Have you played Portal?
Debate Rounds (3)
GLaDOS is an A.I. with not only vast control of the Aperature facility, but with extensive knowledge as to their inner workings, deals, and agreements with Black Mesa. Considering the following;
It's likely that GLaDOS was aware of what was going to occur, she's backed up scans of our brain, killed the bodies only to remake them later... in cores and cubes
The reason she wanted to kill the bodies was to prevent THEM (zombies) from taking over the facility. Coinciding with the last vid, She is the only thing standing between them and Chell. Least until she perfects P-body and Atlas.
Where you say kill, I say trail by fire (test). I think it's all interconnected. Horzine Biotech was overran by specimen.
When they finally came to Aperture, GLaDOS considered it a testing opportunity. Keeping them away from the facility major. GLaDOS quote's dabbling in bringing the dead back to life. She may have gotten the idea from 'em.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 1 year 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||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments: Con was never able to successfully refute Pro's point that GLaDOS only temporarily killed people. Pro backed up their assertion with their sources with arguments about her previous information garnered from working with Cave Johnson and from evidence of zombies and Aperture existing in the same world, showing that (a) GLaDOS may have killed people to prevent a zombie takeover and (b) GLaDOS may have been protecting Chell the whole time. Con failed to substantially respond line-by-line to Pro arguments, which fulfilled Pro's (unclear) burden of proof and/or showed Pro to be the better debate, if a burden of proof is not established. Pro arguments Sources: Pro had 4 sources. 2 were YT vidoes that backed up their point, and 2 videoes supported the authenticity of their second reference.
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.