The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
17 Points

Dragons are better than pigs

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 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/24/2012 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,584 times Debate No: 28601
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)




Dragons are huge and strong.

There are nine major types of Chinese dragons.
These include the horned dragon,the winged dragon, the celestial dragon (which supports and protects the mansions of the gods), the spiritual dragon (which generates wind and rain for the benefit of mankind), the dragon of hidden treasures (which keeps guard over concealed wealth), the coiling dragon (which lives in water), and the yellow dragon (which once emerged from water and presented the legendary Emperor Fu Shi with the elements of writing).
The last of the nine is the dragon king, which actually consists of four separate dragons, each of which rules over one of the four seas, those of the east, south,west, and north.
A monster of enormous size, common to almost all countries. Descriptions of its appearance vary, but it is of reptilian nature, often red or green in color, sometimes with several heads that spew fire and vapors, and a large tail, not unlike some dinosaurs.

The dragon, however, is best known in legendary history as the monster whose duty it is to provide the hero with opportunities of valorA dragon is a legendary creature, typically depicted as a large and powerful serpent or other reptile, with magical or spiritual qualities. The various figures now called dragons most likely have no single origin, but spontaneously came to be in several different cultures around the world, based loosely on the appearance of a snake and possibly fossilized dinosaur and Tertiary mammal megafauna remains. Chinese dragons (among others) or Long are generally seen as benevolent, whereas European dragons are usually malevolent. However, malevolent dragons are not restricted to Europe and also occur in Persian mythology and other cultures.

Malevolent dragons are prominent figures in Christian belief. In Revelation 12:3, an enormous red dragon with seven heads is described, whose tail sweeps one third of the stars from heaven down to earth (held to be symbolic of the fall of the angels). The Latin word for a dragon, draco, actually means snake or serpent and is so connected to the Christian association of snakes and the Devil.

In medieval symbolism, dragons were often symbolic of apostasy and treachery, but also of anger and envy, and eventfully symbolized great calamity. Several heads were symbolic of decadence and oppression, and also of heresy. They also served as symbols for independence, leadership and strength. Colors often determined the symbolism a dragon carried. In the hero's journey pattern, dragons represented fear. Dragons are often held to have major spiritual significance in various religions and cultures around the world. In many oriental cultures dragons were, and in some cultures still are, revered as representative of the primal forces of nature and the universe.

In European mythology, a dragon is a serpent-like legendary creature. The Latin word draco, as in the constellation Draco, comes directly from Greek, dr"kōn. The word for dragon in Germanic mythology and its descendants is worm, meaning snake or serpent. In Old English wyrm means "serpent", draca means "dragon". Though a winged creature, the dragon is generally to be found in its underground lair, a cave that identifies it as an ancient creature of earth, like the mythic serpent, that was a source of knowledge even in Eden. Likely, the dragons of European and Mid Eastern mythology stem from the cult of snakes found in religions throughout the world.

Many modern stories represent dragons as extremely intelligent creatures who can talk, associated with (and sometimes in control of) powerful magic. Dragon's blood often has magical properties: for example it let Siegfried understand the language of the Forest Bird. The typical dragon protects a cavern filled with gold and treasure and is often associated with a great hero who tries to slay it, but dragons can be written in to a story in as many ways as a human character. This includes the monster being used as a wise being whom heroes could approach for help and advice.

It it is theorized that western dragons have descended from Roman dragons. Roman dragons evolved from serpentine Greek ones, combined with the dragons of Persia, in the mix that characterized the hybrid Greek/Eastern Hellenistic culture. The later Babylonian dragon worshiped by the court of the Persian Cyrus the Great, in the Hebrew narrative in Bel and the Dragon probably dates to the late 2nd century BCE. John's Book of Revelation " Greek literature, not Roman " describes Satan as "a great dragon, flaming red, with seven heads and ten horns". Much of John's literary inspiration is late Hebrew and Greek, but John's dragon, like his Satan, are both more likely to have come originally through Persia. Perhaps our distinctions between dragons of western origin and Chinese dragons are arbitrary.

