land animal discovered that was around the size of a gorilla was probably the Giant Panda that was discovered in 1927. Since 1927, all the animals that have been discovered have been either relatively small, microscopic, or aquatic. Your Giant Squid argument is almost irrelevant because the amount of sea creatures discovered in comparison to land animals is very small. Anyways, with todays technology, it is nearly impossible for a species (Sasquatch) to remain hidden from a highly populated country for so long. If Sasquatches really did exist all throughout America (not including Hawaii) there is no way that the only potential evidence that had been found is footprints and blurry videos and pictures. Footprints and pictures are way to easy to fake and are not enough evidence to prove the existence of a species. Most of these footprints, videos, and pictures are later admitted to be hoaxes. The most famous video of Sasquatch is the iconic footage of the creature walking through the woods with big strides filmed by Roger Patterson. This footage was later admitted fake by Bob Heironimus who said he was paid $1,000 to walk in a gorilla costume while filmed.
I will cut this round off here and provide more facts in the next round.
RainbowDash52

Con

One of the reasons for why Bigfoot could be hard to detect would be because Bigfoot is nocturnal, which some speculate he is [1]. It is harder to find animals that are mainly active during the night. Bigfoot is also smarter than most animals, so it could be able to use its intelligence to hide better. These factors could contribute to its evasiveness, so it may be the case that Bigfoot is harder to find than other animals.

My opponent claims "Anyways, with todays technology, it is nearly impossible for a species (Sasquatch) to remain hidden from a highly populated country for so long." As you can see here [3], there are large sections of the United States that are not very populated. A population of Bigfoot could easily live there unnoticed.

Although Bob Heironimus admitted to help fake the Patterson film, it has not been proven that that what he admitted is true.
"Bob Heironimus claims to have been the figure depicted in the Patterson film, and his allegations are detailed in Long's book. Heironimus was a tall (6' 2), muscular Yakima, Washington, native, age 26, when he says Patterson offered him $1000 to wear an ape suit for a Bigfoot film. Bob Gimlin was on Bob Heironimus' horse, Chico, when the PGF was being filmed. Heironimus is one of numerous people who are claimed to be visible in an unreleased second reel of the film. It is unclear which, if any, of these claims are authentic." [2]

My opponent claims most evidences for Bigfoot are later admitted to be hoaxes. Although some are, I doubt most are. I challenge my opponent to give a source supporting his/her claim. Although all footprints, pictures, and videos have the possibility of being faked, that is the reason there is no proof of Bigfoot, because people can't tell the real evidence from the fake evidence.

[1] http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.floatingpath.com...
Debate Round No. 2
DonutBoy17

Pro

The first thing I want to do before arguing my case is to clear up a mistake made by myself in the previous round and was also pointed out by my opponent. Bob Heironimus was said to have been paid $1000 to walk in the gorilla suit, but Bob claims that he did indeed walk in the suit, but was NOT paid any money to do so.

My opponent says that Bigfoot could be hard to detect because they are nocturnal. So you are saying that humans can't find Bigfoot because it's dark outside? We have infrared technology and night vision goggles that eliminate this problem. Or people could just search for them when it is daytime. Just because Bigfoot may be nocturnal doesn't mean that they disappear during the day time. And also it would probably be easier to find Bigfoot when he is sleeping and can't be "evasive". In America we have the technology, skill, and intelligence to track down a person hiding anywhere in the country, but yet you think that we can be outsmarted by thousands of wild gorillas? It just isn't logical.

The rest of my argument will be information directly quoted from http://listverse.com... and I do not take credit for writing it.

"Bigfoot is Too Big to Go Unnoticed"

"As mentioned previously, the average Bigfoot sighting places the creature at over 8ft tall. The reasonable question here is how such an enormous creature could possibly evade capture by humans. Every year new species are discovered all over the world, but they all have one thing in common: unless they"re in the sea, they are all tiny. When was the last time you heard of a new species of giant elephant being discovered? The point being that if tens of thousands of 8-foot tall, 500 pound ape-men were out there, we"d have found them by now."

"No Bigfoot Fossils Exist"

"Simply put, there has never been any fossil record of a large mammal resembling the Sasquatch in North America " despite the same soil preserving everything else that ever lived in the area, including dinosaur bones."

