Tom Holland will make a horrible Spider-Man.
Debate Rounds (4)
Well, finally, after a long last 6 months Marvel has finally casted its Spider-man. During this exhausting and cliff-hanging decision making, we got a glimpse on such amazing names, as Dylan O'Brien, Logan Lerman, Josh Hutcherson. However, what we got is some guy called Tom Holland. Now, please, let me be clear, why I think this actor will absolutely and miserable fail to deliver appropriate Spider-Man; a Spider-Man that we don't deserve, but that we need.
I have nothing against the acting skills of mr Holland. The guy delivered brilliant performances in the Impossible and How I live Now pictures, even tho had not played a significant part in them. He is young, he is fresh, he is flexible, I even heard he did gymnastics, which gives him at least some king of an advantage over his predecessors of the web crawler.
Civil War is probably one of the darkest, most violent and rampaging series Marvel has ever produced. I will not throw away spoilers, but a number of signigicant deaths, suffering and tough choices, that affect characters so much, is simply not a place for a 15 years old boy! For this round, I will use the following argument: Tom Holland's portrayal of a 15 years old spidey, in a line with a 90 years old cap, who struggles with PTSD, 50 years old Iron Man, who needs to re-evaluate his morality and life priorities, is, and I am sorry I think so, absolutely ridiculous!
I will with pleasure take anyone against my pro, but I just felt like I need to argue with someone about it, so I will go nuts, don't you even doubt it.
I accept this debate as I will argue that Tom Holland will not make a horrible Spider-Man. I will argue that he'll at least make a decent if not good Spider-Man. Since Pro has not defined his terms, I will.
Horrible: 1. Causing or tending to cause horror; shockingly dreadful. 2. Extremely unpleasant; deplorable; disgusting.
Tom Holland: A young actor recently cast as Spider-Man.
Spider-Man: A Marvel Comics Superhero.
Therefore, in order for Pro to live up his resolution, he must prove that Tim Holland's portrayal will cause horror, as well as being unpleasant, deplorable, and/or disgusting.
Pro then goes on to say that he has nothing against Holland's acting skills, and that he has even delivered brilliant performances. He calls Holland young, fresh, and flexible, admitting his flexibility gives him an advantage in the role. Since Pro openly recognizes all of these things, how does he still think Holland will do a *horrible* job?
I know very well the story of the Marvel Civil War. I have read, and own most of the arch. I know how violent and destructive it is, but it could have been worse.
Pro argues that The Civil War is no place for a fifteen year old boy. This is false, because many fifteen year olds have matured enough to handle violence, especially since this one is handling being a superhero.
Spider-Man is not fifteen during the events of The Civil War, so this claim by Pro is completely inaccurate. During the events, he is presumed to be in his early to mid twenties. This is backed up from one of the comics where Spider-Man reveals his identity and says "My name is Peter Parker, and I have been Spider-Man since I was fifteen years old."
Speaking that it has been a minimum of eight years from Parker's start as Spider-Man to the start of The Civil War, Parker is estimated to be at least 23 years old when the war breaks out.
Even if Pro were arguing that Tom Holland is too young to play someone in The Civil War, he's wrong. Holland is nineteen.
Pro says that Captain America was 90 years old in The Civil War. Yes, that would be true, if he had never been frozen. Cap's time frozen halted his aging, so even when he rised seventy-odd years later, he still had the appearance and capabilities of a man in his early thirties. And as far I as know, there is no evidence that Cap was suffering from PTSD.
He also says that Iron Man was 50 years old. This is as assumption, a false one at most. Stark was probably in his late thirties to early fourties during the war.
Spidey's age: http://marvel.wikia.com...
Definition of "horrible": http://dictionary.reference.com...
Tom Holland: http://www.imdb.com...
I'd like to thank Pro for starting this debate, and I look forward to having this debate.
Yes, thank you for defining what I am intended to argue here. I believe that every single reasonable human being will comprehend what I meant by ‘make a horrible Spider-Man.’ But I do, indeed, appreciate your effort, lad.
Once again, thank you for making sure my arguments are being repeated at least 3 times. I see no point in your question, in why I think Tom Holland will be a horrible Spider-Man, because you already answered it yourself further into your argument.
You said, especially since this one is handling being a superhero. How does it handle that exactly? There was no Spider-Man thus far in the MCU, apart from that shady and vague picture of him in the magazine, taken by Ben Urich, in the recent TV-series “Daredevil”. We do not know nothing about his origins, maybe he will be created by one of Stark’s numerous techs in Civil War. In the best case scenario for your argument, Spider-Man will be out there at most for a year, handling his superhero business. I do not know about you, but I think, that one year is no where near enough for a 15 year old boy to gain enough skills, courage, morality and maturity to level with avengers like Iron Man or Captain America. Who are in their turn are not doing well, even tho they have been there for almost a decade soon. Therefore, I am afraid to say, that he is most certainly not handling being a superhero to the extent that you have drawn.
It will be very kind of Con to point out exactly where I have said, that Spider Man was 15 years old in the Civil War story line. Before claiming on me being inaccurate, please read carefully the argument of your opponent.
