Instigator / Pro
14
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
6
0
Better sources
4
2
Better legibility
2
1
Better conduct
2
0

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

oromagi
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
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
3
1337
rating
26
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

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).

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?