Bigfoot can't and doesn't exist due to the lack of evidence and no fossil records supporting it.

"I shall remind him that he once also couldn't post an argument in a round and if that were to happen on his last round it would've been voted against him" --> You're right, it would've been counted against me if by the end of the debate I failed to refute an argument. This same logic applies to my opponent; I simply pointed out which parts he has failed to address for the voter's and perhaps even his convenience/sake. ~Counterarguments~ 1. Impact on culture "Of course, it has no merit on the validity of it's existence" ... "The impact of culture that Bigfoot had supports the possibilities that it exist" These are quoted from my opponent and are obviously at contradiction. Bigfoot's impact on culture can't have NO MERIT on the validity of it's existence and at the same support the POSSIBILITY IT EXISTS. My opponent has admitted that Bigfoot's impact on culture has no merit, and thus he has conceded this point unwittingly. His recurring point about laws being made about Bigfoot is irrelevant: they aren't proof for Bigfoot's existence in reality, only in people's mind. 2. Eyewitness accounts "We don't always use scientific evidence to prove everything we believe in such as God, afterlife, religions, and creationism." --> We would call those people IGNORANT. "We don't see God, but most people think that it exist. " --> We would call those people IGNORANT. "We have never seen macroevolution..." --> We would call people who say this IGNORANT. My opponent states other people have witnessed Bigfoot. Doesn't matter, as my opponent and I have stated, eyewitness accounts are not scientific evidence. Ergo, he unwittingly concedes this point. 3. Native American artifacts "My opponents failed to refute that the "Bigfoot phenomenon" was not organized by a group of hoaxers as a long term hoax operating over a 150 year time span, and all across the United States and Canada." I wouldn't think that it was possible or the hoaxers would have extremely intelligent to fool modern scientists." --> Because that was never my point to begin with. If you intend that to be a counterargument, I'd HAVE TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT RELEVANT TO THAT. It's common sense, and why you brought it up is questionable. People mis-identify many animals numerous times. It depends on so many factors, like the time of the day, the climate, how far away the animal is, how fast it was, how long you saw it, etc. 4. Scientific evidence A. Footprints My apologies for missing the part my opponent posted about footprints and inconsistencies, it seems he enjoys playing the "my opponent didn't refute so so" game along with me. Let me go ahead and destroy his argument with his own cited source from Round 4. Not only does http://www.csicop.org... give a clear picture on the right handside of the page of a common example of a mis-identified Bigfoot track, it has references to back it up; no baseless claims. In rebuttal to his claim that toes with 2-6 excluding 5 are mostly hoaxes, but the ones with 5 toes are real. What my opponent doesn't realize is this makes it an even HARDER case for him to prove, since not only are 5-toed tracks easy and logical for hoaxers to recreate, but it shows that any other "wacky footprint" one may present can be thrown away, since by my opponent's own standard Bigfoot has 5 toes. This would NOT be an argument against me, since it still stand that it can be hoaxed. My opponent has effectively dropped all other arguments and rebuttals concerning Footprints. B. Hair and Blood Most BIGFOOT samples are either faulty, doesn't have the root, or is inconclusive. The REASON for being inconclusive is because of the lab not containing samples of every animal in the world, but only the ones native to its country/region. This is a point my opponent fails numerous times to refute. The rest of my opponent's argument is just a new argument, completely dropping all other ones. How in the world would the "difficulties of hunting Bigfoot" be an argument for it's existence? This is just a bizarre argument, and a moot one. D. Absence of fossil evidence You know, it's quite suspicious when the website my opponent commonly cites has no references...anyway back to the argument at hand. Not only does the link my opponent gave show Ohio having a fossil bed, in his OWN argument my opponent refutes himself: "Notice how much fossils are found in the forest of Ohio and in the Northern Pacific where Bigfoot are likely to exist." And lastly, when did Animals know how to bury their dead as my opponent claims? If they did, wouldn't that HELP fossils come up?! Similarly so, my opponent has dropped his point about Gigantopithecus and the mandibles of primates. EVEN if he was correct that it is difficult for Bigfoot to be found in fossils, it STILL doesn't mean this is an argument FOR the existence of Bigfoot. If I had used the absence of fossil evidence as an ARGUMENT, then this would've been valid as a COUNTERARGUMENT, but I never posed it and ergo this whole argument fails at the seams. E. Nobody looks for Bigfoot remains except Bigfoot researchers This has been and still is NOT AN ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF BIGFOOT. My opponent is basically committing the appeal to authority fallacy, by stating since some respectable scientists pursue a career in Bigfoot, this is evidence for Bigfoot's existence. F. Cryptozoology and opinion So what? This is NOT AN ARGUMENT FOR BIGFOOT's EXISTENCE. Heck, I never even stated that cryptozoology is a worthless effort (though methodologically many of them fail), so this is once again a bizarre and pointless argument. ~Conclusion Not only has my opponent dropped and failed to refute countless argument along the way of this tediously long debate, he constantly digresses and brings up new and useless information. Particularly, his last few argument are total muck, and I have refuted even his reasonable ones. As my opponent has stated, "there is no concrete evidence, such as a specimen, that Bigfoot exists". The circumstantial evidence he states points to NOT ONLY hoaxes, but mis-identifications; of course something he fails to refute. In conclusion, my opponent's point utterly fail, and thus you should vote for PRO if you haven't died from reading all this by now. ===Points my opponent failed to refute/dropped=== *Dropped point about impact culture unwittingly *Dropped point about eyewitness accounts unwittingly *Failed to refute point about Native American artifacts being circular *Failed to refute point about Gigantopithecus *Failed to refute point about primate mandibles *Failed to refute other points about Footprints i.e. hoaxers, mis-identification *Failed to refute point about labs containing samples only for native animals