The Instigator
Calvincambridge
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
ldellova
Con (against)
Winning
49 Points

Some cryptids are 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  
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/11/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,763 times Debate No: 18293
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (9)

 

Calvincambridge

Pro

Welcome here is a debate on Cryptids there is proff out there Cryptids are real you will be saying they are not roun 1 acceptance only


Many believe my debates are joke debates most arent this is a serious debate

you believe no cryptids are real to accept this

Cryptid- A creature not yet discovered including "monsters", ghosts, aliens, ect that have legends to them and alleged sightings that are unconfirmed
ldellova

Con

It is very tempting to believe that mythical creatures exist. In childhood, children would watch movies like "The Little Mermaid," "The Princess and the Goblin," and others that would open a child's mind that there is more to the world. From Disney's fairy tales, to the original Grimm's Fairy Tales, it pushes the reader to believe that the world is a large and scary place. In olden time, strong religious believers viewed that the forests, or sea creatures are the works of evil. During that time, there might have been many creatures that humans did not understand and even feared. Today, scientists, biologists, explorers now know that creatures, known or unknown, have a beautiful purpose in this world.
Creatures under the Cryptic category include Bigfoot, Loch Ness monster, mermaids, dragons, unicorns, a hybrid of two different species, the kraken, the list goes on and on. There is a branch of Zoologists called Cryptology, "study of hidden animals," which refers to search for animals whose existence has neither been able to be proved or disproved. There are thousands upon thousands of eyewitness accounts of seeing all types of unexplainable creatures. There are still a lot of places on Earth that have been rarely or never been discovered, explored, or understood.
My first argument is that even if we have not discovered hidden places, human technology and satellites have a better chance picking up anything that moves. If a massive sea serpent had conspicuously emerged, it is safe to say that satellites all over the world would be able to pick it up. Harriet Ritvo author of, The Platypus and the Mermaid, said that "since sea serpents were never either captured or counterfeited, there pretensions could not be exposed to the standards of the laboratory." So there is no concrete evidence or proof that monstrous creatures, like the sea serpents, exists.
My second argument is that there is no doubt that there are still new species of animals to discover. The problem is that what people see, like Loch Ness or giant octopus, may be a new species that they do not understand. Humans fear what they do not know, so they come up with freighting creatures to match the profile of the unknown. I was watching a discovery program about ancient archeology. It portrayed that ancient Greeks and ancient Romans loved to dig, and like archaeologists today, they uncovered bones of extinct species. These species include dinosaurs, mammoths, and other prehistoric animals. Since they did not know this, they produced myths and legends to explain the bones, like Cyclops, and other mystical creatures that dominate Greek mythology. Today is no different, we explain the unknown by calling them monsters. It is a fact that "late-eighteenth-century naturalists tentatively described the newly discovered platypus as an amalgam of bird, reptile, and mammal," (Ritvo, p 132). New creatures are intimidating but we might be mistaking them for monsters.
I do not doubt that there are new creatures that scientists and explorers have not yet discovered, but it does not mean they are the iconic, boat and people-eating, fire-breathing monsters myth had portrayed them to be over the years.
Debate Round No. 1
Calvincambridge

Pro

Not all mythical creatures are cryptids but your misunderstanding argument is irrelevant because it does have some truth to it.

I obviously have the burden of proof so first I will prove the chupacabra exists.

Chupacabra- The dog version. Is a creature thats sucks the blood out of goats and other anamails here is some proof.

;
;

Since you mentioned bigfoot I will adress his existance also

;

Loch ness monster

http://www.foxnews.com...;

All the eyewittnesses. It only makes sense
ldellova

Con

You said "Cryptid- a creature not yet discovered...ALLEGED sightings that are UNCONFIRMED. My argument is not irrelevant and I understand this debate

My opponent is not proving anything to this argument, just because you gave me a definition of what a Chupacabra is, does not mean it is real. I looked it up myself and it says it is a LEGEND, not factual. To emphasize my point I found an article that says an "Chupacabra story is a hoax; likely a Xolo dog breed.

