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

[Definition - Bigfoot] Bigfoot is described in reports as being an ape between 6ï¿½€"15 feet (1.8ï¿½€"4.6 m) tall weighing in excess of 500 pounds (230 kg) and covered in dark brown or dark reddish hair. http://www.merriam-webster.com... ~Counterarguments~ 1. Impact on culture. Argumentum ad populum. Just because tons of people believe in Bigfoot, doesn't validate it's claim at all. Eyewitness accounts are unreliable and untestable; there's no way we can go back in the past and the same location they were and repeat such sightings. Anecdotes have no place in science, and thus eyewitness accounts should only be used as a clue for something to prompt scientists to search for. It's true that many eyewitness accounts are similar in some ways. However, many times this would be the case that Bigfoot may be some mis-identification of some other animal, they are either hoaxes, or self-fulfilling prophecies. 2. Scientific evidence "But I disagree. There is evidence that Bigfoot existed, including eyewitnesses." --> So don't bring up the point about the geocentric model, or the possibility of evidence of Bigfoot appearing. They are irrelevant points if you assert there is ample evidence for the existence of Bigfoot. **As a side note before I tackle all his "scientific evidence" for the existence of Bigfoot, I would like to comment that I ask of my opponent to not copy paste his arguments directly from Wikipedia. They are all from the search "Evidence regarding Bigfoot" and a simple side-to-side analysis shows my opponent simply copy pastes them. What is even MORE intriguing is that in the context of the paragraphs he copy-pastes, he actually leaves out sentences/phrases that DEFENDS MY SIDE. I will demonstrate in the rebuttals.** A. Native American artifacts Native Americans and other past indigenous tribes of America have commonly identified animals and natural phenomena into their folklore and culture. For example, they depicted lightening as a great big yellow bird that would screech through the sky as it flew. Numerous tribes have what you would call "artifacts of Bigfoot". However, each differ in their own respective ways. For example, the Lummi was told throughout members, but the diet and activity of their "version of the Bigfoot" differed. Some native people would report about skoocooms, cannibalistic men who terrorized their villages. However, animals such as the skoocooms were shown to be supernatural, unlike other supposed artifacts proving Bigfoot. [2] It's common for native tribes back then to identify numerous animals as being "larger-than-life". However, it does not prove to be, as you would say, circumstantial evidence for Bigfoot. In the context of your argument, using the renowned anthropologist Roderick Sprague, he himself in the same paragraph you copy-pasted stated "that this does not necessarily support Bigfoot's existence". [3] This is the same for many anthropologists who looked into this Bigfoot case. Many times, the relics or artifacts show connections to many other things, such as monkeys or other primates; none ever making a connection to Bigfoot. Finally, this argument is at best circular. Legends of Sasquatch came before modern sightings such as the infamous Patterson-Gimlin film. Stories of Sasquatch came from artifacts and legends such as these indigenous tribes, and to use them as evidence for Bigfoot is circular. B. Footprints This is hilarious. Right after this lengthy paragraph my opponent took from Wikipedia, he left out the last sentence: "However, anthropologists David Daegling and Dan Schmitt were able to create many different patterns of pressure ridges by walking with a complaint gait." HAHA I think that speaks for itself. So you see, the footprints were and COULD be created, as demonstrated by the convenient line my opponent left out. Also, in rebuttal to the stride remark: "Krantz, himself, reported an instance of a high-school hoaxer creating 8 feet (2.4 m) long Bigfoot strides up a steep slope by strapping fake feet on backwards and running down the slope." [4] So in fact, it IS possible once again to replicate Bigfoot gaits and footprints. The funny thing is when dealing with hoaxers, they are quite inconsistent. Models have been found with toes ranging from 2 digits to 6 digits, an irregular and unaccounted for fact. C. Hair and blood Of course, another clear instant of leaving out important lines. All the sampling and analysis my opponent shown examples of gave the same result: inconclusive. This is because they have no set to compare with, but the bigger thing is that when DNA came along (I actually saw this on History Channel), the "evidence" given Pinker was concluded to most likely be from a black bear. The same with all other samples; they are either some of bear, primate, or human, or inconclusive. They are inconclusive usually due to the sample being not well preserved and damaged. In fact, a hoaxer can bring a sample NOT indigenous to North America, therefore making the possibility of the lab IN North America having the needed set being low. [5] D. Absence of fossil evidence Yeah, once again, he left out important information. True, fossils are rare. However, we have many fossils of primates and chimpanzees and other animals IN the conditions such as tropical rain forests where the possibility of getting a fossil is very low. Yet, we have tons of fossils from said forests, while Bigfoot seems to nowhere. [6] E. Nobody looks for Bigfoot remains Okay, then go find some fossils. Come back when you have some. F. Crytozoology and opinion Then get yourself out this muck. GO GET EVIDENCE. ~Conclusion~ The view amongst the scientific community is justified, because of the numerous hoaxes, lack of evidence, and the improbability of Bigfoot: such a large primate, living in North America in areas not suitable for apes who normally live in Asia and Africa tropics. My opponent's evidence has been shown to be lacking and disproved. I have shown how using the same Wikipedia link, he has singled out phrases and lines that would disprove his pseudo scientific Bigfoot pal. Sounds like a Creationist tactic. ---References--- 1. http://www.csicop.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. http://en.wikipedia.org...