The Instigator
DakotaKrafick
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Deadlykris
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

It's better to have a katana than a shotgun for a zombie apocalypse.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 5 votes the winner is...
Deadlykris
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/19/2013 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,248 times Debate No: 29355
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (35)
Votes (5)

 

DakotaKrafick

Pro

Resolution

The full resolution is as follows: "In the case of a global zombie apocalypse, it is more advantageous to have a katana than an FP6 shotgun."

Definitions

Global Zombie Apocalypse: a worldwide epidemic where suddenly every member of the human race becomes infected with some type of virus or parasite which causes its host, upon death, to turn into a zombie within a relatively short amount of time (anywhere from thirty seconds to 48 hours depending on the severity of the infection). The infection, for all intents and purposes of this debate, has simultaneously affected every living member of the human race (no matter the age, gender, race, condition of health, or other factors) and is incurable.

Zombie: a reanimated corpse that is undergoing rigor mortis but at a far slower rate than is normal, and also has some stimulus of the brain which drives it solely to hunt and eat the meat of the living to any possible end.

Advantageous: more beneficial or favorable for the purpose of reaching a desired end. In this case, that desired end is indefinite survival.

Katana: a single-edged sword consisting of a 10" handle, a round (usually ornate) guard for the hand, and a 28" blade.

FP6 Shotgun: a fairly lightweight (six or seven pounds) pump-action, 12-gauge shotgun, little more than 40 inches in length. It can fire up to six times before it needs reloading.

Any word not specifically defined will assume its most common dictionary definition for the context of this debate.

Further Details of Zombies

1) Any bite or scratch inflicted from a zombie, and any internal exposure (exposure of the eyes, mouth, or open wounds) of a zombie's blood, will result in eventual after no more than about twelve hours. This is only preventable by severing the infected body part (example: chopping off your left arm if it was bitten).

2) The only way to end the "life" of a zombie is to destroy or otherwise incapacitate its brain.

3) Zombies are extremely unintelligent and react only very basically to outside stimulus. They are attracted to bright lights and loud noises.

4) Zombies tend to group together in hordes (which can range anywhere from ten to ten-thousand individuals), though they cannot communicate with each other.

5) Zombies do not eat other zombies. They can tell if you're a zombie or not by smell, but can usually be tricked by somehow making yourself smell like rotting meat.

6) Zombies do not ever sleep. They search for and prey on living creatures 24/7.

7) Zombies cannot feel fear or pain and so will not stop or falter as a result of either of them. If you destroy both of one's legs, it will still crawl toward you by pulling itself across the ground with its arms.

8) Zombies are undergoing a very slow form of rigor mortis. As a result, they are generally weaker than a regular human being and will eventually deteriate to a point of extreme physical weakness where it can no longer even stand up (though that could take several years).

9) Once you are a zombie, you cannot ever go back to being a regular human being.

Debate Structure


In this debate, I will be arguing that the katana is a more beneficial weapon to have in the case of a global zombie apocalypse. My opponent will be arguing for the FP6 shotgun.

Further rules of the debate are as follows:

1) First round is for acceptance only. Following rounds can be used however we so please.

2) Any tactic that could be reasonably seen as semantics is forbidden.

3) The burden of proof is as equally shared as possible.

4) 8,000 characters and a 72-hour period are allotted for each round of debate. The voting period will last one month.

5) By accepting this debate, my opponent has agreed to all of this debate's definitions and stipulations. Any questions or issues must be dealt with in the comments section prior to acceptance.

Deadlykris

Con

I accept. I think that, all things considered, a shotgun is more useful than a katana.

I look forward to your opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1
DakotaKrafick

Pro

Thank you, deadlykris, for making this debate possible. Without further ado, I present my arguments:

1. Ammunition

What do you do when a zombie apocalypse first strikes? Go to Wal-mart, of course. There's plenty of food and weapons and ammunition and things to keep you happy for a good long while. There's only one small problem: everyone and their mothers, if they're not already zombies, have thought of that too.

Undoubtedly, every store of every street housing anything of use would be littered with desperate, crazy people clawing each other's eyes out to get what they desire (like Black Friday but with even bigger sales!). But while a katana requires nothing to keep it primed but a wet rock to sharpen it with, an FP6 requires an indefinite supply of 12-gauge shells (otherwise it's just a big, clumsy club).

