@Carrotbae

No, I don't have any proof. Still, I'll argue with you until I don't have any other way to argue. Really, everything you've said is true. However, I'll point out that blood doesn't necessarily have to be the creature's only food supply. Perhaps they are just some kind of abnormal canine or something like that, limited to small populations.

To be honest, though, part of the reason why I've stuck so fast to the idea that such creatures do exist and phenomena such as this does occur is because of its parallelism to livestock mutilation cases worldwide. They are also drained of all blood, but with much more extensive injuries. I'm sure you're familiar with it. Animal mutilations and alleged chupacabra attacks both have common explanations handed out which I don't believe fit quite right. Whether it be vampire bats and mangy coyotes or government tests and ordinary predation, I can and will come up with something, however insignificant or inconcrete, to dispute whatever typical appearances there may be about such events. I understand that what the opposite side says makes just as little sense, but, because it's just a theory, we can tweak our understanding of that side until it matches something that truly could explain such things as these. The difference between what I'll accept and what I won't is marked only by what the people say they saw and what makes the most sense. Chupacabras are probably impossible, but I will not accept the alternatives.

Now, the loonies who happened to be at the right place at the right time all concur about certain details. This could be widespread insanity, but surely we'd start hearing of cases that didn't match up with others' descriptions. With the chupacabra, people see one of two things - that Hollywood-movie-type monster or something that could easily be mistaken for something else - and with livestock mutilations the same number of options (namely, helicopters and UFOs, which is always a delight to hear in my field). There should be a lot more proof than there is, but there isn't. I haven't any clue why people don't rush to have their animals tested. That's another incongruity. But if it isn't any of this, then what is it? Give me anything that would account for these sorts of things, and I'll tell you why, for me, they aren't feasible. From there, you can choose whether or not to agree with me.


@Magyak101

Ah, but I doubt you'd turn to alien-associated stuff like I just did. :)

Oh i didn't mean you I meant the others

Carrotbae--

I read all that you've said, and I puzzle over it, and I think about it. And I think, "This is all sensible. Surely it must be accurate?" but I can't ignore that little tiny gnawing in the back of my mind, telling me you're wrong. And I read and I wonder and finally, I've figured it out.
All of this makes perfect sense. But you are forgetting one thing.

"What if?"

ho * looks around to make sure nobody heard her*

Except I cannot argue with you if I have I do not have something to argue against. So I will cease to argue with you on the facts of *in my mind* unrealistic creatures. Since you have no proof El Chupacabra is real, I bid you good bye.

Well, all right. Thanks for the debate, even if my side was severely lacking.

They seemed to become a little abrupt in the end...
but it's not really my place to say that.