The Instigator
RXR
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
FourTrouble
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Bruce Lee is Overated

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 2 votes the winner is...
FourTrouble
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/7/2015 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 551 times Debate No: 71278
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

RXR

Pro

Topic: Bruce Lee is Overatted

Con: Bruce Lee is NOT Overatted
Pro: Bruce Lee is Overatted
Rules: NO RULES

Opening statement: Bruce Lee is overatted. People say he is the best martial artist that ever existed, but he has fought no one that is even noteworthy to speak of. His battle with Wong Jack Man was not proof of his skills. Because both both sides say that their side won. He has no fight record, the only record he has is his dance record.

In Conclusion: Bruce Lee is overated and should not be considered the best martial artist that ever lived because that title belongs to Anderson Silva, because he actually FOUGHT.

FourTrouble

Con

I googled "Bruce Lee" before taking this debate to check what's said about him. Most Bruce Lee discussions on the Internet explicitly state that he's NOT the best ever. There may be a few folks who think he's the best, but they're the minority. The overwhelming consensus is that Bruce Lee was not the best ever. So that's not how we evaluate whether he's overrated.

To determine whether Bruce Lee is overrated, we should compare what's actually said about him with what he actually did. Wikipedia says he's "widely considered by commentators, critics, media and other martial artists to be one of the most influential martial artists of all time, and a pop culture icon of the 20th century. He is often credited with helping to change the way Asians were presented in American films." [1] The question, then, is whether Bruce Lee is "one of the most influential martial artists of all time," whether he's a "pop culture icon of the 20th century," and whether he "chang[ed] the way Asians [are] presented in American films."

Bruce Lee is indisputably a "pop culture icon of the 20th century." There's also no dispute that he's "one of the most influential martial artists of all time." To this day, he is celebrated across the globe by fans. He's been on the cover of martial arts magazines more than any other single martial artist. He's been dead over 40 years and still draws out intense emotions among the living - emotions ranging from hate to love.

Lee is one of the only figures in martial arts who evaluated the entire body of fighting techniques with an objective and analytical eye. Prior to Lee, martial arts were bogged down with folks who refused to go beyond their own individual styles. Bruce Lee believed that true fighters don't ignore what other successful fighters do; instead, they borrow and learn from others. And that's what Lee did. He was among the first practitioners of martial arts to embrace an objective approach that tried to encompass what worked from all different styles. That sort of synthesis and critical analysis brought the art of martial arts to a new level.

Lee once said that the notion of "styles" itself in martial arts was too limiting, and that fighters should not tie themselves to any single style but should strip away such labels to get to the heart of combat. The reality, then, is that Lee may not have been the best martial artist ever (that's something we'll probably never know), but he certainly was one of the most influential. By all accounts, he was brilliant, technically proficient, and most importantly, brought important and profound insights to the practice of martial arts.

The other part of Bruce Lee's legacy is his film. I quote Wikipedia: "His Hong Kong and Hollywood-produced films elevated the traditional Hong Kong martial arts film to a new level of popularity and acclaim, sparking a surge of interest in Chinese martial arts in the West in the 1970s. The direction and tone of his films changed and influenced martial arts and martial arts films in the United States, Hong Kong and the rest of the world." I think it's indisputable as well that Lee changed the depiction of martial arts in film.

These are the things Bruce Lee is widely known for. And he's not overrated. He actually did these things. He brought an entire new approach to martial arts - an objective and analytic approach. He also popularized martial arts in the west. Those things don't make him overrated. They mean he's awesome and should be given the credit he deserves.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
RXR

Pro

I agree with you on one point, and that's bringing martial arts to the west. But he only did it through his films and not actual fighting, He is credited by many fighters as being the best martial artist that ever lived. Even though he never had a fight record or win a championship.

Bruce Lee's fans also falsifie his strengths by spreading false rumors that have no evidence to support it. For example, many fans say that Bruce can kick a 300 pound punching bag to mid-air. But this is simpely impossible. Another rumor is that he can knock down any person with a 1-inch punch, which is just a parlor trick and is just pushing the oppenent away.
http://www.ewmaa.com...

Now let's compare him to a real martial artist, Rampage Jackson. In every poll, comparing Bruce Lee vs a very experienced fighter. Bruce Lee would win the poll. Even though he has never fought competition before. If Bruce Lee is not overated, then why do people favor Bruce over ACTUAL fighters ?
https://answers.yahoo.com...

In conclusion, Even though Bruce is a great martial artist. He has not fought any competition at all, or fought pro. He shouldn't even be called a martial artist. Let's be real here, without his movies. He would be irrelevent. He is no different to Steven Seagal, Chuck Norris, IP man, or Jackie Chan.

