The Instigator
imabench
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
rrs1179
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Spongebob Squarepants would beat the sh*t out of Patrick Star in a boxing match

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,378 times Debate No: 19589
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (34)
Votes (3)

 

imabench

Pro

I need some entertainment, but only 4000 characters per round of it.

I think that Spongebob could beat the sh*t out of Patrick Star if they went one on one in a boxing match. The Con may use any Spongebob evidence to offer otherwise.

I encourage creative arguments but urge the con to remember, this is for laughs, so be funny.
rrs1179

Con

The premise of the characters Patrick and Sponge Bob is that Patrick is a Star Fish and Sponge Bob is a sponge.

For the purpose of definition, I will define "beat the shi*t out of" as a physical altercation marked by elastic collision between two bodies in space.

With that said, because a body of a sponge lacks mass as a result of low cellular density the mass factor of the equation that basically explains elastic collisions (m1u1+m2u2=m1v1+m2v2) shows no momentum will be transferred from SB (sponge bob) to Patrick Furthermore, because a sponge also lacks any form of motor development, inherently, no velocity can be generated. With little mass and no self-generating velocity the sponge can generate little to no force. (http://www.springerlink.com...) (Landau LD and Lifshitz EM (1976) Mechanics, 3rd. ed., Pergamon Press. ISBN 0-08-021022-8 (hardcover) and ISBN 0-08-029141-4 (softcover)).

Therefore since characters are not tangible but are based on tangible objects, we must use their tangible counterparts to analyze this question. With that said, it would defy the laws of physics for SB to "beat the shi*t" out of Patrick.
Debate Round No. 1
imabench

Pro

The Con uses good logic to reinforce his argument, however he forgets that the laws of physics dont exactly apply to cartoons. As you can see the videos on the right show Spongebob can exert (sometimes an impressive amount of) force on an object.

First video shows Spongebob literally breaking Squidward's face on accident while in a frenzy. Should the same thing happen in a boxing match against Patrick Star then Patrick could be messed up pretty Bad

In this second video you can actually see Spongebob punching himself in the face (with a boxing glove please note) and it left a rather large indentation.

The laws of physics may be violated but I have shown tangible proof from the cartoon shows itself that Spongebob can indeed throw one helluva (DDO doesnt recognize that as a curse word ;D) punch....
rrs1179

Con

While I appreciate Pro's argument, it is fundamentally flawed. If we adhere to the idea that the laws of the natural world do not apply to cartoons then we are left only to laws which apply to cartoons. Therefore any cartoon is dependent upon the cartoon creator for ever facet of the cartoons existence (including, but not limited to governing laws of science), as we perceive it. Since the burden of proof in this debate lies with the Con, he must show that the creator of the cartoon, Stephen Hillenburg, would have SBSP "beat the sh*t out of Patrick in a boxing match" if he (Hillenburg) ever created such an altercation. I believe this to be impossible, and I see no other choice but to vote for the Con's argument.
Debate Round No. 2
imabench

Pro

Great, I found the one person on this whole site who wants to take this argument seriously...
-_______________________________________________-

I have already shown that Spongebob can throw a good punch (see above videos) so in a boxing match between him and Patrick Star, Spongebob would have the ability to hit him pretty hard (as I have shown)

Keep in mind that Spongebob is very crafty and uses different tactics to solve problems that normal people, and Patrick Star, would not be able to think of. That gives Spongebob the edge in the fight because he has the ability to think of crafty ways to beat Patrick

Evidence of Spongebob developing crafty solutions to a challenge:

In One video we show how Spongebob tricks plankton to stop controlling his brain by describing the deliciousness of a Krabby Patty and forcing Plankton to jump for it, but bounced off it into the machine where he was analyzed and became stuck in the machine, his plans foiled again.

