The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Vampires beat werewolves in a war

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/20/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 578 times Debate No: 72038
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




Using the myths not the modern fan fiction.a vampire is the ultimate hunter, so what abilities would the ultimate hunter have logically based of mythology.

O Much stronger and faster than average human

O Sight,smell, taste, hearing and touch would be greatly improved

O Not exactly smarter but they would be better anticipating movement and thought patterns the kind of thing a hunter would need to be better at observation, analysis you know

O If you stab one, the wound would heal atleast under half an hour

O Immortality

O And im sure there are more weapons in arsenal of the ultimate hunter second only to Artemis herself


O Sunlight- Major inconvenience. But with glasses, umbrella, scarf, hat and long coat they could still get around they just have to cover themselves up, hard but not impossible, i disagree with people saying uv radiation hurts them thats just sc fi rubbish. Vampires are magic, you cant put science into it if you dont answer all the magical concepts like how are they immortal.

O silver- Not really that worrying, i mean silver isn't something that common i mean if a vampire is hunting you, you wont notice that its there until its too late even if you do have silver in your back pocket. you would die before even thinking "oh no its a vampire i need to take out my silver"

there are two werewolf myths one shapeshifters and the other lycans.

shapeshifters are humans who can turn into wolves and as wolves they are wolfs with humans minds. a vampire could easily take a shapeshifter down with one well shot arrow (ultimate hunters always hit their mark), hunting wolfs,bears, tigers would be nothing special.

lycans were mythologically humans bitten by lycoan a king who got zeus mad when he chopped up his own son and fed him to zeus at a dinner party (he wanted to check if it was the real zeus) zeus felt that lycoan was an animals so he cursed him to become a monstrous half wolf half man monster in the night, so a vamp can kill a werewolf in the day


I accept.

Normally I would say that, because the burden of proof is on PRO, and the resolution states that vampires "beat" werewolves instead of "would" beat werewolves, PRO must not only prove this, but that both exist. However, you can vote CON right now because PRO has plagiarized his entire opening round.

His entire round comes from the comment section from what appears to be a blog post: ( Plagiarism is never permitted, and should merit a loss of this debate.
Debate Round No. 1


First of all while it is true my arguement was from Damien Mulkrin of said site, I am Damien Mulkrin and anothe commentor on the site (red wrecking rex). Its not my real name but it is the username i chose for that site. My argument stands.


First, PRO needs to provide proof that he is actually these commentators. Even if he can prove that he is, you should vote for me on sources, because copy and pasting arguments from other websites, without any citations, is improper sourcing.

Even reading through his "argument," though, he doesn't at all advance hs burden. He defines shapeshifters and lycanns and talks about the abilities that the "ultimate hunter" would have. All of these remarks are completely non-topical, and he doesn't advance his burden.

Here is what he needs to do in order to win:

(1) He said that vampires *beat*, not *would beat*, werewolves, so he needs to prove that both vampires and werewolves exist
(2) He needs to prove, after that, that vampires would always beat werewolves
(3) He doesn't state what vampires would beat werewolvs in, so you must assume that vampires would beat werewolves in *everything*, which is impossible, since everything includes "ability to get beat."

In other words, PRO's burden--even if he can prove he hasn't plagiarize--is impossible to fulfill, so you negate.
Debate Round No. 2


First of all the opponent stated that I needed to prove that vampires and werewolves exist, ladies and gentlemen we all know this is impossible and we all know the opponent cannot fight my arguement so he instead uses technicalities. Next the opponent stated that that I need to prove that vampires always beat werewolves, that is not true because I believe vampires beat werewolves in war not everything. All vampires that have lived over 116 years old already have an advantage over werewolves in life time and a bit more wisdom, but there are some prodigical werewolves but still if majority of vampirs is stronger than werewolves then a few smart werewolves cant turn a war. Vampires are always strong and fast and dont need any rest while shapeshifters need the average amount of rest and while they gain sharper teeth are still not as good in combat as evena regular human (wolves are dangerous to humans because of ferocity, a human mind in a wolf body is less dangerous than a human) and lycans at an estimate are as weak as regualr humans atleast 9 hours aday and in wolf form for atleast the same (6 is the minimum sleep hours for an adult) so thats 15 hours a day werewolves are vulnerable to attack while vampires are always ready, and so vampire beat werewolves in inteligence, phycal ability and vigilance all essential to winning a war and thats what this is about not everything just winning a way. Also i did state that vampires beat werewolves in war, and oonce more request that the opponent makes an actualy arguemnt, i also dont need to cite myself. And jsut to remind my opponent, if you dont have an arguemtn just give up and dont waste all our time on technicalities.