Though the Latin is draco, draconis, it has been supposed by some scholars, including John Tanke of the University of Michigan, that the word dragon comes from the Old Norse draugr, which literally means a spirit who guards the burial mound of a king. How this image of a vengeful guardian spirit is related to a fire-breathing serpent is unclear. Many others assume the word dragon comes from the ancient Greek verb derkesthai, meaning "to see", referring to the dragon's legendarily keen eyesight. In any case, the image of a dragon as a serpent-like creature was already standard at least by the 8th century when Beowulf was written down. Although today we associate dragons almost universally with fire, in medieval legend the creatures were often associated with water, guarding springs or living near or under water.

Other European legends about dragons include "Saint George and the Dragon", in which a brave knight defeats a dragon holding a princess captive. This legend may be a Christianized version of the myth of Perseus, or of the mounted Phrygian god Sabazios vanquishing the chthonic serpent, but its origins are obscure. It is possible that the dragon legends of northwestern Europe are at least partly inspired by earlier stories from the Roman Empire, or from the Sarmatians and related cultures north of the Black Sea. There has also been speculation that dragon mythology might have originated from stories of large land lizards which inhabited Eurasia, or that the sight of giant fossil bones eroding from the earth may have inspired dragon myths.

Dragons are well-known in Catalan myths and legends, in no small part because St. George (Catalon Sant Jordi) is the patron saint of Catalonia. Like most dragons, the Catalan dragon (Catalan drac) is basically an enormous serpent with two legs, or rarely, four, and sometimes a pair of wings. As in many other parts of the world, the dragon's face may be like that of some other animal, such as a lion or bull. As is common elsewhere, Catalan dragons are fire-breathers, and the dragon-fire is all-consuming. Catalan dragons also can emit a fetid odor, which can rot away anything it touches.

The legend of Saint George and the dragon is well-known in Italy. But other Saints are depicted fighting a dragon. For instance, the first bishop of the city of Forl", named Saint Mercurialis, killed a dragon and saved Forl". So he often is depicted in the act of killing a dragon.


*Note: Please do not play the video until prompted to do so. Thanks!

I want to start out by thanking my opponent for instigating this debate. This seems like an interesting topic of discussion, and I hope that anyone who reads this will enjoy what we have to say!

To clarify the burdens in this debate,
- Pro, as the instigator, has the burden of proof to show that the resolution is a true statement. Unless he satisfies this burden the vote cannot be given to him.
- Pro does not scope the resolution despite having ample space to do so. This means that Pro must prove dragons to be universally better to pigs as this is what the resolution and their constructive would indicate.
- Con, as the contender to Pro's challenge, has the burden of clash. Con must provide an opposition to Pro's claim. Unless he satisfies this burden the vote cannot be given to him.
- Con does not have the burden to prove the inverse of the resolution (that pigs are better than dragons) to be true. He may do this, but he is not required to; he must simply prove Pro's claim to be false.
- If at the end of the round neither side seems more persuasive than the other, the vote must default Con for maintaining the burden of clash.

To begin, I shall address Pro's constructive hasn't made an argument for the superiority of dragons to pigs. Reading through his initial post will reveal a fascinating history of dragons, including their role mythology and link to dinosaurs -- but nothing to assert that they are better than pigs.
In fact the word 'pig' doesn't even appear in initial speech, it's all about how cool dragons are, and other various nonlinear bits of trivia about them. This is not an informative essay contest, and it is not up to the voters to take random information and derive a conclusion; it is the responsibility of the Pro to prove the claim he sets out in the resolution.
At the point that Pro does not prove that Dragons are better than pigs, or even make the claim (except maybe by inference of the resolution) there is no reason to believe that claim to be true. Pro has failed in upholding his burden of proof, and the vote must defaulted to the Con.
Con, through this analysis, has also maintained his burden of clash.

I will now provide three more arguments as to why you should vote for the con.

