The Instigator
tiscooler
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
XStrikeX
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Pikachu is a pokemon.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
XStrikeX
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/9/2011 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,938 times Debate No: 17447
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

tiscooler

Pro

Good day DDO, today I will be proving that pikachu is a pokemon.

Definitions

Pikachu: Pikachu is an Electric-type Pokémon introduced in Generation I. [1a][1b][1c]

Pokemon: Pokemon is a media franchise published and owned by the video game company Nintendo [2a][2b]

I will prove this as follows:

Company Clarification

A proof that Pikachu is a pokemon;

P1. Nintendo publishes and owns the pokemon franchise.
P2. Nintendo thus can make true, official statements about pokemon.
P3. Nintendo has repeatedly referred to Pikachu as a pokemon in all official sources. [3a][3b][2b]
P4. Thus, Pikachu is a pokemon.

I rest my case.

Sources

[1a] http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...
[1b] http://www.serebii.net...
[1c] http://gameboy.ign.com...
[2a] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2b] (A video of Pokemon Yellow's startup, where nintendo's logo is clearly visible, along with the aforemented pikachu)
[3a] http://www.pokemon.com...
[3b ]http://www.smashbros.com...
XStrikeX

Con

Thanks for making this debate, tiscooler.

I'm going to keep this short and simple.

My opponent believes Pikachu is a "pokemon," as shown by the resolution.
However, there is no such thing as pokemon or Pokemon.

There is such a thing as Pokémon, though.
Pikachu is a Pokémon, not a pokemon [1].

Take a look at my first source, Bulbapedia, a website used specifically for Pokémon.
It says "Pikachu (Pokémon)." It does not say "Pikachu (Pokemon)."

My opponent claims that Nintendo owns the Pokemon franchise. No, it owns the Pokémon franchise [2].

Therefore, since Nintendo owns Pokémon, it can say whatever about Pokémon, and it has. It has called Pikachu a Pokémon, not a pokemon.

Back to you, Pro.

Sources:
1. http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...
2. http://www.pokemon.com...

Debate Round No. 1
tiscooler

Pro

I will start by analyzing my opponent's semantic trickery and move on to extend my case.

A1: Pokemon has an accent

My opponent attempts to dismiss the entire case due to not using an accented e. However, prefer the pro's interpretation of both pokemon and "pokémon" being legitimate to use for a few reasons.
  • A. Predictable Ground- my opponent is nitpicking over details that are redundant. Referring to pokemon without an accent is predictable ground, con's interpretation detracts from debate by changing the topic from the resolution to grammar, wasting pro's character amount and derailing the heart of the topic.
  • B. Formatting and ease- The accented E can cause formatting errors and takes significantly longer to input, for the sake of both of us, the E was purposely unaccented, don't punish the pro for attempting to maintain a relaxed and simple debating environment.
  • C. Reasonability- Err pro, pro's interpretation preserves fair limits while maintaining a topical focus on the resolution.
  • D. Con must prove specific ground abuse, semantic arguments exist to provide ground for a fair debate. If the con can't prove what ground they have lost, they are playing a semantical game to avoid debating more substantive issues.
I will now go on case.

On case

To keep this brief, the con has dropped, and thus conceded, all of the affirmative case. My opponent concedes the completeness of all four steps of my proof, and that Pikachu is indeed a pokemon. I extend the entirety of the pro's case that Pikachu is a pokemon by repeated official clarification. After having addressed his one semantic argument and having extended my case for Pikachu being a pokemon, back to con.

XStrikeX

Con

Thank you for the quick response!
I'm already enjoying this debate. :D

Anyways, enough character-wasting. Time to debate.

Refutations

"Predictable Ground."


Sorry, I have no idea what this term means. However, I will refute what has been said. I did not change the topic. As the Opposition, I am simply arguing against the resolution with my own proof. The truth is, Pokemon and Pokémon are two completely different things.

"Formatting and ease."

I appreciate the intention of making this a light-hearted debate. But regardless, you still must treat this seriously. Misspoken words have their effect in the real world, and missritten words have their effect on paper, as well. Anyways, it is very simple to input the accented e. Simply copy 'é' from some website and paste it in.

"Reasonability."

I'll just answer this one in the next point.

"...specific ground abuse..."

Clearly, this would be a cakewalk for the Proposition had there been no semantic argument. Anyone who has ever played the Pokémon game or even seen the show must clearly know that Pikachu is a Pokémon. If we continue to argue as the Proposition sees fit, this would be an easy win for the Pro side. As a result, something is needed to combat the resolution.

"My opponent concedes the completeness of all four steps of my proof, and that Pikachu is indeed a pokemon."

It is impossible to not concede something that doesn't exist. Nowhere in the world is there a "pokemon." There is a Pokémon, however. And that is what Pikachu is.

