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

Which is the most painful death in Saw?

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: 4/28/2016 Category: Movies
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 230 times Debate No: 90310
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




1,000 Words per round.
Round 1: Claim
Round 2: Argument
Round 3: Closing

Claim: I think the most painful death in Saw would be The Blade Table or Ten Pints of blood.


(This is 1k characters, not 1k words, so I'll keep things short)

C1: There is no definite way to determine the amount of pain in a fictional setting.

This argument is mainly a kritik. Saw is a horror franchise consisting mainly of several horror films. Due to the fictional nature of Saw, it is impossible to know how much pain is felt, due to actors not actually feeling any pain.

Furthermore, there is no way to actually measure the amount of pain that one could feel, without tools such as the dolorimeter. [1] The amount of pain can only be assumed by the audience based on the amount of gore, the intensity of the victim's reaction, and the emotional context and connotations attached to the killing. The amount of pain is then determined by the audience's thoughts.

Therefore, there is no way to objectively argue what death caused the most pain in Saw. Pro must first show how pain can be measured in Saw to affirm the resolution.


Debate Round No. 1


I would like to point out that this is an "if it were real" type debate, please do note that all debates don't have to be factual. Believe it or not, there are cases out there that are completely based on conjecture; this being one of them. I should be sure to clarify this in future debate cases. Some of the saw traps are made out of real dangerous material, and there are people who make these traps, so this case isn't quite as objective and fictional as you might think it initially was. Now, if you will, please go find a case that will ask you to provide fact over conjecture; it will be best for both of us. Thank you.


Pro has failed to note in the first round that this debate was not intended to be objective. According to Merriam-Webster, the meaning of "debate" is "a discussion between people in which they express different opinions about something." [1] Pro cannot support this opinion, however, and cannot affirm this resolution due to the lack of information and inability to measure pain. He can only provide what deaths in Saw that he thinks are the most painful, and even if I were to argue in the fictional context of Saw, there is no way to measure the amount of pain that the characters felt.

Thus, Pro has failed to negate my previous contention, and the resolution remains unaffirmed. I advise Pro to describe the conditions of his next debate in more detail, so that he will be able to enjoy subjective debates on this site, and will not have to be annoyed by freeloing newbies who just want to color in their ribbon next to their username.

Vote Con.

Debate Round No. 2


I've noticed that the con is making a huge contradiction to what he states. "The meaning of 'debate' is 'a discussion between people in which they express different opinions about something.'" This statement directly contradicts a later statement that con tries to prove. "He can only provide what deaths in Saw that he thinks are the most painful". If I think something is painful, it's logically an opinion, is it not? And you say that a debate is "a discussion in which they express different opinions about something."

The con has forgot to notice that his entire argument is not an opinion relevant to the question being asked; therefore, his argument would be invalid and irrelevant to this entire case.

I apologize if I wasted your time (even though we could have forfeit) on this argument, and make more clearer debate parameters for all sides. Thank you for your advice.

By the way, if you want to add some professionalism to your debates don't add "Vote Con" at the bottom, It's bias.


Pro fails to notice that an opinion must be supported sufficiently to win a debate. Pro has only stated what he thinks is the most painful death, and has provided no proof or reasoning to support this. The Burden of Proof is shared to support our claims, and Pro has provided no proof to his so-called opinions. A debate is not merely an exchange of opinion, it is an argument of ideas and contentions, none of which Pro has been able to provide or support in a logical or reasonable manner.

Pro has failed to advance his argument any more than his claim to what he thinks, while my kritik of the debate's resolution still remains standing. Pro then attempts to strawman my argument in not being relevant to the debate; on the contrary, it points out the logical flaw of the resolution, and how Pro cannot provide a logical argument to support his contention. In other words, Pro's sharing of his thoughts has been shown to be an invalid argument, and has failed to negate my argument.

Vote Con. ;)
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by whiteflame 5 months ago
>Reported vote: Kirigaya-Kazuto// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con very clearly won this debate. Con very clearly shows in round 1 that pain isn't objective but subjective.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to assess specific arguments from both sides before coming to a decision, and the voter only assesses Con's in this instance.
Posted by whiteflame 5 months ago
>Reported vote: jamccartney// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro made few good arguments, and Con used sources.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. This is not an RFD, just a restatement of the decision. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to establish the relevance of the sources and not merely that one side had them while the other didn't.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Peepette 5 months 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: PRO states that Blade table or Ten Pints of blood is the most painful death in the movie. CON pulls a kritik with there?s no means of determining or measuring the amount of pain depicted. The pain can only be measured by audience reaction, thus no objectivity can be made in which death is the most painful. PRO does recognize that the debate is based on conjecture but goes on the state the debate is still a debate even if based on opinion. CON rebuts that proof of opinion is required with the ability to measure pain which is the crutz of the debate. It?s unfortunate that CON pulled the kritik; it takes the fun out of debating and discourages new members. But the objective view of the voter has to give the debate to CON. S&G tied, no readability issues from either. Conduct tied, both possessed appropriate demeanor. Sources tied, N/A to the arguments presented.