Instigator / Pro
7
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Topic
#3499
BIGFOOT is BULLSHIT
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
oromagi
Tags
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 month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
4
1527
rating
14
debates
39.29%
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. Donald Trump's testimony and opinion is never a reliable source of information.
4. For all relevant terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the rational context of this resolution and debate
Round 1
Pro
#1
Thanks, christianm, for accepting this debate.
THBT: NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS the EXISTENCE of a LARGE YET UNDISCOVERED PRIIMATE SPECIES EXTANT in NORTH AMERICA
I. PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
- 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 evidence for their existence, even species that went extinct tens of thousands of years ago.
- fossil records
- 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 for bigfoot have been tested purporting to be one of the above, no evidence of a North American primate or unique primate DNA has ever been confirmed.
II. PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE
- 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. ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE
- There is no scientific evidence or fossil evidence for any native 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. SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS
- 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 no compelling evidence for Bigfoot has withstood rigorous inquiry. Bigfoot is not just unproven as a species of very large primate living secretly in North America, the evidence also strongly argues that the continued secret existence of such megafauna is unlikely to a compelling degree.
PRO looks forward to CON's R1 argument.
Con
#2
Thanks to my opponent for accepting this debate.
In my opening, I will make two arguments for the existence of Bigfoot. The first is that he exists as an idea. The second is that it is almost certain that Bigfoot exists in an alternate universe. Note, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that the question before us merely asks if Bigfoot exists at all, with no further specifications.
1. Bigfoot exists as an idea
This argument can be formatted as follows:
I. The existence of Bigfoot is an idea
II. Ideas exist
III. Therefore, Bigfoot exists.
Bigfoot as an idea has inspired a movie of the same name [1]. Furthermore, the very existence of this debate proves that the idea of a hairy, upright-walking, ape-like creature exists in the minds of many people, including my opponent. But to argue that the idea of Bigfoot exists, we must also establish that ideas do exist.
First and foremost, the existence of ideas is self-evident. Without the idea to create this debate, my opponent never would have initialized it in the first place. Inches exist, even though the classification of distances into units is simply a man-made concept. Numbers exist, even though they are simply concepts in the mind. Ideas, such as stories and designs for objects, can be patented and copyrighted [2]. Note that if someone writes a story, it is the idea that is being copyrighted, not just the physical paper and ink. Someone could type the story in another language, and this would still infringe on the intellectual property rights of the author.
According to Merriam Webster Dictionary, an idea can be defined as follows [3]:
an entity (such as a thought, concept, sensation, or image) actually or potentially present to consciousness
Since human consciousness exists and humans can have original thoughts, ideas themselves must exist.
From a purely sophistic point of view, ideas are the only thing that exists for certain. Objects themselves may be illusions, but our perception of the world is self-evident.
2. Bigfoot exits in an alternate universe
There are many things we cannot directly observe that we know must exist. The multiverse is one of these things. It has also been determined, from a wide range of scientific evidence, that the universe meets extremely specific criteria required for life [4]. Specifically, the existence of planets and of the heavier elements, required for life, relies on the gravitational constant fitting within a very narrow range of values.
The multiverse hypothesis explains why this would be. Specifically:
The idea that underlies it is that, if there is a sufficiently diverse multiverse in which the conditions differ between universes, it is only to be expected that there is at least one where they are right for life.
If such a near-infinite number of universes exists, it is almost definite that Bigfoot exists in one of them. Specifically, if a near-infinite number of universes is sufficient such that one of them allows life (out of pure chance), it is almost certainly sufficient such that Bigfoot exists in one of them. A comparison could be made to the analogy of millions of monkeys with millions of typewriters, in which eventually, out of the vast number of monkeys (or universes), a creature meeting this debate's definition of Bigfoot must eventually exist.
Therefore, Bigfoot exists both as an idea in the mind and as a tangible object somewhere in an alternate universe.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Thanks, christianm-
THBT: NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS the EXISTENCE of a LARGE YET UNDISCOVERED PRIIMATE SPECIES EXTANT in NORTH AMERICA
PRO
I. PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
- CON has made no counterargument
II. PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE
- CON has made no counterargument
III. ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE
- CON has made no counterargument
IV. SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS
- CON has made no counterargument
CON
In my opening, I will make two arguments for the existence of Bigfoot. The first is that he exists as an idea. The second is that it is almost certain that Bigfoot exists in an alternate universe. Note, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that the question before us merely asks if Bigfoot exists at all, with no further specifications.
