The Instigator
MASTERY
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Dufflepud
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Opponent picks topic.

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...
Dufflepud
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/2/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 817 times Debate No: 51447
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

MASTERY

Pro

Welcome to the debate.

This debate is a special debate where my opponent provides 10 topics from which I choose one.

PLEASE READ THE FORMAT AND RULES.

FORMAT

1st round-Mastery Introduce the parameters
Self-explanatory
1st round-Opponent Provide the possible arguments
Provide ten possible arguments for me to choose from. Do NOT try to define, explain the topics, as I can interpret the arguments any way I wish, provide any arguments or provide your side on the topics you provide. Anything here should only be greetings or topics. I decide which side I wish to be, IGNORE the fact that debate.org says that I'm pro. The debate topics have to be somewhat different, to prevent ten rewording of a single topic. I can change the topic you provide slightly as well for the debate to be a fun experience. At the start of round 2 I will underline and bold the confirmed topic.
2nd round-Mastery Argument & selection of topic.
I will provide a confirmed topic here, define the topic and supply my arguments as necessary. My side (pro/con) will also be clearly stated here. I will cite all research and arguments. Please provide evidence for all arguments.
2nd round-Opponent Argument & Rebuttal.
Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Please cite research and provide evidence for arguments.
3rd round-Mastery Argument & Rebuttal.
I will provide my arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, I will cite research provide evidence for arguments.
3rd round-Opponent Argument & Rebuttal.
Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.
4th round-Mastery Argument & Rebuttal.
I will provide my arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, I will cite research provide evidence for arguments.
4th round-Opponent Argument & Rebuttal.
Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.
5th round-Mastery Conclusion & Rebuttal.
I will rebut arguments and provide a conclusion in this round. No new arguments.
5th round-Opponent Conclusion & Rebuttal.
Rebut arguments and provide a conclusion in this round. No new arguments.

No abusive language, please. The topics that my opponent picks should not be abusive. The topic has to be debatable worldwide. "My opponent picks the topic." is only a placeholder for the real topic, so you may NOT post "I am not posting any topics, therefore I win" or something along those lines. Also, please post topics that are easy to debate on both sides. Topic should not be about religion, celebrities etc.

Failure to follow the rules and format stated above or below results in a full 7-point forfeit to the opposing team. Argument forfeitures also result in full 7-point forfeitures.

Breaking the rules and format will result in a full 7 point loss unless forgiven by the opponent (special conditions such as debate topic chosen by opponent can be included if opponent broke rules).

VERY IMPORTANT: If both debaters break a rule, the following applies.

1. Rule severity.
2. Who broke the rule first.

For example, if user-1 broke a mild rule and user-2 broke a mild-moderate, no matter the order user-2 would lose. However, if both users broke a mild rule, the one who broke it first would be forfeiting points.

To sum up.

Plagiarism not allowed (Moderate-Severe)
Forfeiture not allowed (Moderate)
Swearing not allowed (Severe)
Spamming not allowed (Severe)
Trolling not allowed (Severe)
Format breakage not allowed. (Moderate)
Personal attacks not allowed. (Very Severe)
Font bigger than 24 not allowed (Mild)
Random case not allowed. (Mild-Moderate)
Strikethrough not allowed unless necessary. (Mild)
Ridiculous or hard-to-read font not allowed. (Mild)
Random words/letters not allowed. (Moderate)
*Debate/rule complaint not allowed. (Discuss in comments BEFORE accepting). (Mild)
Unreasonable topics not allowed. (Very Mild)
Irrelevant information not allowed. (Mild)
Providing incorrect information not allowed. (Mild-Moderate)
*Arguing of definitions by me not allowed. (Very Mild)
*Arguing of side chosen by me not allowed. (Very Mild)
*Arguing of topic altercation by me not allowed. (Very Mild)
Violation of any of the above rules results in a 7-point loss.

* applies only to opponent

To prevent multiple forfeits within a non-tight time limit or breach of rules, I have restricted this debate to people who have completed 5 or more debates.

I hope we have a good debate.

Time limit for each argument: 3 days.
Character limit: 5000

Thank you.
Dufflepud

Con

Thatnk you, Mastery, for providing this opportunity for an enjoyable debate. Given the strictness of the rules that would otherwise push the outcome far in the poster's favor, all of the topics on my list will be in a fairly similar vein, and will be topics that I am very comfortable with.

Here are your options, and I hope you choose wisely! :)

1. The Japanese katana is a superior weapon to the Italian longsword.

2. The average Japanese Samurai would have easily defeated the average Italian Knight in a duel.

3. Pre-rifle firearms were superior to bows as weapons.

4. Swords hold a significant combat advantage over spears.

5. The cutlass is the most practical and effective personal weapon one could own in a zombie apocalypse.

6. As compared to the arming sword, the scimitar is a superior weapon.

7. As compared to the katana, the kriegsmesser is a superior weapon.

8. As compared to the longsword, the sabre is a superior weapon.

9. As compared to the sabre, the rapier is a superior weapon.

10. The nodachi is a superior weapon to the zweihander.
Debate Round No. 1
MASTERY

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting my debate. The cutlass is the most practical and effective personal weapon one could own in a zombie apocalypse. I alter it to 'The cutlass is, by far, the most effective weapon in a zombie apocalypse'. I am con. We are arguing that it is the most effective weapon for the AVERAGE user to prevent loopholes such as 'it is the most effective weapon to me'. The weapon need not be practical.

DEFINITION
Cutlass: A cutlass is a short, broad sabre or slashing sword, with a straight or slightly curved blade sharpened on the cutting edge, and a hilt often featuring a solid cupped or basket-shaped guard. It was a common naval weapon. [1]

By far: by a great amount. (From Google search (type 'define (word you want to define here))).

Effective: adequatetoaccomplishapurpose;producingtheintendedorexpectedresult [2] (in this case, the most POWERFUL).

Weapon: An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword. [3]

Zombie: the body of a dead person given the semblance of life, but mute and will-less, by a supernatural force, usually for some evil purpose. [4]

Apocalypse: an event involving destruction or damage on a catastrophic scale. (From Google search (type 'define (word you want to define here))).

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[4] http://dictionary.reference.com...\

ARGUMENT
Cutlasses, are definitely not the most effective weapon in a zombie apocalypse because of many reasons. Machine guns are much more effective, being able to provide a fatal shot with their power if they hit the target's head. Machine guns can also shoot much faster than a cutlass can swing, so the number of bullets, each delivering a fatal shot strongly outweighs the little cutlass, which could be destroyed in seconds. Each bullet, considering the number of zombies, can easily hit at least one zombie. Imagine you holding a cutlass, and thousand of zombies around you. Is it really effective? Of course not.
Dufflepud

Con

Despite Mastery's alteration of the topic, I will continue to assume that we are referring to personal weapons, as comparing the effectiveness (how good something it at completing its intended purpose) of a cutlass to a missile is as comparing "apples and organges." If mastery intends to include missiles, or other "non personal" weapons, that would be violating the rule against "unreasonable topics," and although in that case I would be arguing against Mastery's alteration (I am not currently), Mastery would be violating the rules first, resulting in a seven point forfeiture for him.

Otherwise, I am happy to argue that the cutlass is "by far" the most effective weapon, given that "by far" is hardly an objective measurement.

Moving onto my arguments, I will first prove that, in a zombie apocalypse, blades are preferable to all other forms of personal weaponry, before moving onto proving that the cutlass is preferable to all other blades. In this post, I will only argue the first contention, while in my second post I will argue the second. In later rounds, I will rebut Mastery's arguments.


First Contention: Blades are the most effective weapons in the zombie apocalypse

In order to accurately judge whether or not blades are, as a category, superior to all other categories of weaponry, I will be judging them according to several criteria. They are as follows:

Resiliency:

Due to their simply design and relatively uncomplicated maintenance, blades are some of the most resilient weapons one could own. Even years or decades into the apocalypse, a well cared for blade will continue to be an incredibly lethal tool. High grade steel means that the weapon is unlikely to split, crack or break unlike a wooden bat or club. Lack of moving parts and complicated machinery means that they are unlikely to be defective, and even less likely to fail. A firearm, on the other hand, requires expertise, time, effort and equipment to maintain, and even a bow needs far more care than any sword. As long as the blade is kept sharpened, and is properly cleaned and sheathed, the wielder has nothing to worry about.

