The Instigator
ricksterpr0
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
AlexanderOc
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Batman ( with no armor, gadgets or weapons) could defeat Bruce Lee in a fist fight.

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 5 votes the winner is...
ricksterpr0
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/16/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,365 times Debate No: 59066
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (5)

 

ricksterpr0

Pro

Here is the scenario

Batman ( in street clothes with no weapons, gadgets or armor) and Bruce Lee walk into a large vacant space (like a parking lot) in bright daylight from different directions and stand 10 feet apart, face to face. There are no foreign objects available and the fight goes until somebody taps out, or is beaten unconscious/dead.

First round accept

Second and third round debate

fourth round conclude
AlexanderOc

Con

I accept.

I will be against Batman defeating Bruce Lee in this scenario.

Good luck Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
ricksterpr0

Pro

Thank you for accepting the debate con.

I will begin my argument with a tale of the tape

Bruce lee:

Stands at 5'7

Weights 160 pounds

Batman:

Stands at 6'2

Weighs 210 pounds.

Discarding all other aspects of fighting this is already a huge disadvantage to Bruce Lee. Not only is Batman a staggering 7 inches taller, but he outweighs him by 50 pounds. This will provide him with a greater reach than Bruce Lee and his striking power will also be inherently greater.

Strength/Size

As I just mentioned Batman makes Bruce Lee look like a boy with the overwhelming difference in height/weight. But in addition to this, it is important to remember that his weight is entirely muscle. Batman has shown incredible feats of strength such as bench pressing 1000 pounds raw ( The current World record raw bench press is 722) , Leg pressing 2500 (It is unclear what the current record is but this is presumably close) , kicking solid trees in HALF, tearing open a locked vault by the handle, and many more just astonishing examples of his elite strength.

Bruce Lee on the other hand, while very strong an muscular, comes nowhere near this level. It has been said that he has bench pressed 300 pounds, but this is just useless in comparison to Batman's strength. This results in him having much lower striking and grappling power than Batman.

Speed/Agility/Reflexes

It has not been defined clearly how fast either fighter is. However we do know that batman is as fast, if not faster,than any elite sprinter. Again, while Bruce Lee is fast he again does not come close to this level of speed. Batman has been shown numerous times chasing down cars running from him and escaping so fast in smoke it appear he has vanished. I do believe Bruce has cat like speed, but it is just not on par with Batman.

As for Agility, the two are about equal. Both have displayed their agility on many occasions with remarkable displays of parkour in the streets and dodging speedy opponents in fights. IMO they tie in agility.

For Reflexes, they tie again, by showing us their ability to defend lightning fast attacks from multiple opponents at once. Enough said.

Fighting Skill

This is where it gets interesting. Batman has MASTERED 127 different martial arts. He is a complete fighting machine. I would give him the edge here because he knows the martial arts Bruce Lee knows to perfection, along with many Bruce Lee doesn't know. This makes him an overall more well rounded fighter just because he has so many techniques to pull out of his sleeve. The real component missing from Lee's game is his ground game. Once Batman gets him down, he will not be able to defend against his attacks properly.

Experience

Bruce Lee was primarily an actor. Not to say he couldn't deliver quite the as whooping every now and then, It's just that he never really did it to the extent that Batman did. Batman has been fighting people all his life, including those with superpowers. The guy has held his own against Superman and many other overpowered heroes. Bruce Lee may have been a fighter from birth as well, but he didn't have to fight people as good as the ones batman had to fight.

My overview of the Fight.

It is a quick, bloody fight, in which Batman overpowers him with his superior strength and skills. One punch that lands from Batman would snap his jaw right in two. If he can kick big trees in half, I cant imagine if he wanted to he couldn't do the same to Lee. Batman is just too big and too strong for Lee to handle. While Lee may be able to hold his own against him if they had similar strength levels, they clearly don't, and that will be the deciding factor in this fight.
AlexanderOc

Con

All the above information is pretty much irrelevant. After all, Batman wouldn't even be able to fight. Without being able to fight Bruce Lee, he coudn't win a fist fight with him.

Definition of weapon:
Anything/object used against an opponent in a fight, war, etc.

I'm quite sure we can all agree that you can qualify the human body as an object/thing, or at least individual parts of it.
Therefore, a fist would qualify as a weapon. Remember, my opponent stated in the resolution that batman would be unable to use weapons.

So,

P1. A weapon is anything used in a fight
P2. A fist is used in a fistfight
C1. A fist is a weapon
P3. Batman cannot use weapons
C2. Batman cannot use his fists
C3. Batman cannot fight in a fistfight

And with that, Batman would be forced to take hits from Bruce Lee until he loses as he would be unable to use weapons/retaliate.

Back to Pro
Debate Round No. 2
ricksterpr0

Pro

I think it is quite obvious what I meant by that. If your only defense for your case is that batman's fists count of weapons, and therefore cannot be used, then that is simply ridiculous. Besides, that i just one definition. dictionary.com defines a weapon as "any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon." and batman's fists would not be considered an instrument or device since they are a part of his body. You are just twisting the meaning of the question to suit your case but you knew the true meaning of the question, which was that he was allowed no outside weapons, armor or gadgets, obviously his body parts not being excluded. My opponent simply did this because my reasoning was overwhelming and he could not defend against it in any other way. The reality is that Batman would defeat Bruce Lee for the reasons I listed in the previous round and I hope the voters see how ludicrous my opponents attempt was to circumvent the meaning of the question.
AlexanderOc

Con

My opponent is trying to dismiss my argument.

