The Instigator
PatriotPerson
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Liam Neeson is better than Chuck Norris.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/28/2013 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,267 times Debate No: 35141
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

PatriotPerson

Pro

I believe that Liam Neeson is better than Chuck Norris. By saying better, I will prove that he is:
-A better actor than Chuck Norris.
-"Tougher" than Chuck Norrs.
And anything else my opponent has to offer.
First round is for acceptance. Debate will begin with my first statement in round 2.

Good luck to whoever my opponent may be.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
PatriotPerson

Pro

1. The Boogie Man checks under his bed for Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris checks under his bed for Liam Neeson. Liam Neeson is practically the acting king of action. It's a shock that he hasn't been in the Expendables. Let's take a look at some of his roles:
-Ra's Al Ghul: The man who trained Batman, and leads a whole league of epicly trained ninjas. (Batman Begins)
-Zeus: The god of gods! (Clash of the Titans)
-A guy who punches freaking wolves. (The Grey)
-The man who trained Obi Wan Kenobi AND Darth Vader (Star Wars series)
-This epic lion guy (Narnia series)
-Spy guy who causes a whole lotta chaos to save his family. (Taken, Taken 2)
-The leader of the A-Team (The A-Team)
-Adolf Hitler (Hitler wasn't good, but it's just the "power thing) (The Great War and the Shaping of the 20th Century)
-A scarred vigilante. With an R rating! How exciting! (Darkman)
-Jesus Christ. No literally, he played Jesus. (Pilgrim's Progress)
-Oskar Schindler (Schindler's List)
PLUS MANY MORE!

-I await your rebuttal.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Chuck Norris invented the idea of "truth". Therefore, you can bet you bottom dollar that everything I am saying is true. If you think that is a non-sequitur, just remember, Chuck Norris is logic itself.

Divinity

Jesus prays to chuck norris




Proof Of Fightning Skills

Chuck Norris actually has moves (Check Video)

Chuck Norris Is Old

Chuck is in his 70's, this means he is closer to God than Liam because God is the oldest person there is. This alone would not give him extra powers, but he is Chuck Norris.

Conclusion

Jesus prays to Chuck Norris, and Chuck Norris is devine. There is evidence that Chuck can actually fight, there is no evidence that sheen can actually fight. Chuck norris is also closer to God, and God gives him powers to overcome Liam because of this? Why? Because he is Chuck Norris.

I win. Why? Well, my friend Chuck has something to say...




Debate Round No. 2
PatriotPerson

Pro

Chuck Norris did not invent truth. All he invented is his own cowboy-ness.

1. You say that Jesus prays to Chuck Norris. This is obviously untrue. The only being Jesus prays to is God himself, and Norris isn't God, now is he? Also, your profile says that you are an Atheist. So why should you be bringing up Jesus if you don't think he was real/ he was the son of God?

2. Liam Neeson is good enough to not have such scary fans. Liam's fans are obviously more sane, because there are not so many "Liam Neeson jokes", or whatever. This proves that Neeson provides a sense of sanity and more directness to his job, enabling the ability that makes him better than Chuck, for he is still popular without all the freakiness Norris fans have.

3. Chuck has proof of fighting skills but Liam doesn't? Are you freaking kidding me? Watch some of his movies.

4. Liam Neeson is close to his 70's. Liam is 61. And about being closer to God, just because your old doesn't mean you are closer to God because you can die at any age. Plus, you're an Atheist. So why do you bring up God if you don't believe in Him?

5. There is obvious evidence that Liam can fight. Again, watch his movies. Who the heck is Sheen. And you brought up that God thing again. And I will bring up again: You're an Atheist.

Oh, and you posted a picture, I'll post one, too:
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

"1. You say that Jesus prays to Chuck Norris. This is obviously untrue. The only being Jesus prays to is God himself, and Norris isn't God, now is he?"

YES!!! Yes he is! This is why he is better than Liam Nielsen.




Case Closed.
Debate Round No. 3
PatriotPerson

Pro

1. Hahhaha. It is obviously untrue that Norris is God. God's beard is white, silly! Plus, there is proof that Chuck was born in Ryan, Oklahoma. We all know that God, the real true one, was born out of thin air. Oh wait you wouldn't know that...you're an Atheist.

2. So, I have just proven that Chuck is not God. And plus, who in the name is Liam Nielsen?
It's spelled "Neeson". Doy.

The case is still wide open, my friend.

Rational_Thinker9119

Con

"1. Hahhaha. It is obviously untrue that Norris is God. God's beard is white, silly!"

Chuck Norris can make his beard any color he likes, as Chuck Norris is God himself, and thus better than liam Neeson.

"Plus, there is proof that Chuck was born in Ryan, Oklahoma."

Only that version of Chuck was born in Ryan, Oklahoma. Chuck is God and can take many forms.

"We all know that God, the real true one, was born out of thin air. Oh wait you wouldn't know that...you're an Atheist."

Actually, Chuck Norris as a whole was not born at all. Only a version of himself began to exist in Ryan.

"2. So, I have just proven that Chuck is not God."

Actually, my opponent has not. I proved Chuck is God. Why? Because Chuck Norris is truth itself, therefore, everything I am saying is true. If you believe that was a non-sequitur, it does not matter; Chuck Norris is logic itself, and has given me the powers to win this debate because he is Chuck Norris......Chuck Norris.