Speed:

Although one might initially think that an automatic rifle would be a "faster" zombie killing weapon, the reality is that unless you are a trained shooter who can destoy the brain with nearly every shot, this couldn't be further from the truth. Additionally, while one can unload quite a bit of ammunition if the weapon is set to automatic, this is incredibly inneficient, and as such, most wielders would be firing the weapon set to semi automatic. Although perfectly adequate in terms of speed of disposal, a well honed blade can be quickly and efficiently brought down and up, allowing the wielder to dispose of dozens of undead without undue expendature. If every hit is a kill, and if the wielder can destroy a brain just as often as a rifleman can bring a zombie into their sights, steady their aim and pull the trigger, then there is no reason to assume that the firearm will kill zombies more quickly. When you take into account the fact that the rifleman needs to be reloaded, while the blade can be swung continuously, the "edge" so to speak clearly goes to the blade. As the Zombie Survival Guide by Max Brooks states, "blades don't need reloading."

It's also important to note that, while other melee weapons share some advantages with blades, many are weighted towards the end instead of balanced towards the guard, rendering them much slower on the recovery.


Handling:

In blade on blade combat, incredible finesse and training is required as I, a fencer, can attest to. However, any individual that has learned the simple technique of cutting with a blade without excessive force will be more than capable of dealing with scores of undead by themselves. Additionally, given that even the largest blades are surprisingly light, with most one handed weapons weighing under two pounds, tiring out is not something that the blade wielder will have to worry about. On the other hand, a firearm's recoil, and the surprising difficulty of accurately aiming a ranged weapon (especially when the target and shooter are both in motion), makes for quite unwieldly weaponry in the hands of one who isn't trained. Even with a recoiless ranged weapon, such as a bow or crossbow, aiming is a difficulty, and these weapons are both slow and only partially effective against zombies. Blades avoid this entirely, as one has to try in order to miss a target that isn't actively avoiding the attack. On top of this, because blades don't use ammunition, the weapon only stops working if it breaks. If ammo runs dry, one is defenseless.


Engangerment:

As zombies are attracted to loud noises, firearms will only draw the hoard in, forcing a hasty retreat. Bladed weapons are silent and don't require recovery of ammunition, making them more effective in clearing buildings and slipping through or past hoards. Blades allow the wielder to dispose of zombies one at a time rather than all at once.
Debate Round No. 2
MASTERY

Pro

Resiliency:

Due to their simply design and relatively uncomplicated maintenance, blades are some of the most resilient weapons one could own. Even years or decades into the apocalypse, a well cared for blade will continue to be an incredibly lethal tool. High grade steel means that the weapon is unlikely to split, crack or break unlike a wooden bat or club. Lack of moving parts and complicated machinery means that they are unlikely to be defective, and even less likely to fail. A firearm, on the other hand, requires expertise, time, effort and equipment to maintain, and even a bow needs far more care than any sword. As long as the blade is kept sharpened, and is properly cleaned and sheathed, the wielder has nothing to worry about.

This does nothing to prove that CUTLASSES are by far better than other weapons. It only tries to prove that blades are better than firearms. As long as firearms do not break, there is nearly no chance of effort and equipment to maintain. And, handguns are very easy to operate as they are very small. Oh, and I'll use all your arguments. A Shashka is much better than cutlass, and can easily cut through human skull or personal protective equipment.

Speed:

Although one might initially think that an automatic rifle would be a "faster" zombie killing weapon, the reality is that unless you are a trained shooter who can destroy the brain with nearly every shot, this couldn't be further from the truth. Additionally, while one can unload quite a bit of ammunition if the weapon is set to automatic, this is incredibly inefficient, and as such, most wielders would be firing the weapon set to semi automatic. Although perfectly adequate in terms of speed of disposal, a well honed blade can be quickly and efficiently brought down and up, allowing the wielder to dispose of dozens of undead without undue expenditure. If every hit is a kill, and if the wielder can destroy a brain just as often as a rifleman can bring a zombie into their sights, steady their aim and pull the trigger, then there is no reason to assume that the firearm will kill zombies more quickly. When you take into account the fact that the rifleman needs to be reloaded, while the blade can be swung continuously, the "edge" so to speak clearly goes to the blade. As the Zombie Survival Guide by Max Brooks states, "blades don't need reloading."

It's also important to note that, while other mêlée weapons share some advantages with blades, many are weighted towards the end instead of balanced towards the guard, rendering them much slower on the recovery.

Every hit is certainly NOT a kill. It takes several hits for a cutlass. But for a Shashka it only takes one hit. Besides, firearms shoot so quick that even if every few hits is one kill. Yes, the blade could be swung continuously but that exposes you to a likely chance of a self-hit.

