The Instigator
Logical-Master
Pro (for)
Losing
64 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Con (against)
Winning
71 Points

With 30 minutes of preparation, the user known as Kleptin could feasibly vanquish a grizzly bear

Do you like this debate?NoYes+15
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/5/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,590 times Debate No: 8113
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (36)
Votes (27)

 

Logical-Master

Pro

Full resolution: With 30 minutes of preparation, the user known as Kleptin could feasibly vanquish agrizzly bear in combat inside yellow stone national park.

PARAMETERS:

1) The fight takes place in Yellowstone national park
2) Kleptin is assumed to be well capable of climbing trees
3) Kleptin gets access to a high quality hunting knife
4) It is assumed that Kleptin is not in any way physically handicapped and is at least physically capable of sprinting a mile in 5 minutes and benching 180 pounds.

That'll be all. I shall begin arguing in round 2 and my opponent is more than free to follow suit and do the same (or begin arguing in round 1).

CON is more than free to provide definitions of the terms used, but I am not obligated to accept them should I feel they do not meet the intentions of this debate. By taking up this debate, CON agrees to my parameters and my conditions.
Kleptin

Con

I accept my opponent's parameters and he has accepted the following of mine:

1. We are talking about a normal, wild, adult grizzly bear, wanting to kill me, with no additional characteristics besides what we would normally assume in a grizzly bear. Ie. Grizzly bear has any unmentioned disadvantages.

2. The Kleptin in the story (aside from having the stated advantages listed in parameters 2,3,4) also has the attributes and traits of Kleptin in real life (me) and logical derivations from those parameters are subject to debate. Ie. "Because he can bench press 180, Kleptin thus has a buff frame" is not accepted because in reality, I can neither bench 180 nor do I have a buff frame, but for the purposes of this debate, we shall assume the parameters you set forth.

3. The definition of vanquish shall be "to subdue completely", the definition of subdue shall be "to conquer and bring into subjection".

4. The 30 minutes of preparation occur without any external aid, is held within the fighting area, and can only involve parameters 2,3,4 and no other resources.

I will now allow my opponent to make his first argument :)
Debate Round No. 1
Logical-Master

Pro

There are indeed many ways at which herr Kleptin would be victorious in this battle.

=============================================================================
NOOB COMBOS
=============================================================================

Now although there are more advanced tactics which Kleptin could rely on, I shall first start by listing a sure way victory that involves receiving no damage. Utilizing the 30 minutes of prep time within the fighting area, Kleptin could scout the the battlefield and look for some trees which could secure him a comfortable position to sit in, while not being too high above ground. Upon finding such a tree, Kleptin could begin the battle by waiting for the blood lusted adult grizzly bear to come and attack him. The bear would attempt to climb the tree Kleptin was sitting in, but Kleptin could continually spam the bear with knife strikes each time the bear was close to climbing high enough to get a good blow. Upon striking the bear enough (preferably in it's eyes and maybe a through stabs that hit its brain, the bear's HP would eventually drop to zero and it would be dead, leaving Kleptin victorious.

An alternative to this tactic would be to climb high up a a very tall tree and wait for the bear to close in on the area in question. Upon the time the bear was in range, Kleptin position his knife downwards, aim for the most feasible vital area on the bear, jump from the highest point of the tree, use gravity to his advantage and lethally wound the bear with his high quality hunting knife.

Of course, if Kleptin managed to secure a few miniature boulders after having climbed up the tree in question, he could drop these upon the bear to weaken it before engaging it in close range combat.

===========================================================================
Utilizing biological weaknesses
===========================================================================

As can be seen on Kleptin's profile, he is majoring in pharmacy, thus there is reason to believe he has a pretty good grasp of pharmaceutical information, specifically concerning biology and what are the best remedies as well as the worst toxins and perhaps the precise areas of a body at which these substances can be rendered the most effective. Kleptin could his knowledge and understanding of biology to his advantage and find natural ingredients on the battlefield or simply tip his high quality hunting knife in snake/spider/salamander venom (in other words, similar to way this weapon has been used historically: http://en.wikipedia.org... ) and strengthen the effect of his weapon. At this point, upon coming in contact with the bear, a few simple swipe to the bear's vital areas would be sufficient enough to make the result of the battle in Kleptin's favor.

Granted, this direct approach would probably result in Kleptin getting injured. Fortunately, it is established that Kleptin has extraordinary reasoning abilities (he even admits this in the comment section), thus would be more than capable of logically concluding a method which enabled him to get in a few effective swipes on the opposing bear without any serious injury. The most likely approach would be for Kleptin to design a trap of some sort which would allow him to bypass the bear's detection (so far, I shall insist that making use of his tree climbing skills and waiting for the bear to come by would be the best approach) or convince the bear into believing that he is already dead (which is a more common and effective method of eluding a bear, provided the bear is not merely searching for fear and responding defensively: http://www.nytimes.com... ).

Either way, upon the bear being off guard, Kleptin can take the opportunity to latch himself onto the bears back (wrapping his arms under and over the bear's arms: Essentially, a position we see at 5:12 in the video to the right) and wraphis legs around it's waist area. While in this position, Kleptin could maneuver his high quality venom tipped knife to slice the bear's neck and procedurally infect the bear as well as deal damage to this vital area. Eventually, the bear would fall to it's knees and Kleptin would be left the victor.

Due to time constraints, I am unable to list more traps designed to catch the bear off guard, but shall list additional methods in the next round should it be necessary for me to do so.

However, before I leave, I will provide a few examples of individuals overcoming bears in combat while merely using hunting knifes (just to demonstrate that it is possible):

http://neveryetmelted.com...
http://www.freerepublic.com...
http://query.nytimes.com...

Granted, none of these are grizzly bear encounters (black bear encounters) . . . the fact that a humans have been empirically shown to best bears in fair (technically anyway) combat as well as the fact that Kleptin would have the advantage premeditation in this match should lend credibility to the notion that he could feasibly vanquish a grizzly bear with a hunting knife and ingenuity alone given the circumstances which have been listed.

And that'll do it for now.
Kleptin

Con

Much thanks to Logical_Master for that initial argument. I shall begin by pointing out some attributes of my bear opponent before I go at the individual arguments.

First, I am dealing with a grizzly bear that stands at 6-8 feet tall on its hind legs in attack position, and weighs about 300-500 pounds

http://en.wikipedia.org...

1. Finding a tree and waiting for the bear to attack.

Yellowstone national park is made up of mostly Lodgepole Pines

http://www.shannontech.com...
http://home.earthlink.net...

Lodgepole pines grow quite high, at least up to a height of 30 meters. The lodgepole pines that grow in Yellowstone are of the variety that are branchless from the bottom for the majority of the 30 meters:

http://photography.nationalgeographic.com...

http://www.wildnatureimages.com...

It is then not feasible for me to climb a tree such as this because not only are there no handles or knobs to latch onto, my physical strength will fail me in climbing the tree because I am very, very weak. I can barely lift a 30 pound weight with one arm. Straight-climbing a tree such as the Lodgepole Pine is simply not possible. Even if it were, the nearest branch would be a very long climb upwards, one that I simply could not sustain because of my poor stamina. And since the Lodgepole Pine dominates large expanses of land, and other trees are located far from that location, the time it will take to find such a tree will be much more than 30 minutes.

And although I can sprint (in this debate) a mile in five minutes, a bear's top speed is 35m/hour

http://www.thebigzoo.com...

This translates to running a mile in less than 3 minutes. If we take into account the fact that I am extremely clumsy and unfamiliar with non-sidewalk terrain, it would take even less time for the bear to catch and eat me. This negates my opponent's tree-related suggestions.

2. Using academic knowledge to defeat the bear

My opponent greatly exaggerates my intellectual resources. Though I am well versed in pharmacy, I am unable to recognize herbs and flora for their pharmacological uses. This rules out the use of plant poisons. Furthermore, according to:

http://www.yellowstoneparknet.com...

There are no such poisonous animals that my opponent has stated. If there are, they are far too rare to be catalogued by Yellowstone national park and thus, the time it would take for me to find, kill, and extract the poison from such animals would be well over 30 minutes.

As for the targeting of vital spots, I know the locations of vital organs in the human body, but am not aware of their general location in bear anatomy.

3. Playing dead

It is a common myth that playing dead will fool a bear. In fact, it is the action of complete submission and outward defensive behavior that will stop a bear attack (such as curling into a ball as my opponent has cited). Since it has been stated that this bear specifically wants to kill me (it is not seeking to ensure my death but specifically to kill me) we can then say that playing dead or curling into a ball will do nothing but lead to my demise.

As for the creation of a trap, the preparation of such a trap would probably take a substantial amount of time, not do to thinking, but actual construction. I am sure that my opponent remembers the situation in the first season of Code Geass where Lelouch attempts to trap an animal for food by digging a pit. Though he has spectacular reasoning abilities, his weak frame and lack of tools led to a spectacular failure. A case which will be the same for me.

Subduing the bear in the manner my opponent has illustrated is also impossible. First of all, the bear's front limbs and chest are immense bulks of muscle, whereas my spindly little arms will be nothing more than annoying twigs. Second, the bear will stand to heights of 10 feet tall in offensive position (see first few cited links) making its shoulders and head far above my range.

4. The three situations my opponent has listed.

http://neveryetmelted.com......
http://www.freerepublic.com......
http://query.nytimes.com......

First, my opponent has mentioned that these are all black bears and not grizzly bears. My opponent seems to be confused by his very own sources. While the first two sources depict black bears, the final source clearly states that the bear was a grizzly.

However, for the first two situations: Grizzly bears are larger, heavier, stand taller, have longer and more dangerous claws, and are less herbivorous than Black bears.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:Gmt6lk2IbZwJ:www.mountainnature.com/wildlife/Bears/BearID.htm+grizzly+bears+vs+black+bears&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

In the first example, the man fighting the bear had at his disposal, a dog. The dog obviously served as a distraction, allowing him to stab the bear several times in the back. In the second, the bear was shown to be heavily malnourished, as it had little fat (bears tend to have a substantial amunt of fat) and suffering extensive damage (broken jaw, severed tongue) this gave the man a heavy advantage. In the final example, the bear took two bullets albeit to non-vital areas. This would do a substantial amount of damage. In addition, the man fighting was a General with military training, and the bear was preoccupied with attacking the Judge.

TO SUM UP:
None of my opponent's proposals are feasible. Each one of the possible courses of action that my opponent has listed contains one or more fatal flaws, making it impossible except by way of miracle for me to not only survive, but actually vanquish the grizzly bear.

To further add to the near impossibility of mine accomplishing such a feat, must also add that I abhor cruelty to animals and that I find it very hard to perform violent actions to them. This is the result of my being raised in a sheltered household. As far back as I can remember, I have never actually participated in a fight, or actively tried to hurt someone. Faced with a situation such as this, instinct will not fuel my ability to fight, but rather, to flee. This works against the debated notion that I can vanquish a grizzly bear.

As more evidence, my opponent probably took quite a long time planning out these tactics. More than 30 minutes, I would say. With access to information such as the internet and between the two of us, we still have come up with no way to survive this grizzly bear attack. Should this have actually happened, the 30 minutes of preparation time would have already been up and I would have been killed because all of the ideas my opponent has put forth so far, would have failed.

I await my opponent's response and thank the audience for their time.
Debate Round No. 2
Logical-Master

Pro

========================
NOOB TACTICS |
========================

RE:
Yellowstone national park is made up of mostly Lodgepole Pines:

My opponent contends that because Yellowstone national park is made up of mostly Lodgepole pines, that he would not be able to pull off the tactics mentioned. His reasoning behind this is that one of his physical condition could not hope to climb the tree because there are no handles or knobs to latch onto, HOWEVER . . .

