Did Ghost really die in Modren Warfare 2?
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
imabench
| Started: | 12/2/2011 | Category: | Miscellaneous |
| Updated: | 1 year ago | Status: | Post Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 1,238 times | Debate No: | 19626 |
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)
|
Did Ghost really die?
Round 1: Meet and greet Round 2: Arguments begin Round 3: Arguments countinue Round 4: Closing agruments
Hi, my name is Imabench and i'm a bench, I will be arguing that Ghost did die in the events of the campaign in Modern Warfare 2. Con may state their argument |
![]() |
|
Nice to meet u imabench.
When u see Ghost get shot, he get hit in the lower chest, upper hip area, which is surviveable. Second, Shepards men don't pour gas on him, only on Roach. So, with this evidence, I beleive that Ghost did survive.
For those who do not remember much about the Modern Warfare 2 Campaign where this debate has spawned from, let me enlighten you on the events that happened in the game regarding ghost's death There were 4 good guys, Captain Price, Roach, Soap, and Ghost. The initial bad guy was Makarov, who was believed to be hiding in one of two known locations. Price and Soap travel to an aircraft boneyard in Afghanistan, Roach and Ghost raid Makarov's safe house After Roach and Ghost infiltrate Makarov's safe house they discover he is not there, but proceed on taking a very hefty cache of intelligence regarding Makarov's plans. After holding off a very long assault from enemy troops, both of them make it to the helicopter to be extracted. It is at that point that their leader, General Shepard, betrays Roach and Ghost by killing them. Roach is shot, drenched with gasoline, and then set on fire to die. This though is done mostly for special effects to sell the game so they do not show Ghost being burnt alive as well. However there is plenty of evidence that he did not survive. Price and Soap have already learned of Shepard's treachery, and they now escape from the scrapyard by avoiding being shot by both Makarov's men AND Shepards men. This implies that Shepard specifically ordered his own troops to ensure the deaths of all four of them, because if they were to bring light to the world about Shepards treachery, it would be the end of him. 1) Shepard had a very large and dire reason for wanting to have these four men, including Ghost, killed. 2) Shepard had given orders to his own men to kill them, indicating that he wanted to ensure that they were to die. 3) Roach is killed before we can see the death of Ghost, but it could be assumed that since Shepard desperately wanted them dead, that Ghost had already been shot, and the fact that Ghost does not appear in the rest of MW2 or even once in MW3 suggests his death. In the video on the top you can clearly see that Shepard shot Ghost in the upper shoulder, throat, or maybe even the head, which in all cases would surely be lethal. Ghost is clearly not shot in the lower chest like the Con claims Later in the video you can also see Ghost's lifeless body tossed right next to roach, the gasoline is then poured on Roach and could also have been poured on Ghost but it is not seen since Roach never looks back at Ghost. Con may now state his argument. |
![]() |
|
You have brought many good points to this debate pro, I'll guys you that.
When they throw Ghost in with Roach, I believe he is knocked out and not dead as the pro suggests. Also, if you've seen the trailer for MW3, the SAS man walking thought the dark looks almost the same as Ghost, and has the same gun the he used in MW2. Also, when playing MW3,(on the mission when you have to sneak up to the church tower) when you get to the part where Price and the rebels ambush the Russians. Right after Price takes out the sniper on the roof and a "rebel" joins him up there, I aimed at the rebel and the name "Ghost" popped up. I'll post a pic of it later in the comment section
Con claims that Ghost is just "knocked out" but as I have shown in the video Ghost is shot near or maybe even in the head, and then proceeds on falling to the ground lifelessly without ever showing any kind of stirring or slow regaining of consciousness ever again.... Even if he were knocked out he was still in very close proximity to Roach when he was poured on with gasoline and then lit up like a campfire. As for the MW3 trailer, theres only so many realistic faces you can generate in a game, if you go through any roster on any NBA, NFL, NHL, or MLB video game you could easily find characters avatars who look very similar. As for the new alleged ghost, Its not like there is only one of each kind of person in the world.... there are many names that are the same for people such as Tom, Dave, Dan, Jack, Ryan, Brandon, Ed, etc. and in the game im sure that call signs work the same way. It could be very possible that there are many soldiers with the call sign "ghost" in the game and it is just as plausible that maybe the soldier adopted the call sign "ghost" in honor of the original Ghost. It does not imply that the original Ghost miraculously survived a gunshot wound to the head, being lit on fire, left to die, and then just somehow magically shows up in a mission all the way in London in the next game which takes place just days after the events of MW2..... That is why I believe that Ghost did die in MW2 |
![]() |
|
When you see Ghost get shot, it looks like its more in the sholder then the head, because he spins around when he gets hit.
True there are mulipule models, so ill give you that. I've been knocked out with punches, so I know that sometimes it looks like your dead, but your just knocked out. You have been a fun opponent, and i hope we debate later down the road. Vote Con.
I think for the sake of being even i will just use this round to thank the con for a very fun debate and I would like to thank the voters for reading this too :D |
![]() |
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 1 year ago
| bcresmer | imabench | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | ![]() | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | ![]() | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | ![]() | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | ![]() | - | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | ![]() | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | ![]() | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 1 | 5 |
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did better everywhere in the actual debate, except a few minor things.
Vote Placed by logicrules 1 year ago
| bcresmer | imabench | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | ![]() | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | ![]() | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | ![]() | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | ![]() | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | ![]() | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | ![]() | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 3 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: I feel pro should have been more clear.
Vote Placed by shift4101 1 year ago
| bcresmer | imabench | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | ![]() | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | ![]() | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | ![]() | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | ![]() | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | ![]() | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | ![]() | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 6 |
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments exceeded that of Con on every level, except maybe the final round.

















two flames are raging, one is clearly Roach, the other comes from Ghost's position
Even the silly arguments are refuted by Pro, so Con can't be the winner.
this aslo helps out
this proves my point