That's quite false. The description of this debate clearly stated that 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." VOTERS should note those specifications as agreed to by CON via acceptance of this debate and CON's apparent failure to read the rules. CON should review these specifications now and adhere to specification agreed in further rounds.
Both of PRO's arguments fail to be substantive or testable evidence. Both of PRO's arguments are strictly conjecture.
COUNTER 1. Bigfoot exists as an idea
This argument can be formatted as follows:I. The existence of Bigfoot is an ideaII. Ideas existIII. Therefore, Bigfoot exists.
CON's major premise is false. Ideas do not exist.
CON uses Mirriam-Webster's fifth sense of the word to define IDEA as:
5a: an entity (such as a thought, concept, sensation, or image) actually or potentially present to consciousnessb: an indefinite or unformed conceptionc(obsolete) : an image recalled by memory
Since human consciousness exists and humans can have original thoughts, ideas themselves must exist.
1a: the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence
For something to exist, it must be outside of the human mind. Beyond human thought, beyond just ideas, that is what actually distinguishes existence from nonexistence, by definition.
First and foremost, the existence of ideas is self-evident.
Opposite. Santa Claus is an idea but Santa Claus does not exist. Ideas, by definition, do not exist.
Inches exist, even though the classification of distances into units is simply a man-made concept.
Inches do not exist. Wiktionary defines EXISTENCE as "Empirical reality; the substance of the physical universe." But an inch is not physically real- one cannot hold an inch, it is only an abstract figure applied to something that exists.
Numbers exist, even though they are simply concepts in the mind.
Numbers do not exist. The number two has no substance, no empirical reality. You cannot experience four. You can only experience four of something that exists.
From a purely sophistic point of view, ideas are the only thing that exists for certain.
I'll remind VOTERS that Mirriam-Webster's definition of SOPHISTIC is "plausible but fallacious." Wiktionary's definition of SOPHISTICAL is "Fallacious, misleading or incorrect in logic or reasoning, especially intentionally."
PRO and CON agree that PRO's argument is fallacious, specifically the informal fallacy of proving too much.
"In philosophy, proving too much is a logical fallacy which occurs when an argument reaches the desired conclusion in such a way as to make that conclusion only a special case or corollary consequence of a larger, obviously absurd conclusion. It is a fallacy because, if the reasoning were valid, it would hold for the absurd conclusion"
For example,
I. The existence of a zombie apocalypse is an ideaII. Ideas existIII. Therefore, the zombie apocalypse exists
I. The impossibility of bigfoot is an ideaII. Ideas existIII. Therefore, the impossibility of bigfoot exists
CON doesn't mean "all ideas exist" he only means "some ideas exist" and begs a special case for BIGFOOT.
CON's major premise is proven false because existence is only outside of consciousness and ideas are only inside of consciousness. and so, CON's conclusion, Bigfoot exists stands disproved and fallacious.
COUNTER 2. Bigfoot exits in an alternate universe
There are many things we cannot directly observe that we know must exist.
Not in science, there ain't. Scientific knowledge must be observable and testable.
The multiverse is one of these things.
That's false. The multiverse is only a hypothesis without even a plan for testing its possibility, much less demonstrating any results. We have no idea whether a multiverse must exist or is even plausible. Paul Davies advises:
"Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence, it requires the same leap of faith."
From a strictly rational perspective, the multiverse is belief not knowledge, faith not fact.
It has also been determined, from a wide range of scientific evidence, that the universe meets extremely specific criteria required for life .
That's not science. A standard based on exactly one instance is not a criteria worth crediting as scientific or specific. We only know of one instance of life coming into being and we don't even well understand how that one happened. Good science would not pretend that we know about the potential for life in universes we cannot even detect or prove as existing.
If such a near-infinite number of universes exists, it is almost definite that Bigfoot exists in one of them.
So it will be incumbent on CON in round two to establish as fact that a near-infinite number of universes exist or else withdraw this statement as mere unfalsifiable speculation.
A comparison could be made to the analogy of millions of monkeys with millions of typewriters, in which eventually, out of the vast number of monkeys (or universes), a creature meeting this debate's definition of Bigfoot must eventually exist.
"The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type any given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare. In fact, the monkey would almost surely type every possible finite text an infinite number of times. However, the probability that monkeys filling the entire observable universe would type a single complete work, such as Shakespeare's Hamlet, is so tiny that the chance of it occurring during a period of time hundreds of thousands of orders of magnitude longer than the age of the universe is extremely low (but technically not zero). The theorem can be generalized to state that any sequence of events which has a non-zero probability of happening will almost certainly eventually occur, given enough time."
All CON is conjecturing here is that IF we, on some future day prove that near-infinite multiverses do exist THEN there is a non-zero chance that some universe might have a sasquatch in it. Let's agree that if any scientist or explorer brings to our universe some authenticated physical evidence or specimen of BIGFOOT discovered within one of those parallel universes before voting commences on this debate, that might then be the first bit of substantive, testable evidence will have presented. As for now and otherwise, the existence of BIGFOOT in other universes remains entirely unproved.
PRO looks forward to CON R2.
SOURCES:
- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idea
- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/existence
- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/existence
- https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/G5eMM3Wp3hbCuKKPE/proving-too-much
- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sophistic
- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sophistical
- https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/G5eMM3Wp3hbCuKKPE/proving-too-much
- https://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/12/opinion/a-brief-history-of-the-multiverse.html
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
Con
#4
Thanks to my opponent for his response. I'll deal with the two major premises of this debate, since it's been narrowed down to my two arguments from the opening.
The description of this debate clearly stated that 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."
It should be noted that neither of my arguments are based on conjecture. Conjecture refers to a conclusion reached without sufficient evidence [1]. The existence of ideas is testable since everyone has them. The existence of a multiverse is based on testable evidence -- namely, the gravitational constant of the universe and its unlikely value.
1. On the existence of ideas
My opponent raises Merriam-Webster's definition of existence, which reads "the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence" [2]. Note that the definition does not say only independently of human consciousness. If things could only exist independently of human consciousness, there would be no need for the word "especially" -- in fact, the inclusion of "especially" implies that things can exist solely in the mind -- namely, ideas. If I said, "I like ice cream, especially chocolate ice cream," this would not imply that I only like chocolate ice cream.
My opponent has dropped the argument from copyright -- namely, why can complex ideas be copyrighted if they don't exist? If fact, what is being copyrighted?
My opponent links to Wiktionary's definition of existence [3]. This same source uses the sentence "In order to destroy evil, we must first acknowledge its existence." Evil is not a physical object but is a product of physical objects -- human actions, in particular. In fact, evil cannot exist if thoughts don't exist. My opponent ignores this however and provides the definition:
Note first and foremost that he ignored the other definition given by the source, "The state of being, existing, or occurring." Ideas occur, so again my opponent has contradicted himself with his own source. Second, people having ideas is an empirical reality. They also exist in the brain, which is a physical entity. That Bigfoot is an idea can be proven from physical objects (such as books) that mention the concept [4].
The zombie apocalypse and Santa do in fact exist as ideas. Otherwise my opponent wouldn't be discussing them at all. The modern idea of Santa was created by William Gailey in 1821 [5]. If Santa doesn't exist, then the question "Who came up with the idea of Santa Claus?" should have no correct answer, and anyone could take credit for it.
My opponent states that numbers don't exist but uses numbers throughout his opening argument. For example, he states "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." If numbers have no empirical reality, then neither does my opponent's argument. In fact, if numbers don't exist then neither do words, since both are concepts used to express ideas.
I stated "From a purely sophistic point of view, ideas are the only thing that exists for certain." I meant to say "solipsistic," so that's on me. Solipsism states that the existence of one's own mind is the only thing that can be known to exist [6]. Objections to the theory generally don't dispute that minds do exist, so one way or another, ideas (and minds) must exist.
2. On the existence of the multiverse
I stated, "There are many things we cannot directly observe that we know must exist." My opponent responds:
Not in science, there ain't. Scientific knowledge must be observable and testable.
Electrons exist [7] even though none has ever been photographed. My opponent's argument could therefore be used to reject the existence of electrons as well. Furthermore, macroevolution has never been observed directly, but scientific evidence can be used to corroborate it [8].
