Point: Dragons are NOT cryptozoology
Question: Are dragons valid topics for cryptozoological consideration?
I can't believe you're even asking me this! Dragons are not valid topics for cryptozoological study for one very basic and obvious reason - they are imaginary. Indeed, most people would agree that dragons are the quintessential imaginary creature.
I see we might need to start with the basics. Cryptozoology is concerned with the investigation of cryptids - animals whose very existence is in question, but for which there is a large body of circumstantial evidence to suggest that they might, in fact, be real. The Sasquatch, more commonly known as Bigfoot, is the classic example. For decades there have been reports of sightings, footprints, hair samples, photographs, and even film footage of Bigfoot. This might all be nothing more than a hoax perpetuated by bored hikers and amateur filmmakers, but there remains the plausible possibility that there might really be some sort of large, hairy, and as-of-yet unknown creature living in the forests of the Pacific Northwest. Getting to the bottom of this conundrum is what cryptozoology is all about.
There have been no modern sightings of dragons. No evidence, even of the sketchiest nature, has been reported. No one has claimed to have taken the picture or shot blurry 8mm footage of a dragon. In short, dragons are not considered by cryptozoologists because there is nothing to consider.
Another problem with dragons is that they encompass a broad range of magical, mythical, and otherwise imaginary creatures. They are generally described as reptilian, and if that were their only defining characteristic, then this would not be an issue. In fact, there are lots of reptilian cryptids: giant anacondas in the Amazon, dinosaurs in the jungles of Africa, a whole host of lake monsters all over the world, just to name a few. However, what makes a dragon different from your average mystery reptile are its assorted fantastical qualities. These can include, but are not limited to: flight, fire-breath, speech, and the ability to cast wizard spells and polymorph into demihuman form. These very factors that separate dragons from their mundane brethren are what disqualifies their consideration for cryptozoological study.
Maybe you'd have better luck with religion or the occult?
To sum up, cryptozoology has more than enough animals to investigate that might be real, to bother concerning itself with that which is, by definition, imaginary. Now shut up and let me eat my lunch.
For a woefully inept Counter-Point, please pay poor, deluded ghsthckr a visit.
It will make him feel special.
I can't believe you're even asking me this! Dragons are not valid topics for cryptozoological study for one very basic and obvious reason - they are imaginary. Indeed, most people would agree that dragons are the quintessential imaginary creature.
I see we might need to start with the basics. Cryptozoology is concerned with the investigation of cryptids - animals whose very existence is in question, but for which there is a large body of circumstantial evidence to suggest that they might, in fact, be real. The Sasquatch, more commonly known as Bigfoot, is the classic example. For decades there have been reports of sightings, footprints, hair samples, photographs, and even film footage of Bigfoot. This might all be nothing more than a hoax perpetuated by bored hikers and amateur filmmakers, but there remains the plausible possibility that there might really be some sort of large, hairy, and as-of-yet unknown creature living in the forests of the Pacific Northwest. Getting to the bottom of this conundrum is what cryptozoology is all about.
There have been no modern sightings of dragons. No evidence, even of the sketchiest nature, has been reported. No one has claimed to have taken the picture or shot blurry 8mm footage of a dragon. In short, dragons are not considered by cryptozoologists because there is nothing to consider.
Another problem with dragons is that they encompass a broad range of magical, mythical, and otherwise imaginary creatures. They are generally described as reptilian, and if that were their only defining characteristic, then this would not be an issue. In fact, there are lots of reptilian cryptids: giant anacondas in the Amazon, dinosaurs in the jungles of Africa, a whole host of lake monsters all over the world, just to name a few. However, what makes a dragon different from your average mystery reptile are its assorted fantastical qualities. These can include, but are not limited to: flight, fire-breath, speech, and the ability to cast wizard spells and polymorph into demihuman form. These very factors that separate dragons from their mundane brethren are what disqualifies their consideration for cryptozoological study.
Maybe you'd have better luck with religion or the occult?
To sum up, cryptozoology has more than enough animals to investigate that might be real, to bother concerning itself with that which is, by definition, imaginary. Now shut up and let me eat my lunch.
For a woefully inept Counter-Point, please pay poor, deluded ghsthckr a visit.
It will make him feel special.