The Instigator
Con (against)
15 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
15 Points

Avatar is an amazing film

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/13/2010 Category: Arts
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,712 times Debate No: 10828
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (5)




Although the cg of avatar was good, the movie contained within it atrocious logic and realism problems.
Let me point out some examples:
1. Floating mountains are completely absurd
2. Runoff was coming off the floating mountains even tough there was clearly no ice or snow on top
3. In the final battle, the humans are retarded enough to fly through a canyon at like 25 mph when they could easily fly over the mountains and not be ambushed. Also the jet could fly a very high altitude and drop the bomb before the na'vi knew what hit them. Better yet, the space ship floating in orbit could drop a bomb or kinetic weapon from orbit.
4. Kevlar doesn't protect from arrows? The arrow is more blunt and is traveling slower than a bullet. Yet the Kevlar does nothing and the soldier is killed instantly.
5. The soldiers had sophisticated radar and could see the na'vi coming through the forest for some distance. If the soldiers had just blind fired into the forest, th Na'vi wouldn't have come close at all. Also what happened to snipers?
6. Machine guns just didn't do anything against larger animals. Those Rhino like creatures at the end of the movie would have gotten annihilated in a second by those huge .50 caliber machine guns the goliaths were carrying. Also the jaguar like creature in the beginning of the film doesn't die by machine guns.
7. It took way to many missiles to destroy that large tree where the Na'vi lived. It would have taken one or two bunker busters to destroy that tree.
8. Nature was supposedly conscious because of the neural network that was formed over the entire planet between trees and thus was able to save the Na'vi in the end. However because of the distances in this neural network, a conscious thought would be impossible because of ohms and signal degeneration. Also the speed at which a neural message would travel would take a long time to activate the targetted neural function.
9. Somehow all the creatures on the planet exist in a symbiotic relationship by connecting their neurons which evolutionarily is impossible.
9. Unubtanium is an unoriginal name.

Because of these gaping plot holes, I must disagree with the statement that avatar is an amazing film. It was mediocre at best.


I thank Con for this opportunity. To any readers - make sure you have either seen Avatar or don't plan to; there will be major spoilers below. I'll begin by laying out my burden.

I must either:
A) Provide positive aspects of the film that outweigh the presented negatives.
B) Counter Con's claims and provide positive claims that don't have to outweigh.

I will opt for a mix of both, providing positive aspects of the film and defeating Con's arguments.

Pro Case

1) Avatar is the second highest-grossing film of all time. Second to only the Titanic, it has already pulled in over $1,351,968,203 (> one billion dollars) [2]. It is one of only 5 films so far to break one billion dollars [2]. Being the number two film of all time, Avatar obviously fulfills the commercial goals of a movie - to make money. Indeed, it far surpasses the mediocre and almost defies the classification 'amazing'.

2) Avatar has received very positive reviews. At Rotten Tomatoes, the Top Critics reached a consensus of 94%, with 9239 of the site users following closely at 90%. Imdb users gave it 8.7/10 stars after 141,388 votes [5]. Yahoo movie critics awarded it an A-, and 34,052 users granted it an A [6].

3) Avatar promotes environmentalism. While Con derides Avatar for the unity it attributes to plant and animal life, this same unity is what contributes to one of Avatar's many underlying themes. Throughout the movie, the Na'vi educate Jake Sully on the beauty and importance of nature. In fact, towards the end, he even concedes to Eh'wa that the humans have already destroyed their planet, and to allow them to destroy Pandora would be a grave mistake. The movie, being set in 2154, sends a clear message of environmentalism.

4) Avatar promotes cultural understanding. Another underlying theme of the movie is the acceptance of diversity. The human mining colony on Pandora begins the movie with little understanding of the Na'vi. As the movie progresses, Jake Sully must weigh the importance of the Na'vi culture against the mining operations, and stand up to the culturally insensitive Colonel Quaritch (the antagonist). Apart from the two sides symbolizing environmentalism vs. industrialization, they also symbolize the need for respecting diversity. The conflicts between the mining colony and the natives stem from the indifferent attitude of the humans, and their perception that the Na'vi have neither wisdom nor technology to offer.