My opponent continues with an argument from authority from Paul Davies. This comes from an opinion article in the NY times [9], which is behind a paywall. For all we know, Paul Davies never said anything of the sort, and even if he did, the opinion of one physicist amounts to conjecture, the very thing my opponent was railing against earlier.
My opponent agrees with the typewriter scenario so long as the number of universes is near infinite. Therefore, it is the existence of the multiverse ( a near-infinite number of universes) being debated.
My argument for the multiverse can be summarized as follows:
I. The universe that we observe holds many necessary and unlikely values for specific constants necessary for consciousness
II. The multiverse is the only scenario in which our observable universe would hold extremely unlikely values for these constants
III. Therefore, the multiverse exists
My opponent does not reject the first premise and only slightly addresses the second. He instead argues the definition of science, arguing that "We only know of one instance of life coming into being and we don't even well understand how that one happened." But we do know of some requirements for life, which require extremely specific values for universal constants. For example [10]:
The strength of gravity, when measured against the strength of electromagnetism, seems fine-tuned for life (Rees 2000: ch. 3; Uzan 2011: sect. 4; Lewis & Barnes 2016: ch. 4).The difference between the masses of the two lightest quarks—the up- and down-quark—seems fine-tuned for life (Carr & Rees 1979; Hogan 2000: sect. 4; Hogan 2007; Adams 2019: sect. 2.25).
All that must be said to confirm the second premise is that life in this universe alone would be extremely unlikely. Life existing in a multiverse would be infinitely more likely.
My opponent states:
All CON is conjecturing here is that IF we, on some future day prove that near-infinite multiverses do exist THEN there is a non-zero chance that some universe might have a sasquatch in it.
According to the definition of the monkey typewriter scenario given by my opponent, "The theorem can be generalized to state that any sequence of events which has a non-zero probability of happening will almost certainly eventually occur, given enough time." Similarly, with a near infinite number of universes, the existence of Bigfoot is almost certain.
Round 3
Pro
#5
PRO:
- Per RULE#3, no new arguments are permitted in R3.
- Therefore, by ignoring the whole of PRO's case, CON has conceded the affirmative in its entirety.
CON:
- CON apparently concedes his prior claim that "the question before us merely asks if Bigfoot exists at all, with no further specification."
- CON now acknowledges his responsibility to provide substantive, testable evidence (not mere anecdote and conjecture) but regrettably continues with "just having any idea of something is proof that something is real" and "every something ever is real in some undiscovered universe."
It should be noted that neither of my arguments are based on conjecture. Conjecture refers to a conclusion reached without sufficient evidence.
"Without sufficient evidence" is a very accurate description of both of CON's arguments.
C1:
The existence of ideas is testable since everyone has them.
The existence of BIGFOOT is not proven by just thinking of BIGFOOT, as CON here claims.
My opponent raises Merriam-Webster's definition of existence, which reads "the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence" Note that the definition does not say only independently of human consciousness. If things could only exist independently of human consciousness, there would be no need for the word "especially" -- in fact, the inclusion of "especially" implies that things can exist solely in the mind -- namely, ideas. If I said, "I like ice cream, especially chocolate ice cream," this would not imply that I only like chocolate ice cream.
- If you said "I like ice cream, especially independently of any chocolate flavors of ice cream" that would be mean more than just implication, you would have explicitly stated that you do not like chocolate ice cream, right? Why edit that word INDEPENDENTLY out of Miriam-Webster's definition unless you are trying to tamper with VOTER's understanding of the definition?
- Likewise, Mirriam-Webster is explicitly separating that which has being in reality from that which only has being in the human consciousness.
- Per Mirriam-Webster, the idea of BIGFOOT is not evidence that BIGFOOT is real.
- Let's recall the context of this debate is CREDIBLE EVIDENCE that SUPPORTS the EXISTENCE of X in NORTH AMERICA.
- Is the IDEA of something and ONLY an IDEA of something CREDIBLE EVIDENCE that SUPPORTS the EXISTENCE of that something in NORTH AMERICA in any rational context?
- For example, if CON contacted the FBI and stated that he had credible evidence that Russian spies exist in the White House and then gave testimony before a grand jury that Russian spies exist in the White House because the IDEA of Russian spies exists in his head, would that be considered credible evidence? No. Likewise, CON's idea of BIGFOOT should not be considered proof of the existence of such a primate in North America.
- For example, does the rational mind accept the mere idea of God as substantive, testable evidence that God must exist?
