The Instigator
Con (against)
11 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
5 Points

Werewolves present more of a threat to the US national security than Vampires do

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/15/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,664 times Debate No: 18812
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)




My first contention is that Vampires are more disguised than Werewolves. Vampires can be vampires at all hours of the day, and when it is daytime they can still cover themselves so they do not get burned by the sun, while Werewolves only turn into werewolves for one night out of the month as full moons only occur once every 29.5 days. How can werewolves be such a huge threat to our security when they are rarely out and about? And even when a full moon is occurring, it takes a while for them to change into werewolves. It is a long and strenuous process; because of this we as a nation are given plenty of time to kill them as they are turning into werewolves. Vampires can also change their form, they can turn into bats in the blink of an eye and nobody would suspect that it is a vampire. Vampires can also telepathically communicate, see the future, run at ridiculously fast paces, and are good at climbing trees if you are interested in Stephanie Meyer's perception of a vampire. Not to mention that they are very subtle and can easily walk behind you and bite your neck therefore turning said bitten person into a vampire. The United States Department of Defense defines terrorism as:

"The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological"

The United States Law Code has many different definitions of many different types of terrorism which include but are not limited to:

"The term ‘international terrorism' means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country..."

"The term ‘terrorist group' means any group, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism…"

Both definitions come from the U.S Code Title 22, Ch.38 Para 265f (d)

What I am trying to say is that Vampires and terrorists are in many ways alike. Vampires tend to scare their victims, they lurk in all countries of the world and not just the US, most famously Transylvania, and vampires sometimes like to work together in catching their cravings for blood. The similarities are undeniable. If we as a nation are putting so much work towards preventing terrorism, then why are we not doing the same for vampires? Werewolves compare in no way to terrorists. They are just giant wolves that like to do the Thriller dance. Why are we putting their chance of destruction above vampires?

Contention III

Vampires have a greater sex appeal than werewolves.

Folks, this only adds to the opportunity of havoc that they can wreak. We all know that there are plenty of vulnerable young women out there who would love to go out on a hot date with a vampire. In the essay "The Allure of the Vampire", David Dvorkin writes

"Nasty, filthy, evil creatures. That's what vampires are. They only look beautiful on the outside, but their intentions are terribly dishonorable. They swoop down on us from the dark, they grasp us in their unbreakable grip, they suck out our blood. Sometimes they seduce us into having sex with them. Really great sex. Sometimes they even make us into one of them"

And this is just a small example. The entire show "True Blood" is based around vampires having sex. Hundreds of thousands of teenage girls are big fans of "Team Edward". Just based on the numerous examples of vampire sex appeal, there are bound to have been a large group of people that have fantasized about sex with a vampire. However, according to a Kinsey report, only 8% of men and only 3.6% of women have had a sexual encounter with an animal, almost all of which were domestic house pets and not wolves or werewolves. Even Count Dracula (Nosferatu) has been portrayed many many times as an attractive rich middle aged man that lives in a large fancy castle. What woman can resist that?


The Con's argument is that Vampires are a greater threat to US National security than werewolves.

The Con bases his argument by comparing vampires to terrorists, talking about the sex appeal of vampires, and mentioning some of their powers that authors give them in their fictional tales.

Vampires and Werewolves do not exist, they are folklore told from generation to generation. Since both of them do not exist both of them pose no threat to the security of the United States of America. Since both pose absolutely no risk, vampires cannot pose any more of a risk to US security than werewolves do......
Debate Round No. 1


First, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting my debate.

According to my opponents profile, it states that he is a Catholic Christian and he has just stated that he does not believe in vampires or werewolves. However, there are multiple verses from the Christian bible that imply vampires. So my question to my opponent is how can you believe in one but not the other?

Proverbs 30:14

There are those whose teeth are swords, whose fangs are knives, to devour the poor from off the earth, the needy from among mankind.

Leviticus 17:10-14

"If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood. "Any one also of the people of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among them, who takes in hunting any beast or bird that may be eaten shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth. For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.

Revelation 16:6

For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and you have given them blood to drink. It is what they deserve!"

Deuteronomy 12:23

Only be sure that you do not eat the blood, for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh.

Revelation 17:6

And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. When I saw her, I marveled greatly.

John 6:53-21:25

So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. ...

1 Chronicles 11:19

And said, "Far be it from me before my God that I should do this. Shall I drink the lifeblood of these men? For at the risk of their lives they brought it." Therefore he would not drink it. These things did the three mighty men.

Luke 3:16

John answered them all, saying, "I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

1 Corinthians 10:21

You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.