Let us remember the conditions both my opponent and I agreed to:

1) He has the strength to lift 180 pounds. Granted, he has no buff frame (which could possibly used to speak of attributes that don't concern strength . . . which would mean that he received this strength upgrade via "magic", radioactive insect, or latent mutant powers).

2) We both agreed that the Kleptin in this universe possessed a "high quality hunting knife." Granted that the knife is of high quality, Kleptin could use it as leverage he may or may not need (assuming his strength boost isn't enough), when climbing the tree.

3) We have both agreed that this Kleptin is a master of tree climbing.

"And since the Lodgepole Pine dominates large expanses of land, and other trees are located far from that location, the time it will take to find such a tree will be much more than 30 minutes."

Not necessarily. As indicated by my opponent's 4th condition, the preparation occurs within the fighting area. Simply visiting a lodge house and attaining a park map as well as a park guide would make it a simple process for Kleptin to find any other trees. Nevertheless, this wouldn't be necessary as Kleptin would no doubt be able to climb the trees thanks to the three attribute conditions which I had provided.

RE: "And although I can sprint (in this debate) a mile in five minutes, a bear's top speed is 35m/hour"

Very true, but this is not something which I contested, thus I ask that the audience dismiss my opponent's bear/human speed comparison. The purpose of the speed condition was to lower the amount of time it would take to travel during the 30 minute's of preparation as well as to give Kleptin enough physical stamina for a possible argument my opponent may provide.

===========================================================================
Utilizing biological weaknesses
===========================================================================

RE: "My opponent greatly exaggerates my intellectual resources. Though I am well versed in pharmacy, I am unable to recognize herbs and flora for their pharmacological uses. This rules out the use of plant poisons."

I'm out of time, thus will possibly save this argument for later. As of now, consider it conceded to.

RE: "There are no such poisonous animals that my opponent has stated."

My opponent source is most certainly lacking information.

Let us refer to the following source:http://www.ultimateyellowstonepark.com...

"Park visitors rarely spot rattlesnakes, but the poisonous snake does reside in Yellowstone's northwestern corner near Gardiner, Montana. Reaching up to four feet long with a rattle on their tale, rattlesnakes bear brown skin with dark splotches. Most rattlesnakes will retreat unless threatened, but a bite can be fatal to humans if not treated quickly and properly. Visitors should be especially careful near rocky areas, as snakes frequently sun themselves on rocky ledges. If you hear a rattle, stop and slowly move in the opposite direction of the sound. If you are bitten, immobilize the area, and immediately seek medical attention. All rattlesnake sightings should be reported to the nearest ranger station."

Now as indicated above, my opponent is correct in regards to these creatures being rare when taken the entire vass park into consideration, however . . . as shown, they do reside in a precise location, thus this depends on what part of the park Kleptin enters. *sigh* Unfortunately, not something that I took into consideration when creating this debate, thus making this area of the subject murky (I mean really, it just turns into a "Would Kleptin most likely enter in section X of the park of the park or not)". :( All I can say is that if he enters from the Gardiner Montana region, he should feasibly be able to come across the snake and use the snake venom to his advantage. However, now that I think of it, I never installed a time limit to this match. Thus, if Kleptin manages to elude the bear long enough, he could eventually each his destinationof the park on foot (though this would take a great deal of time). Eluding the bear should be relatively simple. After all, Kleptin could simply wait in a lodge house, wait for the bear to get hungry and go get a bite to eat . . . and run off (while making sure that he leaves enough of his scent into to lure the bear into following him, which can be performed via defecation or urination). Come to think of it, this method could also be used in terms of finding a tree which is easier to climb. ;)

RE: "As for the targeting of vital spots, I know the locations of vital organs in the human body, but am not aware of their general location in bear anatomy."

