The Instigator
ATM
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
KingDebater
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Vampires will easily kill Werewolves

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
KingDebater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2013 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,489 times Debate No: 30521
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

ATM

Pro

I have read a previous argument and am new to this site. I believe that this argument is flawed in many ways. I wish to create a new one where any one can put forth their opinion. But please give references or the opinions have no strength. All lore and any view of entertainment counts. In the first 2 rounds I wish to create a standard of agreement. This will be hard I am sure but lets see how it goes.
KingDebater

Con

I will be arguing that Vampires can't easily kill Werewolves. Here are my arguments:

Argument #1: The argument from Logic
(P1) For one thing to kill something else, they need to both exist.
(P2) Vampires don't exist.
(P3) Werewolves don't exist;
(C) Therefore, Vampires cannot kill Werewolves.


Argument #2: The Myth argument
(P1) Myths and Legends are not backed up by evidence.
(P2) Werewolves are myths; [1]
(C1) Therefore,Werewolves are not backed up by evidence.
(P3) It is reasonable to not believe something when there is no evidence.
(P4) There is no evidence for Werewolves;
(C2) Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that Werewolves do not exist.

Argument #3: The Impossible argument
(P1) If it is impossible for something to exist, then it does not exist.
(P2) Vampires existing is impossible; [2]
(C1) Therefore, Vampires don't exist
(P3) Something that does not exist cannot kill anything.
(P4) Vampires do not exist;
(C2) Therefore, it is impsossible for a Vampire to kill a Werewolf.

The burden of proof is on Pro to show that Vampires and Werewolves both exist and that a Vampire could easily kill a Werewolf.

Sources
[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
[2] http://io9.com...
Debate Round No. 1
ATM

Pro

First of all to answer Arbitrary. Yes I did mean to come to a conclusion of what is accepted and what is not. For example there are many different stories about what both sides can and can't do. I knew this would be hard and I am a little glad that my opponent has gone down the "don't exist" road. To say something doesn't exist is a little ignorant. We can look back to past generations where they didn't understand basic chemistry and physics. Therefore they would never accept that a 300 to 400 thousand kilogram object such as a 747 could ever fly.
Then we can reference any religion. Do you believe in God? Many don't. But many do. Yet no one can actually prove the existence of a benevolent entity. Such things as this can be seen as legend and folk lore. The argument that they don't exist has to be proven with some form of factual reference. I fear that this debate will transform into a, do they or don't they exist argument. The topic assumes that they do exist by the very statement.
Lets clarify the powers or prowess of the supernatural beings in question. And also their weaknesses.

I claim the following.
Vampires.
Mind control, supernatural strength and speed, fangs, can't go into sunlight, Don't need to sleep, cringe from a crucifix, Holy water burns, Can't enter the home of a living residence unless invited, Silver burns, need to drink blood for sustenance.
Can be killed by the following. Sunlight/UV rays, wooden stake to the heart, decapitation.

Werewolves.
Now while not in wolf form are pretty much a steroid fueled human. No real supernatural strength or speed. But I am thinking that this is a battle to the death in hand to hand combat. While both opponents are at their best. So I would say that werewolves also have fangs, Supernatural strength and speed. Can be killed by decapitation or a silver bullet. And here are the real negatives. They are basically a pack animal that has no real cognitive decision making skills. they have the intelligence of a dog.

A werewolf is not as fast as a Vampire but is stronger. Considering that the vampire would be much older and more knowledgeable with an intelligent mind they would use the speed advantage to quickly dismember the werewolf assailant before it even knew what was going on.
KingDebater

Con

Arguments
It appears that Pro has ignored a good portion of my arguments. Pro has also changed the Terms and Conditions of this debate by adding in a rule that assumes that both of these things exist. Changing the rules in the middle of a debate is very sneaky and such rules should be clarified BEFORE the debate. I think that because of this, we shouldn't count the rules that Pro introduced half-way through as that is cheating.

Extend all arguments.