It'll be difficult getting those shells at first, as you'll have to fight every other distressed gun-toting sheriff and outlaw to get to them and likely even more difficult maintaining your supply as more and more bullets are spent in the months and years to come. Bullets can be spent quickly (or, at the very least, eventually), but a sword will always be ready to decapitate someone as long as you sharpen it every once in awhile.

2. Reloading and pumping

Should you ever find yourself surrounded by a group of zombies (which, let's face it, you will considering there's seven billion people in the world) and you must fight, hacking and slashing your way out is the way to go. With practice, one can reload a shotgun fairly quickly, perhaps all six shells in a matter of seconds. But in the heat of battle, those precious seconds (which must occur after every six shots) can mean the difference between you getting to see the next sunrise as a human or a zombie. And that's not even to mention the time taken to pump every new round into the chamber.

A katana, on the other hand, has no such handicap. At no point during a fight do you have to stop killing zombies to perform some kind of maintenance on the weapon.

3. Noise

If zombies are something to be avoided, then certainly noise is as well. Zombies (which can travel in hordes large enough to make you wish shooting yourself in the head was a valid option in this debate) will be attracted to the sound of that shotgun exploding in your hands every time you pull the trigger.

By comparison, the katana is silent and stealthy. You can take down one or two unsuspecting zombies without attracting fifty more in the area.

4. Clean kills

If any part of your insides is somehow exposed to the blood of a zombie, you will die. Therefore, it can be said that the cleaner you can kill a zombie, the better. A katana can stab one's forehead (thus incapacitating the brain), but an FP6 will blow them to smithereens. So ask yourself, when fighting a group of zombies, would you rather be making clean, minimally-bloody cuts, or be blowing guts and body parts in every direction while it practically rains zombie blood?

Over to you, Deadlykris.
Deadlykris

Con

Point 1: opting out
When it really comes down to it, long-term survival is just not in the cards in the case of a zombie apocalypse; and without understanding the source of zombie menace, one cannot say for certain that it will end. Will it end when all zombies are killed - assuming that goal is reached, of course - or will some continuing event cause more people to turn even in the absence of active zombies? Will all those who die with an intact brain become zombies, or only those who die as a result of a zombie attack? Without knowing the answers to these questions, survivors of such an event would need to make some decisions. First and foremost among them is whether or not survival is possible. I don't expect many people to conclude immediately that it's not, but as time goes on, more and more people will lose hope. Suicide in such an event is understandable, which brings me to my first point: how does one cut off his own head with a katana? No other method of suicide would be acceptable in such an event, with the uncertainty of who will turn, other than a method which severs brain from body or destroys the brain. On other hand, it's widely known how to commit suicide with a shotgun in such a way. I disagree with the implication that this is not a valid option in this debate; that assumption was made in your point #3, but I see nowhere that it was stated in the resolution, definitions, or debate structure that it was not an option.

Point 2: availability
My opponent argues that the availability of ammunition would be a limiting factor in the use of a shotgun. He mentions some limited sources for ammunition, however, unlike a shotgun, a katana is not a common weapon in this day and age. I know where I'd get ammo; where would you get your katana? If it is presumed that one already has the katana, then it can likewise be presumed that one already has a stockpile of ammunition for their shotgun.

Point 3: effectiveness
Simply put, I don't agree that a stab to the forehead would be sufficient to defeat a zombie with a sword, particularly the lightweight katana. I think the only effective method for killing a zombie with a katana would be decapitation. A stab in the forehead will mostly avoid their grasping arms; a decapitation blow requires that you get much closer, significantly increasing the risk of injury. Conversely, any shot to the head from a shotgun will kill the zombie, and the nature of a shotgun means that potentially more than one zombie can be killed with a single shot.

Point 4: clean kills
A painter's mask and goggles, available from the hardware section of Wal-Mart, would be an effective way to prevent zombie goo from entering the mouth, nose, or eyes. Any non-zombie-inflicted wounds could be bound with medical supplies from the pharmacy department such as an ace bandage. This nullifies the risk of contamination from the supposed rain of blood from a shotgun blast. Conversely, the very nature of the katana requires that the wielder get dangerously close to the zombie, increasing the risk of a scratch or bite which would effectively end the person's attempt at survival. In the case of being surrounded, the thought that one could slice and dice their way out of trouble without a scratch is fanciful at best. If the zombie horde is too big to break through with a shotgun, then death is a certainty and the only thing left is choosing whether or not to opt out; which is much harder to do with a katana.

