The Instigator
Prodebator
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Mr.Chorlton
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Are vampires real?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Mr.Chorlton
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/10/2015 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 636 times Debate No: 68099
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

Prodebator

Pro

Vampires are real. For one, Queen Regina or other used to bathe in blood, then started drinking it. There are also people that have pale skin and despise sunlight. Vampires aren't like the myth though, they are simply people that have habits of drinking blood, not frequently, but from time to time, and have pale skin.
Mr.Chorlton

Con

Vimpire as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary.[1]

"A corpse supposed, in European folklore, to leave its grave at night to drink the blood of the living by biting their necks with long pointed
canine teeth."

By very definition, a Vimpire is a mythical creature and therefore anyone who dresses and acts like one is just pretending.
The stories about Queen R started 100 years after death.[2]

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Debate Round No. 1
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Mr.Chorlton 1 year ago
Mr.Chorlton
Also after reading your vote comment I was mortified to see how I, twice, spelled Vampire.
Posted by Mr.Chorlton 1 year ago
Mr.Chorlton
Thank you Ragnar.
Valar_Dohaeris is angry with me for exposing that he has (at least) two accounts on here and is a vote cheat. Because of this he vote bombed me....his account has been closed now.
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
@Valar_Dohaeris
I find your vote highly flawed...
When the instigator at no point in a debate defines the terms, nor disagrees with the dictionary ones provided. To then vote against the contender on the sole basis of them having disagreed with the instigator's failed interpretation of the English language... Well in case it does not speak for itself, the harm that would be done were such standard voting policy is enormous. Basically to vote against the contender, if they disagree with the instigator... End result: Yay free wins any time you start a debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
ProdebatorMr.ChorltonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: In short, pro decided not to refute any points made by con (please keep 1 round debates in the opinion section), but S&G errors made by con really pop out in such a short debate. While sources were key to victory, I don't consider wiki to be of high value, and dictionaries I consider firmly neutral; both used well yes, but it's pretty hard to claim the source points on a 500 character debate.
Vote Placed by Valar_Dohaeris 1 year ago
Valar_Dohaeris
ProdebatorMr.ChorltonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro as the instigator has the right to define the debate he wants it. The most amazing part of this is cons argument. Con just challenges the definition of vampire while never contesting why it could not exist. Pro could have defined a vampire the same was as con. An animated corpse that walks the earth, and con would have agreed to the definition. Con logically did not challenge the flaw in this, which is dead people cannot live. HE just challenged the definition of vampire , without giving any premises as to why one would not exist.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 1 year ago
Zarroette
ProdebatorMr.ChorltonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's semantics rebuttal went unaddressed and was valid, thus arguments go to Con.