"The animal, described in an Associated Press report last week as "a cross between tow or three different things," was found as road kill last month near the Texas town of Cuero..."this animal is a Xolo," said top dog breeder..."The do looks like it has Xolo genetics. This is not a Chupacabra--that's absurd."

Continued, "The focus has been very distorted..."I believe it's more of an issue of animal neglect or possible abuse than it is a chucabras wandering in from the bush." Even a "local veterinarian who has seen the carcass doubts that the animal is anything noteworthy."
The article even describes the history of an alleged "chupacabra" it starts of saying "The legend," not a recorded animal. Here is the link if you would like to take a look.

http://news.mongabay.com...

And the video you linked on your last argument, didn't even exist anymore.

Scientific Fact is an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true. Scientific proof refers to evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. So far I have found that scientific proof has leaned toward me and you have not given me anything to prove differently. Science needs facts, measurement, and most importantly, proof. Until there is something that can be proved, your argument is hearsay.
Debate Round No. 2
Calvincambridge

Pro

It is a fact some cryptids are real because cryptids have been discovered such as on the website to the link. http://listverse.com...;

So why can't other creatures exist so many eyewitnesses. Cryptids wash up on shore leaving bodies.

Vote con !!!!!
ldellova

Con

In conclusion, cryptic creature are for believers with absolute faith that they exist. They are not creatures with scientific proof or fact. I was hoping for more of a fight from my competitor because I do indeed like this topic and took it with all seriousness. My competitor said from his first argument that he took this topic seriously too, but I was disappointed. I'm sorry that this debate was a waste of time due to your lack of argument. I took my time out to research for legitimate sources. Vote Con because I came up with, as I said, legitimate facts, research and sources while my competitor did not, and somewhat didn't even try. Sorry that this debate wasn't taken as seriously as I hoped because I did work hard to present my "Con" argument. Vote Con!!
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
somebody should probably counter my vote,...but really even with it, pro has no chance of winning..
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Pro might win since his definition includes several creatures that have not yet been discovered. However, hopefully his opponent will challenge that definition...
Posted by Sketchy 5 years ago
Sketchy
I think that due to your resolution and definition of cryptid, it would be nearly impossible for you to lose this debate. You say that a cryptid is a creature not yet discovered, and that some cryptids are real. This means that some creatures not yet discovered exist, which they obviously do because new species are being discovered daily.
Posted by internet.debater 5 years ago
internet.debater
You need to first define what a "cryptid" is...
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Like_a_Boss 4 years ago
Like_a_Boss
CalvincambridgeldellovaTied
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: You read the debate. End of story.
Vote Placed by Chicken 4 years ago
Chicken
CalvincambridgeldellovaTied
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: Wow.
Vote Placed by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
CalvincambridgeldellovaTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Both parties had slightly irregular grammar. That point is thus tied. Pro urged that voters vote Con, which I would have obliged in Conduct, except that Con also urged that I vote Con. This is an automatic deduction. It is my choice for whom I vote, not his. Con's calm refutation of Pro's unfounded claims and superstitions, as well as superior logic, earned him the Convincing Arguments point. Reliable sources also goes to Con, for, while Pro listed more sources, they were unreliable.
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
CalvincambridgeldellovaTied
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: Obvious
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
CalvincambridgeldellovaTied
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: "Countering" thett3's vote since he pretty much asks for it in the comments.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
CalvincambridgeldellovaTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm voting for calvin just so that he'll think "what the hell?" see this, and realize that he's been rickrolled http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ .....never gonna give him up, never gonna let him down....
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
CalvincambridgeldellovaTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's definition of Cryptids makes it impossible to meet the BoP. Spelling Con for obvious reasons.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
CalvincambridgeldellovaTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro lost his chance to win with his definition of cryptids. He offered no solid rebuttal to ledllova's case and, as usual, failed majestically in his endeavor to debate.
Vote Placed by Sketchy 5 years ago
Sketchy
CalvincambridgeldellovaTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro could have easily won with the resolution, but he completely failed. Spelling and grammar is obvious, and Pro's sources were not reliable.