The Instigator
ReformedArsenal
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
sehyunsohn
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

You cannot prove that Bigfoot 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  
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: 7/13/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 10,719 times Debate No: 17500
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (238)
Votes (5)

 

ReformedArsenal

Pro

Izbo10 appears to think it is possible to prove that a given thing does not exist. For the sake of this debate, we shall use Bigfoot as an example, but you could replace Bigfoot with any other item or entity that is not logically contradictory (A circle with four sides is logically contradictory so you it is not valid, the flying spaghetti monster is not logically contradictory so it would apply). However, he is unwilling to support defend this in debate. I am opening this debate up to anyone who wishes to take it.

I shall open my argument with a simple syllogism, and we shall see where the argument goes from there.

A) To prove something, we must have knowledge of it
B) A thing that exists, exists in a place
C) There are places we do not have knowldge of
D) A thing that correlates to the concept of Bigfoot could logically exist
E) Therefore: We cannot prove that things do not exist in places we have no knowlege of
F) Therefore: We cannot prove that a thing that logically could exist, does not exist at a place we have no knowledge of
G) Therefore: A thing that correlates to the concept of Bigfoot might exist at a place we have no knowledge of
H) Therefore: We cannot prove that a thing that correlates to the concept of Bigfoot does not exist at a place we have no knowledge of
sehyunsohn

Con

I accept your challenge.


"We cannot prove that things do not exist in places we have no knowledge of"

This statement can be reworded to mean the exact opposite. We cannot prove that something exists if we have no knowledge of it. I know that the concept here is Bigfoot but since you stated "you could replace Bigfoot with any other item or entity ", why don't we take the existence of god for example. Many people say god exists because it is impossible how the universe originated from nothing and therefore there had to be some supernatural power behind it. We do not have knowledge of where this so called "god" might be but we're assuming it is somewhere. This contradicts your statement above. Since we do not have knowledge on gods where abuts, therefore god does not exist.

"A thing that exists, exists in a place"

If something exists it exists somewhere, however if it does not exist, it means its nowhere to be found.








\Why do you think that Bigfoot is somewhere where we have no knowledge of? Almost the entire earth is discovered and owned by a government and even areas where it is not owned, they are all somewhat searched. There have never been a 100% correct sighting of Bigfoot. The sightings normally consisted of blurry pictures where it seems more like apes or other regular monkeys.
Debate Round No. 1
ReformedArsenal

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this challenge, and welcome him to the DDO community. It appears that he has been an observer here for some time, but this is his first venture into a debate.

My opponent's entire argument is a red herring. A red herring is when you introduce something that has nothing to do with the question at hand into the argument to either distract from the argument, or to attempt to shift the argument to the red herring.

If we can prove the existence of Bigfoot is irrelevant to the resolution. The question this resolution puts forth is if we can conclusively disprove the existence of bigfoot. I would acknowledge that it is indeed impossible to prove that something exists in a place that we have no knowledge of, just as it is impossible to prove that something does not exist in a place we have no knowledge of.

My opponent asks "Why do you think that Bigfoot is somewhere we have no knowledge of?" The simple fact is this, I don't think Bigfoot exists anywhere we have knowledge of, however it is impossible to know that he does not exist somewhere we have no knowledge of. There is much of the world that is unexplored. According to Trinton Submarines, up to 95% of the oceans are not explored [A]. One website, identifying the top 10 unexplored places in the world, comments that China has a vast amount of caves that are mostly unexplored. [B]

That is just our planet, there are 7 other planets (8 if you're oldschool like me and still count Pluto) that could contain a semblance of something called Bigfoot. In addition to that, there are trillions of starts that could have planetary systems that support life. This also does not take into account the possiblity of parallel dimensions or universes.

Simply put, there are more places that we do not have knowledge of than those that we do. It is entierly possible that Bigfoot could exist in one of those places, and we have no way to prove that he does not. Therefore: You cannot prove that Bigfoot does not exist.

Thank you.

[A] http://tritonsubs.com...
[B] http://top-10-list.org...
sehyunsohn

Con

What you're trying to say is way to broad and general.
"That is just our planet, there are 7 other planets (8 if you're old school like me and still count Pluto) that could contain a semblance of something called Bigfoot."

Saying this is like saying, "it has got to be somewhere". Its like saying, even if it is not on earth, it must be somewhere in the universe. I understand what you are trying to say, however, firstly, you must understand what 'Bigfoot' is.

"Bigfoot" is a large, prehistoric ape-like creature. It is assumed that it is a creature originating from earth, therefore even though there might be something resembling Bigfoot in the other planets, those wouldn't be identified as Bigfoot will they?

Also scientists say that "the breeding population of such an animal would be so large that it would account for many more purported sightings than currently occur, making the existence of such an animal an almost certain impossibility."

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
ReformedArsenal

Pro

My opponent has now introduced a strawman into the argument. "Saying this is like saying, "it has got to be somewhere""

I am not arguing that Bigfoots exist by necessity. I personally do not believe they exist anywhere in the universe, however I acknowledge that I cannot prove this.

Even if we limit Bigfoot to Earth. There is no way to know that there is not a parallel dimension. In 1997 Oxford released what it considered to be proof parallel universes exist. [A] Since we cannot know what the contents of Earth are in such a parallel dimension, we cannot know if that earth contains Bigfoods.

[A] http://www.dailygalaxy.com...
sehyunsohn

Con

Ill make this short.
Parallel Dimension is not proven at the moment making it nonexistent in our lives at the moment. Therefore, bigfoot cannot exist in this so called "parallel Universe".

In Conclusion, scientists have a plentiful amount of evidences and reasons why the existence of BigFoot is nearly impossible therefore making it possibly proven that Bigfoot does not exist.
Debate Round No. 3
238 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bananaedmonkey 2 years ago
bananaedmonkey
con could have said the burden of proof was on Pro.... Then just defeat his "Bigfoot of gaps" arguments and he would have won.
Posted by izbo10 6 years ago
izbo10
By the way retarded, considering there are 38,000 christian denominations (http://christianity.about.com...) all with different interpretations of the bible, it is definitely a no true scotsman fallacy to say hitler wasn't a christian considering the differences are interpretation of scripture in most cases. In this case you sect interprets the bible in one way, hitler may have interpreted god as another.
Posted by izbo10 6 years ago
izbo10
By the way it doesn't say eternal punishment, that is one hell of a jump when you can't admit that god knew and agreed to a contract in judges. One heck of a jump, I tell you. Not, that eternal punishment makes it any better. Your best defense is that its not only death, but really never ending torture, really thats the best you can do? We can make it better by taking it from finite punishment and suffering, and make it infinite. Really? Really?
Posted by izbo10 6 years ago
izbo10
See that is how you interpret it, others interpret it different, I can show you how it is possible that hitler was trying to follow jesus. I don't have to prove its meaning as all i have to do is show hitler was trying to follow jesus's words and show it could be interpreted that way..

Now for contextual awareness, lol coming from the guy arguing contextual awareness who doesn't even comprehend jepthah and god had a contract.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Bozo,

That parable is about eternal judgement, not about slaughtering people in life. It's not hard to see if you have a shred of logic and contextual awareness, so I'm unsurprised that you don't see it.

The teachings of Christ as a whole (Even if you isolate a single Gospel, which you are wont to do) teach that Christians are to live lives of self sacrifice, service, and mercy. This is easy enough to see... you just think that you know everything and are using a distorted cherry picked eisegisis to support yourself when you are clearly wrong.
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
"I shouldn't have to show you anything the verse speaks for itself."
You showed nothing, other than the fact that you blatantly forgot the context of the verse.
"At one point, people thought that people who thought the world was round were morons, how did that one work out for the majority? Same thing will stand here."
A mark of the pseudoscientist, who thinks that the minority is right and the majority wrong. Gosh, bozo, so by making baseless claims and failing to present a good argument based on textual evidence, you are affirming your superiority. Good luck with that, bozo. :P
Posted by izbo10 6 years ago
izbo10
I shouldn't have to show you anything the verse speaks for itself. At one point, people thought that people who thought the world was round were morons, how did that one work out for the majority? Same thing will stand here.
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
I should challenge Bozo to prove that the parable equates to Jesus saying he should kill his enemies. Apparently, the entire story, the messages of the king, the words and their diction, do not matter; only one verse does. Great example of textual criticism and "reading comprehension".
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
"Izbo, I am not trying to sink to your level but it is simply a fact that you are widely known as the biggest moron on this website."
Yep; idiocy equates the mixture of arrogance, lack of perspicacity, inattentiveness, inability to recognize one's own errors, and so on.
" Do you really think your comments are going to help in any way stop what you believe are the "dangers of religion"?" "
Bozo doesn't care about his own reputation...he believes that it is attributed to idiots below par than him, despite the mounting evidence that it is not so...And besides, he's just talking about the Holocaust, 9/11, dying children, starvation, and hunger, without giving a rational discussion on the danger of religion and the risk of state faith....He assumes we have to presume this and that and then gives surveys as proof. All we can do is prove him wrong (I did, through textual critcism and the help of sources), especially by the fact that he has failed to prove that religion correlates entirely with lack of intelligence. The survey covers a wide range of subjects, so it is possible that other factors might account for such 'lack of intelligence'.

If all atheists become like Bozo here, they will be going to the churches and shooting the colored windows.
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
"Should I feel obligated to respect someones belief that their invisible friend bob is telling them to that 2+2=453?"
You don't, but that does not warrant your decision to act rudely and disparage other beliefs.
"If not then why should I respect someone whose invisible friend is named jesus and saying their is a god when they don't have a shred of evidence."
Tangible evidence cannot prove or pinpoint an intangible being; philosophy and religion cannot prove a being without doubt. But that does not equate to a lack of existence. So since there's not a "shred of evidence" for the invisible pink unicorn, then that means that it doesn't exist? So since we have no evidence for aliens, that means that they're just imaginary and inchoate conceptions of life in the galaxies and space?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
ReformedArsenalsehyunsohnTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm calling this a tie. Bigfoot is by definition an earthbound primitive mammal. Definitions are important for existence questions. We also know there are no primitive mammals on Mercury, because the planetary conditions do not support mammals. Some Gods can be disproved because their defined properties are disproved -- sacrificing to volcano gods doesn't work, so volcano gods who respond to sacrifices do not exist. I think neither side argued correctly.
Vote Placed by Meatros 6 years ago
Meatros
ReformedArsenalsehyunsohnTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Argument goes to Pro - Con couldn't show that it was impossible. The Con had a huge burden of proof, so it's not surprising that it couldn't be overcome. Pro still thoughtfully explained the various errors in Con's arguments, which was appreciated and made this debate worth reading.
Vote Placed by Double_R 6 years ago
Double_R
ReformedArsenalsehyunsohnTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro wins convincing argument as Con misconstrued his point. Pro clearly stated that he was not arguing for the existance of bigfoot, but that is what Con made it sound like and attacked that argument instead. I was considering giving one point to Con but Izbo took care of that by once again voting on something that has nothing to do with the debate. But at least he showed some restraint, that's a start.
Vote Placed by izbo10 6 years ago
izbo10
ReformedArsenalsehyunsohnTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made a red herring of my argument, the entire debate was a shifting of burden of proof terrible conduct from reformed.
Vote Placed by OMGJustinBieber 6 years ago
OMGJustinBieber
ReformedArsenalsehyunsohnTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con shouldn't have accepted in the first place, but when he did the impossibility of the resolution forced him to try and change the focus of the debate. I don't think Con believed his own side: "n Conclusion, scientists have a plentiful amount of evidences and reasons why the existence of BigFoot is nearly impossible therefore making it possibly proven that Bigfoot does not exist." We're not talking likelihoods.