The Instigator
lannan13
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
wierdman
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

Undertaker could defeat spongebob

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 6 votes the winner is...
wierdman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/8/2011 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,803 times Debate No: 19761
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (6)

 

lannan13

Pro

I'm arguing the topic above.
1. undertaker is 7ft. and spongebob is only as high as you ankle.
2. undertaker weights 305 and spongebob probaly only a couple ounces
3. spongebob can't even lift a drink up
4. undertaker has won several championships and spongebob 1
5. the only matches spongebob has been in is a tie and the other Patrick won for them
6. undertaker could tear him in 1/2
wierdman

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate. Since my opponent didn't give his opening argument, I assume round one is for clarification and acceptance. So, without further adieu.......
Lol, no offense directed towards my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
lannan13

Pro

Sorry didn't know 1st speach is acceptance still new. I'll just repeat my arguements from my 1st speach.
1. undertaker is 7ft. and spongebob is only as high as you ankle.
2. undertaker weights 305 and spongebob probaly only a couple ounces
3. spongebob can't even lift a drink up
4. undertaker has won several championships and spongebob 1
5. the only matches spongebob has been in is a tie and the other Patrick won for them
6. undertaker could tear him in 1/2
wierdman

Con

Since my opponent did not fully define the parameters for this debate:
The fight will be held Under water where we will assume Undertaker can still breathe.

Unto the debate itself
The biggest argument here, is the fact that spongebob is a sponge. With this been said, we find that he is capable of things that humans simply can't do. One of this been the fact that spongebob is able to absurd punches and kicks easily. I would like to direct my opponents direction to the first movie clip(spngebob vs. flats):
Spongebob is unpredictable and this with a combination of several kunfu skills, makes him a deadly and unpredictable force. He has been been to direct this force to defeat enemies far larger than he is and sue to the way his body is built, spongebob is able to change the state of his body within minutes.

Finally, spongebob is also able to absorb liquid and direct this liquid to a single point. This enables the ability to create a jet powerful enough to not only defeat Under taker, but since this fight is been held underwater, he now has the ability to seriously injure the Undertaker if not kill him.

If the Undertaker does split spongebob in two, then he is only speeding up the process of multiplying. Spongebob is ale to split himself in half to create a temporary help if necessarily.

Ultimately, due to Spongebob's different abilities and the fact that the Undertaker won't be able to land the necessarily punches and kicks he need to win the round, The Undertaker looses the round.
Debate Round No. 2
lannan13

Pro

let me clear some things up. The fight is on land at Wreastlemania. Spongebob can breath on land just like in the movie.
1. I can't use youtube due to internete blocking at school and limet of internet at home so I can't use youtube.
Now to the rebuttal
1. spongebob was only able to absorb the hits: nothing on choke slams and tomb stones
2. spongebob would be like an ant still easy to kill when there is several
3. Undertaker is 19-0 at Wrestlemania and he won't loose to Spongebob.
4. Undertaker has been in Hell in a Cell, Elimination Chamber, Royal Rumble, Coffin Match, Burried Alive, and even hardcore matches. Spongebob has been in a Royal Rumble and Single.
In the Kung Fu episode if you remember correctly the only reason he defeated the other wrestlers is that hes was being tricked into buying re-estate.
wierdman

Con

"let me clear some things up. The fight is on land at Wreastlemania. Spongebob can breath on land just like in the movie."
As shown in several movies, Spongebob cannot stay outside of water for a long time, or he will dry up. The fact that my opponent did not set this rule on his first argument, simply means that it will be completely unfair to the debate and to my self to change up every rule. My setting should be seen over that of my opponent's as unlike my opponent, my setting was defined on my first constructive speech. I merely filled up a gap my opponent forgot to fill.

"1. I can't use youtube due to internete blocking at school and limet of internet at home so I can't use youtube."

Understood, as from this point on, I will not use YouTube.

" spongebob would be like an ant still easy to kill when there is several"

Like I explained earlier, Spongebob can change the size and ability of his body in mere hours. He could also do this through the simply absorption of water. Since the fight will be held underwater, The size in which Spongebob takes up is unpredictable.

"spongebob was only able to absorb the hits: nothing on choke slams and tomb stones"
Choke: exactly what will this achieve? Since Spongebob is able to split even scatter himself into multiple bodies, he can easily split his bottom self to create a new Spongebob completely independent from its original. Did i mention instant regeneration? Its is another skill Spongebob posses.
Slam: kinda the same with punches, he can easily absorb the force from the slam. If he is pinned down, he can liquefy himself like he has done multiple times to escape his grasp.
Tomb stones: Spongebob has been hit by a car, he has fell off multiple cliff, stung by jelly fish, and yes even we shan't forget the episode where the people of bikini bottom harassed his internal organs by punching his lungs, jumping of his brain e.t.c. I am pretty sure a tomb stone is noting new to his inventory of pains.

". Undertaker is 19-0 at Wrestlemania and he won't loose to Spongebob."
Exactly how does this finalize his win against Spongebob?

". Undertaker has been in Hell in a Cell, Elimination Chamber, Royal Rumble, Coffin Match, Burried Alive, and even hardcore matches. Spongebob has been in a Royal Rumble and Single."

This might be true, but Undertaker has never fought a cartoon character before. especially one with multiple abilities like Spongebob.

"In the Kung Fu episode if you remember correctly the only reason he defeated the other wrestlers is that hes was being tricked into buying re-estate."

Yes, but i posted that clip not to show his wins but to demonstrate Sandy's power. If Spongebob can math a character like Sandy in a one on one fight, I am pretty sure his skills as a martial artist is off the scale.

Thank you and I hope to receive your next argument soon.
Debate Round No. 3
lannan13

Pro

Sub 1. He says spongebob can't be on land for long, well the only reason he died in the movie was he was held up to a lamp.
1. choke slam is a move that several wrestlers use by picking their opponent up by the throat and slamming them on the ground. Tombstone argument, spongebob is a soft guy, therefore I almost guarantee that Undertaker will break something.
3. my opponent says Undertaker never fought a cartoon character before, well he is wrong due to the WWE All-Stars he's fought presidents
wierdman

Con

"He says spongebob can't be on land for long, well the only reason he died in the movie was he was held up to a lamp."

Exactly how does this add to the argument at hand? I only used it to justify the reason for my parameters.

"choke slam is a move that several wrestlers use by picking their opponent up by the throat and slamming them on the ground. Tombstone argument, spongebob is a soft guy, therefore I almost guarantee that Undertaker will break something."

My opponent did not attack my previous attacks on his original statement meaning that he agrees that despite the fact that spongebob is soft, his abilities allows him to absorb the impact of massive forces.

"my opponent says Undertaker never fought a cartoon character before, well he is wrong due to the WWE All-Stars he's fought presidents"

Lets get this straight, When my opponent started this debate, I assumed he meant the real Undertaker and the cartoon Spongebob. I presume that this was also the voters thoughts through out the course of the debate.
Debate Round No. 4
lannan13

Pro

I did mean the real Undertaker and the cartoon spongebob.
Everything else he didn't refute and in debate silance is confirmance so he agreed with the agruements I made.
For that reason I can see nothing but a Pro balot.
Con thank you for you time in this debate.
wierdman

Con

"Everything else he didn't refute and in debate silance is confirmance so he agreed with the agruements I made.
For that reason I can see nothing but a Pro balot."

This statement is absolutely false. Throughout this debate,k I have refuted all of my opponents arguments. If there is anyone in here didn't refute all my argument, its pro. Pro lied about me not attacking any of his argument other than that of the cartoon argument, thus he should loose based on honesty.

Pro did not attack: My absorption of water and using it as a water gun argument.
He did not attack my argument that spongebob is unpredictable, he did not attack my argument of Sponge bob being able to change his body shape.

voters go back and read the debate and you will find that my opponent did not attack virtually most of my arguments, and under his own words, he should loose this debate.

Pro, thank you for the debate and I also thank the readers and voters.

VOTE CON :D
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wierdman 5 years ago
wierdman
:D
____━━____┓━╭━━━━━╮

____━━____┗┓|::::::^━━━^

____━━____━┗|:::::|。◕‿‿­­­­◕。|

____━━____━━╰O--O-O--O

This is freaking cool...... (nyan cat) lol (you tube comment)
Posted by OberHerr 5 years ago
OberHerr
RFD----Pros S&G were deplorable, and he changed the rules mid debate so conduct for that. Con gets sources for the video, and he had much better and in-depth arguments. SBSP appears to be a force to reckon with.
Posted by PeacefulChaos 5 years ago
PeacefulChaos
He also could have argued that the water pressure would kill the Undertaker, lol.
Posted by lannan13 5 years ago
lannan13
No I just wasn't specific enough in the plan-text
Posted by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
Basically he has decided to give the Undertake all the advantages in a rather unfair match.
Posted by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
So now, in an attempt to win, Pro has changed the rules.
Posted by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
Spongebob lives in a pineapple under the sea. The Undertaker cannot breathe under water. Resolution negated.

Con was sporting and granted Undertaker fish-like abilities for this fight. I wouldn't have been so kind.
Posted by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
I'll wait until Con posts his round to state my reasoning.
Posted by OberHerr 5 years ago
OberHerr
Hmm, I not sure why you are saying easy win, but ok....
Posted by lannan13 5 years ago
lannan13
how
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 5 years ago
InVinoVeritas
lannan13wierdmanTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: lannan13's argument was weak and lacked evidence.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
lannan13wierdmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 failed to address most of Cons arguments. This by his own standards, gives Con the victory. Con made a great argument that SpongeBob could just split himself in two and Pro had no answer to this. Pro loses conduct for trying to claim that Con ignored his points which was blatantly false. Pro is the only one who dropped arguments in this one.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
lannan13wierdmanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: -1 Conduct from Lannan as he questions a location for no apparent reason... the spelling was poor, and the arguments, well, wierdman just did better.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
lannan13wierdmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Con those really win. Con was more in depth.
Vote Placed by OberHerr 5 years ago
OberHerr
lannan13wierdmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Comments for RFD.
Vote Placed by Reid 5 years ago
Reid
lannan13wierdmanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: I laughed too much at this. My vote goes con for being much more specific and "in depth" with his arguments. Pro needs to develop arguments, and provide more solid ones.