"And plus, who in the name is Liam Nielsen? It's spelled "Neeson". Doy."

Yes, I made an error. However, that "doy" was rude and uncalled for. Thus, even if I get spelling and grammar points deducted, you will get conduct points deducted.

"The case is still wide open, my friend."

My friend Yoda has something to say about that:



Debate Round No. 4
PatriotPerson

Pro

I. Look, I was just trying to have a serious debate. Then all the sudden, I get attacked by a pack of trolls. I was not wanting this to be some kind of troll/joke debate, but here I go:

1. Yes, Norris can make his beard any color he wants. Neeson can make his hair any color he wants. All you need is hair dye. Hair dye does not prove in anyway that Norris is better. And quit saying that Norris God. I know that you are an Atheist, and therefore saying things like that doesn't offend you or you don't think it offends anyone. Though, I am a Christian, and I know that there are lot of people in my religion that would be offended by this falsehood of which you keep stating. And I don't have the audacity/need to make such outrageous claims as saying that, for example, that Liam Neeson is God. Nor would I say that Neeson is the subject of Jesus's prayer, or that he invented the idea of truth. For I know that none of that is true, and for the sake of an actual debate, I have been providing ACTUAL reasoning as to why Liam is better than Chuck.

2. There are not different versions of Chuck. There is but one Chuck, and Liam Neeson is better than him. Anyway, why would God even want to be Chuck Norris? He has way better things to do.

3. Chuck Norris is not truth. He is an actor, and that is all. Therefore, Norris is not logic either, nor is he God. Simply an actor.

4. Saying "doy" was uncalled for? Really? You've been saying that Chuck Norris is God. You think that ISN'T uncalled for?
Better watch out, Chuck.

Rational_Thinker9119

Con

"I. Look, I was just trying to have a serious debate. Then all the sudden, I get attacked by a pack of trolls. I was not wanting this to be some kind of troll/joke debate, but here I go:"

This is not a troll debate, this is a debate about Liam Neeson and Chuck Norris. When were we ever debating about trolls?

"1. Yes, Norris can make his beard any color he wants. Neeson can make his hair any color he wants. All you need is hair dye. Hair dye does not prove in anyway that Norris is better. "

I never said it did, this is a red herring. I just said that your argument that Chuck Norris cannot be God because Chuck Norris beard is brown is false. I never said this particular statement gave positive support in favor of my position.

"And quit saying that Norris God. I know that you are an Atheist, and therefore saying things like that doesn't offend you or you don't think it offends anyone. Though, I am a Christian, and I know that there are lot of people in my religion that would be offended by this falsehood of which you keep stating. "

Well, I believe that Chuck Norris is God. So, I am offended by the things above that you are saying.

"And I don't have the audacity/need to make such outrageous claims as saying that, for example, that Liam Neeson is God. Nor would I say that Neeson is the subject of Jesus's prayer, or that he invented the idea of truth."

Well, then you admit that you lose the debate because I am claiming that Chuck is God, the subject of Jesus's prayer, and invented the idea of truth. If you have no argument that Liam is better, then Chuck is better by default because God is better than anyone, and you have not torn down my argument that Chuck Norris is God. I proved it, because Chuck is truth itself, thus everything I am saying is true. If that is a non-sequitur, it does not matter because Chuck is logic itself, and God, so he can bend the rules in my favor to win because he is just that damn awesome.

"For I know that none of that is true, and for the sake of an actual debate, I have been providing ACTUAL reasoning as to why Liam is better than Chuck."

Where is your reasoning? You just bare-assert that Chuck is not God. That is not sufficient to tear down my argument.

"There are not different versions of Chuck. There is but one Chuck, and Liam Neeson is better than him. Anyway, why would God even want to be Chuck Norris? He has way better things to do."

Where is your evidence that there are not different versions of chuck?

"3. Chuck Norris is not truth. He is an actor, and that is all. Therefore, Norris is not logic either, nor is he God. Simply an actor."

Chuck Norris is truth, and a great actor. He is also logic, and God.

"4. Saying "doy" was uncalled for? Really? You've been saying that Chuck Norris is God. You think that ISN'T uncalled for?"

Excuse me? The above is offensive to my belief that Chuck is God. I already proved it true. Yoda said it. It cannot be false! Galdof got my back too:



I got presidential approval:



There is no doubt anymore. Chuck Norris is God, and thus better than Liam Neeson. Oh, and what's this?

Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Kumquatodor 3 years ago
Kumquatodor
Johnlubba, GET WITH THE TIMES! He counted to infinitiy 3 times. He did it last year... backwards.
Posted by PatriotPerson 3 years ago
PatriotPerson
False. It is impossible to count to infinity even once for infity is, by definition:

"An infinite or very great number or amount." The definition of infinite is, "limitless or endless."

Therefore, infinity would be a large number that is limitless or endless, meaning that it can range anywhere from 1,000+, for example. Since infinity is not a direct number, it is impossible for any human to count to infinity once. Thus, Chuck Norris has not even counted to infinity even once, for he is just a human being. And don't pretend that he is God or anything, for we all know that he is simply a human actor.
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
Chuck Norris Counted up to infinity twice.
Posted by mrsatan 3 years ago
mrsatan
If you want to have a serious debate about this, challenge me to it, but BoP is all on you
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 4567TME 3 years ago
4567TME
PatriotPersonRational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Con did a fantastic job backing up the (un)disputable truth.