Con Case
I'll preface all of these rebuttals with the statement that Avatar is purely fictional. If Con believes that any form of unrealistic media is not amazing, then he is negating every work of fiction thus far created by man. The voter must keep in mind that Avatar is not meant to be a documentary, but rather is a work of science fiction.

1) "Floating mountains..."
The movie clearly states that there is a 'flux' and/or strong magnetic field surrounding the mountains. It is easy to extrapolate that whatever this flux field may be is holding up the mountains. Further, it is simply possible that they are held up by the force of Eh'wa. Finally, the composition of these floating mountains and that of the planet Pandora could easily be non-earth elements/compounds. It is already clear that Unobtainium, which does not exist on earth, exists on this planet. Other materials with strange properties could account for flotation.

2) "Runoff"
The runoff is easily explained by the water cycle. Water condenses in the sky on the mountains, then flows back down. It is possible that a dry season occurs where the water stops flowing as reservoirs refill. Also, Eh'wa could restock the mountains.

3) "[Final battle]"
A lot of the final battle was symbolic. It represented the clash between humans and the Na'vi, and thus had to be fought out. Colonel Quaritch is a military man with certain conceptions of justice. He makes it abundantly clear in the movie that he wants to defeat and disgrace the Na'vi. A discreet bomb run would not break their spirit, but a lost war would. Further, the mining colony did not seem to have bombers, and the planet is 5 years away from earth in space travel. Thus, spaceships are an impossibility. The humans had to protect their payload, which meant flying at the large ship's speed.

4) "Kevlar [vs.] arrows"
Just as Kevlar doesn't protect from being stabbed by a knife, it may not protect one from an arrow. The Na'vi possess superhuman strength, and have bones reinforced by carbon fiber. Their bows are much stronger than ours, and arrows carry significantly more mass. Their arrows compensate for lost speed with sheer weight. The Na'vi can fire with enough force to dent fiberglass (or whatever material is used in glass on the mechas and planes).

5) Radar Machine Guns/Snipers
While the soldiers did have radar, the large amount of trees and other foliage makes blind-firing a waste of ammunition. Most bullets would be stopped before reaching their targets. Snipers would likewise have trouble - finding a target amidst all the forest is more work than it's worth. Further, if the soldiers started blind-firing, the Na'vi could easily take cover and wait until they ran out of ammunition.

6) "machine guns [vs.] larger animals"
Again, the animals on Pandora are much larger and stronger than ours. Their bones are reinforced with carbon fiber. Elephant rounds on earth can go as high as a caliber of .600[1]. Pandoran animals have ridiculously thick hides, are extremely strong, and it is therefore plausible to believe that they would be unharmed when shot.

7) Na'vi mega-tree
Con provides no evidence here. The tree is large and reinforced on the inside.

8) Neural Network
The neural signal could easily be reinforced at certain destinations. Further, while all trees may be connected to a degree, they don't really have to communicate like your brain does to your body. They could simply exist as a linked colony of wildlife.

9 A) Neural Network Evolution
Neural networking is a huge evolutionary advantage. The ability for me not to just die a horse but become one with it allows both the horse and me to better evade predators and catch prey. The same applies to all animals that exist on the planet - their neuron interface allows for mores secure hunting and mating.

9 B) Unobtainium
The element was named by scientists, who are notorious for bad jokes. Acronyms in particle physics, for example, are either highly unoriginal, or painfully punny.

In summary, Avatar has received stellar reviews and great success. It promotes valuable messages, and is a great way to spend the weekend. Con's only problems with the movie stem from a misunderstanding of the science fiction genre.

