Debate Rounds (5)
http://en.m.wikipedia.org.... It is toothless but no one said dragons had teeth. So could this have been a dragon. Well sort of. So had this could of been a dragon. I say kind of because if you narrow it down than a dragon is basically a flying reptile. You are probably now thinking how did the dragons breathe fire. Well how do komono dragons breathe acid. I am no scientist but I heard that some of there glans allow them to spit acid at there preys. So it is not impossible for dragons to breathe something at least like smoke or something related to fire. So a quetzalcoatlus is a winged giant reptile that may have been able to breathe something at least related to fire. You can also imagine People from a long time ago telling stories about dragons. They would had maybe say they breathed fire even if they only breathed smoke
For example. A lot of people over react and there is also a possibility of there glans allowing them to actually breathe fire period. So a lot of legends about dragons came from midevil legends. So I am saying a quetzalcoatlus could have been a dragon and many people (mainly evaloutonist) believe dinosaurs are extinct and became extinct "millions of years ago" we'll I am not debating on evaloution so I will get to the point. A quezocoatlus is a dinosaur and I think it could have been a dragon and dinosaurs were in fact alive in midevil times and if you say they did not live in midevil times use your brain. Crocadiles and alligators are dinosaurs did you ever see a old lizard and a middle aged lizard of the same species. Reptiles never stop growing so of there is a 1000 year old komono dragon than it will be at least bigger than a T. rex now would that be a dinosaur besides a komono dragon is a dinosaur anyway because if you look on a list of dinosaurs than there are mainly dinosaurs the size of a sheep. Well there are my facts if any dinosaur was a dragon than it will probably have to be a quezacoatlus. One more thing. There are paintings of them when they were alive it shows them being more bird like. Just because it looks like itCould be a bird like creature on the inside does not mean it was a bird on the outside.
I want to clarify something:
Dragon (N.): A monster traditionally represented as a gigantic reptile having a lion's claws, the tail of a serpent, wings, and a scaly skin.
Existing (N.): In existence or operation at the time under consideration; current.
This will be short and concise.
Dragons are large reptiles that have wings. No large reptiles today have wings. Therefore, dragons cannot be existing right now. They may have existed, but there is no evidence of dragons existing today.
The debate question is "dragons existing." Not "Did Dragons Exist." If you wanted to debate a subject, make sure that the question is actually what you wanted to debate.
In this case, you are Pro. You are saying, by the definitions I gave in the last round, that dragons are currently existing. I, being Con, is saying that they do not currently exist.
Dragons are large flying reptiles. There are no large flying reptiles living today, therefore dragons are not existing today.
vegeta501 forfeited this round.
Excellent idea. I believe that "dragons" existed so good luck to you on your next debate.
vegeta501 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by NUMBER_1RED_SOX_FAN 3 years ago
|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||7|
Reasons for voting decision: vegeta501 essentially forfeited the debate
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.