Point 5: noise
Certainly a shotgun is a noisy weapon. But as has been stated in the definitions, they rely also on the sense of smell. I contend that stealth against a zombie is impossible, because they would smell you; that horde that would be drawn to the sound of gunfire would similarly be drawn to the scent of the live human fighting the zombies - regardless of the weapon. Anyone embroiled in a zombie apocalypse would be sweating a lot, from fear, stress, and exertion, and that would be like a beacon to the nose of a zombie.

Back to you, DakotaKrafick.
Debate Round No. 2
DakotaKrafick

Pro

1. Opting out

I do apologize if it wasn’t made clear enough in the instigation, but you say you saw nowhere written in the resolution, definitions, or debate structure that suicide is not an option. Look back up at the definition of “advantageous”: “more beneficial or favorable for the purpose of reaching a desired end. In this case, that desired end is indefinite survival”.

Committing suicide is not surviving, so this whole point is irrelevant to the debate.

2. Availability of weapons/ammunition

Perhaps guns as a whole are more common than a katana, but an FP6 specifically is not so common. Seeing as how the question of this debate is, “when a zombie apocalypse strikes, which would you rather have in your hands: a katana or an FP6”, it should be assumed we’d start with either weapon. But that’s not to say you’d automatically start with a whole mountain of shotgun shells.

I’ll give you a few boxes out of courtesy, sure, but after those are spent, then what? Even if surviving in the first few months is easier, it’ll only get more and more difficult as ammunition becomes scarcer and scarcer.

3. Effectiveness

My opponent seems to think I’m making my hypothetical katana-wielder out to be some kind of Jet Li superhero, destroyer of the undead. Certainly, one can’t expect to take down fifteen zombies with a blade if he is exceedingly clumsy, unskilled, or short-winded. These are the people who will, in general, die first when a zombie apocalypse strikes anyway.

But with a month or less of practice, it is not out of the question to take down a group of zombies with a katana, even if you had little to no experience prior to the apocalypse. Katanas may be primarily for decoration nowadays, but they’ve never been considered some joke weapon blacksmiths used to make just to waste time.

I concede the effective range of a katana is shorter in length than a shotgun. I’d be a fool not to. However, even with that shorter effective range, an attacking zombie should not ever be able to get close enough to scratch or bite you, unless it had the neck of a giraffe or the arms of Monkey deLuffe.

My opponent makes no effort, however, to refute the fact that one must spend precious seconds mid-battle to constantly pump and load a shotgun (while the katana has no such handicap). Extend this argument.

4. Clean kills

My opponent’s solution to this problem involves goggles, masks, and bandages from Wal-mart. As stated previously though, trying to get your hands on such supplies would be damn near suicidal in the beginning. If we were to agree, though, that we would get our hands on such supplies, as my opponent implies, then this argument would be equally effective (or ineffective) for either weapon. I’m willing to agree to this if my opponent is.

5. Noise/smell

My opponent concedes the point about noise.

But then he goes on to claim stealth against a zombie would be impossible, because it would smell you before you had the chance to sneak up on it. There are a multitude of rebuttals I can offer to this:

(A) As stated in the instigation, it’s usually pretty easy to trick a zombie’s nose by somehow making yourself smell like rotting meat (ie. rubbing fish guts on your clothes). Therefore, stealth is by no means impossible.

(B) My point isn’t that you could get the jump on one or two zombies before they notice you, but that you could kill one or two zombies with a katana without attracting others in the area with a loud noise.

(C) I absolutely refuse to agree a sweaty, stinking person is the smell-equivalent to the booming noise of an FP6 shotgun. A zombie’s nose is not hypersensitive like some kind of German Sheppard or something. Nor is their sense of hearing any more special than you’d expect. So while it is perfectly reasonable to assume one could hear the blast of an FP6 shotgun several blocks away, it is not reasonable to assume one could smell you from the same distance.

Deadlykris

Con

I concede the point about opting out; I admit to missing that particular point while looking for a more specific point that suicide was not an option. So, this point is dropped.