Debate Round No. 1


Rebuttle to pro's arguments-

Responding to 1-

Although box office can be a good indicator of a good movie, it does not necessarily mean the movie is good. For example, Ice age dawn of the dinosaurs received a box office of $887,773,705 but rotten tomatoes gives it a 45%. Also many of the rated best movies of all time have received a small box office. For example, the Shawshank Redemption, which received a 9.1 rating on, only received a $28,341,469 box office. From this we can conclude that box office is not proportional to how good a movie is because in some cases it isn't.

Responding to 2-

AS for the ratings, it is easily possible that their ratings were boosted because of the cg in the film. It is likely that audiences would leave the theater thinking about how great the cg in avatar was and decided to go because the cg looked amazing. Although the sophisticated cg could be used by my opponent against me, cg alone cannot prove the quality of the movie. It is more personal taste that i find plot more important than cg.

Responding to 3-

I will suggest that the theme of environmentalism in the movie is paradoxical. The human race is clearly flourishing and is expanding . The humans are also developing substantial technologies such as the technology which could fix Jake Sully's spinal cord problems and develop the sophisticated avatars. The paradox is that the writers of the film suggest that humanity is flourishing and doing perfectly fine, in fact, better than ever without the environment (Because Jake Sully says that nature was destroyed on Earth) even though the director's intent is clearly to show the importance of environmentalism.

Responding to 4-
When we find other sentient beings in the galaxy, i will agree that this promotes a xeno cultural understanding. This movie could be considered unpatriotic on the other hand, because it attempts to show humanity as evil, cruel, and bent on destroying everything beautiful.

Rebuttal to Rebuttal-
1. Let us remember that this mountain must contain a sizable chunk of iron in the center for the mountain to be affected by the magnetic field, thus adding to the weight of the mountain because iron has a significantly higher g/mol than regular silicates. Think about probability now; The strength of the magnetic field would have to exactly equal the strength of gravity. What are the chances that this has happened? On top of that, if the magnetic field exactly counteracted gravity, gas giants have a powerful magnetic field (of course not powerful enough to lift mountains) and would constantly move and push away the mountains. We never see the mountains move at all. If the movie was realistic, these mountains would be flying around erratically as the magnetic filed changed. On top of this, the magnetic field would have to be super strong. The magnetic field of earth, which is relatively strong, could never float one of those mountains. The internal magnetic fields of Pandora would need to be at least a thousand times stronger because of the vast weight of the mountain. This is why we have no floating mountains on earth.

For their to be enough water to form a waterfall coming off the mountains, a large storm would need to constantly be raining on these mountains. However, no such rainstorm is constantly raining on these mountains.

3. The movie says that if the Na'vi stronghold with their god tree thing was destroyed, the Na'vi would become broken and scattered because they would lose faith in their nature god. Thus, a fast, explosive bombing run to annihilate that spot would destroy the na'vi morale and send many of their soldiers fleeing. This would have also have stopped their nature god from sending the animals to finish off the humans. And it would be ridiculous to make a jet that could not travel quickly and at high altitude. THe jet was the thing all of the gunships were trying to protect and did in fact exist. The jet is also the ship which carried the daisy cutter bombs.

4. For starters, we must remember that this movie is done in the future and thus the Kevlar would be more sophisticated and thus stronger. Also, Because the humans knew that the enemy used arrows, humans would have most likely used "multi-threat armor" which protects from piercing attacks and bullets. Plus we have to remember that in the film, the arrow got stuck in the kevlar and clearly did not penetrate far into the human. THe humans would have experienced a flesh wound and survived, not fallen down dead immediately.

5.You're right about the blind firing, it would have been stupid except right in the beginning when hey could have killed a couple of guys. AS for the snipers, the humans had radar and thus could see where the enemy was. You wouldn't have to look around much with a high magnification scope. Plus the scopes could be thermal and they could see the enemy from a long ways away. Plus many Na'vi were mounted and thus would have been much easier to spot.

6. The fact that the animals have carbon fiber bones doesn't matter too much because a significant amount of the animal is not bones. The humans were using machine guns and had an overall high percentage chance to shoot through an area without bone protection. Also, calibur doesn't represent the power of the gun. Its a ratio of m/s to calibur. The large guns the goliaths were holding and shooting with likely were .50 cal machine guns with 3500 m/s, easily enough to kill an animal with thick hide. I bet the goliath's machine guns were also equipped with fmj rounds or armor piercing rounds so that they could deal with animals bothering them at the mining sites.

7. A bunker buster penetrates reinforcement and strikes the foundation of an object. It would have annihilated the foundation of tree and taken it out very quickly.

Running out of characters so i won't talk about the other points which aren't too significant.
I would also like to point out the plot hole of carbon fiber as bones in this film-
carbon fiber is made by pyrolysis of synthetic polyester fibers is used to reinforce plastics to form advanced, lightweight composite materials. THe pyrolysis for carbon fiber is between 1500-3000 degrees celsius. For this to occur naturally, the carbon would need to sink below the surface of the planet, form into strands the way industrial machines do it, send the carbon down far under the surface towards in the deep mantle of Pandora and then send it back up as a low percentage graphite compound through some volcanic action. Thus, the carbon fiber would not be found abundantly on Pandora because carbon fiber is made synthetically. This is also why it is not abundant on earth naturally.

Ultimately, my opponent tries to defend a scientifically improbable situation.
excuse some of my poor grammar as i did not have too much time to write this with school. Finally I would like to thank con for engaging in an interesting and provocative dialogue with me.
logic and reasoning


ToastOfDestiny forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


1. Pro hasn't commented on the fact that the computer generated graphics boost the films rating. I ask the voter to consider whether he/she would go see avatar if it had very poor graphics. I would expect it would ruin the experience of the movie. My point is that you would not go and see the movie for its themes. Finally i will point out a film which has received great box office but poor reviews: Spider man 3. Spider man 3 made almost 900 million in box office (Wikipedia) but received a meta score from critics of 49%.

I quote from Rotten Tomatoes avatar is "more impressive on a technical level than as a piece of storytelling."

Next, As pro states, the film is apart of the science fiction genre. Wikipedia describes science fiction as "different from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature."

Furthermore, says that science fiction is "a form of fiction that draws imaginatively on scientific knowledge and speculation in its plot, setting, theme, etc."

Thus, being apart of the science fiction genre, the film must conform to the rules of the science fiction genre or otherwise be considered poor science fiction which would support my claim. Therefore, Ehwa is postulated to be a group of neural connections between trees as suggested by Dr. Grace Augustine. Since no ability of telekinesis (or any other force controlling ability) has been suggested by the film, ehwa's abilities which involve telekinesis are, within the context of the film, impossible. If telekinesis was postulated by the film, then wouldn't other creatures have that ability since they are evolutionarily liked? (With their neural connections). Also, even if Ehwa did have telekinesis, why would Ehwa spend energy lifting up mountains?

THe ultimate conclusion from this is that I am not comparing the movie with real world science, i am analyzing the movie with the relative postulated science of the movie. Therefore, everything which goes against the postulated science of the movie is considered a paradox and thus further degrades the quality of the movie. Finally I would like to say that many of the errors in the film are not just science errors, but logic errors which significantly degrade the quality of the movie.

Also anything not otherwise postulated by the film should automatically be considered with regular science. FOr example self evident things such as gravity).

Point 3-
I will point out that technology is directly proportional to a civilization success because of the rules of Technology and Society which says that "Technology and Society or technology and culture refers to the cyclical co-dependence, co-influence, co-production of technology and society upon the other (technology upon culture, and vice-versa). This synergistic relationship occurred from the dawn of humankind, with the invention of the simple tools; and continues into modern technologies such as the printing press and computers." Since it is not postulated otherwise in the film, we can assume this relationship is true. Thus, we can assme humanity is thriving because of its first rate technology and expansionist attitude. Expansion also equals a strong economy further proving my point of Furthermore to address the concerns about humanity which pro has suggested such as burning Jake Sully's brother's corpse without a considerate military funeral, I will ask the question: Is every civilization perfect?

To address all points about supply issues, the space shuttle has clearly made multiple runs to the mining site because of the vast amount of mining equipment, military hardware, and people we see in the film which makes this assertion postulated. As we learn, the humans have already made significant contact (sometimes militarily) with the aliens already and thus would know what they would need in order to protect themselves against the Na'vi and thus would request what they need by the next shipment. Pro also hasn't commented on my point about the kevlar being stronger and more sophisticated than contemporary kevlar.

@ Animals Getting Shot
I will point out a contradiction in the film further. The Puma in the beginning of the film which chases Jake Sully, takes multiple mg rounds from Jake Sully and does not die which postulates that the animals cannot die from bullets. It contradicts itself because the Puma is killed by the machine gun in the final battle which scientifically doesn't make sense in the context of the film. To address the larger animals, I urge the voter to consider the fact that these guns would be able to take down these larger animals since they would have had to clear man animals from the mining sites.

@ Blindfire/Snipers
Bullets are easily abundant if air, which the humans use a lot more of, is abundant.

@bunker buster-
The bunker buster would achieve the same result as the incendiary missiles--bringing down the tree.

Starwars is good science fiction because everything that is postulated is consistent throughout the film such as the force unlike avatar which has numerous contradictions between postulations.


I sincerely apologize for missing the last round - and Con has been accommodating enough to allow me to post my arguments in the comment section.

With that said, let's wrap this debate up.

1. Ratings
CGI can definitely boost a movie's rating, because above all else, a movie is a visual experience. Obviously a movie with horrible camera shots will not do well.

Con upholds Spiderman 3 as an example of a good movie, despite the fact that it is COMPLETELY impossible - a 'radioactive' spider biting Peter Parker and altering his DNA to the point where he manifests mass physiological changes is completely ridiculous. Also, the idea of the Sandman, and in fact any of the villains, defies expectation. This is going to be a huge reason to affirm this resolution - Con proves my point that science fact is not a necessary part of a movie's strength.

If Con is simply pointing out another high-gross, low rating movie, you can see my response that movies that score well in both categories are always good. Con has yet to show me a bad movie that grosses AND rates well.

Regarding the definition of science fiction - I have unearthed some interesting information. In an interview, James Cameron himself claims that Avatar was a work of "science fantasy, not true science fiction"[1]. Thus the movie is allowed to bend the laws of science every now and then, so long as it retains basic principles. Remember, the plot is not to be read like a textbook.

@ Flying Mountains
Ehwa is obviously providing a habitat for the Ikran (smaller flying creatures). Ehwa already has basic telekinetic abilities, and as a spirit force which can manipulate real-world objects (healing wounds, transferring minds), it is easy to extrapolate telekinesis.

Of course, every movie will have some plot holes, but I hope the voter will agree that none of them take away from the overall Avatar experience.

Finally, trying to apply regular science to the movie is foolish - the force of Ehwa has already been established, and blurs the boundaries between our science and the movie's principles.

Point 3
No civilization is perfect, and the movie illustrates that. It pits some of mankind's better individuals against some of its worst. Con attempts to apply a rule of technology and society to the film, and assume that it MUST be true because the film doesn't state otherwise. First, this is a complete non sequitur. We don't have to assume that whichever rules Pro wants to apply actually are applicable in a movie that already bends some rules. Second, technology =/= strong society. A dictator could easily wield technology to subjugate his people and force the development of new technologies.

HUman expansionism could just as easily be the human race trying to flee from an overcrowded or diseased planet. The Irish did not flee Ireland during the potato famine because they had a strong economy.

