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

Who should have won the hunger games Peeta(pro) or Katniss(con)?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/31/2013 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,072 times Debate No: 36191
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




Hi, this debate is going to put forward the arguments on who should have rightfully won the hunger games out of the two contenders.

Round 1- acceptance only
Rounds 2/3- arguments

Please enter comments when you vote so that everyone can see the different reasons and it can effect the winner of the vote to make sure that the right arguments won.


Hey, welcome to DDO :)

I'll be accepting, and will argue from the stance that Peeta Mellark should have won the Hunger Games.

Let's hope for a fun debate round!

Debate Round No. 1


Personally, I believe that katniss should have won the hunger games because she is perceived as the stronger out of the two contestants and she has in the game makers eyes has a strong set of talents such as hunting after being so experienced in this putting her at more of advantage to win.
Also Peeta puts himself in an awkward position after confessing that Katniss is his true love so obviously he is going to want to send his love home and not have to face the fact of having to kill her- therefore leaving himself with a guilty conscience.

link to back this up- (read message 4 paragraph 1)


I thank my opponent for her argument.

I will first refute her point, then add my own.

C1 (or Con point 1): Peeta's love for Katniss would've prevented him from winning

Yes, we know that Peeta's undying love for Katniss at the time of the 74th Hunger Games would've prevented him from killing her and taking the victory. However, it could be argued that Katniss' feeling of debt towards Peeta had the same effect. Hence, why they chose to fake attempted suicide.

For the sake of an actual contest between both my opponent and me, I suggest we evaluate this as if the two tributes were both at the end, full health, and not aware of each other's whereabouts. This will show us who should've won, rather than who would've won due to unfortunate injuries while protecting the other, or emotional attachements. If my opponent wishes to contest this, she may try and make an argument against it. However, I don't think what I'm proposing is unreasonable.

Also, a link should be used to support arguments, not make them. Just letting my oppoennt know ;)

So with that said, on to my points.

P1 (or Pro point 1): Peeta's incredible camouflaging ability

It doesn't matter how he got the skill, it was infinitely useful in the Games for keeping him alive. (Even when he was being specifically targeted by the career tributes AND was wounded!) With this ability, Peeta kept himself alive and hidden despite professional killers hunting him.

With this ability alone, it could be argued that he should have won the Hunger Games. He could've easily laid low for an indefinite amount of time, until all Katniss died to game-maker controller events, or starvation. He also could attempt a stealthy strike on Katniss while she was unaware of his presence, thus giving him an advantage.

P2: Peeta's strength

Peeta's incredible strength is touted several times in the book. While it doesn't specifically come in handy in the Hunger Games, it means he should have won. He was favored as a tribute due to his physical capabilites. It also allows him to protect Katniss from Cato, a significantly larger boy. He would have no trouble taking on the smaller Katniss in a one-on-one fight.

P3: Peeta's independence

Let's face it. Katniss wouldn't have gotten anywhere in the games without Peeta constantly watching her back. Even when he wasn't around, her other ally, Rue, died for the sake of Katniss. She's also showered with gifts from Haymitch, the same sponsor who's supposed to provide for Peeta, who (strangely) is largely ignored by Haymitch.

Yet they both make it equally as far in the Games.

Now, I understand that we are arguing as if it was a fresh slate at the end, with just them two at full capacity. But... Katniss' reliance on everyone else to save her was demonstrated and is a trait of hers. With no one to save her, she wouldn't stand a chance against the largely independent Peeta Mellark.

So there you have it. Peeta is by far the more probably victor of the 74th Hunger Games (provided that he was physically rested and with no strings attached).

I await my opponent's response. And if she has any questions, she may PM me for the answers.
Debate Round No. 2


I would like to thank my opponent for his enriching argument.

Now, for my rebuttal, I would like to draw away from the candidates' abilities, and focus on their background. I specifically recall Katniss making a promise to her sister Prim that she would come home, because without her the family would have struggled to eat. Peeta, on the other hand, had a loving, SURVIVING family to go home to if he won.

Also, I would like to draw my opponent's attention to Katniss and prim's mother. Without Katniss, there would be a risk of her mother (who is in the state of depression at the time), forgetting to look after Prim, therefore resulting in Prim's life coming to and end.

Finally, I would like to make it clear that without Katniss' help, Peeta may not have survived on account of his injuries. Katniss, however, did not sustain any major injuries.