- CON argues that because the IDEA of [Bigfoot, Santa Claus, inches, zombie apocalypses, numbers] exists in the human consciousness, that must be credible evidence that supports the substantive existence of [Bigfoot, Santa Claus, inches, zombie apocalypses, numbers] in NORTH AMERICA.
My opponent has dropped the argument from copyright -- namely,
- Not so. PRO assumed that the argument as applied to Bigfoot, Santa Clause, inches, zombie apocalypses and numbers was sufficient to explain the irrationality of CON's argument and felt that extension of the same argument to further examples might be overkill.
- CON ignored PRO's affirmative entirely but then made a fuss when PRO skipped his sixth example of a single concept. Really?
why can complex ideas be copyrighted if they don't exist? If fact, what is being copyrighted?
- They cant. Ideas may not be copyrighted because, ideas don't exist, objectively.
- The US Government advises:
- "Copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something. You may express your ideas in writing or drawings and claim copyright in your description, but be aware that copyright will not protect the idea itself as revealed in your written or artistic work."
- The US Govt. does not protect ideas because they cant: ideas are not tangible- they have no substance in the real world.
- That is why there is no Copyright in existence for Bigfoot, Santa Clause, inches, zombie apocalypses, and numbers: they have no substance, these ideas by themselves have no existence outside of human consciousness- those ideas can be expressed or manifested in the real world but the idea itself is not that expression or physical manifestation.
Note first and foremost that he ignored the other definition given by the source, "The state of being, existing, or occurring."
- Let's remember that RULE #4 asks that definitions fit within the rational context of this resolution and debate. The "empirical reality" of BIGFOOT is far, far, more relevant to "substantive, testable" evidence for BIGFOOT.
- Let's note that CON ignored many definitions of IDEA by Mirriam-Webster that destroy his case, including:
- " an indefinite or unformed conception"
- "a transcendent entity that is a real pattern of which existing things are imperfect representations"
- That is, CON's chosen definition of IDEA defines ideas as distinct entities from "existing things."
people having ideas is an empirical reality
- Yes, people are real, ideas are intangible
They also exist in the brain, which is a physical entity.
- Brains are physical. Ideas are not.
That Bigfoot is an idea can be proven from physical objects (such as books) that mention the concept
- Books about Bigfoot exist. CON has mistaken this fact for evidence that Bigfoot exists.
Ideas occur, so again my opponent has contradicted himself with his own source.
- In fact, CON chose Merriam-Webster as our source.
"Who came up with the idea of Santa Claus?" should have no correct answer, and anyone could take credit for it.
- In fact, "Who came up with the idea of Santa Claus" has no correct answer and many, many people are owed credit for that idea, from Nicholas of Bari to Clement Clarke Moore The idea of Santa Clause is not copyrightable because the idea itself does not exist.
In fact, if numbers don't exist then neither do words, since both are concepts used to express ideas.
- CON does not seem to grasp that the expression of an idea is not the idea itself. One cannot experience or touch or locate the number 4. Observing 4 birds in the bush is not the number four coming into existence, as CON supposes but the application of a human abstraction to an observation for organizational and quantitative purposes. Four birds are not four. Four birds can exist but the number four cannot.
Solipsism states that the existence of one's own mind is the only thing that can be known to exist
- Let's agree that CON's solipsism disqualifies CON from describing "commonplace understandings that fit within the rational context of this resolution."
- How can CON hope to speak with any authority on the objective reality of any man or beast given such a perspective?
- BIGFOOT is real to CON because CON (and only because CON) imagines BIGFOOT.
- The rest of us must rely on more rigorous tests of our environment to discover what is real and what is bullshit.
C2:
Electrons exist even though none has ever been photographed.
- Science does not always require photos but Science does require observation. Electrons are observed via radio telescope imagery of radiated energy.
macroevolution has never been observed directly, but scientific evidence can be used to corroborate
- Hence macroevolution is still considered a theory and not an empirical fact until grand scale evolutionary change can be repeatedly observed
- PRO's assertion that good Science draws conclusions without substantive observation stands disproved
My argument for the multiverse can be summarized as follows:I. The universe that we observe holds many necessary and unlikely values for specific constants necessary for consciousnessII. The multiverse is the only scenario in which our observable universe would hold extremely unlikely values for these constantsIII. Therefore, the multiverse exists
- So, for example, if the gravitational constant was much weaker, stars would not shine, if much stronger stars would burn out before life could evolve.