We don't know how long the mining colony on Pandora has been set up. It could easily have existed for only 30 years, which means not much more than 5 or 6 trips. Mining equipment just means that they had a large convoy travel to Pandora carrying the equipment at some point..

@ Animals Getting Shot
Shooting something doesn't necessarily kill it, and in all likelihood, Jake Sully missed a vital point in the first encounter (it is entirely possible that the animal died later on due to complications). The puma at the end of the movie is shot from the mecha's machine gun which is much larger than Jake's.

Clearing animals from a mining site doesn't involve killing them. I can chase neighboring children out of my yard with a broom without impaling them. Further, the appearance of large roaring spaceships, mechas, and helicopters is enough to scare animals away from a mining site. The large rhinos are not carnivores, and thus do not need to be killed.

@ Blindfire
The masks operate on a filtration basis - the humans don't carry oxygen tanks with them. Again, ammunition on the battlefield was limited.

@ Bunke Buster
Again, Quaritch wanted to be at least a little 'humane'. Bunker-busting the tree from the get-go would cause greater civilian damage, and thus he chose to gas them first. If the bunker buster would have the same results as the incendiaries, there is really no reason to prefer one over the other, and this point can be dropped from the debate.

Regarding star wars, the sheer number of different species in existence is completely improbable. If you've ever watched the movies, you know that there are thousands of different species of aliens. For that many species to arise in different living conditions and then get together under the same conditions is completely impossible, but my opponent looks pas these issues there.

What this debate comes down to is the fact that Con seems to have a personal beef with Avatar. As shown above, he accepted all the impossibilities of Star Wars and said that the movie was still high quality. However, the same creative liberties which made Star Wars great seem to detract from Avatar in his eyes. The key thing to remember is that after thousands upon thousands of people voted on IMDB, Yahoo Movies, and Rotten Tomatoes (see R1), the reviews were all extremely positive. Further, Avatar may break the 1 billion dollar mark, as it is still running in worldwide theaters. Thus, it has achieved and then surpassed the two goals of a movie: to make money, and to entertain audiences. The supposed scientific fallacies that Con points out are all creative liberties, and easily explainable even then.

Thank you, and vote Pro!

Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by serp777 6 years ago
B/A: Pro->Pro; Avatar wasn't an amazing film
S/G: Pro; I had some poor grammar and or awkward sentences
CA: Pro; Both positions were subjective, however con's postulation argument was not refuted.
S: Tied; Agree with toast
Posted by serp777 6 years ago
It was a fun debate, I wish there was another round! However, i would like to mention again that I am considering the postulated science and not the real science. Star Wars postulates its context and what i'm suggesting is that avatar does not follow its postulated scientific context.
Posted by serp777 6 years ago
It was a fun debate, I wish there was another round!
Posted by Koopin 6 years ago
I'm going to see this film on Saturday.
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 6 years ago
B/A: Pro->Pro; Avatar was an amazing film.
C: Con; not only did Pro drop a round, but Con allowed him to post in the comments.
S/G: Pro; easy to see.
CA: Pro; Con's position was subjective, and he never really refuted the statistics.
S: Tied; I'm tempted to go Pro here, but Con did cite sources.
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 6 years ago

Points 1+ 2

I'm going to group point 1 (box office) and point 2 (ratings) together in addressing my opponent's arguments.

While I agree that a movie can make a lot of money but still be worthless (read: Alvin and the Chipmunks), and that good movies can fly under the radar, movies that do well in both factors fit the category "amazing". A movie that simultaneously makes hundreds of millions and receives extremely positive ratings is far from mediocre. I challenge Con to provide me with a movie (apart from the one in contention) that is successful in both spheres but remains mediocre.