I stand by my availability argument. It is more likely for someone to own a FP6 than a katana[1][2]; and it seems my opponent is trying to equate ornamental katanas with real, functional swords. If a katana is made as a decoration, it is not likely to be made to the same quality standards as a katana intended for actual use. Decorative katanas can be had for $50[4]; but such a katana is more likely to break on the first swing, rendering the wielder effectively lost to the cause of survival. If we eliminate decorative items, katanas become even more rare. For the purposes of the remainder of my argument, I'll assume that the katana is a battle katana, not a decorative item; but this doesn't constitute concession of this point. In my previous argument, I had assumed the use of a battle katana; I'm not sure why my opponent seems to think I considered it a decorative item or "some joke weapon blacksmiths used to make just to waste time."

I also argue that katana maintenance takes more than a wet rock on which to sharpen the blade; katanas require special care to remain in good condition[3], and without that care, they would quickly deteriorate. This deterioration can be equated to the dwindling supply of ammunition for the FP6.

I disagree with the point about a novice being able to learn quickly to kill zombies with a katana. I think that a novice is too prone to mistakes to be able to survive without training before the event. On the other hand, shotguns have the well-deserved reputation for being very easy-to-use even as firearms go. The FP6's 12 gauge x 3" shells make for a very deadly blast which can deal a lot of damage to multiple zombies at once. The long barrel of the standard FP6 makes for a more accurate shot even in the hands of a novice.

I disagree with the contention that the extreme short range of the katana somehow requires the zombie to have "the arms of Monkey deLuffe." You're not going to sever any heads from outside the reach of the grasping arms of a zombie, a katana simply isn't heavy enough for that, nor would you want it to be, because you'd tire too quickly with a heavy sword. But that means you need to spend precious seconds severing the zombie's arms before moving for the kill, which counters the argument about taking the time to load; in a massive fight, the shotgun welder could load after every shot, pump, and shoot again, which would take roughly the same time for a skilled gunslinger as severing two arms and a head would for an experienced katana-wielder. Pro failed, however, to address the point that the shotgun can take out more than one zombie per shot, whereas the katana takes at most one per swing.

In regards to clean kills, it was my intention to allow both sides of the debate to have access to those items, as it nullifies your argument about the risk from gore.

In regards to the zombie's sense of smell, there is as much basis for saying they have no sense of smell as there is for saying they have a supernaturally acute sense of smell. Until studies have been performed on actual zombies to determine their sense of smell, my contention that their sense of smell is supernaturally acute has as much basis as your contention that it is no more than a normal human being's sense of smell. However, I will point out that they are, in essence, a supernatural being.

Sources:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.gunshopfinder.com...
[3] http://katanaswords.info...
[4] http://katanaswords.info...
Debate Round No. 3
DakotaKrafick

Pro

1. Opting out

Dropped by my opponent.

2. Availability of weapons/ammunition

I already stated in my previous round that it should be assumed we'd start with either weapon. The question of the debate is "Which would you rather have" not "Which could you more easily get".

And my opponent has done nothing to further rebut the point about the scarcity of ammunition, except equate that to the deterioration a katana would undergo if not properly cared for. The response to this is simple: take proper care of your sword and there will be no deterioration. The most it seems you need, according to my opponent's source, it some cleaning alcohol, a napkin, and some kind of powder and oil, though the source doesn't seem to mention how often you will need to apply these items.

A shotgun also requires proper cleaning regularly, with the use of gun oil, cleaning rods, patches, etc. [1] especially if it's used often and in undesirable conditions (such as rain, but what are you going to do, not shoot zombies because it's raining?). Otherwise it can experience severe performance problems, such as not being able to chamber a round or having too much built-up gun residue (and other blockage) that the pressure caused when the trigger is pulled is too high and the barrel can literally explode in your face.

So I disagree that the maintenance required for a katana balances out the scarcity and necessity of 12-gauge shells. More accurately, the maintenance required by a katana balances out the maintenance required by a shotgun, plus there's the extra problem of a shotgun needing scarce 12-gauge shells (giving the katana in this case the... edge! Get it?).

3. Time taken to kill/number of kills possible per swing or shotgun blast

For the most part, I must agree with my opponent. The time taken to severe the hands will be about equal to the time taken to chamber and pump each shell, if the weapons are both expertly wielded.