"Predictably, Bigfoot enthusiasts have a counter-argument: fossils have been found of one creature dubbed Gigantopithecus Blacki, the fossilized mandible of which is pictured above. This creature, essentially a 10 foot ape that weighed approximately 1,200lb, existed a hundred thousand years ago when it roamed an area in what is now China."

"Obvious aesthetic connections could be made between the two creatures " but no Gigantopithecus Blacki fossils have ever been found in America. It seems that something like Bigfoot did once exist, but thousands of miles from where the vast majority of sightings occur."

"Successful Breeding Is Unlikely"

"Scientists have established that in order for the existence of Bigfoot to be a zoological possibility, there would have to be tens of thousands of them breeding. But how would such a massive population be able to successfully locate potential mates, if even humans are incapable of finding them?"

"The idea that sasquatches are being bred in families and are mating successfully with other groups of sasquatches is simply impossible " and yet such a situation must exist for these creatures to continue breeding. Coupled with the fact that almost all alleged Bigfoot photographs and videos show only one creature " implying that they travel alone " the odds of them being able to find each other to mate and produce offspring are small indeed."
RainbowDash52

Con

As for "Bigfoot is too big to go unnoticed", of course he is, that is why there are so many sightings. It is just that no amount of pictures or videos of Bigfoot is enough evidence to convince skeptics because such evidence is easy to fake.

Even though night vision goggles can be used to detect Bigfoot, the average person doesn't own night vision goggles. Also most Bigfoot encounters are on accident, not by someone searching for him with advanced technology.

My opponent claims "In America we have the technology, skill, and intelligence to track down a person hiding anywhere in the country"" This is not true. There are people we are unable to find for example the FBI top ten most wanted. [4] If we really could track down anyone in the country, we wouldn't have problems finding these people.

As for "No Bigfoot fossils exist", that is not a problem because fossils of some animals are rare to find. The first chimpanzee fossils weren't found until 2005, and it was only a few teeth. [1] Also the discovery of a few fossil teeth of an unknown species is not enough proof of Bigfoot, so if Bigfoot had equal fossil evidence as chimpanzees, it would still not be proven to exist.

The odds of Bigfoots finding each other to mate is not unlikely because they can use wood knocking to communicate long distances. [2] Even if finding each other to mate was a serious concern for the possibility of Bigfoot, other species such as the panda, have overcome even greater reproduction challenges.

"Early in their efforts, scientists working on captive breeding of Pandas realized that there were substantial difficulties in getting the bears to mate naturally. They either lost interest in mating the natural way or simply did not know how. "[3]
"A female Panda has a single estrous cycle once a year, in the spring, for 2 to 7 of those days, and she"s only actually fertile for 24 to 36 hours. That is a TINY window of opportunity." [3]
"A baby panda is born blind, almost hairless, and only about the size of a stick of butter (or 1/900th the size of its mother). These fragile cubs can easily get sick and die."[3]
"Female pandas often give birth to twins, but can only effectively care for a single cub. In the wild, this means that one of the cubs is simply left to die." [3]

If pandas can reproduce enough to continue to exist despite these challenges, I am sure Bigfoot can do the same.

[1] http://www.nature.com...
[2] http://www.bigfoothunting.com...
[3] http://www.pandasinternational.org...
[4] http://www.fbi.gov...
Debate Round No. 3
DonutBoy17

Pro

My opponent says that Bigfoot has not gone unnoticed and has been sighted many times. It is true that many Sasquatch sightings have taken place (a few thousand in America over roughly one hundred years). This high number of reported sightings often gives Bigfoot believers a reason to argue that Bigfoot exists. I on the other hand believe that this high number of reported sightings actually make it easier to argue that Bigfoot does NOT exist. If thousands of people have seen Bigfoot, then why have not one of these people managed to get solid evidence of their sightings. The closest thing that anyone has gotten to solid evidence are blurry videos from a far distance away. You would think that in the decade where most teenagers have a smart phone that we would get some better footage and evidence. Or why wouldn't anyone chase down Bigfoot, or at least find the area where he was and collect DNA samples? There is just no way that out of thousands of reported sightings, not one person has gathered conclusive evidence to give proof. All they would need to do is go find a piece of hair that fell off Bigfoot in the area that they saw it and "Ta-dah", Bigfoot is proven real. But has anyone found any hair, any bones, any evidence of a Bigfoot shelter, or even taken a clear conclusive video or Bigfoot? No. Nobody has. If Bigfoot is so sneaky that they can not only hide themselves, but their dna too for so long, then congratulations mankind, you have been outsmarted by a bunch of wild apes.