First, PRO concedes the debate by admitting that he cannot *prove* that vampires and werewolves eixst. He doesn't even challenge my burden analysis, which you must now extend, which leads us to a clear CON victory.

His point on vampires "beating werewolves in everything" is also untrue, because "war" can refer to any sort of altercation at all--it does not have to refer to an armed conflict. He is saying that vampires, in principle, can win a war against werewolves--meaning that they are, in principle, superior to werewolves. I agree that this encompasses not all, but a majority.

His insistence that I make an "actual argument" is nonsense; he's trying to change the goalposts, when only HE possesses the burden of proof in this debate. If I prevent him from upholding his burden, as I have done with my burden analysis that he hasn't contested, you vote CON.

He says vampires are "always strong and fast," while shapeshifters need rest, that vampires are better in combat and that vampires are more resilsient to attacks. He then goes on to provide some numbers which neither of us can veirfy because he provides no evidence. Hr provides no evidence because vampires and werewolves *do not exist*, meaning that every single argument he has made cannot be verified, and is nothing more than him making things up.

For these reasons, this resolution has no truth value--so PRO cannot uphold his BOP, and you vote CON.

Debate Round No. 3


First of all I am not here to prove the existence of Vampires or werewOlfs, I am here to prove that if The two groups fought vampires bEat werewolfs mentally and physically and so they beat werewolfs in war. Also i never said vampires beat werewolfs in everything but they are in general smarter and stronger, also the deffintion of war is armed combat which is what i have said vampires beat werewolfs in. Everyone should vote For prO simply because CON doesnt a dictionarRy. also while i need to bring in evidense to prove my oPinion it is then his Role to bring in evidense that iether contradicts Or overrules my opinion and the evidense behind it, which apparantly he refuses to do so you should vote for pro as con hasnt provided any real reasoning or evidense to attack mine. There for everything i have said stands and nothing he has said is even related to the debate so you vote pro. ALso as i have stated in my first arguement we are fighting on the grounds of mythology and so everything i haved can be varified and wether werewolves or vampires exist is a moot pointm so i have smashed everything CON has said even though he really hasnt said anything other than baseless accusations and a demonstrated his lack of understanding when it comes to debate rules and his lack of a dictionary. You should vote pro because while some of you might prefer werewolves to vampires unlike myself con doesnt even believe they exist nor does he read mythology and so siding with him isnt actually taking a side in this debate.


PRO begins with a falsehood. The resolution does not say, "If they fought vampies would win," but that vampires DO win. Therefore, my burden analysis once again remains completely uncontested, while everything PRO provides is a wall of text. He cannot issue a new rebuttal or a new argument in the next round, so because he fails to refute any of my burden analysis, you have to prefer it, and thus vote CON.

He repeats that vampires are "in general smarter or stronger." These are objective statements without warrants--this is because they lack truth value, because neither vampires nor werewolves, as PRO himself even admits, exist. Therefore, these statements cannot be proven to be true, so PRO can't fulfill his burden.

He then misrepresents the definition of war, which has several definitions, one in which is "a situation in which people or groups compete with or fight against each other" []. My point on this, therefore, stands. How can PRO suggest that you ought to vote for him, when he hasn't cited a dictionary--and, as I've just shown, is flat wrong?

He then commits a BOP fallacy: I'm negating a positive claim, with my main argument being that there is *no* evidence for this position. The burden never falls on the person negating the claim, but always on the person making it. PRO did not contest the *content* of my burden analysis, and continues to commit this fallacy with baseless assertions, all while changing the goalposts and refusing to evidence his position. Everything I have said is directly related to PRO's burdens and the content of this debate, and PRO has dropped the bulk of it.

It was *never* stated in the rules of this debate that we would be arguing based on mythology. Further, the mentuon of mythology in Round 1 was based on a plagiarized argument--note that PRO still hasn't contested this! I even went onto the website from which the claim was plagiarized, and found that I could comment as any person.

Vote CON.

Debate Round No. 4


Con has obviusly not read any of my arguemnts as i have destroyed every arguemnt he has brought for even though some of it wasnt even legitmate arguemnt. Also if con feels i need to prove the existence of vampires and werewolves then that means voting for his arguemtn isnt taking a stand on this topic but a stand on technicalites. At the beggining i stated that this arguemtn would be based on mythology but he has wasted every round on technicalities without meeting me on the actual battlefield, he hasnt at all followed the rules of this debate and he is supplying you the voters with vague and unimportant facts from less than trust worthy sites instead of providing an actual arguemtn. While war can mean a competition of some kind it is when a person just says war it is refers to violent armed and bloody combat but if they specify with dance war or comedy war then thats competition. The CON baselessly accuses me of changing the gold post when infact i provided the rules and facts in the beggining and have been shooting at cons goals ever since, my only goal was mythology and i have twice asked that con meet me on those glorious grounds but he refuses to actually argue on any topic. I am Damien Mulkrin and if anyone comments on Vampires vs Werewolfs on gods and i will within a week reply with the same thing i have been saying for a long long while, also it is not plagerizing when it is my own words.