And I do even have to give the shotgun the slight edge in the sense that a single shot can conceivably take out more than one zombie if they happened to be standing close enough to each other. However, the slight edge the shotgun has on this point is not equal to the edge the katana has in the last point. I would much rather have a weapon that can kill zombies for a virtually infinite number of kills (even if it must be one singular kill after another) than a weapon that can take out two zombies simultaneously for a finite number of kills (being however many shotgun shells you have in your pocket at the time).

4. Clean kills

Neutrally dropped.

5. Noise

Conceded by my opponent.

6. Smell

My opponent says, and I quote, "there is as much basis for saying they have no sense of smell as there is for saying they have a supernaturally acute sense of smell" (which is to say none at all). I gladly agree to this. His argument had no basis. But again, no matter how acute their smell is, it was outlined in the instigation that you can trick a zombie's sense of smell, a point my opponent did not address. Therefore, stealth with a katana is possible (but impossible with a shotgun).

[1] http://www.ehow.com...
Deadlykris

Con

This debate had one too many rounds... though I suppose my opponent will disagree :D

I suppose the question really comes down to, are there enough shotgun shells available - either premade or through some form of manufacture, should such a means be found - to clear out a big enough area for a long enough time to ensure indefinite survival? My opponent thinks no, I think yes. When it comes down to the purposes of this debate, it's less about which is better and more about whether a shotgun is suitable at all. I know of no "silencer" for a shotgun, though I hardly consider myself an expert on the subject, so as noted above, I concede the point about noise. My opponent has shown that the katana is a viable weapon for someone who is trained in its use or can train on the fly.

As far as smell, I don't think fish will fool a zombie, I think only dead zombie flesh in large quantities will fool a zombie nose, flesh which was already established is a dangerous thing to be around more than is absolutely necessary due to the risk of infection. If the slightest drop in an open wound or a mucus membrane would cause a person to turn, then one would want to distance themselves as much as possible from any dead humans, whether it is known if they're a zombie or not.

So that, dear judges, is what this debate hinges on. Are my points more compelling, or are my opponents? That is for you to decide.

Thank you, DakotaKrafick, for this most interesting and thought-provoking debate.
Debate Round No. 4
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MikeyMike 4 years ago
MikeyMike
I'm also very shocked at the voting for this debate. In my own personal oppinion, I would choose a shotgun over a Katana ANYDAY, but Dakota made the better arguments so he should have won this debate.
Posted by OhioGary 4 years ago
OhioGary
I think I got them all. You won't mind that I again used your voting philosophy, do you?:
Vote retracted due to Deadlykris's constant and consistent sabotage of my debates due to his disagreement with my original RFD.
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
I have plenty of such examples of my own voting but whatever. You win, I give up. I tried to reason with you but you are immune to reason. I retracted my vote on that one debate.
Posted by OhioGary 4 years ago
OhioGary
Thank you for making me aware that I can change my vote. I am aware that I can change my vote and will change it only if I am aware of an alternative voting philosophy.

It is my understanding that my debate is still in the voting period, and perhaps this display warrants a voting change on your part as well.

I'm new, so I'm counting on your leadership to help me understand the most pragmatic way of voting. Surely you don't want me to develop an unbreakable habit of awarding the vote to someone on the opening arguments before the contender has an opportunity to speak? I've grown quite fond of this site and will be debating and voting often.

If you would like an example of how to comment on a debate when you don't necessarily agree with the premise, allow me to make this moment the one where I can provide a suggestion. Here's how I voted on a debate where I thought Pro won even though I didn't agree with him or even want to register an opinion on a controversial topic.
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
Figures. Most people are not capable of admitting their errors and correcting them. You are no different, OhioGary.
Posted by OhioGary 4 years ago
OhioGary
How childish of you! What proof?

You just said that you voted on my debate because the other person's opening arguments were better. You then said that it was your opinion.

In my opinion, the Instigator did not forfeit and had a better opening argument. Like you, "[n]othing you said in the rest of the debate reversed my opinion on that matter." If that's an acceptable argument for you to give, then why is it not an acceptable argument for you to receive?

My voting comments were "Con lost the entire debate in Pro's opening arguments, and then proceeded to make spurious claims that Pro was not debating when he seemed to think he was losing the debate." This is the same commentary you gave me. Why is it ok for you to give this commentary but not ok for you to receive this commentary?

