Vampires beat werewolves in a war
Debate Rounds (5)
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 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
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: (http://www.gods-and-monsters.com...). Plagiarism is never permitted, and should merit a loss of this debate.
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.
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.
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" [http://tinyurl.com...]. 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 PRO IF YOU EVEN CARE ABOUT THE TOPIC, CON HASNT EVEN RESEARCHED THE TOPC
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 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: Plagerism=automatic loss.
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.