- CON supposes that these constants are unlikely because we humans don't know of any physical laws that might dictate such constants.
- CON's is God of the gaps theologizing here: "we don't understand what makes gravity constant, therefore an infinite number of universes with different constants must exist."
- PRO asserts with the exact same degree of evidence that there could just as easily be physical laws we don't yet understand that make such constants likely or even inevitable.
- "For consciousness" is anthropocentric bias. Zero evidence suggests that the universe was created for human consciousness.
- Thanks, christianm, for accepting this debate and
[Infinite monkeys] can be generalized to state that any sequence of events which has a non-zero probability of happening will almost certainly eventually occur, given enough time
- But CON must do more than speculate that BIGFOOT might eventually exist is some undiscovered universe.
- CON must show evidence that BIGFOOT exists NOW in NORTH AMERICA.
- In that task, VOTERS should find that CON relied entirely on two clichéd conjectures often rolled out when the evidence is scant or in the case, non-existent.
- Thanks christianm and
- thanks to all VOTERS for their kind consideration!
- Pls VOTE PRO!
- SOURCES in COMMENTS
Con
#6
Thanks to Pro for his final argument. Most of his third-round objections are based on assumptions I already debunked in the second round.
Bigfoot as an idea
CON apparently concedes his prior claim that "the question before us merely asks if Bigfoot exists at all, with no further specification."
I never conceded this. Con simply repeated the description of the debate, which states:
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."
In case you didn't see, sources for R2 are in the comments.
In fact, this supports my argument. The description simply asks whether Bigfoot "presently exists." This definition is the only reason Pro provided to argue against my point, and I showed in R2 how my arguments do in fact use substantive, testable evidence, thus meeting the definition.
If you said "I like ice cream, especially independently of any chocolate flavors of ice cream" that would be mean more than just implication, you would have explicitly stated that you do not like chocolate ice cream, right?
No. It just means you like other flavors of ice cream more. If someone didn't like chocolate ice cream, they would use a different term, such as "I like ice cream, but not chocolate." See how that sounds much less awkward? The statement "I like ice cream, especially independently of any chocolate flavors of ice cream" makes it sound like you like all ice cream but prefer other flavors than chocolate. Saying, "I like ice cream, but only when I make it at home" is different than saying "I like ice cream, especially when I make it at home."
Pro's is using "especially" synonymously with "only" when the words clearly mean different things.
if CON contacted the FBI and stated that he had credible evidence that Russian spies exist in the White House and then gave testimony before a grand jury that Russian spies exist in the White House because the IDEA of Russian spies exists in his head, would that be considered credible evidence? No.
The FBI deals with tangible cases, so contacting them implies that the Russian spies exist tangibly. Contacting an author who deals with stories and saying, "You should kill Bob" would not be evidence of murder if Bob was a character in a story they were writing. Bob exists in the story just as Bigfoot exists in stories and in the mind.
Another point that Pro mentions here is whether Bigfoot exists "in North America." Since Bigfoot exists in the minds of people in North America, and believers of Bigfoot believe in the concept of Bigfoot living in North America, one way or another, Bigfoot exists as a concept in North America. Also, due to the near-infinite number of universes, there would almost certainly be an alternate North America where Bigfoot exists. This was meant to be implied since existing in North America is an obvious criterion for this debate, but I'll clarify it here.
Ideas may not be copyrighted because, ideas don't exist, objectively.
Pro argues that the US govt does not protect ideas, but this mainly comes down to the multiple ways in which the word "idea" is used. What the passage from Pro's source [1] means is that simple ideas for a story or ideas for a product can't be copyrighted on their own. This is clearly implied because the same source states:
Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture.
If copyright protected ideas, it would protect all ideas, no matter how simple. But since an idea is just a formulated thought [2], dramatic works themselves simply represent complex ideas. Speeches can be copyrighted even if they are only performed and not written down [3]. Note that speeches are only a collection of words or ideas. It only "exists" in the mind but still exists nonetheless as it can be copyrighted. This is really the core of my argument, as it explains why Bigfoot exists as well.