Now, back to my point. Here is an extract of an article I have taken, a link to which will be provided at the bottom of this article.
""In terms of the age of an actor we'll eventually to cast, I don't know. In terms of the age of what we believe Peter Parker is, I'd say 15-16 is right," Feige revealed in a new interview with Collider””
So there you go. I hope that justifies enough, that Marvel Entertainment will bring in a 16 years old at most Spider-Man into Civil War in 2016.
"Even if Pro were arguing that Tom Holland is too young to play someone in The Civil War, he's wrong. Holland is nineteen.”
I am sorry, I did not quite understand how these 2 sentences are linked. I guess there are 2 possible things that you have meant, so I will go ahead and argue both. First possible meaning to these sentences is that Holland is too old to play a 15 years old teenager. And that is an utter non sense. I could draw hundreds if not more of examples of where actors played someone significantly younger than their actual age. This is starting with Miles Teller, who at the age of 26 played a 19 years old drummer in the “Whiplash’, ending with Johnny Depp, who was 48-ish, when performing a 25 years old young man in the movie “Rum Diary”. Needless to explain any further.
A second possible thing that Con suggested is that… uh, i can’t be bothered even thing about it. How about Con explains it himself instead for the next round? Thank you for your patience.
You are correct, we should count Cap as a 30 years old man. But we should not, should we? It seems to me that you completely forgot about a fact that Cap is the only enhanced (apart from Hulk, who isn’t really a human being) human being, with super speed, strength, stamina and etc. Therefore, we do not know if he even ages, with such a fast metabolism as his.
And I think the fact that Cap constantly, in every movie, sees visions from the past, fights a battle against his present surroundings to let the past behind is enough evidence of PTSD being there.
Oh, I get it. It seems to me that Con misunderstood my argument. You see, to start with, I was talking about MCU Civil War - not comics one. In the MCU, Tony Stark is at least 50 years old. Perhaps now that I have explained what I was arguing about, many things will be become more apparent and clear.
Here is that link I promised - http://www.nme.com...
You will just have to put up with me, my friend. But thank you for this awesome round.
"Yes, thank you for defining what I am intended to argue here."
I don't know if Pro knows this, but it is good to define terms in every debate so both side's goals are perfectly aware.
"In the best case scenario for your argument, Spider-Man will be out there at most for a year."
Pro must be unaware of The Civil War Storyline. In it, Peter Parker had been operating as a superhero for just under a decade, as I confirmed last round.
Pro fails to notice that Spider-Man is well into adulthood during these events, so his repeated argument of him being too young is of no use.
"Before claiming on me being inaccurae, please read carefully the argument of your opponent."
Ok, I can point the exact place where you said he was fifteen. In Round 1, in Pro's third paragraph, he says:
"I will not throw away spoilers, but a number of signigicant deaths, suffering and tough choices, that affect characters so much, is simply not a place for a 15 years old boy! For this round, I will use the following argument: Tom Holland's portrayal of a 15 years old spidey"
15 years old spidey"
Here, Pro has clearly asserted his claim that Spidey was fifteen during these events. I have highlighted the portions that confirm this. Pro says that the events of The Civil War are "no place for a 15 years old boy" and that he will use the argument over "Tom Holland's portrayal of a 15 years old spidey".
This confirms I have carefully read my opponent's arguments, and by him saying that I haven't, and that I should point out exactly where he said my claims, I have managed tohighlight the exact points where he said so as asked.
Even if Parker is teenage in The Civil War film adaptation, that does in no way determine his performance quality as Spidey. Pro's resolution is that "Tom Holland will make a horrible Spider-Man", not "Spider-Man is too young for him to be in The Civil War."
Therefore, it is a moot point for Pro to keep referring to this, as it would not effect Holland's quality of portrayal.
Pro misunderstands me. I said that if Pro were to make the case that Holland is too young to play the character in these events, he is nineteen. Not fifteen.
There is proof that Cap ages. Below I will provide a scene from a comic where Cap was stripped of his Serum to reveal his old self. The serum does not prevent his aging, it just masks it. However, to claim that Cap is ninety years old is still moot, because his time frozen haulted any possible aging. s://comicbookrants.files.wordpress.com...; alt="" width="484" height="209" />
Pro then states that he was arguing about the MCU Civil War, not the comics one.
It is illogical to argue over the MCU Civil War, as it has not happened yet. I would like Pro to point out anywhere in the past movies that says Stark will be at least fifty.
"You will just have to put up with me, my friend. But thank you for this awesome round."
Pro needs to be cautious then, because if he is in beed of being put up with, he is on the verge of fallacies.
I too would like to thank Pro for this round.
blackprtzl forfeited this round.
blackprtzl forfeited this round.
Extend. Pro has forfeited both of the last two rounds, leaving many of my arguments uncountered.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheHitchslap 1 year 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||4|
Reasons for voting decision: FF so arguments to con, I also hate that the pro didnt even have the decency to not waste Con's time so conduct as a result of the FF.
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.