This is a pretty fundamental set of things to cover, and my half-assumption is by Newbie that you are a complete newb in reading this. If not, you've likely become familiar with the following never-ending debates already. But we'll run through them anyway.
Pro vs No Kill: Simple stuff, some will claim that killing one is the only way to solve this, and just as stubbornly some will dig in their heels and say that killing one is just wrong. The premise of the debate is whether or not this will yield a specimen and solve the mystery and gain federal protection for the beast. The problems lie in whether or not the Pro Kill crowd wants the body for science or as a trophy, and for theother side it seems to boil down to what the creature actually. Is it merely a great ape, is it a proto human, or something all together unique.
Armchair vs. Field Researcher: Arm Chair verses the Field, or simply do you go out and look yourself, or do you spend the day on the internet debating the subject and just reading about it? The demeaning school of thought on Armchair folks is that that is essentially all they do, sit on internet forums and argue all day, in fact some actually have done some very constructive things. One person has a collection of old newspaper clippings from obscure news sources that provide information on much older sightings you might not otherwise find. Another constructed an overall sightings map of the sighting reports collected by all the Rsearch groups, AIBR, BFRO, SRI, etc... there are some of the ARmchair guys who would be better described as Data Miners, and as such they contribute to the cause. The Field Guys on the other hand are more straight forward, these are the expeditioners, the Night Oppers, and the Witness interviewers. Arguably an Armchair person can interview a witness as well over the phone, but it's always been my opinion that a direct look at the area the sighting occurred will always give a clearer picture.
Skeptic vs. Believer: Skeptics and believers are pretty simple to, you either have an open mind to the existence of sasquatch or you don't. The key in balance is criical thinking and you still see a range of variation in this debate as well. Believers vary from those who believe but need to see it for themselves to those whom others might find downright gullible. Skeptics can run the same gambit, the range being those who are skeptical but open minded given proof, to those who simply enjoy the subject to those who are out to save all of us squatchers from our own inherent gullibility. An unfortnuate side effect of this debate that I have witnessed over the years is the "need" to believe. There are some who misguidedly considered skeptics the enemy and lose sight of the prize in doing so. The minute that everyone with a dissenting opinion from yours becomes the enemy the frankly bigfootery becomes a cult.
Flesh and Blood vs. Paranormal: Within the bleiever camp there also is the debate over what Sasquatch actually is; is it flesh and blood or is it something supernatural. The majority opinion seems to favor the flesh and blood option but there have been some rather flamboyant folks in the past who were the paranormalists. The reason I suspect most favor the Flesh and Blood option is that it gives you something tangible, if ssquatch were to turn out to be something paranormal than all the methods used to date to search for the creature are then frankly useless and I dare say a great many egos get scratched along the way.
The Celebrities: This is a varying subset of the Bigfooter population and the folks who make it up are also varying. They range from the scientist types, Meldrum as an example as well as several folks who frequented Monsterquest and similar shows. But they can also be other alleged experts such as Kathy Strain or Rick Noll, but also would include for the sake of infamy, Tom Biscardi, likely the most well known hoaxer out there. Sooner or later if one becomes familiar with the world of bigfootery you will become familiar with these names, and those who follow them.