Rebuttals
Pro has failed to meet his burden of proof to establish the existence of werewolves and vampires.
Debate Round No. 2
ATM

Pro

Again I bring attention to the very statement of the argument.
Vampires will easily kill Werewolves.
In no way would a statement such as this be made, if it was believed, that the subjects in question didn't exist.
The comment would be redundant. And therefore a complete waste of time.
I move that I didn't add a rule in the middle of the debate. It was assumed from the very start that they exist.
Therefore Cons argument is irrelevant.
If I had ignored a good portion of Cons argument then I would have never addressed the motion that they don't exist.
And in fact that is cons only argument.
This was never a question of existence. It's assumed. I know I am repeating myself but Con has failed to argue within the parameters of the statement.
KingDebater

Con

You never said that in the first round to assume that they exist.

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
ATM

Pro

Con is persisting with the existence argument which is actually adding rules himself. For con to be truly con, they have to be arguing the opposite of my statement. Which would be. Werewolves would easily kill Vampires.
I ask voters to see the true subject matter of the argument and vote accordingly. I am yet to see an argument that supports what the true con should be arguing. After all why would someone make a statement if the subject wasn't believed to be in existence. That would be like starting a debate wit the following statement.
A guy with 5 arms on both sides of his body would defeat a man with 2 arms that were both the size of 5 arms all together in hand to hand combat.
It's pretty easy to believe that those two guys don't exist. But the content of the sentence assumes that they do as there is the claim, would defeat. And in my argument it was, will easily kill.
Based on the standard rules of the English language, I have clarified that it should never have been a question of existence. Considering that Con has entered a gun fight with a knife, he would have never been allowed access into the battle zone. Con has failed to meet the requirements of the argument.
KingDebater

Con

Pro's Claim: Con is persisting with the existence argument which is actually adding rules himself.
No, you're the one adding rules. You never said that this debate would assume that Werewolves and Vampires exist.

Pro's Claim: For con to be truly con, they have to be arguing the opposite of my statement. Which would be. Werewolves would easily kill Vampires.
No, the opposite would be that Vampires wouldn't easily kill Werewolves.

Pro's Claim: That would be like starting a debate wit the following statement.
A guy with 5 arms on both sides of his body would defeat a man with 2 arms that were both the size of 5 arms all together in hand to hand combat.
It's pretty easy to believe that those two guys don't exist. But the content of the sentence assumes that they do as there is the claim, would defeat. And in my argument it was, will easily kill.
Based on the standard rules of the English language, I have clarified that it should never have been a question of existence. Considering that Con has entered a gun fight with a knife, he would have never been allowed access into the battle zone. Con has failed to meet the requirements of the argument.
But the resolution isn't 'Vampires would easily kill werewolves', it's 'Vampires will easily kill Werewolves'.

Extend all arguments.

Vote for Con.
Debate Round No. 4
ATM

Pro

It may be a mistake for me to agree on something in the midst of a debate. But I will agree to one thing. I lost some of the specific wordings during my last argument.
But still, this only proves me to be a little less caring on the semantics than Con is.
I care about the subject matter and the fact that STILL, Con can't see that a statement made has to have truth in it, otherwise it is pointless.
Even with my elaborate example, I am sure that Con has to disagree, as that is his job. But deep down I trust that Con knows where the truth lies as do our voters.
My conclusion:
Con has argued that Vampires will not easily kill werewolves as they don't exist. A unique argument based on the fact that what we know now is what we will always know. Evolution has disproved prior beliefs on multiple occasions. They thought the world was flat. That was a conclusion derived from ignorance.
But aside from the flaws in the argument, this was never about proving or disproving any existence.
Therefore Con should have a disqualification. As entering an argument with a do not exist claim is absurd. Any debate can be supported by such a claim. If I'm color blind, then that color isn't Green. Green doesn't exist.
If I don't feel the cold as much as others, then it's not cold right now therefore cold doesn't exist.
I'm sure you all could think of some yourself. I'm sure that we can all see. Con should have entered a different argument and therefore should lose.

Now for Con's last words
KingDebater

Con

Vote for Con.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Arbitrary 4 years ago
Arbitrary
Hi. I think this is a really interesting topic but perhaps you could clarify what you had in mind when you requested for a set standard of agreement? Did you mean setting parameters for the discussion, definition of terms and so on?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
ATMKingDebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was unable to refute con's opening argument.