PRO claims I haven't researched hte topic. It's as though he hasn't read my arguments--there is no research on the topic, because vampires and werewolves do not exist, and the topic has no truth value, so PRO's BOP is impossible. This has been brought up several tiems and dropped throughout the debate. Voting for me isn't taking a stand on technicalities, but merely opting for conventional, tried-and-true debate practice whereby the BOP always falls on the positive claim. PRO continues to drop my burden analysis *and* my refutations, so you have to extend them and vote PRO. He thinks that dropping arguments, and then saying he "destroyed my arguments" is sufficient, but it's not. I did follow the rules of this debate, because PRO supplied no rules. I negated the resolution.

He *did not* state this would be based on mythology. The plagiarized piece he copy and pasted used the word mythology. He still hasn't proven his identity on this website, which is impossible, because anyone can comment as Damnien Mulkrin without verifying one's identity. For this *alone*, you vote CON.

I provided a *definition* of "war." PRO provided no such thing; prefer my definition to PRO's post-hoc rationzalition.

He says I baselessly accused him of changing the goalposts. This isn't true; the first post was *plagiarized*. He did not list a single rule in his OP, because he did not write the OP.

Here is why you are voting CON:

1. PRO plagiarized. This is never acceptable comment, and he has refused to prove otherwise. He says he can "prove it within a week." This is rubbish.

2. He claims that he "set a rule" in Round 1 whereby we're arguing only mythology. This is untrue; Round 1 was plagiarized. The resolution is "Vampires beat werewolves" in a war. This is a positive statement, fo which he has the sole burden of proof.

3. PRO does not even engage my burden analysis, and after libelliously accusing me of not having access to a dictionary, I provided a definition of "War." He did no such thing.

Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
I advise taking another stab at this resolution, but doing such more carefully, perhaps even using an "apply in comments" rule, to ensure you find someone interested in debating the topic. Also something you may find helpful:
Posted by Regemdeus 1 year ago
Ragnar their are many myths that state vampires were made to be the ultimate hunters and thats what this debate is about, mythology. Thank you for the idea and i have just stated who i am on the original site. Also while his is a legitmate style of debate i personally find it disgusting and pathetic and i would never vote for anyone who fights a debate without really taking a stance on the actual topic.
Posted by Regemdeus 1 year ago
Kmurf what people dont realise is that vampires arent evil for drinking our blood as they need to if they want to live, are we evil for killing animals? i mean we dont need to but we still do, they need to so they do. I dont think they can survive on animal blood because that wouldnt work with human biology. Also why are vampires gross, according to most stories with my theories put in blood when run through their hearts (i think thats where the magic is because thats where you attack to kill them) becomes magic and then slowly wipes away their flaws making them the perfect version of humans. Vampires "can" control what they do limiting themselves to little blood so they dont kill victims while werewolfs have no control in wolf form and are just terrible savage monsters. I would be more afraid of a werewolf than a vampire because while a werewolf would just rip me apart a vampires could just take my blood then if it wanted leave me along, i repeat a werewolf no matter what me apart. DOnt bring up twilight werewolfs cos they are completly fake. Shapeshifters take the form of nomal wolfs and werewolfs instead of bieng giant wolfes look like humanoid wolfs. They are more dangerous and aggresive and out of control than vampires.
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
This is why my resolutions are carefully worded, with bits like "presuming X exists..." Other readers may feel different, but on this type of debate I don't tend to care if fictional beings actually exist, even more so when the opening line called them myths. However suspension of disbelief only goes so far when arguments become so circular ("ultimate hunter" therefore every imaginable ultimate hunter trait... even able to go out and kill during the day).

Pro, the easy way to verify your identity as the original author, would quite simply be to post such on that site. Granted, how close the timing of those two posts, I am not overly concerned. However your R3 did wall of text syndrome, which does hurt.

Granted none of this is to say con's lines of reasoning are invalid. Absolute refutation is a valid debate tactic.
Posted by kmurf0308 1 year ago
Warewolves all the way, because vampires are just gross and not winners. they hermit in the dark.
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Welcome to the site. I do like your setup.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
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: Plagerism=automatic loss.