First; Pigs assist humans, Dragons do not-
This argument operates under the primary assumption that dragons have never been proven to actually exist. They are products of mythology and Pro himself only speaks of them in terms of mythology. Pigs on the other hand do exist and play an important role our world.
Pigs have been known to protect humans for a long time, many people, such as Dan Pierce, even keep them as pets[1]. However one Jewish settlement even discussed the possibility of employing the assistance of 'guard pigs' to help protect them from intruders in 2003[1][2]. Pigs have been known to have a very keen sense of smell, even better than that of dogs.

Aside from unaccountable mythology, Dragons don't serve a purpose for humans and can't really be given any kind of objective value. Pigs on the other hand do serve a purpose, and can be given an objective value; in this sense they are better.

Second;Pigs provide employment, Dragons do not -
Pork is a very lucrative industry which totaled about 75 billion dollars in sales in the U.S. during 1997[4], in 2000, just under 100,000 farms (of varying sizes and employment) raised pigs and students involved in FFA (Future Farmers of America) even have the option of raising a pig of their to be slaughtered for food[5]. Needless to say there is an a huge industry involved in pork, a benefit that does not exist with dragons.

Unless Pro intends to argue that there are people in the entertainment industry who are employed because of dragons, we see that dragons do not account for the employment of any people. And to preempt the aforementioned claim those employed to by media aren't employed because of dragons, but because of our conception of dragons. I highly doubt you're going to go into Dreamworks studios and find any of the creatures my opponent talks about in his constructive.

Third; Pigs provide food, dragons do not-
Please play the video now.
Finally, aside from the practical and economic benefits, we see pigs are a massive source of nourishment. Pork is the third most consumed meat in the United States[6], with the average American eating 48 pounds of the stuff every year. Furthermore unlike the the other four most common meats in American diets, Pork remains the most consistently consumed with only an eight pound variance between 1970 and 2005.

Not only that, but pork is a part of America's culture. Bacon is a key component of American 'chef' and comedy group Epic Meal Time[7]. They've even gone so far as to incorporate bacon into their merchandising[8], produce a special bacon frying pan[9] and even their own bacon flavored salt and mayonnaise[10].

I don't think I've even heard of a person eating a dragon, not even in a story. Instead you see dragons eating people; not matter how you look at that it isn't a good thing.

In conclusion I've not only shown how my opponent has failed to uphold his burden, or even provide an argument for that matter, but I've also provide several reasons as to why pigs are better than dragons.

Vote pro!
Debate Round No. 1


I was talking about how informations about dragons. Pigs are useless they only provide food. Have you watched HOW TO TRIAN YOUR DRAGON. Dragons can assist people. Pigs don't fly too.

How do pigs protect us? First of all they do nothing all we do is just to kill them. That is the only thing we do to pigs. For Dragons were talk about their lives. We make stories out of the for little kids. These stories pass down from generations to generation.

When pigs have a keen sense of smell, they do not warn people. They just walk around. First, they just eat your food, sleep, and poo. They do not do anything. Your first argument is invalid.

And i am saying that Dragons are better than pigs. If you say that dragons are not real than how do they eat Humans?

And i have proof that they were real:
There are three ways that dragons can exist. The first is symbolically, as an idea or a philosophy.While these can have every bit as much of an impact on the world as a truely monstrouse beast, perhaps even more, it is a less overt, direct exisence.

The second is by definition. On earth there can be found a creature known as teh Komodo Dragon. A large dangerouse predator lizard, it has the name dragon, and yet is not considered one in a traditional sense. On other planets, there are many creatures which ahve evolved with characteristics similar to that of a traditional dragon from human lore. Unfailingly these are categorized by human scientists along various biological features, completely overlooking the obvious similarities these independently occurring species have to one another, and to the traditional dragon. The large, fire breathing, flying lizard, with a penchant for shiney objects known as the sciliopath of Vegii 9 (a newly discovered species which some realities may not yet have knowledge of them yet) is one of the best examples of an undefined dragon. While the need to define things along evolutionary direct biological lines is understandable from a scientific standpoint, it shouldnt stand in the way of a deeper understanding of the reality of the universe, and of the dragon.