Handling:

In blade on blade combat, incredible finesse and training is required as I, a fencer, can attest to. However, any individual that has learned the simple technique of cutting with a blade without excessive force will be more than capable of dealing with scores of undead by themselves. Additionally, given that even the largest blades are surprisingly light, with most one handed weapons weighing under two pounds, tiring out is not something that the blade wielder will have to worry about. On the other hand, a firearm's recoil, and the surprising difficulty of accurately aiming a ranged weapon (especially when the target and shooter are both in motion), makes for quite unwieldy weaponry in the hands of one who isn't trained. Even with a recoiless ranged weapon, such as a bow or crossbow, aiming is a difficulty, and these weapons are both slow and only partially effective against zombies. Blades avoid this entirely, as one has to try in order to miss a target that isn't actively avoiding the attack. On top of this, because blades don't use ammunition, the weapon only stops working if it breaks. If ammo runs dry, one is defenseless.

Since cutlasses and Shashka are both swords, I can assume they're equal until you prove otherwise. That means that cutlasses are not by far the best weapons.

Enangerment:

As zombies are attracted to loud noises, firearms will only draw the hoard in, forcing a hasty retreat. Bladed weapons are silent and don't require recovery of ammunition, making them more effective in clearing buildings and slipping through or past hoards. Blades allow the wielder to dispose of zombies one at a time rather than all at once.

Since cutlasses and Shashka are both swords, Shashka is no louder than a cutlass.

Thank you.
Dufflepud

Con

As previously stated, my first post only dealt with the contention that blades are the most effective personal weapons in a zombie apocalypse. In this post, I will be proving that cutlasses are preferable to all other blades in the given situation. I will be rebutting my opponant's arguments in rounds three and four.


Contention Two: Cutlasses are the most effective blades one could own in a zombie apocalypse.

Versatility:

As a "cut and thrust" weapon, the cutlass is far more versatile on the offense than, for example, the katana (a nearly exclusively cutting weapon) or the rapier (a nearly exclusively thrusting weapon). It can be used for excellent point work, and it cuts as well as any other blade. In addition, from the tip, to the edge, to the basket hilt to the pommel, the cutlass maintains what is known as a "continuum of force," as all parts of the weapon can be used for fighting (see pictures below). This is especially relevant in the case of zombies, as if one closes in, the basket hilt and pommel can be used like brass knuckles without risk of injuring the wielder. Although there are plenty of other cut and thrust weapons, (such as the Shaska that my opponant references) it is this factor primarily that allows the cutlass to rise above the others. While excellent on the offense, it is this increased defensive capability that makes for such an effective blade.

http://www.coldsteel.com...

http://www.swords-and-more.com...



Lethality:

As touched upon earlier, the cutlass excels in nearly all forms of offense. A narrow tip means that the blade slids into a target far more easily than any katana, while the curve makes the wound larger than a straight thrusting blade. A heavy, shorter blade allows for the blade to come down like an axe without being particularly heavy, and that coupled with the curve means that, despite being one handed, the weapon can easily remove heads and limbs in a single stroke. On top of all of this, a stamped steel basket hilt in the case of the pattern 1917 means that a punch hits like a hammer - more than enough power to crush a zombie skull.

https://www.youtube.com...

Handling:

While the broadness of the blade allows for heavy strokes, the somewhat shorter length means that the blade is not too heavy, and that it performs wonderfully in tighter spaces (such as zombie infested hallways!). This combined with the metal basket hilt means that the point of balance is quite close to the hand, allowing for a responsive blade that changes direction quickly. Unlike blades with no such counterbalance, this means that the cutlass can be readied after a strike extremely soon after the blow is delivered. As demonstrated in my next video (under "technique"), light, saber - like weapons are some of the quickest cutting blades, with the cutlass designed specifically for this purpose (as it is a naval weapon).