Further, my opponent agrees with me that Avatar is at the very least visually appealing.
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 6 years ago
Point 3
Con tries to point out a paradox in the film, citing mankind's prosperity as a contradiction to the theme of environmentalism. While humanity has, in the film, reached heights technologically, there is no evidence to suggest that humanity is ‘thriving'. In fact the opening scenes of the movie show us all the problems that humanity faces. First, it is clear from the conduct of the soldiers that we have not overcome our tendency to discriminate. Second, wars continue and are just as horrific, as evidenced by Colonel Quaritch's stories and Jake's loss of his legs. But the greatest problem that humanity faces is overpopulation.

I ask the voters to think hard back to the opening scene, where Jake is asked by the government to visit Pandora. He calmly witnesses his brother's cremation in a steel furnace, as opposed to a military funeral. His brother is placed in a small chamber, and the viewer witnesses two impersonal jets of flames incinerate his remains. The entire scene is carried out with impunity, as if it is a common occurrence.

Point 4
The movie does not portray humankind as selfish – it shows us a slice of the population. Granted, some of them are selfish, but a key number (Jake, Sigourney Weaver's character, their pilot conspirator, Jake's friend with the frizzy hair etc.) are pro-Na'vi. The entire point of the movie is the struggle between these two sides: one that does not value culture, and one that does. There is no indication that a majority of the species buys into cultural hatred.
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 6 years ago

@ Floating Mountains
Perhaps magnetic fields are improbable, but given that we have the mystical force of Ehwa on Pandora, he/she/it/they could easily levitate the mountains.

@ Waterfalls
Again, a dry season could allow mountains to restock on water.

@ Final Battle
Pro has dropped my arguments concerning Quaritch's code of honor – that he prefers a direct battle to subterfuge.

Nevertheless, the jet carrying the bombs was a slow-moving behemoth that could not make a high-speed run.

@ Kevlar v. Arrows
Remember, these people are isolated on a planet that is a 10 year round-trip from earth. They would not be able to easily supply themselves with ‘multi-threat armor'. Further, the arrows in the movie are poisoned with a particularly toxic substance, and could easily cause quick death. Remember, the Na'vi are much, much stronger and larger than humans, and can impart far more velocity on far larger arrows. Remember that in the year 2134 humans don't really have to worry about arrows on Earth, so probably wouldn't be prepared.
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 6 years ago
@ Blindfire/Snipers
Remember, the humans are isolated on this planet, and if they run out of bullets on the battlefield, they lose. While snipers could have taken out a few individuals, I doubt they would have changed the tide of the battle.

@ Animals Getting Shot
Granted, the puma-like animals would have gone down (and did) when shot. But if we look to the large (very large) rhino-like animals, they have ridiculously thick hide. Elephants and rhinos on earth don't even compare. These animals are largely peaceful, and probably wouldn't be a problem at the mining sites.

@ Bunker Buster
Again, Pandora is isolated, and they probably wouldn't had bunker busters. Further, Quaritch didn't want to kill the Na'vi at that time. He opted with the ‘humane' path of gas followed by incendiary missiles.

@ Carbon Fiber
Pandora has a completely different geology and structure. Remember, this is a planet with Unobtainium, which doesn't even exist on Earth. It is clear that the chemical processes there are different than those here. Further, the force of Ehwa could easily grant animals carbon fiber – it is present in the physiology of all animals, and is a property of the environment.

Finally, I can defend a scientifically improbable situation because we are debating a *movie*. Con completely drops the fact that we're talking science fiction not science fact. This movie, just like Star Wars with its ridiculous multitude of races and presence of humans, Slumdog Millionaire with its impossible coincidences, and Harry Potter with the entire idea of magic, is made to entertain, not inform. Because the strength of a movie is ultimately based on its entertainment value, and the fact that the majority of people loved it, I urge a pro ballot.
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 6 years ago
Thanks for your understanding! I'll type them in reverse order so if you read from the top down it's continuous.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by serp777 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:41 
Vote Placed by dpflames786 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Demauscian 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by ToastOfDestiny 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:14