Deuteronomy 32:17

They sacrificed to demons that were no gods, to gods they had never known, to new gods that had come recently, whom your fathers had never dreaded.

Proverbs 30:15

The leech has two daughters: Give and Give. Three things are never satisfied; four never say, "Enough":

Numbers 11:33

While the meat was yet between their teeth, before it was consumed, the anger of the Lord was kindled against the people, and the Lord struck down the people with a very great plague.

All of these verses are from


Yes I am Christian, and I try to live my life by the teachings of the Bible.

The Bible is the holy book of Christianity and its purpose is to inform us about the morals and beliefs that good christian's should possess and live our lives by. The Bible itself is not meant to be seen as a 100% factual account from the times of Jesus in the New Testament, the times of the Jewish exodus from Egypt in the Old Testament, and the end of days in the Revelation. The Bible is a collection of both fictional and non fictional stories meant to teach us the lessons that good christian's should live their lives by..... Some stories may be exaggerated or made up in order for the reader to understand the lesson from the story.

Noah's Ark is a story meant to teach us that those who are respectful and loyal to God may be warned about his impending wrath and given time to prepare for his wrath. It is not a story about how Noah was the best carpenter in the world

Parting of the Red Sea is meant to teach us that in times of Crisis God may intervene and show you the path to peace, salvation, safety. It is not a story about how Moses was a water bender.

These are my interpretations of these events. Others may have other interpretations, and they may be right as well. I am just using these examples to make a point that the Bible can teach us about what we should believe. We should not actually believe that the events in the stories indeed took place.

The Con is currently basing the existence of Vampires on a book that is thousands of years old, written and organized by the Catholic Church who decide what would be in the Bible and what would not, translated into many other languages, further edited by other societies and other branches of Christianity, etc......

Also Con, half of those references are about Cannibalism, not vampires.....
Debate Round No. 2


Alright, fair enough. But can you commentate on the verses that you believe are about vampires or give proof that they do not exist?


Sure lets take a look.....

Proverbs 30:14 I believe refers to people whose goal in life is to take advantage of those who are poor or in need and uses satanic references to describe them

Levictus 17:10 to 17:14 refers to the barbaric nature of cannibalism and punishments of those who commit it

Revelation 16:6 I think is about killing those who are good and righteous and using their deaths to increase your own power through fear

Deuteronomy 12:23 might refer to how blood makes us human but I really dont know

Revelation 17:6 Blood is a reference to wine, the woman is just hammered drunk

John 6:53 to 21:25 Analogy for how we must all take in the teachings of Christ otherwise he would have died for our sins in vain

Chronicles 11:19 Lifeblood may be a reference to the souls or faith, not actual blood

Luke 3:16 I think hes referring to the coming of Christ, where is the vampire reference in this one???

Corinthians 10:21 States you can only choose between Heaven or Hell, Good or Bad, etc.

Deuteronomy 32:17 They obeyed an idol that is not the true God, this is a reference about violating the first commandment

Proverbs 30:15 I dont have a clue im guessing it refers to how some people are like leeches where their greed is never ending....

Numbers 11:33 The Lord punishing those who are cannibalistic

I don't see how any of these things directly involve vampires or even suggest that vampires exist.

Vampires as we know them were born out of the dark ages when people in mostly western Europe grew superstitious about the powers and properties of consuming living human blood. Hysteria about these practices led many to seek out those who practiced vampirism and hang them for witchcraft, cannibalism, heresy, etc. The folklore of those who believed in vampirism spawned many tales that passed through the ages and created the general idea of what vampires are................... fake.

This was a really fun debate man :D
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by iamnotwhoiam 4 years ago
8% of men have had a sexual encounter with an animal? just under 1 in 12? I would have liked Con to properly cite the source for that. No-one gets anything for sources.

Con gave the more imaginative arguments. An imagination is a beautiful thing. On the Keatsian basis that beauty=truth, I give the points for convincing arguments to Con.

It's a shame the debate petered out after Con's first round.
Posted by thett3 5 years ago
this is an amazing topic!!!
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by iamnotwhoiam 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: See Comments.
Vote Placed by ShrawderA 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision:
Vote Placed by Spritle 5 years 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate somehow got into religion. Since Con actually had an explanation I gave him more convincing argument. Pro could have played along and tried to debate instead of basing off belief. COULD have been a fun debate.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
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: This debate went way off topic. Pro responds to Cons contentions with a borderline semantic rebuttal, which Con could not refute. Con tries to take the debate in a completely different direction challenging Pros beliefs. He didn't really have a chance at that point.