In the next video (skip up to the 3rd minute) we see how Spongebob quickly gets Squidward to stop playing the Clarinet badly by using a slingshot to shoot A Marshmellow Up the Clarinet into Squidwards mouth to stop him from playing the Clarinet. This shows how creative Spongebob is to neutralize a potential problem.

The Second video also shows how Spongebob has very good aim, something that would be very beneficial to a boxing fight between him and Patrick Star...

To summarize:
I have shown that Spongebob can indeed throw a punch, is very crafty, and has very good aim.
The Con has claimed that it cant happen because in real life sponges dont have a large mass, and thats it...

I required the Con to gave a humorous and creative argument, instead he has used real life science, tried to denounce the show for not following the laws of physics, and has demanded people vote for him in the second round of a five round debate -________-
rrs1179

Con

While I appreciate my opponent attempting to make a "humorous" argument I think he misses my humor and creativity (as he stated were requirements for the argument). I would point out that engaging in a debate about cartoons using valid scientific principles could be construed as an ironic situation. Irony can be key component of humor. Furthermore, I think the voters will agree that my "out of the box" are far more creative than engaging in a debate limited to the bound of "what really happen" on SBSP. I think it could be also view as a humorous situation when a person is upset with another person because he takes a SBSP debate "seriously".

As I have previously stated, unless my opponent proves the intentions of the creator of the show affirm his resolution every point he makes is invalid.

With that said, my opponent failed to counter any of my arguments; only attacking my arguments as "unfunny". I see no other vote than the Con at this point.
Debate Round No. 3
imabench

Pro

Con, the laws of physics dont apply in cartoons...

^ that right there completely defeats all of your arguments so far.

P.S. How the heck does " because a body of a sponge lacks mass as a result of low cellular density the mass factor of the equation that basically explains elastic collisions (m1u1+m2u2=m1v1+m2v2) shows no momentum will be transferred from SB (sponge bob) to Patrick" count as humorous?? You must have a vary warped sense of what is humorous....

I only have to show evidence where if hypothetically Spongebob could beat the crap out of Patrick Start in a boxing match. The Con cannot simply hide behind the idea that in order for this to happen the creator of the show would have to make it happen. Even though I have the BOF I have shown evidence that shows how Spongebob could beat up Patrick Star, it is the duty of the Con to offer evidence proving otherwise, the Con has not done that.

Quit asking for people to vote for you when there's still 2 rounds left.....
rrs1179

Con

My argument, thus far has 2 facets.

Facet 1:
By analogy from the Natural world to the "cartoon world" , applying the laws of physics to SBSP unequivocally refutes Pro's argument.

Facet 2:
If we accept Con's argument that laws of the natural world do not apply to cartoon, then we must rely solely on the cartoon creator to determine whether Pro's argument is valid.

Pro has made a weak argument attacking Facet 1 and has not even touched facet two.

Pro states my humor is warped because I have applied hard science to a debate about cartoons. I once again refer to the literary tool of irony, which results in comedy. I can not specifically cater my humor to satisfy the Pro. Only the voter can determine if I failed to meet the criterion of humor in the debate.

Contrary to the belief of the Pro, I do not have to prove anything. I only have to show his argument is fundamentally flawed. With regards to Pro asking me to quit asking for voters to vote for me, I see nothing wrong with reminding voters of how I stand in the debate at that particular point. With that in mind, at this point, I see no other vote but that of the CON.
Debate Round No. 4
imabench

Pro

The Con still believes that the laws of the natural world apply to cartoons, However here is some evidence suggesting otherwise.

In this video we see an underwater campfire, not possible in the natural world

In this one we see soda being poured into glasses, but they are still underwater, not possible in the real world

In both of these videos we can see sound being clearly pronounced by the characters who are underwater, however in the natural world this would be impossible since water does not clearly carry soundwaves, try saying one thing underwater, it comes out garbled and the only way the other person can comprehend you is if you scream it, enunciate, and are within close distance.

In this video we see snow underwater, not possible in the natural world

I think this is ample evidence to show that the laws of the natural world do not apply to the cartoon show, negating the Con's entire argument.

We do not have to rely on the cartoon creator to create this scenario to prove i am right, I only have convince the voters of why Spongebob would win by offering evidence, your BOP is to convince them why Patrick would win, you have not done that.

So without further ado here is why I think that Spongebob would beat up Patrick Star in a boxing match
1) Spongebob can throw a punch with considerable force (Con has not shown evidence against this)
2) Spongebob is very creative in how to handle situations (Con cannot deny what is proven)
3) Spongebob has very good aim (Con has not proven otherwise)
4) The laws of the natural world do not apply to the cartoon show (Con's entire argument is negated)

Thanks for reading :D (I wish it could have been funnier to read though -_______-)
rrs1179

Con

Pro states I believe laws of the natural world apply to cartoons. I never stated that, I simple said it would be instructive to make an analogy using the laws of the natural world and applying them to the cartoon in question. I even went so far as to give my opponent another option if he didn't accept this analogy.

His second choice was to prove the laws which do apply to the cartoon would affirm his resolution. These laws could only be derived from the mind of the creator of the cartoon. My opponent simple had to show that the creator of sponge bob square pants would have sponge bob beat the sh*t out of Patrick. He clearly did not do that.

Pro also goes on to state that Con has a burden of proof to prove Patrick would win the fight. This is in no way correct and violates the basic tenets of debate. I have no burden of proof, it lies entirely with the Pro.

As for the humor aspect, I think my arguments have been shining examples of ironic humor. While my arguments do not utilize superficial humor as used in the cartoon (and possibly championed by the the Pro), they showcase a type of humor commonly referred to as "high-brow". It is unfortunate if the Pro does not comprehend this particular brand of entertainment

Clearly there is no other vote but that of the CON.
Debate Round No. 5
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
exactly ;D
Posted by System113 5 years ago
System113
Lol, if con doesn't bring it up, it doesn't count.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
and THEN id be f****.....
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
lol, that's the one that I was planning on using. That with when Patrick gets pissed in the Valentines Day episode and Spongebob is scared (along with everyone else) for their safety. We can also see from several clips that Spongebob can only be strong when he isn't trying (see ripped pants when playing volley ball, or the more recent "Way of the Pants," the entire episode is about that premise).
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
i was expecting that clip to surface at any moment and I wouldnt have been able to dismiss it... luckily the Con never brought it up ;D
Posted by System113 5 years ago
System113
What about when spongebob is trying to get in the Salty Spitoon, so he pretends to get in a fight with patrick to prove how tough he is. After some G rated sh*t talking Spongebob calls patrick tubby. This really gets to Patrick who screams, "Nobody calls me tubby!" just before Falcon Punching Spongebob onto his arse. Then he proceeds to beat the sh*t out of himself because Spongebob lacked the ability.
Posted by Darknonymous 5 years ago
Darknonymous
...... wtf........ its a cartoon.....
Posted by iTzDanneh 5 years ago
iTzDanneh
Pro doesn't understand what a k is. Con is running a critique which is perfectly fine. Pro however wanted the con to run a normal case but you cannot define the content of your opponents case. Cons use of irony was hysterical and i find he won the debate.
Posted by Yarely 5 years ago
Yarely
If I could vote on this I'd vote for Con
Posted by Yarely 5 years ago
Yarely
Pro didn't understand Con's humor
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
imabenchrrs1179Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I feel that Con did not fully understand the intent of this debate. Pro, I would gladly take this debate at a later date if you would like a rematch.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
imabenchrrs1179Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:51 
Reasons for voting decision: I would have to agree with the voter below.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
imabenchrrs1179Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:52 
Reasons for voting decision: LOL! I get CON's sense of humor, so I gave him 1 point (conduct), and overall he had a better sense of professionalism(Spelling and Grammar)... However, PRO's arguments seemed more appropriate in this sort of debate, and he used videos! (Sources and Arguments)