Special Note: Recent discovereies have shown that there is a mystical connection which may exist between all of the independently evolved dragons which have appeared on seperate planets throughout the universe. This common trait may be a result of these creatures existing on a more subtle spiritual level as transdimensional biengs, that only resurface as biological creatures in our reality. Some indications show that this may even be a trait shared by creatures other then dragons.

The third way dragons can exist is based on a complex understanding of reality. Existence is made up of moments, and each moment has an infinite number of possibilities, each of which can lead to a different universe. Every single one of those universes exists realtive to our own, and can even impact on our own in certain subtle ways. This means that the reality we understand is only one momentary possibility, constantly changing, in an infinitely infinite sea of possibilities. In a truely infinite universe, everything is reality.

In some realities dragons do physically exist. In others, they once did. Along some lines of possibility, a universe where dragons exist, evolved into our current unioverse. In others, our own universe will one day evolve into one in which they exist. This understanding of the universe leaves all possibilities open, and provides us with a wider perspective of the nature of possibility, and teh reality of the dragon.


No, I haven't seen 'how to train your dragon' :/. I don't get around to seeing too many movies, too bad I've heard it's a good one.
Anyway, a movie isn't legitimate evidence for a debate. Pro's introduction does not state, or even suggest that this is a media focused round. Accordingly, the comparative framework I proposed must be preferred over Pro's framework.

Furthermore, while dragons only protect people in movies, pigs can protect us in real life[2][3] as I show in my constructive.

That said, Pro has some pretty glaring errors in his reasoning. Not only has he opted to drop all of my arguments, but he only refers to other dimension and planets as evidence; none of which is falsifiable. You're going to prefer my evidence and arguments which are based on falsifiable evidence over my opponent as it is more conducive to an educational discourse.

Moving one,
For your first example-
Something real and tangible should always preferred to something that only exists through media. If you had a starving family, a pig is going to do them a whole lot more good than a book or a movie would.

For your second example-
Definitions are pretty unreliable and only legitimize your Komodo Dragon example; alien dragons, while a cool concept, haven't been warrant in this round. And even if you managed to provide some legitimate evidence in the next round, they still wouldn't have any benefit to people as there isn't anything we could do with them.
That said the only standing example is the Komodo Dragon, and all of my prior arguments are still applicable with them; Pigs provide protection, employment and food. Komodo Dragons provide none of these things.

For your third example-
The same argument applies as to your second example. They don't have any benefit to people and thus cannot be considered better than something that does have a benefit to people.

As an underview to the voters, the reasons you're going to want to vote Con at this point are drops, and impacts. Pro drops all of my arguments, and none of his have any real impact. Accordingly you cannot interpret dragons as being better.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 2


The pigs give food. The dragon movies also known as entertainment can give you money to proved tons of food for you.

FIrst of all: Komodo Dragons can scare away enemies. You could kill Komodo dragons for meat too. SO your statement about Komodo dragons do nothing is invalid.

There are also another kind of Dragon the Draco lizard. Your second example is invalid.


The biggest issue as of this rounds are drops; my opponent has dropped every point in this debate favor of analytical responses.

No matter how entertained you are, you cannot eat entertainment.

People don't eat Komodo dragons, and even if they do somewhere it doesn't happen with the same magnitude as pork.

Draco lizards don't benefit people either.

Please Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by TheEliteGoose 5 years ago
look at richarddong has wrote in the first round... he clearly plagiarized some website lol. There is no way a dragon be better than pigs... although it is forbidden to eat pork in some religions. The instigator never had a chance against any contender, no matter what kind of argument the contender had.

4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
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 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: Countering vote bomb
Vote Placed by DarckShadows 5 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 
Reasons for voting decision: good
Vote Placed by The_Master_Riddler 5 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 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: pro contradicted himself Pro says dragons can fly. Pro also says that the komodo dragon is a dragon. But the komodo dragon can't fly. Pro also has bad grammar and dropped all args. Con had more sources.
Vote Placed by LaL36 5 years ago
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: Pro dropped arguments.