The Instigator
smurfingpuertorrican
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
holden15
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Fighting

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/11/2011 Category: Sports
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,037 times Debate No: 17878
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

smurfingpuertorrican

Pro

In a fight of Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather Jr., Mayweather Jr. can win by K.O.
holden15

Con

Thanks Pro for the opportunity to debate this.

I would like to start by quoting Pro.
"In a fight of Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather Jr., Mayweather Jr. can win by K.O."

Pro used the word "can", regarding that Floyd Mayweather Jr. "can" knock out Manny Pacquiao in a fight.

A definition for the word "can" is:
- "to be able to do, make, or accomplish "

I would like Pro to to agree that it is possible that Floyd Mayweather Jr. can knock out Manny Pacquiao in a fight. If Pro cannot agree to this statement, then I would like Pro to offer factual evidence that one person cannot knock out another under any circumstance.

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
smurfingpuertorrican

Pro

Uhhhh...
Aren' t you supposed to say no instead of yes...?
holden15

Con

I am trying to make the point that this debate is clearly invalid.

Of course Person A can knock out Person B. If you want to debate on the liklihood of someone knocking out another, then you should re-create another debate and word it accordingly.
Debate Round No. 2
smurfingpuertorrican

Pro

Not exactly Holen. Many boxers are trained to resist punches so they DON` T get knocked out. If you look at Mayweather's records and compare them to Pacquiao then you can clearly see the difference in that Pacquiao has been Knocked out 2 times on the contrary of Mayweather that has never even lost a fight and has a record of 41 wins and 25 K.O. so that proves us that Mayweather has the ability (or CAN) knockout Pacquiao.

References:
http://en.wikipedia.org....
http://en.wikipedia.org...
holden15

Con

No one is arguing with you. Because it is impossible to argue with this statement.

You're stating that one person can knock out another person. We know that one person can knock out another person. You didn't provide any limits or boundaries. What happens if Person A goes blind during the fight? Person B will probably knock them out before any referee stops the fight.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Zuko 6 years ago
Zuko
The debate I think is invalid, Of course Mayweather can. Same goes the other way around. It is possible but not probable.
Posted by smurfingpuertorrican 6 years ago
smurfingpuertorrican
people don`t get blinded technically in boxing
Posted by holden15 6 years ago
holden15
I'm trying to prove a point, that this debate is invalid. It is impossible for a Contendor to win this debate simply because you've staged (hopefully, knowingly staged it and not just discovering this now), that Pro will always win this argument.
Posted by smurfingpuertorrican 6 years ago
smurfingpuertorrican
I do agree that Mayweatheri able to K.O. Paquiao... You are supposed to tell me no right?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by CD-Host 6 years ago
CD-Host
smurfingpuertorricanholden15Tied
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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Con put up a semantic argument and Pro didn't know how to deal with it so I'll grant convincing to Con. Using a semantic argument when the intent was clear rather than redirected a first time debater and helping them is poor sportsmanship so point to Pro. Only relevant source was the dictionary so that goes to Con.
Vote Placed by randolph7 6 years ago
randolph7
smurfingpuertorricanholden15Tied
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:24 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with con that this debate was structured so that pro would win.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
smurfingpuertorricanholden15Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Reasons for voting decision: The resolution was poorly worded, and Con earns a point for that. However, smurfingpuertorrican earns credit for utilized sources. Neither argued, so there is no need to award any member in the field of argumentation.