The Instigator
KingofEverything
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
TheFatBuddha
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Who would win: Orca vs Hippo

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...
KingofEverything
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/19/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 740 times Debate No: 81158
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

KingofEverything

Pro

Do not troll or change the resolution, please.

I'm taking the side of the Orca.

Round 1 is acceptance.
TheFatBuddha

Con

I accept this magnificent challenge, but I have a question: are we looking at if they fought each other, or the cold hard facts of each animal?
Debate Round No. 1
KingofEverything

Pro

Argument 1-Orcas are much heavier.

Orcas weigh 12,000 lbs.
https://www.google.com...
Hippos generally only weigh 3,300 lbs.
https://www.google.com...

Orcas would have more muscle mass to bite through and are physically stronger with their high mass.
TheFatBuddha

Con

Just because an animal is heavier than another animal does not mean it would win in a battle. In water where hippos could gain footing, the battle would go in the hippo's favor. An orca's is 30 mph about, hippos can also have bursts of speed where they swim up to 30 mph. The bite force of an orca is approximately 1900 lbs psi (per square inch), and a hippo's is 1821 psi. However, we must realize that this psi was only measured from female hippos, as the male hippos were too aggressive to approach. An orca's longest set of teeth tend to be a mere four inches in comparison to the 1.6 FOOT canines that hippos have. One bite could win the fight for the hippo.
Debate Round No. 2
KingofEverything

Pro

"An orca's is 30 mph about, hippos can also have bursts of speed where they swim up to 30 mph."

How is that an advantage for the Hippo. If they have the same speed, nobody has an advantage.

"The bite force of an orca is approximately 1900 lbs psi (per square inch), and a hippo's is 1821 psi. However, we must realize that this psi was only measured from female hippos, as the male hippos were too aggressive to approach."

I never said it had to be a male hippo. A female hippo is sufficient to qualify as a hippo. So far, they have the same speed and the Orca has better biting force.

" An orca's longest set of teeth tend to be a mere four inches in comparison to the 1.6 FOOT canines that hippos have. One bite could win the fight for the hippo."

What's the point of having bigger teeth? I see two problems with this argument. a) If the Orca has higher biting psi, it's more likely to kill the Hippo than vice verse since pounds are supporting the teeth to crush the Hippo. b) If Orcas weigh more, they have more muscles than Hippos and are more durable.

I introduce a new argument.

Maneuverability: The Orca can swim better than a Hippo. Since Orcas are intelligent, it could think of a battle strategy by moving into deeper waters where the Hippo can't run and would fail to swim properly. The Orca will then be faster and could swim over to the Hippo, bite it, and with its sheer weight, attempt to drown it. Lacking proper movement would result in an automatic liss.
TheFatBuddha

Con

Not only would most of your arguments, such as pointing out how I mentioned different gendered hippos, be greatly biased, but giving an advantage for one animal over the other is just wrong.

Maybe it would be impossible to find a feasible fair playing field, but my point is that if the hippo had reasonable terrain features in its favor it would win.

You say that, "What's the point of having bigger teeth?" What's the difference between a maximum of 4 inches of teeth in you over 1.6 feet of teeth in you?

Second, you say that "If [o]rcas weigh more, they have more muscles than [h]ippos and are more durable." This make absolutely no sense, and you are assuming that more muscles mean more durability. Muscles need to be flexed to be the maximum "more durable" and muscles doesn't necessarily mean strength. If a lean, muscular football player and a heavy, fat football player ran into each other, what would be the end result?

Why should I assume that "The [o]rca (I still don't know why you're capitalizing orca and hippo...) can swim better than a [h]ippo,"? And how would I know if all orcas are intelligent, and are capable of thinking up glorious battle strategies?

Many of your statements are based off of assumptions; your situations are also based off of an unfair playing field. The facts presented here all tell that a hippo would win in a battle.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Lasmelan 1 year ago
Lasmelan
Absolutely unfair battle. Orca can grow up to 10 meters long, so it's much bigger. Also in the shallow water it couldn't fight, and hippo would drown in deep water. I suggest you to not vote in this debate!!!
Posted by KingofEverything 1 year ago
KingofEverything
You can't introduce any new arguments, because then I cannot refute them. You can still refute mine.
Posted by KingofEverything 1 year ago
KingofEverything
I know my argument was dissapointing. I realized I had to do this before time ran out, and I rushed.
Posted by KingofEverything 1 year ago
KingofEverything
It's a battle.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
KingofEverythingTheFatBuddhaTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: As far as I can tell, Con's only arguments against the resolution are to argue that males could have more psi in a bite, and that they have bigger teeth. Pro's only arguments are slight improvements in size and speed, being better swimmers, and being bigger. None of these points are particularly convincing, but since I have a clearer link between being a better swimmer and victory, and having bigger teeth is really the only certain benefit Con is garnering (which isn't all that clear in terms of importance, since a bite is likely to kill either one), I'm really left with my only option being to slightly favor Pro's argument.