New Argument


After a bit of reading, I discovered a major flaw in my opponent's argument.
Interestingly enough, Pro defines "Pok[é]mon" as "a media franchise published and owned by the video game company Nintendo." Is Pikachu really a media franchise? Is Pikachu an electric-type media franchise, using my opponent's other definition? No, it is not. It is not a franchise nor a pokemon.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
tiscooler

Pro

Time to finish this. Extensions, then voters.

Pokemon with accented E

There are multiple reasons to vote for pro on con's semantic argument:

First, my opponent conceded my predictable ground argument, which states that referring to pokemon without an accent is a predictable spelling and use. This is ground to reject the argument in and of itself, he has essentially conceded that my interpretation is the standard and predictable interpretation, and thus his semantic argument is nothing more than a massive character and time skew. On formatting and ease, no warrants were given to the effects of miswritten words and is thus my opponent's point only a statement, not an argument, you can vote pro on formatting. Finally, my opponents failed to prove any ground lost abusively due to my use of unaccented pokemon. This argument wasn't about ground, it was to avoid debating the resolution itself, don't let him win a debate by avoiding the topic.

New Argument

This argument attempts to exclude Pikachu as a pokemon through definition spin. However, pokemon in this instance is to represent a member of the aforementioned franchise owned by Nintendo. Pokemon represents the franchise as well as the individual members thereof. Err pro, he should have asked round one for clarification.

Case

The case flow was conceded through the entire debate.

Voters

The pro should be considered the winner of this debate for a few reasons:

1. Spelling/Grammar - do not lump the con's semantic argument into this vote, that should be part of better arguments. The vote on spelling and grammar should go to the person with the better spelling and grammar in the debate. Some mistakes my opponent made: " and missritten words" and "not a franchise nor (double negative)" are two mistakes that stand out.

2. Evidence- With 7 sources, vote pro.

3. My arguments that pikachu is a pokemon were ignored in favor of nonresponsive semantics, and case was conceded. For answering in full, and an uncontested extended case, vote pro.

XStrikeX

Con

Thanks for the debate. I thoroughly enjoyed myself.

Final Refutations

"...my opponent conceded my predictable ground argument, which states that referring to pokemon without an accent is a predictable spelling and use."

Now your statement has kind of clarified this term for me. I must point out however, that there were three other reasons you created why the Opposition's semantic argument should be ignored, and this is solely one of them. Regardless of whether it is standard or predictable, it is not the formal or correct manner to be written, especially within a debate. I do interpret that by 'pokemon' you mean 'Pokémon,' however, it is not 100% interpreted that way due to the error. Just Google the two words. You will find that Googling 'pokemon' shows less relevant images, compared to 'pokémon.'

"On formatting and ease, no warrants were given to the effects of miswritten words and is thus my opponent's point only a statement, not an argument, you can vote pro on formatting."

Had there been no miswritten word, I would not be sitting down here with you and debating this topic. That is warrant enough. It seems very much like you ignored my point anyways.

"...my opponents failed to prove any ground lost abusively due to my use of unaccented pokemon."

There is no refutation here. My opponent simply regards all that I say as faulty and should be tossed out without any proof or reasoning.

Therefore, it is clear that Pokémon with an accented 'e' is important.

"Pokemon represents the franchise as well as the individual members thereof. Err pro, he should have asked round one for clarification."

Yes, it was an error by the Pro for not defining all the terms at the beginning of this debate. The Proposition is at fault for failure to recognize his own mistake. The attempt to clear it up in the last round is ven more faulty. As a result, the Opposition should win.

Pikachu is not a media franchise, nor is it a pokemon.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by wjmelements 5 years ago
wjmelements
I don't like that PRO claimed his proof was conceded when CON had negated all four steps of his proof.
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
Even if I thought pro won, voting against a grue might not be very wise...
Posted by DoctorVonScience 5 years ago
DoctorVonScience
Well played, Contender.
Posted by Thaddeus 5 years ago
Thaddeus
I strongly disagree.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
tiscoolerXStrikeXTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Pro, don't tell me how to vote. S/G: Con actually capitalized "Pokémon." Arguments: Pikachu is indeed not a media franchise. Sources: Pro supported an actual argument, Con's two sources were used for nitpicky and irrelevant details.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
tiscoolerXStrikeXTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro makes a point. In language, an accent can mean the difference between one meaning and another. In addition, Pokemon (with an accent) is a registered trademark... Pokemon (without an accent) is not.
Vote Placed by wjmelements 5 years ago
wjmelements
tiscoolerXStrikeXTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro stated that Con had conceded his argument, when Con had not. Pro also attempted to redefine Pokemon in his third round. Pro misspelled Pokémon. Con provided two good reasons to negate. Pro had more sources.