You just said that you voted based on your opinion and it's childish for me to challenge your opinion. I'm not challenging your opinion. I've thanked you at least three times for your comments and for your opinion.

But, if you can have an opinion then so can I.
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
The proof is simple. In this debate: http://www.debate.org... the instigator clearly forfeited, having never returned to the debate after setting it up. You votebombed in his favor, with a clearly vindictive RFD.

I always make and reevaluate my decision on who to vote for throughout the debate - yes, this includes before the beginning of the debate, throughout opening arguments, and on through completion. I never vote without having read the entire debate, and my comment earlier reflects that. Your votes, however, are clearly intended to punish me for some perceived wrongdoing. Look at your debates, I've gone ahead and voted on the ones currently in the voting period. Read the RFDs I have put. Learn from it.
Posted by OhioGary 4 years ago
OhioGary
Huh, now who's being libelous? I take offense that you claim I am sabotaging your debate. Where is your proof?

I appreciate the clarity & honesty of your last comment; at least you have now answered your own question.

You asked me if I accused you of planning your vote before the contender has a say. Fortunately, you answered your own question in the last comment. You said "[n]othing you said in the rest of the debate reversed my opinion." So let's not act morally superior; you asked me a question you already knew the answer to... and the answer was a resounding yes. Yes, you can and you did pick the debate winner before the contender started.

We've gone from your feigned outrage and libel charges to the truth, which is really all I wanted to know.

I believe that it's Matthew 7:2 that says "[t]he standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged." That applies now.

If you can find someone's opening argument to be ironclad and worthy of the vote, you're entitled to your opinion. But, then you of all people can't get frustrated if other voters vote in a similar fashion.

If anything, I believe that you're being childish and your claim that I'm sabotaging your debate when I'm merely using the same voting criteria you have used.

In short, if you're entitled to your opinion, then so am I.

Again, thank you for shaping my voter philosophy. I greatly appreciate it.
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
It was hyperbole. I mean that the arguments presented by your opponent in their opening arguments were such that you had no chance to defeat them. This, of course, is my opinion; I believe that the opening arguments of that debate clearly and irrefutably proved Alex Jones to be irrational. Nothing you said in the rest of the debate reversed my opinion on that matter.

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion, but sabotaging my debates because you disagree with my opinion is childish.
Posted by OhioGary 4 years ago
OhioGary
It's only libel if I have no basis for the claim and if I am not relying on information you presented. However, you voted in my debate where I was Pro and said:

Pro lost the entire debate in Con's opening arguments, and then proceeded to make spurious claims of "moving goalposts" when he seemed to think he was losing the debate.

I don't know how else one defines "Pro [as contender] lost the entire debate in Con's opening arguments" if I didn't post my opening arguments until after Con posted his.

If there is an alternative meaning or some other way of interpreting "Pro lost the entire debate in Con's opening arguments", I couldn't figure it out and I implore you to clear up the confusion for me right away.

Otherwise, you are falsely accusing me of a scandalous charge like libel and I do take offense. I'm only relying on the comments you made which I have now used to improve as a debater and form my own voting philosophy.

Like you justified in my debate, I will now normally award the loss to the 2nd person in the debate as we both agree that debates are now won or lost in the other person's opening arguments. Occasionally, I will depart from the rules discerned from your vote and my vote in this debate was one of those times.

Thank you for your insightful comments: losing a debate before I started will certainly help me improve as a debater and will help me vote in a manner that is as consistent to you as you have been to me.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by OhioGary 4 years ago
OhioGary
DakotaKrafickDeadlykrisTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Vote retracted due to Deadlykris's constant and consistent sabotage of my debates due to his disagreement with my original RFD.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
DakotaKrafickDeadlykrisTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: countering ohio except for arguments, because i felt that pro had solid points with the ammunition argument.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
DakotaKrafickDeadlykrisTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: See my RFD in the comments.
Vote Placed by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
DakotaKrafickDeadlykrisTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con won me with the range argument, and the surviving long enough to learn how to use a katana argument. A weapon is not very useful if you have to be within 3 feet of a zombie to use it, and its even more useless if you don't know how to use it. A shotgun is intuitive and Long range. Con also had more sources.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
DakotaKrafickDeadlykrisTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.