Technique:

Unlike two handed weapons or blades like the rapier, the cutlass' effectiveness scales smoothly with experience (as opposed to being nearly impossible to use if the wielder doesn't know what they're doing). For the less experienced wielder, it can basically be used as one would use a machete, more than capable of clearing building after building of the walking dead. However, when the wielder has been properly trained, the weapon not only becomes more effective against the undead, but it also becomes quite lethal as an anti human weapon. As previously stated, it's more than powerful enough to cut cleanly through legs, arms and necks despite requiring little energy per swing. On top of this, the basket hilt makes catching an opponant's blade easy, making it far more defensively capable than something like a longsword or a katana. While the reach may be more limited, in the modern landscape where close quarters are a constant reality, this is a blessing rather than a curse. Watch these two experienced historical fencers spar with full weight dueling sabres, weapons that handle almost identically to the cutlass (they are the non naval equivalent).

https://www.youtube.com...

Note: To those who may be reading, the other videos of the people in the one I've shown above are all phenomenal, especially the ones set to music! I personally suggest the sword and buckler vs spear video.




Debate Round No. 3
MASTERY

Pro


Contention Two: Cutlasses are the most effective blades one could own in a zombie apocalypse.


Versatility:

As a "cut and thrust" weapon, the cutlass is far more versatile on the offense than, for example, the katana (a nearly exclusively cutting weapon) or the rapier (a nearly exclusively thrusting weapon).

The "Cutlass Machete is also a "-cut and thrust" weapon.

It can be used for excellent point work, and it cuts as well as any other blade. In addition, from the tip, to the edge, to the basket hilt to the pommel, the cutlass maintains what is known as a "continuum of force," as all parts of the weapon can be used for fighting (see pictures below). This is especially relevant in the case of zombies, as if one closes in, the basket hilt and pommel can be used like brass knuckles without risk of injuring the wielder. Although there are plenty of other cut and thrust weapons, (such as the Shaska that my opponent references) it is this factor primarily that allows the cutlass to rise above the others. While excellent on the offense, it is this increased defensive capability that makes for such an effective blade.

Used like a brass knuckle? The sword will certainly cut through the wielder's hand.

Lethality:

As touched upon earlier, the cutlass excels in nearly all forms of offense. A narrow tip means that the blade slides into a target far more easily than any katana, while the curve makes the wound larger than a straight thrusting blade. A heavy, shorter blade allows for the ... hilt in the case of the pattern 1917 means that a punch hits like a hammer - more than enough power to crush a zombie skull.

Removes head and limbs in a single stroke? No, can't even cut through cardboard at once. Look carefully at the video, and you'll see how weak the cutlass is.


Handling:

While the broadness of the blade allows for heavy strokes, the somewhat shorter length means that the blade is not too heavy, and that it performs wonderfully in tighter spaces (such as zombie infested hallways!). This combined with the metal basket hilt means that the point of balance is quite close to the hand, allowing for a responsive blade that changes direction ... of the quickest cutting blades, with the cutlass designed specifically for this purpose (as it is a naval weapon).

But, short-swords allow zombies to approach dangerously close to the attacker. Then the zombies can surround & destroy the attacker.

Technique:

Unlike two handed weapons or blades like the rapier, the cutlass' effectiveness scales smoothly with experience (as opposed to being nearly impossible to use if the wielder doesn't know what they're doing). For the less experienced wielder, it can basically be used as one would use a machete, more than capable of clearing building after building of the walking dead. However, when the wielder has been properly trained, the weapon not only becomes more effective against the undead, but it also becomes quite lethal as an anti human weapon. As previously stated, it's more than powerful enough to cut cleanly through legs, arms and necks despite requiring little energy per swing. On top of this, the basket hilt makes catching an opponent's blade easy, making it far more defensively capable than something like a longsword or a katana. While the reach may be more limited, in the modern landscape where close quarters are a constant reality, this is a blessing rather than a curse. Watch these two experienced historical fencers spar with full weight dueling sabres, weapons that handle almost identically to the cutlass (they are the non naval equivalent).

Little energy per swing??? NO! That wouldn't even cut through a cardboard box. Besides, sabres don't require much training. 'With an effective saber a person of reasonable strength can easily cut off limbs, split human skulls, and decapitate heads. Actual test cutting has proven this assertion beyond any doubt and the historical record (such as the British cavalry against the French during the Battle of Waterloo) backs up this claim.'[1]

ARGUMENT
Sabres are a "cut and thrust" weapon like a cutlass. With a sabre, draw-cutting is automatic, not requiring the co-ordination of 'time' of a master. Obviously, sabres can be can be used for point-work (a very important skill in modern fencing), and the sabre is a cut-and thrust weapon. As shown in my rebuttals, tests have shown that sabres can easily decapitate heads etc. The Point-of balance is also very close to the hand, which prevents the wielder from dropping the sword or using too much energy. Since a cutlass is VERY similar to the cutlass, but not precisely the same, most advantages the cutlass has the sabre has. The sabre also doesn't require much experience to operate basically.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.wikihow.com...
http://zombie.wikia.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thank you.