My opponent also mentions that there are people such as the "top 10 most wanted" that cannot be found. When I said, "In America we have the technology, skill, and intelligence to track down a person hiding anywhere in the country" I said A person, not ANY or EVERY person. There are a few people that have the ability and intelligence to hide from the FBI. But to say that Bigfoot can hide as well or better than the people in the top 10 most wanted is just silly.

This part of my argument will again be information directly quoted from http://listverse.com...

"Lack of Killings Despite Reward"

"I"ll begin this entry by mentioning that there is currently a genuine $1,000,000 reward for anyone who can bring back the body of a Sasquatch. Think about that for just a moment. Now consider the the tens of thousands of reported sightings " none of which have resulted in a Bigfoot being shot dead. Once again, the figures simply do not add up."

"Bigfoot is a Hoaxer"s Paradise"

"Although this does not directly disprove the existence of Bigfoot, it is important to point out that there are plenty of motives for people to create a hoax. People may simply seek attention, fame or wealth " just like the men who covered an ape suit with a dead squid (pictured above) to try and cash in on that $1,000,000 reward."

"Lack of Physical Evidence"

"For a minute, let us imagine that we have had tens of thousands of giant ape-men roaming around North America since the fifties. Surely such creatures would leave us at least one piece of indisputable physical evidence? Alas, we have none at all " no bones, hair samples, blood samples, skin samples, or any DNA evidence of any kind."

"One single hair strand would provide enough DNA to prove a new species existed. Besides, you can forget about DNA evidence for a moment to ask: where are the bodies? Unless sasquatches are immortal, there must be hundreds of Bigfoot remains out there right now. Why hasn"t anyone ever found one? We seem to have found plenty of footprints " but of course, that isn"t physical evidence."

"All things considered, it seems that we can safely assume that there are no ape men in North America."

This next quote is from http://news.discovery.com...

""There is no category of Bigfoot evidence that doesn't have a string of hoaxes attached to it," said Radford. "If you're studying a subject in which virtually all the evidence either comes down to being inconclusive or a hoax, something's wrong.""
RainbowDash52

Con

"If thousands of people have seen Bigfoot, then why have not one of these people managed to get solid evidence of their sightings." The answer is because the amount of evidence required to convince skeptics is huge.

For my opponent"s rejection to my FBI"s most wanted evidence, I find it unlikely that none of them would choose to hide in the United States. My opponent"s claim we can track down anyone in the U.S. is conveniently unfalsifiable because if we can"t track down someone"s location, then we don"t know where they are, so even if we can"t track down someone in the U.S., my opponent can claim that the reason is because that person is just hiding in a different country, which may or may not be true.

As for "Lack of Killings Despite Reward", your source mentions "there is currently a genuine $1,000,000 reward for anyone who can bring back the body of a Sasquatch" but it did not say if the body could be alive or dead. I found a source here [1] that offers a 1 million dollar reward for the body of a living unharmed Bigfoot, which I believe was the source your source was referencing. So "lack of killings despite reward" is misleading. Since capturing a Bigfoot without killing it is extremely hard, it is not a surprise that one has not been captured. As for why no one has killed a Bigfoot, first it is illegal in some places [2], and second, many consider killing a Bigfoot to be unethical. And since the body of a Bigfoot is the only evidence that will convince skeptics, and that it is reasonable that a Bigfoot body has not been captured or killed, it is reasonable that Bigfoot has not yet proven to exist.

As for "Bigfoot is a Hoaxer"s Paradise", yes there are hoaxes. But just because there are some hoaxes doesn"t mean they are all hoaxes. For example evidence has been faked to support evolution, but that does not discredit evolution.

As for why there is no physical evidence, the average person would not look at hair or bones and think this could be a Bigfoot, but when they see giant footprints they do think of Bigfoot, which is why Bigfoot footprints outnumber the physical evidence for Bigfoot.

