The Instigator
Gaming_Debater
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Dpowell
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

This house asserts that Pokemon sends mixed messages about what "friendship" is.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Dpowell
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/15/2014 Category: TV
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 701 times Debate No: 63263
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Gaming_Debater

Pro

First round is acceptance only.
Dpowell

Con

I accept my opponents challenge, and look forward to an interesting debate with him/her.
Debate Round No. 1
Gaming_Debater

Pro

Thank you for accepting. I'm a guy BTW.

MESSAGE #1: A "Friend's" Pain for Empty "Achievement."

The trainers force their pokemon into a lot of fighting, and yet identify these creatures as their "friends." And what for? To get into the "Pokemon league." Why? For fame and glory. If you really pay attention to what happens during most pokemon battles and really think, you'll notice a lot of blows that would pretty much seriously injure kill a real person. After some thought, I wondered how the Pokemon were surviving all that punishment, particularly electric type moves and fire-type moves that have a chance of burning the target. As an example, we see Pikachu using electric-type moves... a lot.



The above move Pikachu is using is Volt Tackle, a move where the user charges at its target surrounded by electricity. Electricity actually kills people. But it never actually kills the Pokemon. They either get seriously hurt or simply "faint." Also, given the speed at which Pikachu charges, would that not kill you without the electricity? As for burning fire-type moves...



The above move is flamethrower, a move that can actually burn a pokemon. It is a large cloud of fire tht engulfs the target. That would certainly kill a person.

CA1:

Pokemon is teaching kids that it is possible to survive a fast tackle that carries electricity AND being hit by a constant stream of fire... and being burned for an extended period of time.


MESSAGE #2:
Keeping Pokemon Alive

In season 1, episode 58, "Volcanic Panic," Ash calls Pikachu back because if not, Pikachu would have fallen into the lava and died. In fact, we never see actual deaths, even though pokemon moves are apparently lethal in real life.


CA2:

Pokemon is sending the message that you should keep your friends out of mortal danger but still make them do things that would be lethal in real life.


Conflict between the two messages:

Pokemon are identified as "friends" of their trainers. It is contradictory to teach someone to keep a friend out of mortal danger, but force them to perform feats that PUT them in mortal danger.

Your turn.
Dpowell

Con

I agree. The moves have the ability to kill a real person. I'm sure most of us have learned about this from numerous youtubers.
http://www.youtube.com....
But I'm sure that the attacks aren't meant to harm or kill anyone.

Argument 1:
How do we know that the pokemon aren't strong enough to withstand the attack. The pokedex in the show doesn't tell you that like it does in the games. And it's a show. Kids aren't looking for what's physically possible. It's an anime. Those things are famous for impossible things possible, but that's for another debate.

Argument 2:
Pokemon are more used to send more random and sexual messages than violent. (Beneath this, there will be a link to some examples). While the show itself teaches kids to stay true to your friends. For instance- when Ash first got Pikachu, Pikachu didn't like him at all, but when Ash almost lost his life protecting him, he started to like him more. That message taught kids that a good friend would always be there to protect you. Another example would be team rocket itself. If my opponent thought about it, he/she would realize that their actually good. They're used to teach the kids that stealing is wrong, and that you should be careful around strangers. I'm not sensing any danger in that.

http://www.dorkly.com....
Debate Round No. 2
Gaming_Debater

Pro

Gaming_Debater forfeited this round.
Dpowell

Con

All points extended.
Debate Round No. 3
Gaming_Debater

Pro

Gaming_Debater forfeited this round.
Dpowell

Con

All points extended.
Debate Round No. 4
Gaming_Debater

Pro

i give up
Dpowell

Con

I rest my case.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Gaming_DebaterDpowellTied
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: ff and concession
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Gaming_DebaterDpowellTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: NOT A VOTE BOMB! Conduct and arguments to Con due to the Forfeiture. Con get's sources due to him using sources, and he gets S&G for Pro's lack of capitalization.