He claims that I knew the true meaning of te question. He has failed to prove this or how this is relevant.

He also provides another unsourced definition. Here is my source.

http://dictionary.reference.com...

My opponent is being hypocritcal by using a definition that supports his case while saying I can't do the same.

My opponent has not sourced his definition. Until he discredits my source, the definition stands.
Debate Round No. 3
ricksterpr0

Pro

I stated the question so therefore the true definition of the question is what I intended it to be, not what his interpretation of it was. I am not being hypocritical because I said either way I found a definition contradictory to his definition and I am claiming that they COULD both be considered valid, however since I proposed the question the first definition on dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com... is the definition I used so he is incorrectly interpreting what I said, therfore bringing me back to my original point that he still cannot defend his stance that bruce lee would not be defeated by batman in a fist fight.
AlexanderOc

Con

So it seems that my opponent and I have contradicting definitions. There is no correct or incorrect definition. Only an interpreted one.

I interpreted the definition as it was defined in my source. Seeing as my opponent did not provide a definition in the begining it was completely within my power to do so.

My opponent said that round 4 was conclusion so it was unfair of him to provide a new argument ( him sourcing his definition)
Seeing as he broke is own rules, that would mean that he forfeits the debate over.

Had fun.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ricksterpr0 3 years ago
ricksterpr0
I would say all of those aspects were equal in the debate.
Posted by AlexanderOc 3 years ago
AlexanderOc
I second ricksterpr0's challenge.
Posted by ricksterpr0 3 years ago
ricksterpr0
I challenge your RFD dynamicduodebaters . How exactly did my opponent have better spelling, better conduct, and better sources? We had the same near perfect spelling, we used the same source, and he used semantics to try and change the correct definition I used. How does that imply better conduct?
Posted by ricksterpr0 3 years ago
ricksterpr0
I have a strong feeling you can win most of your debates using semantics if you wanted to. I am just used to it since my brother tries to use it on me frequently in arguments, but other people wouldn't have a clue how to respond.
Posted by AlexanderOc 3 years ago
AlexanderOc
Yeah, it wasy fun. Sorry if I didn't actually provide a relevant argument. You can always redo the debate. Just make sure to ban semantics.
Posted by ricksterpr0 3 years ago
ricksterpr0
It was a great debate and I thank you for giving me the experience of dealing with challenging semantics. I picked this because I knew both people very well and I already had an opinion on it. Best opponent I have had in a while.
Posted by AlexanderOc 3 years ago
AlexanderOc
*There was no way for Con to win this debate
Posted by AlexanderOc 3 years ago
AlexanderOc
Guess semantics aren't foolproof.

Good job ricksterpr0.
You're the first person to actually refute my semantic arguments. Everybody else just forfeits and makes the debate boring.

But to be honest, there was no way to win this debate.
Posted by ricksterpr0 3 years ago
ricksterpr0
As previously stated in RD 4 "I stated the question so therefore the true definition of the question is what I intended it to be, not what his interpretation of it was" It is your fault for misinterpreting what I said, and as the first voter said, "The definition was clearly implied." It is pretty obvious that in a fist fight, both fighters will be using their fists and after saying no foreign weapons are allowed, it was clear I was not defining fists as weapons. Even after the fact when I clarified the definition, my opponent continued to debate me on points irrelevant to the original question.
Posted by Domr 3 years ago
Domr
"Pro never stated what a he implied a foreign object meant therefore assiming he meant weapons is irrational."

Implied means you do not state something. It is the assumed definition of the words given the context of the Opening/First argument. It is not irrational to assume fists do not mean weapons. Pro opened up stating no weapons, and then began to argue how Batman would land a "punch". Punches are only done with fists. Since Pro is opening with the first argument, this context implies fists are not weapons.

If Con had any difficulties, thinking weapons=fists, even though the premise states "fist fight", this should have been asked prior to the debate, or even in the second round after Pro's opening arguments stated "fists" and "punch"

RFD currently Stands.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by dynamicduodebaters 3 years ago
dynamicduodebaters
ricksterpr0AlexanderOcTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: The definition that is most true was cons :)
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
ricksterpr0AlexanderOcTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Troll definition of "weapon" is troll and bad.
Vote Placed by Paradigm 3 years ago
Paradigm
ricksterpr0AlexanderOcTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro convinced me that his side is correct - I did not realize how extreme Batman's capabilities are. Pro had a number of good arguments making it clear that Batman's fighting capabilities exceed Bruce Lee's. Con essentially tried to win the debate through semantics. However, it is very obvious what definition "weapon" should be used for the this debate. I am giving Pro the sources points for invoking the correct definition. I am also giving Pro the conduct vote because Con attempted to win through a cheap trick.
Vote Placed by rings48 3 years ago
rings48
ricksterpr0AlexanderOcTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: I think Bruce Lee would in a fight considering Batman could not psychically achieve the feats of strength he did without MASSIVE, while he is only 220lbs. Con loses because of trying to use semantics to win.
Vote Placed by Domr 3 years ago
Domr
ricksterpr0AlexanderOcTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in Comments.