Plants vs Zombies plants are better
Debate Rounds (3)
As Pro, my opponent has the burden of proof and must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that in the video game Plants vs Zombies, the Plants are "better".
I can't tell what exactly my opponent's points were, if s/he had any at all.
Pro did propose a question, however. Why would the object of a video game be to defeat an enemy that is superior to the protagonist? Well, to that I would say Super Mario. Metroid. Final Fantasy VII. If one doesn't know these old games, I'd say Demon's Souls. Metal Gear Solid 4. God of War III. Limbo. Many of the biggest games of all time have had the protagonist begin weaker than the antagonist(s) in the game. It makes everything that much more exciting. Who would take pride defeating a weak opponent? What kind of boss fight would that be? This is nothing new in games just like it's nothing new in movies, books, plays, music, ect. Hell, if you want a really old example just look at David and Goliath in the valley of eli ( I think that's what it was called). That's a template that's thousands of years old that is used all the time in video games (Shadow of the Colossus). If the only arguement my opponent has is that a protagonist in a story wouldn't be weaker than his/her opponents, then this isn't going to be a very fun debate.
I was hoping that Pro would state his/her definition of "better" as it pertains to the resolution, but since s/he did not, I will argue the most likely definitions.
1. The Zombies are more noble than the Plants.
One the one side, you have human beings who were (presumably) infected against their will with a horrible, flesh-eating disease trying desperately to end their pain. On the other hand, you have plants. They eat/shoot/blow up people. Umm... Yeah.
2. They are more dangerous than the Plants.
Zombies are a determined group of sick humans who would do anything to thrive as an organism. Plants are a group of plants that shoot pellets their enemies safely from from 20 seconds away in order to have any chance of surviving. A plant that needs to attack from a safe distance away in order to not be destroyed in seconds up against a Zombie that, depending on the type of Zombie, could eat a whole row of the weaker plants by itself.
3. In a violent confrontation between Zombies and Plants, Zombies are more likely to win.
In a violent confrontation, the more dangerous participant is more likely to be the victorious one. Q.E.D., the Zombie is the more likely victor.
Unfortunatly, I can't draw up any solid conclusion because I don't know exactly what this debate is about. The term "better" is one of the more subjective terms and an odd one to see in a debate resolution. I strongly suggest Pro define it as it relates to the resolution if s/he want's either side to make any kind of strong argument.
For all I know, we could be debating which of the two is "better" at water polo.
smonie55 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ApostateAbe 5 years 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||7|
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit
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.