Dufflepud

Con

I will now be rebutting my opponant's first two posts. Their words are in bold, with my response underneath.

First Post:

Machine guns are much more effective, being able to provide a fatal shot with their power if they hit the target's head.

Recoil, distance, and the difficulty of aiming all render this an unlikely occurance, especially since shooters are trained specifically NOT to aim for the head (it's a small target that moves more than the rest of the body).

Machine guns can also shoot much faster than a cutlass can swing, so the number of bullets, each delivering a fatal shot strongly outweighs the little cutlass, which could be destroyed in seconds.

The second half of this sentence makes no sense, so I will be responding to the first half. If the shooter is firing on semi auto, considering how long it takes to line up a shot, the number of zombies they can kill in a given period of time will be no greater than how many a blade wielder can kill. If the weapon is being fired fully automatically, then the waste of bullets renders their kill time even longer in all likelihood.

Each bullet, considering the number of zombies, can easily hit at least one zombie. Imagine you holding a cutlass, and thousand of zombies around you. Is it really effective? Of course not.


IF there are thousands of zombies surrounding you, you are beyond saving. Fortunately, this is an incredibly unlikely situation. That said, in terms of clearing through a crowd, a blade would be far more effective due to the fact that close quarters are a guarantee, and that the sound a bullet makes would draw the rest of the horde in.

Second Post:

This does nothing to prove that CUTLASSES are by far better than other weapons. It only tries to prove that blades are better than firearms.

As was stated at the beginning of the post, the first contention was only that blades are more effective than other personal weapons. How can my opponant expect to argue effectively if they do not read or pay attention to my arguments?

As long as firearms do not break, there is nearly no chance of effort and equipment to maintain.

This completely ignores the fact that firearms need to be routinely dissasembled, cleaned and lubricated to keep them functional. I'd also like to point out that this violates the terms of the debate, as it is completely factually incorrect.

http://www.wikihow.com...

And, handguns are very easy to operate as they are very small.

Handguns are actualy quite difficult to aim, especially outside of close ranges due to the way in which they are held (with arm[s] extended rather than being supported against the shoulder). This also makes the recoil difficult to control. Mastery clearly exhibits that they have no experience with handling firearms.

A Shashka is much better than cutlass,

This is an unsubstantiated claim. In my second contention, I prove that cutlasses are more effective in a zombie apocalypse than other blades.

and can easily cut through human skull or personal protective equipment.


As can nearly any other cutting sword, although cutlasses are particularly effective due to their shorter, broader blades (as opposed to the shashka sabre, which has a longer, lighter blade).

Every hit is certainly NOT a kill. It takes several hits for a cutlass. But for a Shashka it only takes one hit.

Once again, Mastery makes an unsubstantiated, factually incorrect claim. As per the rules of the debate, they have effectively forfeited. A sharp, heavy sword length blade will almost always be capable of cutting through a limb or head. The cutlasses shortness and broadness makes it particularly good at this in close quarters.

Besides, firearms shoot so quick that even if every few hits is one kill.

I've established why this is impractical.

Yes, the blade could be swung continuously but that exposes you to a likely chance of a self-hit.

Unlikely, especially if the wielder has been trained. The sabre or cutlass, for example, is designed to be used with circular motion that allows it to be swung repeatedly.

Since cutlasses and Shashka are both swords, I can assume they're equal until you prove otherwise. That means that cutlasses are not by far the best weapons.

I have proved otherwise by highlighting design differences in length, blade width, and the point of balance.

Since cutlasses and Shashka are both swords, Shashka is no louder than a cutlass.

Correct.
Debate Round No. 4
MASTERY

Pro

Rebuttals

Original posts are underlined & bolded, opponent's responses are bolded.

First Post:

Machine guns are much more effective, being able to provide a fatal shot with their power if they hit the target's head.

Recoil, distance, and the difficulty of aiming all render this an unlikely occurrence, especially since shooters are trained specifically NOT to aim for the head (it's a small target that moves more than the rest of the body).

Distance of a Cutlass outweighs a machine gun? No way! It's common sense. And how does the head move more than the feet?

Machine guns can also shoot much faster than a cutlass can swing, so the number of bullets, each delivering a fatal shot strongly outweighs the little cutlass, which could be destroyed in seconds.

The second half of this sentence makes no sense, so I will be responding to the first half. If the shooter is firing on semi auto, considering how long it takes to line up a shot, the number of zombies they can kill in a given period of time will be no greater than how many a blade wielder can kill. If the weapon is being fired fully automatically, then the waste of bullets renders their kill time even longer in all likelihood.

As the cutlass hits zombies, its blade becomes blunt quickly and thus is rendered useless.

Each bullet, considering the number of zombies, can easily hit at least one zombie. Imagine you holding a cutlass, and thousand of zombies around you. Is it really effective? Of course not.


IF there are thousands of zombies surrounding you, you are beyond saving. Fortunately, this is an incredibly unlikely situation. That said, in terms of clearing through a crowd, a blade would be far more effective due to the fact that close quarters are a guarantee, and that the sound a bullet makes would draw the rest of the horde in.

{Apocalypse: an event involving destruction or damage on a catastrophic scale.}

With that in mind, there has to be many, many zombies.

Second Post:

As long as firearms do not break, there is nearly no chance of effort and equipment to maintain.

This completely ignores the fact that firearms need to be routinely disassembled, cleaned and lubricated to keep them functional. I'd also like to point out that this violates the terms of the debate, as it is completely factually incorrect.

http://www.wikihow.com......

But so do swords. A blunt one won't work, and considering the number of zombies, of course the cutlass will have to be resharpened every minute.

And, handguns are very easy to operate as they are very small.

Handguns are actually quite difficult to aim, especially outside of close ranges due to the way in which they are held (with arm[s] extended rather than being supported against the shoulder). This also makes the recoil difficult to control. Mastery clearly exhibits that they have no experience with handling firearms.

Close range, but not too close, that's the point. So zombies won't invade you but you have adequate closeness.

A Shashka is much better than cutlass,

This is an unsubstantiated claim. In my second contention, I prove that cutlasses are more effective in a zombie apocalypse than other blades and can easily cut through human skull or personal protective equipment.

As can nearly any other cutting sword, although cutlasses are particularly effective due to their shorter, broader blades (as opposed to the shashka sabre, which has a longer, lighter blade).

Actually, the information stated proves this.

Every hit is certainly NOT a kill. It takes several hits for a cutlass. But for a Shashka it only takes one hit.

Once again, Mastery makes an unsubstantiated, factually incorrect claim. As per the rules of the debate, they have effectively forfeited. A sharp, heavy sword length blade will almost always be capable of cutting through a limb or head. The cutlasses shortness and broadness makes it particularly good at this in close quarters.

What is 'incorrect' is debatable. I could say you have broken the rules because a firearm is better than a cutlass. And, as shown in YOUR OWN VIDEO, a cutlass FAILS to cut through a piece of meat in one slash.

Yes, the blade could be swung continuously but that exposes you to a likely chance of a self-hit.


Unlikely, especially if the wielder has been trained. The sabre or cutlass, for example, is designed to be used with circular motion that allows it to be swung repeatedly.

In R2 I have stated that it is the average person being evaluated. The average person is NOT trained.

Conclusion
I will be proving forward the sabre. The sabre is a cut and thrust weapon, unlike other swords, thus being able to both do point work and cut. In a sabre, draw-cutting is also automatic. A sabre can easily cut through limbs etc., as many tests have shown. The POB is close to the hand as well, and the long/medium sword length provides more distance than the short cutlass. A sabre does not require much experience to operate either, like many swords.

Thank you for this debate.
Dufflepud

Con

Third Post:

Used like a brass knuckle? The sword will certainly cut through the wielder's hand.


Mastery completely misunderstands what I am refering to. The basket guard is the metal that wraps around the wielder's hand. One can punch with that piece of steel as one would with a brass knuckle.

Removes head and limbs in a single stroke? No, can't even cut through cardboard at once. Look carefully at the video, and you'll see how weak the cutlass is.

That was wood board, not card board, and the blow was rather light. He cuts completely through it in the horizontal direction later. Here's another video, in which you can see it slice completely through the head and skull of an accurate (in terms of bone and flesh density) model of a human body. It also cuts mostly through a pig with a very light cut. Once again, pretty much any sword blade of the proper weight is capable of removing a head or a limb. The cutlass is superior because of its dimensions and guard, making it perfect for close quarters fighting.


https://www.youtube.com...