[1] http://www.nydailynews.com...
[2] http://www.omgfacts.com...
Debate Round No. 4
DonutBoy17

Pro

My opponent says, "the amount of evidence required to convince skeptics is huge". Who cares what skeptics think? The only people that need to be convinced that Bigfoot exists are the scientists that can determine whether they exist or not. The skeptics decision can then be made on their own by viewing the conclusiveness of the evidence determined by the scientists. The amount of evidence needed to prove a species existence is as small as a strand of hair. Even though hairs are small, and only a small amount are needed, the evidence that can be drawn from them can be huge. Still, no hair has been found to convince scientists or skeptics.

I don't know why the FBI's most wanted keeps popping up in this debate. All I want to say to this is that my opponent has misinterpreted me TWICE on this subject. I clearly said, "In America we have the technology, skill, and intelligence to track down 'a' person hiding anywhere in the country", yet somehow my opponent thinks this means that we can track down "anyone" in the country. Even though similar, 'a' and 'anyone' are not identical in meaning.

My opponent argues that there is no physical evidence of Bigfoot because an average person would not assume hair or bones that they found would belong to Bigfoot, which makes sense. But imagine this: You are walking in the woods when in the distance you spot a creature that you believe to be Bigfoot. This creature walks out of sight or runs away before you have time to get a picture or take a video. What would you do? Would you go back home and report your eye witness account that has almost zero credibility? Hopefully not, because the smart thing to do would be to go to the location where you spotted the creature, find its footprints, and then try to find either a sample of hair or skin from the area and bring that with you in the hopes that you have managed to find DNA proof of Bigfoot. Heck, you could even chase after it! My point is that finding physical evidence is very possible, but nobody out of the thousands of reported witnesses have done it. Sounds fishy to me.

So think about it. Which side of this debate is easier or more likely to believe? The argument that Bigfoot does exist is only held afloat by faulty eye witness accounts, photos, videos, and footprints that can all be very easily faked. There is no real evidence that Bigfoot exists. On the other hand, you have the argument that Bigfoot does not exist. This side of the argument is supported by logic, facts, and science. So which side is easier to believe? Hopefully I don't need to answer that for you, because the conclusion is obvious.

Thank you Rainbowdash52 for debating this topic with me.
RainbowDash52

Con

My opponent claims I must only convince scientists not skeptics, but scientists are skeptics.

My opponent suggests people could chase after a Bigfoot that they find. But that is a very dangerous thing to do as Bigfoot is much stronger than people and chasing after him would put your life in danger if Bigfoot chooses to attack. My opponent says finding hair or skin of Bigfoot could easily be possible, but that would not prove the existence of Bigfoot. DNA of this hair or skin could confirm a new species, but not that Bigfoot exists.

Conclusion: Although it has not been definitively proven that Bigfoot exists, there is still a good chance Bigfoot does exist. As I have already explained, creatures believed to be mythical often actually exist. So the idea that Bigfoot exists is reasonable. Also the lack of physical evidence isn't too unlikely as I have explained.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Raisor 3 years ago
Raisor
Sources to Con as a penalty against Pro for copying and pasting huge portions of text. The debate should be your own arguments supported by sources. If you want to quote at length, you should at least offer a decent amount of analysis or explanation of what you are pasting.

Con provided mostly defensive arguments, i.e. arguments why no proof exists for bigfoot. This is all well and good, but he needs to offer some offense in order to win this debate. There was little in this debate to explain what reason we have beyond Con's repetition that there are a lot of eye witnesses. Pro responds to this pretty well by pointing out that there are lots of hoaxers to generate these claims.

Pro does a better job of arguing we should have at least some conclusive evidence for bigfoot by now, especially considering there are huge rewards for such evidence.
Posted by DonutBoy17 3 years ago
DonutBoy17
Yes, Bigfoot is most often associated with living in the Pacific Northwest, but sightings have been reported in every US state except Hawaii.
Posted by RainbowDash52 3 years ago
RainbowDash52
A majority of Bigfoot sightings are in the Pacific Northwest, but there are also several sightings other places as shown here: http://www.bigfoothunting.com...
Posted by deadeabear 3 years ago
deadeabear
I thought Bigfoot lived in the Pacific Northwest.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
DonutBoy17RainbowDash52Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: better sources
Vote Placed by Raisor 3 years ago
Raisor
DonutBoy17RainbowDash52Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments