Instigator / Pro

oromagi

1922

rating

117

debates

97.44%

won

Topic

#1582

Bigfoots are Bullshit

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 2 votes and with 11 points ahead, the winner is...

oromagi

Tags

Religion

Parameters

Publication date: 11.01.2019 07:08PM
Last updated date: 11.15.2019 07:51AM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 3
Time for argument: Three days
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: One week
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

PaulVerliane

1337

rating

debates

9.62%

won

Description

THBT: No credible evidence supports the existence of a large yet undiscovered primate species extant in North America.

Bigfoot sightings are regularly reported in North America.

Here's one report from last summer in my region:https://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=63153

DEFINITIONS:

BIGFOOTS (or BIGFEET) are "said to be hairy, upright-walking, ape-like creatures that dwell in the wilderness and leave footprints. Depictions often portray them as a missing link between humans and human ancestors or other great apes."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigfoot

BULLSHIT (also BULLCRAP) is "a common English expletive which may be shortened to the euphemism bull or the initialism B.S. In British English, "bollocks" is a comparable expletive. It is mostly a slang term and a profanity which means "nonsense", especially as a rebuke in response to communication or actions viewed as deceptive, misleading, disingenuous, unfair or false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit

BURDEN of PROOF

Burden of Proof is shared. However, any extraordinary claims should be supported by evidence of extraordinary quality and quantity.

PRO will argue the consensus of science. CON must provide substantive, testable (not mere anecdote and conjecture) evidence that a species of North American primate presently exists unacknowledged by the scientific community.

PRO is requesting sincere and friendly engagement on this subject.
No trolls or kritiks, please.

- RULES --
1. Forfeit=auto loss
2. Sources may be merely linked in debate as long as citations are listed in comments
3. No new args in R3
4. For all relevant terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the rational context of this resolution and debate

Round 1

oromagi

11.06.2019 06:06PM

Pro

RESOLVED: NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS the EXISTENCE of a LARGE YET UNDISCOVERED PRIIMATE SPECIES EXTANT in NORTH AMERICA

I. Footprint

Although the Minimum Viable Population size for large primates is usually estimated in the tens of thousands, some estimates for humans go as low as almost 4,000 individuals. [1]

Large, charismatic,mammalian fauna leave behind large amounts of their existence, even species that went extinct tens of thousands of years ago.

fossil record
remains trapped in tar pits, peat bogs, glacial ice.
tufts of hair
hunting, scavenging, and food remnants
scat
footprints

Although thousands of bits of evidence have been tested purporting to be one of the above, no evidence of a North American primate or unique primate DNA has ever been supported.

II. Pictures

We live in a time of exponentially increasing surveillance, satellite imagery, concealed wildlife cameras everywhere, weather watch and fire watch cameras, infra-red cameras and binoculars scanning the forests for migration data, drones, smart phones, etc.

Although the average maximum number of pixels used in digital images doubles every couple of years the quality and definition of bigfoot pictures never increases: pictures of bigfoot are always blurry, distant, and indistinct.

Improved surveillance allowed biologists to identify more than 270 new species last year although only 4 of these were mammals and none were large mammals. The last new primate to be identified was the bonobo in 1929. [2] [3]

III. It's not just something the size of Bigfoot, there is no scientific evidence or fossil evidence for any primate of any size ever in North America. Great apes evolve from smaller primates but there is no evidence that were even primate ancestors in North America later than 55 million years ago. [4]

IV. University of Buffalo cultural anthropologist Phillip Stevens summarizes the scientific consensus regarding Bigfoots as:

It defies all logic that there is a population of these things sufficient to keep them going. What it takes to maintain any species, especially a long-lived species, is you gotta have a breeding population. That requires a substantial number, spread out over a fairly wide area where they can find sufficient food and shelter to keep hidden from all the investigators. [5]

Perhaps as recently as 100 years ago, the absence of evidence for a large charismatic mega-fauna like Sasquatch could be considered inconclusive because there were still a small number of remote places unobserved by biologists. But today, there are no places left in North America where thousands of large primates could plausibly hide from human technology.

PRO concludes that the existence of Bigfoots is not just unproven but impossible in the present age.

PRO looks forward to CON's R1 argument.

[1]https://zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1017/S1367943002002287

[2]https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2018/december/over-270-new-species-discovered-in-2018.html

[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

[4]https://www.sciencealert.com/why-are-there-no-monkeys-in-north-america

[5]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigfoot#Scientific_view

PaulVerliane

11.06.2019 08:50PM

Con

There is actually more evidence of big foot than there is for the Christian god are you willing to state here that Jesus is just another Santa Claus ?

"Most researchers who study the bigfoot subject will point to the abundance of witnesses as the factor they found most compelling about the mystery when first becoming acquainted with it. Over the course of time, bigfoot researchers meet enough eyewitnesses to realize there are indeed many, many eyewitness across the continent who are indeed very credible. Often there are multiple witnesses to a given sighting or encounter.

"There are, in fact, way too many eyewitnesses for this phenomenon to be purely imaginary, as skeptics assert. With such an abundance of eyewitnesses, who are so dispersed across the continent, and dispersed across the decades, the alternate skeptical explanation that the sightings are the result of hoaxers, in whole or even in large part, becomes much less likely.

"Researchers eventually come to realize that if there are indeed so many credible eyewitnesses across the land, then the species they so consistently and emphatically describe probably exists also."

http://www.animalplanet.com/tv-shows/finding-bigfoot/lists/bigfoot-evidence/ "The mystery behind the sightings of sasquatches (a term used interchangeably with bigfoot) took on a new dimension in the 1960's when Dr. Grover Krantz of Washington State University began examining casts and photos of footprints from various parts of Washington. One of the sets of casts showed anatomical features of an injured foot that were either made by a real upright-walking primate, or an artist with an expert understanding of primate foot anatomy."

Content courtesy of the BFRO.

Round 2

oromagi

11.08.2019 03:17AM

Pro

thx, billbatard.

RESOLVED: NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS the EXISTENCE of a LARGE YET UNDISCOVERED PRIMATE SPECIES EXTANT in NORTH AMERICA

OBJECTION: All of CON's R1 is a cut & paste from an advertisement for a TV show except for the first sentence. PRO will not treat any of the cut & paste material as an argument but will only counter the opening sentence which PRO hopes is original content.

CON states: "There is actually more evidence of big foot than there is for the Christian god..."

What evidence supports this assertion?

CON asks: "...are you willing to state here that Jesus is just another Santa Claus ?"

Irrelevant to topic.

CON offered no credible evidence supporting the existence of bigfoot. Indeed, CON made little effort to even be understood.

PRO extends all arguments.

PaulVerliane

11.08.2019 03:36AM

Con

To mock big foot is to mock jesus because there is equal evidence for the existence of both

Round 3

oromagi

11.08.2019 05:06AM

Pro

thx, billbatard.

RESOLVED: NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS the EXISTENCE of a LARGE YET UNDISCOVERED PRIMATE SPECIES EXTANT in NORTH AMERICA

To win this debate, CON needed to present at least one credible, verifiable, testable proof that establishes the existence of a North American primate. Instead, PRO authored two jokey sentences and cut and paste an ad for a tv show.

PRO finds no engagement on CON's part and so simply extends R1 arguments.

If VOTERS agree that no credible evidence has been offered, then VOTERS should find arguments for PRO.

Furthermore, VOTERS should note that PRO specifically requested:

" sincere and friendly engagement on this subject.

No trolls or kritiks, please."

PRO argues that CON has violated the terms of this debate as agreed to by CON upon acceptance. PRO requests that VOTERS award CONDUCT to PRO in light of this violation.

Thanks to VOTERS in advance for their kind consideration.

Please vote PRO!

PaulVerliane

11.08.2019 07:51AM

Con

i dont know it jus there have been so many sighting and i think where there is smoke there is fire, people build huge churches to this jesus guy and there really isnt a whole lot of ecidence he existed, does that mean he did not? https://www.ancient-origins.net/unexplained-phenomena/there-archaeological-evidence-bigfoot-part-i-005350

oromagi

11.13.2019 08:31PM

#25

-->

@Wylted

If by amendment you mean "fictive mega-fauna reamed orifice" then the answer is yes.

Wylted

11.13.2019 06:48PM

#24

-->

@oromagi

What are you the ATF? Trying to violate my 5th amendment like you attacked weaver's 2nd amendment?

oromagi

11.13.2019 05:22PM

#23

-->

@Wylted

Don't dodge the question. Are you Randy Weaver's bigfoot lovin' mother- yes or no?

oromagi

11.13.2019 05:21PM

#22

Don't dodge the question. Are you Randy Weaver's bigfoot lovin' mother- yes or no?

Wylted

11.13.2019 05:08PM

#21

-->

@oromagi

No, I was thinking calling him racist because his mom fucked a bigfoot might be ad hominem.

oromagi

11.13.2019 05:05PM

#20

-->

@Wylted

It's only ad hominem if you are a bigfoot and/or Randy Weaver's mom. Are you making some kind of confession here?

Wylted

11.13.2019 04:52PM

#19

-->

@oromagi

Ad hominem. His mother fucking bigfoots is beside the point. Also, he made money running guns, if he did it for free for the Aryans I would say that would make him racist, but money is it's own motive

oromagi

11.13.2019 04:15PM

#18

-->

@Wylted

I, too, don't think Weaver was necessarily racist just because he associated with white supremacists.

I do think Weaver was necessarily racist because he was running guns for the Aryan Nations terrorist network

and because his mother fucked bigfoots.

SirAnonymous

11.13.2019 01:46PM

#17

-->

@VonKlempter

You're welcome. I did the same thing when I joined.

VonKlempter

11.13.2019 01:06PM

#16

-->

@SirAnonymous

Thanks a lot.

SirAnonymous

11.13.2019 01:03PM

#15

-->

@VonKlempter

You can. It will probably be deleted by the mods otherwise. That's what happened to me when I joined and voted without checking the eligibility requirements.

VonKlempter

11.13.2019 12:58PM

#14

-->

@SirAnonymous

So, I delete my vote?

SirAnonymous

11.13.2019 12:56PM

#13

-->

@VonKlempter

It's in the voting eligibility section.

VonKlempter

11.13.2019 12:53PM

#12

-->

@SirAnonymous

Sorry, but I didn't see any such rule in the Code of Conduct.

SirAnonymous

11.13.2019 12:48PM

#11

-->

@VonKlempter

You're not allowed to vote without having completed 2 debates or made 100 forum posts.

Wylted

11.13.2019 07:36AM

#10

-->

@oromagi

I dont think weaver was neccesarily racist just because he associated with white supremacists. He certainly doesn't seem so in later interviews. I also have a soft place in my heart for him because of how the government fucked him over, and then nobody took responsibility. The person who gave the rules of engagement orders which were clearly bad, the evil idiot who happily followed those ROEs. I regret sharing the last name of the most famous ATF agent there who has written some books. I would like to find him and deal with him personally especially since he was also involved partially in the shit that went down in Waco. I know you are just kidding, but just the thought of what happened to the Weavers pisses me off . Which also brings back memories of WACO where the government burnt those children alive. Randy Weaver was an attempt by the government to make a statement and his wife and son certainly did not deserve what happened to them. I'd argue that Randy did not either, but everyone agrees what happened to his wife and kid was unacceptable, and ultimately the courts agreed and gave Weaver a judgement to prove they agreed

oromagi

11.13.2019 01:46AM

-->

@Wylted

hairy loners living out in the woods of the Pacific Northwest are typically quite racist. Randy Weaver was half Bigfoot. The unibomber’s paternal grandmother was 8’4” with 6” incisors.

Wylted

11.13.2019 12:45AM

-->

@oromagi

If bigfoots are not racist, why don't they hire blacks?

oromagi

11.13.2019 12:35AM

-->

@Wylted

I totally buy that the Warrens were attacked by bigots.

Wylted

11.04.2019 06:58AM

-->

@oromagi

I think Ed and Lorrqine Warren had an account of being psychically attacked by bigots. So here is my argument.

Premise 1- bigfoot psychically attacked the Warren's

Premise 2- bigfoot can't do a psychic attack if they are not real

Conclusion- bigfoots are real

oromagi

11.03.2019 07:07AM

-->

@Wylted

b-baby, baby
bigfeets is bullshit
b-bay, baby
bigfeets is bullshit

there aint no maybe
about sasquatch boy-o's
some major monkey
squatting in some sequioas

it just some myth out of ignorant bliss
it jutht some thilly myth out of ignorant blyth

there aint no fuzzy cromagnon still extant
no neolithic neanderthal grizzly
no upright bear with gorilla face grace
no thick-pelted giant women to fuck

it just some myth out of ignorant bliss
some major monkey business out in some sequioas
some fear of mega-bears with half human minds
it just some myth out of ignorant bliss

b-baby, baby
bigfeets is bullshit
b-bay, baby
bigfeets is bullshit

Wylted

11.03.2019 05:46AM

I hate this. I have a good argument but no time to debate this and I haven't put it to scrutiny. I will PM you the details If you are curious.

DynamicSquid

11.01.2019 11:09PM

-->

@oromagi

People don't believe in Bigfoot because of Scientific evidence, it's because of other lesser concrete reasons with no ties to real science. I would be surprised if someone even accepted this debate...

oromagi

11.01.2019 11:00PM

-->

@DynamicSquid

but somebody must have some good argument, right? For so many to believe it? I don’t know what that good argument is which is why I am asking.

DynamicSquid

11.01.2019 10:50PM

-->

@oromagi

Hmm... I don't really think that this would/could be a good debate, let alone a debate itself. Bigfoot is very easy to disprove (probably because it's impossible to prove), and I don't think that anyone would/could put up a fair and good fight.

Barney

11.13.2019 12:21PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Con put everything into a weird Kritik about Jesus; maybe it would have gone somewhere had any part of pro's case been tied to religion. Anyway, no contest against pro's case for the absence of evidence means the claims which should be based on evidence are BS. Conduct for the disrespect of not showing evidence of having read pro's case (the religion angle, instead of anything tied to this debate).

DynamicSquid

11.13.2019 02:19AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

In this debate, we see Pro having supported his claims through actual science and facts, while Paul only supports his claims through non-concrete data. Enough eye witnesses is not a valid source of proof, as it could be easily explained otherwise.

Also Con said this:

"To mock big foot is to mock jesus"

Wut?