Let's remember that RULE #4 asks that definitions fit within the rational context of this resolution and debate. The "empirical reality" of BIGFOOT is far, far, more relevant to "substantive, testable" evidence for BIGFOOT.
My definitions are completely rational and are based on the definitions used by Merriam-Webster. Rejecting these definitions in favor of personal preference would be far more irrational. Furthermore, the existence of ideas is substantive and testable. The concepts and arguments you're reading right now are being understood by your mind, proving the existence of concepts and ideas. I agree that brains are physical and ideas are not, but the existence of brains helps establish the existence of ideas. Ideas are what the brain does. Running exists even though running is not a tangible object. Legs are the tangible object that help prove the existence of running.
The idea of Santa Clause is not copyrightable because the idea itself does not exist.
The idea of Santa Claus does not have a clear owner, as mentioned in both our sources. But it is copyrightable and the concept of "someone getting credit" is certainly very real. Santa is copyrightable in the same way that Batman or Spiderman are copyrightable [4], and would have been copyrighted if the US govt could assign credit to someone shorty after the idea was conceived. Santa isn't under copyright due to logistical reasons, not because characters can't be copyrighted.
CON does not seem to grasp that the expression of an idea is not the idea itself.
No, but both exist. If words don't exist, then Pro's argument is just a bunch of pixels on a screen that don't mean anything.
Four birds are not four.
But if "four" doesn't mean anything substantive, then why call them "four birds"? Surely calling them "two birds" or "three birds" would be just as accurate.
Let's agree that CON's solipsism disqualifies CON from describing "commonplace understandings that fit within the rational context of this resolution."
Let's not. I never claimed to be a solipsist, I only argued that solipsists have established a clear reason for why ideas must exist, and objectors argue that more things exist, not that ideas don't exist [5].
The Multiverse
Electrons are observed via radio telescope imagery
This imagery observes the effect of electrons, not the electron themselves [6]. Just like how the gravitational constant we observe being such a precise value is the effect of a massive multiverse.
Macroevolution is still considered a theory and not an empirical fact
If the subject of this debate was macroevolution, the side arguing in favor of macroevolution would have an easy win. The resolution states that "CON must provide substantive, testable (not mere anecdote and conjecture) evidence." Nothing in the resolution argues that I must establish Bigfoot as a fact, just that I must provide evidence that Bigfoot is more likely to exist than not.
CON supposes that these constants are unlikely because we humans don't know of any physical laws that might dictate such constants.
But if a physical law did exist that dictated such a constant, the chances of it dictating the constant to the precise values required for life are still infinitesimally small.
CON's is God of the gaps theologizing here
It's true that we shouldn't assume one conclusion when many conclusions are equally likely. However, Occam's razor [7] states that simpler explanations are more likely. If you hear your mother calling you, it's not God of the Gaps to assume that the person is actually your mother. Occam's razor would argue that you shouldn't suspect that the Terminator is impersonating your mother's voice. Clearly, the first conclusion is the obvious one.
Note that Pro does not provide an alternative explanation for these constants. They don't provide one that is more likely or even one that is equally likely. That's because the multiverse is the simplest and most likely explanation by far. It also fits with our current understanding of physics. The reason our planet and solar system seem fine-tuned for life is that they are one of many planets and solar systems, and the one with life is the one we are observing. As I stated before, if a physical law did exist that dictated such a constant, the chances of it dictating the constant to the precise values required for life are still infinitesimally small. An unlikely event becomes more likely the more times it occurs. Something as rare as a UUID collision requires 2.71 quintillion UUIDs to be generated [8]. Human life would require an even greater number of "attempts" so to speak, or rather universes within the multiverse.
"For consiousness" is anthropocentric bias. Zero evidence suggests that the universe was created for human consciousness.
I never argued that the universe was "created" at all. But the fact that we observe a universe at all is much greater with a greater number of universes.
CON must show evidence that BIGFOOT exists NOW in NORTH AMERICA.
The scientific theory of the multiverse argues that many universes exist at this moment. That is, the version of the multiverse more consistent with our understanding of physics does not posit that universes exist one at a time. It posits that a near infinite number of universes exists at this moment [8] [9]. The idea of one universe existing after another has been soundly rejected [10]. Furthermore, for there to be time and space for these other universes relies on the B-theory of time, which holds that all points in time always exist [11]. For these reasons, the multiverse theory holds that Bigfoot exists at this moment.
