The Instigator
Beryllium
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
A341
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The existence of Carcharodon Megalodon

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 2 votes the winner is...
Beryllium
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/3/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,034 times Debate No: 61246
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Beryllium

Con

I will let pro begin, but I will start by saying there is no irrefutable evidence the Megalodon still exists.
A341

Pro

I should start by saying that I have accidentally entered myself into a devils advocate debate. That being said I will do what I can to defend the proposition that Megalodon still exists.

Eye Witness Accounts

Over the last few hundred years there have been many accounts of enormous sharks. Many of theses accounts take place on boats where the size of the shark is known to be above a certain length [1] [2] usually 30-40 feet about the size you would expect from a Megalodon.

Video Footage

Recently there have been many sightings of seemingly impossibly large sharks which could only be Megalodon or a very close relative [3] [4].

Old Photograph

Possibly the earliest and best evidence for the current existence of Megalodon is a photograph taken by the Germans during WW2 in the central atlantic [5] it clearly shows and enormous shark.

[1] http://cryptid.hubpages.com...

[2] http://www.incredipedia.info...

[3] https://www.youtube.com...

[4] https://www.youtube.com...

[5] http://cdn.grindtv.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Beryllium

Con

Devil's advocate? No, I would just like for everyone to know the truth. That being said, I regret to inform you that those "sources" are not credible. First of all you have the eyewitness accounts, which don't matter a bit. I could claim I saw a leprechaun, and it would be just as credible. The scared fisherman? That was a basking shark. Those other videos and the photograph were all part of discovery's fake documentary designed to rake in views. And as for the shark in the Mariana Trench, yes, this video is real. But if people would stop freaking out and think about it logically they would realize it isn't at all what we're looking for. First of all, there is no reference for scale in the video. We don't know if that shark is 100ft or 10 ft. But in the video when you see the creature's eye, coupled with it's proportions, you would notice that it is in fact just a Greenland shark. At a size of 23 feet or 7 meters, it's large for a shark, but hardly even half the size of the Megalodon.
A341

Pro

"First of all you have the eyewitness accounts, which don't matter a bit. I could claim I saw a leprechaun, and it would be just as credible."

While the credibility of eye witness accounts is not the highest it is still existent [1]. The evidence coming courtesy of an eyewitness is not a valid condition for the dismissal of that evidence.

You have not even attempted to dismiss the photograph of an 80 or so foot shark captured on film by the Germans during WW2.

"And as for the shark in the Mariana Trench, yes, this video is real. But if people would stop freaking out and think about it logically they would realize it isn't at all what we're looking for. First of all, there is no reference for scale in the video. We don't know if that shark is 100ft or 10 ft. But in the video when you see the creature's eye, coupled with it's proportions, you would notice that it is in fact just a Greenland shark. At a size of 23 feet or 7 meters, it's large for a shark, but hardly even half the size of the Megalodon."

Well you didn't give a source for this and every other breakdown of this I have seen has put the shark much larger. But you claim it is a Greenland Shark, may I remind you that the Greenland shark has never been known to be any were near the Mariana trench [2].

[1] http://expertpages.com...

[2] http://geology.com...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Beryllium

Con

You must also point out that this camera is not indeed a camera in the mariana trench, considering the six gill sharks in the video also do not inhabit the area.
And the photo from WWII, well, I was under the impression everyone knew that was a hoax.
http://hoaxoffame.tumblr.com...
A341

Pro

Well we do know that that footage was taken in the Mariana trench [1] and seeing as you yourself admit that six gill sharks are not meant to live in that area of the pacific the best explanation available would be that this is a recording of Megladon.

[1] http://cryptidchronicles.tumblr.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Beryllium

Con

I'm not sure how to interpret your argument, but I'll close here.
The Megalodon could only live in shallow waters to acquire the sustenance it needs. Also, scientists have learned it was a shallow water animal.
Living in shallow waters means inevitable discovery, as we would notice and confirm its existence. Also, with the amount of food it would take to feed a population of these sharks, we would quickly notice the rapidly declining number of whales in the shark's diet. In this simple argument the notion of an existing megalodon population should be dispelled from anyone who reads this.
A341

Pro

A341 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Beryllium 3 years ago
Beryllium
No problem, we can just continue to educate those who are on the pro side of the argument.
Posted by A341 3 years ago
A341
By arguing for devils advocate I mean I do not accept the position I am touting. I accepted the debate thinking you were arguing that Megladon never existed when I realized I had been and idiot I decided to continue the debate anyway and argue devils advocate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
BerylliumA341Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
BerylliumA341Tied
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 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: ff, con showed much doubt in the existence of the CM.