But, short-swords allow zombies to approach dangerously close to the attacker. Then the zombies can surround & destroy the attacker.

Two feet is hardly short.


Little energy per swing??? NO! That wouldn't even cut through a cardboard box. Besides, sabres don't require much training. 'With an effective saber a person of reasonable strength can easily cut off limbs, split human skulls, and decapitate heads. Actual test cutting has proven this assertion beyond any doubt and the historical record (such as the British cavalry against the French during the Battle of Waterloo) backs up this claim.'[1]

The cutlass is a military sabre that's been designed for naval use. It is the fact that it's designed for naval use that makes it better against zombies than other sabres, while still retaining all of the other charactaristics and advantages.

Sabres are a "cut and thrust" weapon like a cutlass. With a sabre, draw-cutting is automatic, not requiring the co-ordination of 'time' of a master. Obviously, sabres can be can be used for point-work (a very important skill in modern fencing), and the sabre is a cut-and thrust weapon. As shown in my rebuttals, tests have shown that sabres can easily decapitate heads etc. The Point-of balance is also very close to the hand, which prevents the wielder from dropping the sword or using too much energy. Since a cutlass is VERY similar to the cutlass, but not precisely the same, most advantages the cutlass has the sabre has. The sabre also doesn't require much experience to operate basically.

The cutlass is a sabre. Once again, the differences lie in the heavy basket hilt and the slightly shorter, slightly broader blade; characteristics which make it perfect against zombies.


Fourth Post:

Distance of a Cutlass outweighs a machine gun? No way! It's common sense. And how does the head move more than the feet?

Mastery misunderstands what I am saying once again, and then relies on pedantics. What I meant is that the distance at which one uses a firearm makes it much harder to hit with. When I said "the rest of the body," I was talking about the torso, where a shooter is trained to aim.

As the cutlass hits zombies, its blade becomes blunt quickly and thus is rendered useless.

Firstly, it takes quite a while to dull a 1055 high carbon steel blade. Secondly, even a fairly dull blade can cut quite well, as this video demonstrates. Sharpening would only have to be done every week or so, and it would simply consist of using a knife sharpener or a coarse rock to maintain the edge. This is incredibly easy to do, even with limited resources.

https://www.youtube.com...


{Apocalypse: an event involving destruction or damage on a catastrophic scale.}

With that in mind, there has to be many, many zombies.

Of course, but one also has to keep in mind how vast the world is. Zombies would be fairly spread out, and once again, when "surrounded by thousands of zombies," nothing will save you.

But so do swords. A blunt one won't work, and considering the number of zombies, of course the cutlass will have to be resharpened every minute.

Extreme hyperbole to say the least. I have explained why swords are easy to maintain already.

Actually, the information stated proves this.

An unsubstantiated claim doesn't support itself.

What is 'incorrect' is debatable. I could say you have broken the rules because a firearm is better than a cutlass.

No, because we are debating that very question.

And, as shown in YOUR OWN VIDEO, a cutlass FAILS to cut through a piece of meat in one slash.

A massive piece of meat that is frozen completely solid, bones and all. I've touched on cutting abilities multiple times already.


In R2 I have stated that it is the average person being evaluated. The average person is NOT trained.

Fair enough. That doesn't mean that the average person is so uncoordinated that they'll hit themselves.



Thank you for your time.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Dufflepud 2 years ago
Dufflepud
The rules are certainly overkill, but given that this is pretty much my only method of getting people to debate on ancient weaponry, it's worth accepting xD.
Posted by yomama12 2 years ago
yomama12
not these stupid rules again, but i won the last one against him because he broke his own rules lol
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
Seems like overkill.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by The_Scapegoat_bleats 2 years ago
The_Scapegoat_bleats
MASTERYDufflepudTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Con for actually making this a debate by offering resolutions. Also, Pro provided factually false information, so that adds to bad conduct. Con efficiently refuted a variety of counter-arguments from Pro, every single one, while Pro jumped around between "ultimate" weapons, ending up with the class of sabre, which includes the cutlass and doesn't effectively refute Con. Con took a great deal of time preparing and explaining sources, earning him those points, too. But I must admit that this was a close one, as Pro impressively caught up with the subject at hand.