FourTrouble

Con

== Pro's Sources ==

Pro's first source is a list of eight "facts" about Bruce Lee. The only one Pro refers to is the "fact" that "Lee trained on a 300 lb. heavy bag to improve his kicking power." Pro says there's a "false rumor" that "Bruce can kick a 300 pound punching bag to mid-air." But if you look at what Pro's source says, it doesn't say that Bruce Lee kicked 300 lb. bags to "mid-air"; the source just says that Lee "trained" with such bags. Note that Pro's source says nothing about the science behind kicking 300 lb. bags to mid-air, so Pro's claim that it's impossible is entirely unsubstantiated. I googled Pro's claim and was unable to find a single source -- scientific or otherwise -- that says kicking a 300 lb. bag to mid-air is impossible.

Pro's second source is a link to a Yahoo Answer comparing Bruce Lee to Rampage Jackson. Pro cites this source to support his claim that Bruce Lee wins "every poll" comparing him to other fighters. But if you look at Pro's source, and you scroll through the answers given, you'll notice that some people think Rampage Jackson would win while others think Bruce Lee would win. Also note that this is hardly evidence of "every poll"; it's not even a poll. Many of the answers aren't serious answers. The few that are say that a hypothetical fight between the two can't be predicted, because Bruce Lee was a teacher whereas Rampage Jackson is a professional fighter.

Both of Pro's sources are extremely unreliable sources for any of the points they're cited for. More telling, Pro's sources don't show what Pro cited them for. Neither of them say anything bad about Bruce Lee. Nor do they say anything outlandish about Bruce Lee. They offer facts -- not "false rumors" as Pro claims -- about Bruce Lee, and they offer different opinions on who would win a hypothetical fight between Lee and Rampage Jackson. Note that the rest of Pro's claims about Bruce Lee are unsubstantiated and should be given no weight.

== Resolution ==

Pro's argument boils down to this: "Bruce Lee wasn't the greatest martial artist that ever lived." But that's not what the debate's about. It seems that Pro misunderstands the nature of this debate (ironic given the fact that he wrote up the resolution). The debate's about whether Bruce Lee is overrated. The debate's not about whether Bruce Lee is the "best martial artist ever."

The meaning of overrated is to "have a higher opinion of (someone or something) than is deserved." [1] Under even a generous interpretation of the resolution, Pro must prove that people have a higher opinion of Bruce Lee than he deserves.

Pro hasn't even come close to meeting that burden. First, Pro hasn't shown that people think Bruce Lee is the "best martial artist ever." Arguing that Bruce Lee isn't the greatest martial artist ever doesn't get Pro further to meeting his burden unless Pro first proves that most people think Bruce Lee is actually the greatest martial artist ever. Very few people think that, as I argued in the first round. In response, Pro cites a Yahoo Answer, but as discussed above, that source isn't helpful. Pro simply hasn't shown that a majority of people think Bruce Lee is the best martial artist ever.

Second, as I noted in the first round, the overwhelming consensus on the Internet, at least among commentators, critics, the media, and other martial artists, is that Bruce Lee wasn't the best fighter ever; rather, the consensus seems to be that he was "one of the most influential martial artists of all time," and "often credited with helping to change the way Asians were presented in American films." Pro never disputes that evidence, so he should be held to it unless he finds a legitimate source that proves otherwise.

== Bruce Lee's Influence ==

Pro drops my points about Bruce Lee's influence. I explained in the first round that Bruce Lee changed the face of martial arts with his analytic approach to the art. I think Bruce Lee is underrated, because people don't realize how much of an influence he had on the development of martial arts to where it's come today. He changed everything about it. He also changed the history of film; there have been probably 200 movies made following in Bruce Lee's footsteps.

== Other Points ==

Pro makes a bunch of incoherent comments. For example, Pro states: "Even though Bruce is a great martial artist ... he shouldn't even be called a martial artist." I'm not sure how to make sense of that statement. My guess is that Pro hates Bruce Lee so much that he thinks he shouldn't be "called" (emphasis on what people "call" Lee) a martial artist even though he's a great one.

Pro admits that Bruce Lee brought "martial arts to the west," but "he only did it through his films and not actual fighting." However, in 1964, Bruce Lee started teaching martial arts in California. He was the first person to ever teach martial arts to non-Chinese students. While teaching, there are many stories (and many witnesses, many of whom were his students) of times that Lee fought. But he only fought in the context of teaching. Bruce Lee was a teacher. He could fight, but that's not why he practiced martial arts. His goal wasn't to fight people professionally, like a Rampage Jackson -- his goal was to analyze martial arts, try to understand it and bring it to new heights, through his teaching and films.

[1] https://www.google.com...
Debate Round No. 2
RXR

Pro

RXR forfeited this round.
FourTrouble

Con

My opponent forfeited. Extend arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
RXR

Pro

RXR forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
RXR

Pro

RXR forfeited this round.
FourTrouble

Con

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
RXRFourTroubleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: ,Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Varrack 1 year ago
Varrack
RXRFourTroubleTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF