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

Arguments: 1. Impact on Culture *It seems that my opponents thinks that it is my fault that I ran out of characters. 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: http://www.debate.org... Bigfoot had impacted on culture as my opponent noted. Of course, it has no merit on the validity of it's existence, but it gives people ideas that it might exist. Dragons, unicorns, vampires, and werewolves have impacted on culture, but no one claims that they exist. The impact of culture that Bigfoot had supports the possibilities that it exist and it is also why Bigfoot fall onto cryptozoology in the first place. Throughout the country and the world individuals, politicians, and organizations have fought to gain legal protection for imaginary monsters of all shapes and sizes. Sometimes they've even been successful. Only Skamania County and few other places makes a law regarding Bigfoot, because many people are unsuccessful in passing bills that become laws regarding Bigfoot. Source: http://www.grist.org... 2. Eyewitness accounts We don't always use scientific evidence to prove everything we believe in such as God, afterlife, religions, and creationism. We don't see God, but most people think that it exist. We have never seen macroevolution, but most scientist thinks that it exist. Bigfoot may have came from Native American stories, but apart from the Native Americans' long tradition of the Sasquatch, white men exploring the North American wilderness confirmed the existence of the creature: http://paranormal.about.com... So there were people seeing Bigfoot before they got evidence from Native Americans artifacts. 3. Native American artifacts The bulk of the rest of my argument basically states that stories of Bigfoot provide evidence that the Bigfoot phenomenon is not culture specific, meaning it is not a mass hallucinations since mass hallucinations don't jump cultures very well. 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. My opponent also fail to refute that sighting report frequencies and the distribution of the geographic place names associated do not correlate well with human population density. Therefore, I shouldn't concede my argument that eyewitness accounts are evidence even if they are not scientific evidence. How can you misidentify Bigfoot for other creatures, when their are no native primates in North America or at least no animal that looks like Bigfoot for that matter? You can say that people have misidentify it with brown and black bears, but if you look at both of them, you can see that they don't have a strong resemblance to Bigfoot. By the way, Bigfoots are typically 7-10 feet tall, weighing 500-800 pounds: how many men do you know that are, at the least, 6 and half feet tall weighing 300 pounds? This is obviously assuming the witnesses are accurately describing the size of the creatures. * I include sightings in part of "Native American artifacts," because the legend of Bigfoot may came from Native Americans and that their artifacts were derived from their sightings. 4. Scientific evidence *It may be my fault I ran out of time, but it isn't my fault that I ran out of characters, or was it? A. Footprints There are no footprints that looks like Bigfoot. The website that you cited: http://www.csicop.org... gave no information that false footprints are found to be footprints of another animal. More often, footprints are hoaxed then misidentified if any. My opponent failed to refute that most alleged Bigfoot tracks have five toes, but the hoaxes are the ones that show inconsistency and variation. B. Hair and Blood What website tells you that most samples are faulty? All the evidence are inconclusive because there is no universally accepted standard for which is right or wrong. However, if they invented a computer containing all samples of every known specimen known to man, then they would have a better chance to get better evidence for Bigfoot. But there is a way to have an accepted standard for Bigfoot's DNA: if we shoot or kill one. But we can't because poaching is hunting in disregard of hunting laws. In most states, a hunter can be arrested and prosecuted for poaching merely for being equipped to hunt animals not specifically permitted in that season. Other factors why a hunter hadn't shot Bigfoot are: 1. A sighting or encounter is more likely to happen when the person sees a Bigfoot before the Bigfoot sees the person. 2. Dogs have never smelled Bigfoot before, reducing the possibility of training it to follow its scent. 3. There aren't many people who regularly, or even occasionally hunt for Bigfoot with the intent to kill one. 4. It is unlawful to merely carry a rifle in most forests during most seasons of the year. 5. The geographic restrictions of the forests alone reduce the odds substantially. 6. The rarity of these animals combined with their own elusive habits also lowers the odds drastically. Source: http://home.nycap.rr.com...? D. Absence of fossil evidence Regions like eastern Ohio which have poorly drained soils clay produce extremely fragile bones if any. The clay contributes to a low pH acidic and prevents water from easily percolating out of the soil and evaporating. The acidic soil/water increases the rate of mineral leaching. Therefore, it is not likely to find a fossil in those areas. The places that have fossils are: http://en.wikipedia.org... Notice how much fossils are found in the forest of Ohio and in the Northern Pacific where Bigfoot are likely to exist. Other reason why we never found a fossils are: 1. They bury their dead. 2. They conceal themselves before death, and the remains are therefore hidden. 3. Scavengers eat the remains. Source: http://home.nycap.rr.com...? E. Nobody looks for Bigfoot remains except Bigfoot researchers. Some credible academic scientists have spent some time examining the phenomenon, some becoming more convinced of the reality behind the phenomenon, and some becoming more skeptical of the reality behind it as time passed. It's a pretty courageous thing for any academic scientist who depends on his or her reputation for credibility, to stick their neck out and suggest that Bigfoot is real. No scientist is willing to go further than that and risk the loss of credibility by speculating about the possible existence of Bigfoot. Source: http://home.nycap.rr.com...? G. Cryptozoology and opinion In the last 200 years, we have found the Mountain gorilla, coelacanth, megamouth shark, and the Hoan Kiem Turtle (originally thought to to be a local legend and classified as a cryptid). Therefore continuing cryptozoological efforts is not worthless and they're the only way we can discover new species that are unusual to us. Conclusion: My argument for this round sums up as follows: though there is no concrete evidence, such as a specimen, that Bigfoot exists, the circumstantial evidence for the existence of Bigfoot out weighs the idea of a continental hoax.