It is most rational to believe there is a 'Bigfoot'

I am glad you still support the Con position as I need you to keep it for the remainder of the debate to have someone to argue with. Since my opponent hit on this briefly so shall I but with a non-wikapidea source http://www.truthorlie.com... There statistics are indeed much higher than wikapidea indicates. The question you should ask yourselves is would the reasons for inaccuracy be present in the Bigfoot witnesses? I wish to point out that I was not trying to make much out of dissenting scientist, but dissenting professional scientist. I am aware that amateur's without any name recognition would very quickly leap for the opportunity to dissent from common view as it is their best shot at gaining recognition. But professionals mostly only have reputation to lose for doing so. My opponent for some reason thinks the fact that GB would be a land mammal living fossil would matter. that the large reptiles would not count http://en.wikipedia.org... And has pointed out that large creatures would definitely leave much trace like footprints, fur and such witch he has already admitted there being and claimed are not evidence though. I could try defending the soft evidence twice but instead I would like to point out just because it is big does not mean it will not remain elusive. Once a escaped tiger was loose in the city and remained under the radar for a week. One of numerous existing land mammals traits is there knack for stealth. If it doesn't want you to see it you will not. There's a Native American game I learned in scouts that best illustrates this point. the game is designed to teach stealth so one can best hunt game like dear. One person is chosen to be the dear and they stand on a stump in the woods somewhere where they are playing and they turn there backs every so often and count to 3 at minimum before turning. the rest of the players must close in close enough to attack while the player on the stump has turned around. If he spots you and points you out you are out of the game. One would think that it is key to have something to hide behind to remain elusive to the one on the stump but in fact there has been times when a player remained in clear sight of the one on the stump but they weren't caught because they remained perfectly still. inches away and they didn't catch any notice because of how still they were. Hidden behind nothing. For many animals stealth comes so naturally that you wont likely see them unless they want you to. Fur can be left but it remains possible that it could just be that of a coyote its uncounted, just like if I was looking for a bear where I live and find bear feecies I cant count that as evidence, it could be that of a raccoon, whose feecies is very similar. Also since this hasn't been brought up yet the more recent of video footage of it has been dismissed at large as a bear with mangy; I believe this does a fair job at showing how this doest fit with this footage very well. http://www.bfro.net... My opponent dismisses the assessment of the Cripplefoot tracks as complex and too elaborate for hoaxers because Krants is being 'arrogant'. Even if it is arragent for him to assume there are no others out there who can add this detail to fake tracks other than himself does not negate that fact that the tracks are elaborate. My whole point with these tracks is how are we to relate what they are to motive? Pranksters are not elaborate and there motives are for spooking there friends when camping. If one is a prankster leaving tracks just in principle is not the method you would use. If you where determined to prank your friends while camping and left tracks you would discover disappointment when its time to leave and no one even looks down to notice your hard work at making a real looking Bigfoot footprint. then there's the attention seeking motive my opponent proposed witch I also refuted as no one has gained any attention from this except the supposedly fictitious creature itself. That leaves conspiracy theory. My opponent has been evasive with admitting this alternative because he does not fancy himself a conspiracy theorist. But I am afraid that is all that is left for you when speaking of motive for such a 'hoax'. Old man Jenkins is clearly trying to keep us off his land! The belief in this belongs on cartoons not when discussing Bigfoot for real. And my opponent must feel the same as he will not claim to believe the conspiracy. But that is what is indicated when we refuse to call it real. The immensity of this same lie is exemplified even more by my opponent when he brings up the Yeti and various other 'Bigfoot' all over the world. this takes some organization to to pull that off. people imaginations are not going to come up with same thing everywhere by accident. the same prank is not going to be pulled so vastly different lands since before these lands interacted on accident. Are we to take the weak position that it was 'coincidence'? if there is one thing you have noticed with anything my opponent or myself has said about how Bigfoot could or could not exist is that either way is truly a possible reality. But at the end of the day when the matter isn't ultimately resolved without doubt what are you going to believe. Its most rational to pick on that is an explanation and that absence of explanation. calling all this coincidence is just an absence of explanation, to actually try to explain how this 'Bigfoot lie' has happened all over the world for a very long time among people who have never seen monkeys other than this one takes a conspiracy theory quite vast. or you could just accept the explanation that uses facts we know about in science to understand how it exist if it does exist. Occams razor would have us take the one with least assumptions. http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor you could make one assumption, that its real, and find an explanation is possible with a few more assumption. or you could make an assumption for ever person you call liar, deluded, that otherwise have come of as good sane people, the assumption that there's a boogieman out their making footprints to sustain a myth to get the best of people who he will never meet or trying to keep you off his land, ect, ect.. Are you hesitant to believe there is a Bigfoot because the creature is so fantastic sounding? open your eyes and see that the Earth is full of non cryptozoolgical creature even more fantastic to learn of than this one. Are you hesitant because the thought of it existing scares you? carry a gun, I think you can take it, plus bears can be as scary as this creature. Fantastic should not be considered to equal unrational. However paranoid conspiracies should.