Howitzers > Samurai
Debate Rounds (3)
It is commonly known that howitzers are better than samurai in almost every way. They are more deadly, have a broader range of possibilities, both literally and strategically, and most importantly they can't die. No matter how well-trained a samurai is, he can try to hack at the cannon but it won't get him anywhere. The howitzer will still work, and in sixty years or so the samurai will die of "natural causes". For these reasons, howitzers will always be superior to samurai, and that's why the howitzers won the war for Japan.
Samurai are better than Howitzers. Samurai are intelligent beings, Howitzers are not. Because samurai are smarter, Samurai are better.
Now let us begin, with fact. Today, we know from history that, in actuality, howitzer are better than samurai. It has been proven, on the field of battle, that they are superior. Samurai marched in the thousands against howitzers, only to be mowed down in the thousands and never to return. The age of the samurai came to an end at the hands of the howitzers because they couldn't keep up with the rapidly moderizing Japan. The old clashed with the new, and the new won. In my opinion, this is reason enough to say that they are better, but I invite my opponent to actually try to put a different spin on this debate.
Apparenly, my opponent doesn't have ample reading abilities beacuse I did clearly specifify that howitzers cannot be killed, so how can samurai kill them 10/10 times? Anyway, another advantage the howitzers have over the samurai is that they are able to reach the samurai from a signifigantly farther distance away. A howitzer and trained crew can easily exterminate an entire group of samurai from over 600m away. That is the REALISTIC meeting of the two, because they would never be put in a room together alone for no reason, that's rediculous. But I digress, this range advantage is very signifigant one and is also a major factor as to why the howitzers are better.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheSaint 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||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Con effectively showed that Samurai are more intelligent, literate ect. than a hunk of metal. In addition he showed that a Howitzer is useless without a crew which is not inherent to it's design. Therefore a hunk of lifeless metal < a living thinking Samurai. Strategic value in war was not specified as the most important attribute so in every aspect but battle samurai win.
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.