Little Mac (Pro) vs Rocky Balboa (Con)
Debate Rounds (3)
I assume this is Rocky Balboa at his peak rather than his old age.
1. Size- Little Mac stands at around 5'7, perfect size to be ducking and dodging all over the ring. His height will make it much harder for Rocky to get his hits in.
2. Power- Little Mac isn't exactly known for his overt strength, except for one move, The KO Punch (AKA Star Punch) which is capable of KO'ing Mike Tyson if utilized correctly.
3. Youth- Little Mac is only 17 and is defeating many older opponents with a lot of experience, making the Rocky has more time in the ring point relatively invalid.
4. Technique- Little Mac is well known for his ability to predict moves and memorize the fighting style of his opponents, making his compensating for his size and strength.
He has defeated many opponents arguably stronger and overall better than Rocky himself (i.e. Mike Tyson, Mr. Sandman, Donkey Kong, etc) and I believe that his sheer willpower alone could get him the win.
8elB6U5THIqaSm5QhiNLVnRJA forfeited this round.
bschnoz forfeited this round.
Pro is correct that Mac can beat people bigger than himself etc.
What Pro forgets is that Rocky Balboa beat guys twice his size too.
So take Mac, who is smaller and weaker than Rocky and Rocky who is bigger and can beat even bigger guys than the 'big guys' Mac can beat and we realize a simple fact; Mac loses no matter what.
Pro concedes that Rocky has more experience and is also probably more intelligent at coming up with strategies fast.
Pro's only point he is relying on is that Mac can thwart enemies larger than himself but anyone who watched Rocky IV (which is when he is on the older end of the spectrum and most definitely not at his peak) saw Rocky take down a beast of a gigantic Russian (in the video) and still have the energy to give a passionate speech.
I conclude that Pro defeated his own case and gave a very poor attempt at combating it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Nac 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||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Con dissected the pro's case, and displayed powerful analysis of Pro's argument. The point raised involving experience wins this for me. Conduct is not deducted from con for his new arguments in the final round, as pro never established rules barring it
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.