To conclude, I would like to say that Katniss should have won because she had to look after her family, she did not have any major injuries (unlike Peeta), and if it hadn't been for her help, Peeta would not have survived, whether he had won or lost.


I thank my opponent for her argument.
C1: Peeta's love for Katniss would've prevented him from winning

Argument was dropped.

(For my opponent: This is when someone fails to respond to a point.)

C2: Katniss' sister wants her to win

Survival is survival. My opponent can choose to ignore Peeta's extreme advantage in the area of physical abilities, but a promise to Prim won't save her from being thrown like a sack of potatoes when Peeta rushes her. Also, I'm sure Peeta's not any more willing to die because of Katniss' family wanting her back. He has a loving father who wanted him home, too.

Next, my opponent failed to address my previous arguments about the physical capabilities and skills of Peeta. I will remind the voters of what these were and that they must be assumed to flow Pro.

P1: Peeta's camo abilities

P2: Peeta's impressive strength

Finally, my opponent responded to my third point, which was...

P3: Peeta was independent, whereas Katniss was not

My opponent points out that Peeta did, in fact, rely on Katniss to treat the wounds he sustained during the Games at one point. This was one period, the only time he depended on her for survival, and it was due to a deep, and life-threateningly infected, wound in his upper thigh area.

This would be a great point for Con, had she not forgotten how he recieved the wound.

Peeta recieved this only wound while saving Katniss' life!;

In the aftermath of her attack on the career tributes, Katniss is dazed and loopy from several "Tracker Jacker" stings. She begins to run, but she finds herself face to face with Peeta (who had previously been working with the careers). Instead of killing her, he tells her to run. Later on, it's found out that he engages Cato and recieves the cut to his leg, before escaping and camouflaging himself to the point where even the career tributes cannot find him.

As you can see, my opponent's argument has actually strengthened my very own point! Peeta is resourceful and independent, while Katniss is dependent on others, including the one she would have to kill in the scenario we are debating.

If my opponent was trying to state that Peeta would have to fight at the end of the Games with such an injury, then she should've contested my stipulations for our heroes' standoff. As it stands, both tributes are full health, and the fairness of this was not contested.

So, in the end, we see that...

Peeta has camouflaging abilities to hide him from anyone for an indefinite amount of time.

Peeta is stronger than even a boy that is much larger than him, and would easily overpower the fragile Katniss.

Peeta's independence is advantageous and superior to Katniss' reliance on others.

Any family ties would not factor into who would win, seeing as it is a matter of physical ability, and both desperately want to survive.

Peeta's emotional attachements to Katniss would not imply him losing, due to both the fact that Katniss is just as attached to Peeta, AND that it would be unfair and nonsensical to debate how it would've ended, if all the factors that caused it to end the canonical way were still in place.

Therefore, we must conclude....

Peeta Mellark should have won the 74th annual Hunger Games.

Katniss, in the same situation, should've died.

Thank you.

To my opponent: Fantastic job for your first debate! I know it can be tough to keep up with everything, but I was impressed. You laid out very clear ideas that were relevant, and you even rebutted a point I made! I look forward to your career as a debater on DDO, and hope to read (and possibly refute) some of your future work. :)

Some quick suggestions: Try to address all your opponent's points! Points that you do not respond to will be automatically given to the other person, so it's really important that you say something in response to them all! Also, organization helps voters see which point your making or responding to. So when you were stating how my point (labeled P3) was wrong, it would've been helpful to those reading if you said:

P3: Peeta's independence

(Argument here....)

You see? :)

Otherwise, I've got no complaints. You'll grow in even greater skill and knowledge than you already possess as time goes on. If you have any questions, PM me!

See ya and God bless.

Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by DebateGirl221 3 years ago
Good luck Abbie! Wish I could accept, but I don't know much about the Hunger Games. :)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by LevelWithMe 3 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: Con failed to address many of Pro's arguments. Pro made a rebuttal for each point, and these points were well organized.
Vote Placed by GOP 3 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 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: Pro was more professional in his argument. In fact, he made important points bold. I did not see any of that from Con. I would also like to give convincing arguments to Pro because Con just put a link and told us to read "message 4 paragraph 1" without explaining the source much. This way, it looks like Con used a source to do the arguing FOR her. If she had expounded a bit, then maybe I would have left this a tie. Either way, I did not find her usage of that source really convincing.