Sources in comments.
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:
Pro builds a five tiered case that BF is BS, which has no direct challenge.
Con offers two kritiks to the topic, neither of which actually challenges if BF is BS.
PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE, ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE, and SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS all went unchallenged.
If ideas exist, does not prove that the ideas are not BS. Thus we default back to the balance of the evidence, which was unchallenged.
The multiverse hypothesis is neat, but does not challenge anything within the universe (particularly North America) to which this debate is happening.
This leaves the debate a foregone conclusion. To quote the voting policy: "someone who never advances their case beyond obvious non-sequiturs, or commits the not even wrong fallacy regarding the resolution, has also not earned detailed analysis beyond pointing that out. I.e., sufficiency goes both ways, a debater must first offer a sufficient argument for sufficient consideration to occur."
Were this debate to have a title such as "Bigfoot has no existence" then con would have a good case for a type of existence. Similarly, were the debate that it would be impossible for Bigfoot to exist, then the multiversal angle would be topical.
Let us see if bigfoot itself is bullshit or the claim bigfoot exists is bullshit.
Hmmmmmmmmm
Let us vote at some point.
Exists as an idea, that is interesting
Let us see if bigfoot itself is bullshit or the claim bigfoot exists is bullshit.
Hmmmmmmmmm
Let us vote at some point.
That is definitely a good idea
Three days left to vote!
All votes are appreciated
Fingers crossed
Your complaints are nearly meaningless when you are not casting better votes.
It is not surprising to observe the level of incompetence engrained within the single vote casted for this debate, given knowledge of the individual responsible for its content.
Tiny nitpick:
I disagree with your assessment that con in any way conceded. Dropped points are not the same as a concession; even if the impact should be similar due to the magnitude in this case.
Lol
Oh my
Nice job, Christian! I hope to see more from you!
Just realized the category for this debate is religion lol
CON sources for R3
1. https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#what_protect
2. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idea
3. https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/copyright/1024374/copyrightability-of-public-speeches-in-the-usa#:~:text=Speeches%2C%20if%20written%20beforehand%20(in,17%20of%20US%20Code%20itself.
4. https://screenrant.com/characters-public-domain-disney-copyright-lobby/#:~:text=Batman%20was%20created%20in%201939,for%20a%20few%20years%20after.
5. https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2018/11/26/descartes-i-think-therefore-i-am/
6. https://www.britannica.com/science/radio-telescope
7. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Occams-razor
8. https://www.scaleyourapp.com/uuid-guid-oversimplified-are-they-really-unique/#:~:text=As%20per%20Wikipedia%2C%20the%20number,second%20for%20about%2085%20years.
8 (accidentally repeated number). https://www.livescience.com/multiverse
9. https://www.space.com/31465-is-our-universe-just-one-of-many-in-a-multiverse.html
10. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/10/08/no-roger-penrose-we-see-no-evidence-of-a-universe-before-the-big-bang/?sh=1d37cc0f7a0f
11. https://iep.utm.edu/time/
PRO's SOURCES for R3:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/existence
https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#what_protect
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idea
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Clarke_Moore
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocentrism
Citations for Round 2:
1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conjecture
2. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/existence
3. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/existence
4. https://www.amazon.com/Devolution-Firsthand-Account-Sasquatch-Massacre/dp/1984826808/ref=asc_df_1984826808/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=475689874762&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=6892943880128181777&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9021476&hvtargid=pla-1081014801543&psc=1
5. https://lapixa.com/who-owns-santa-claus/
6. https://iep.utm.edu/solipsis/
7. https://www.britannica.com/science/electron
8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6428117/#:~:text=These%20successions%20in%20the%20fossil,in%20the%20past%20billion%20years.
9. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/12/opinion/a-brief-history-of-the-multiverse.html
10. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine-tuning/#:~:text=4.-,Fine%2DTuning%20and%20the%20Multiverse,alternative%20beside%20the%20designer%20hypothesis.
And oromagi worships dictionaries.
"Définissez les termes, vous dis-je, ou jamais nous ne nous entendrons." -Voltaire
There is no dictionary on earth that defines the word "bigfoot" as in any way equal to "bovine excrement".
And oromagi worships dictionaries.
Rumors say that bigfoots are just wookies. Maybe Chewbacca has been trampling feet for years and we don't know.