Even if this isn't the case, Kleptin should still be aware that hitting the bear nearly any place along the neck or piercing the knife through it's brain should be sufficient.

RE: "It is a common myth that playing dead will fool a bear. "

On the contrary: As my article indicates, Grizzly bears are likely to be fooled by this trick based on their general nature.

RE: ". Since it has been stated that this bear specifically wants to kill me (it is not seeking to ensure my death but specifically to kill me) we can then say that playing dead or curling into a ball will do nothing but lead to my demise."

We can do no such thing. Although it has been stated that the bear specifically wants to kill Kleptin, if the bear thinks Kleptin is dead, the bear is more likely than not going to do anything further except get back to its own business. Of course, if the bear isn't dumb enough to buy Kleptin falling over as indication of his death, Kleptin could always stage his death in more elaborate way and come up with the plan while heading to the area of the park which includes rattlesnaked (which by the way, even if Kleptin doesn't logically deduce the location, eventually traveling around the park while strategically eluding the bear would be the means of him finding one or more).

RE: "
As for the creation of a trap, the preparation of such a trap would probably take a substantial amount of time, not do to thinking, but actual construction."

Again, something which I do not have the time to respond to (4:00 minute remaining). Gonna have to temporarily concede.

RE: "Subduing the bear in the manner my opponent has illustrated is also impossible. First of all, the bear's front limbs and chest are immense bulks of muscle, whereas my spindly little arms will be nothing more than annoying twigs."

No time for a precise explanation. However, if you'll look to the youtube video at the right, the proportion between an adult man and a grizzly bear should indicate that my opponent is greatly exaggerating the size of the Bear's bulk.

And that's all the time I have. Will try and respond to the next during the following. However, as long as you (the audience) buy one of my scenarios for victory, it shouldn't be a problem. Later.
Kleptin

Con

I will now respond to my opponent's counterpoints:

1. My opponent is arguing that my strength will be enough due to the beginning parameters. However, I point my opponent to the parameter itself. It clearly states that I am able to *bench* 180 pounds.

http://wiki.answers.com...

Operation of the bench press primarily exercises the chest muscles and to a much lower extent, the triceps, whereas the act of applying pressure around the trunk of a tree to climb it (the only possible way when the trunk is smooth) is primarily the use of the biceps. The 180 pound benching would be useful for something such as lifting a large piece of rock off of my shoulders, but not for climbing this particular type of tree.

2. My opponent then states that I can use my high quality hunting knife as leverage. However, this proposal is neither completely explained, nor practical. I am assuming that my opponent means that I can use the knife to puncture the tree and use it to lift myself up. The problem is that once I use the knife in such a fashion, I will indeed be able to propel myself up a little. Even if I jump and stab into the tree, I shall only be dangling a foot or so above ground. However, once I am hanging by one arm with the knife in the tree, what next? I can't climb any further because once I remove the knife from the tree, I will fall. In addition, I cannot apply my opponent's strategy by using the knife as a substitute branch because then, I will have no weapon and the bear will claw my feet off. Thus, the knife will not help either.

3. My opponent then points to the notion that I am a "master of tree climbing". I point my opponent to the wording of the parameter. It is stated that I am "well capable" of climbing a tree. Meaning, that I am simply capable of climbing trees. However, when there are physical limitations that prohibit the actual mechanism of tree climbing, then I am not liable for that. The climbing of a tree is usually done by climbing branches. My opponent, by choosing this particular battlezone, has presented me with a bunch of trees tree that cannot be climbed in that fashion. Thus, while I am capable of climbing a typical tree, this atypical situation in which tree climbing requires external tools and/or unnatural proficiency is simply not one where the stated parameter is useful. I may be well capable of climbing trees, but when the tree presented begins to deviate from the properties of a typical climbable tree, it is natural that my ability will decrease. It is my opponent who has set up a situation in which the agreed parameter does not aid me much.

4. My opponent states that I could simply ask a park guide or obtain a park map in order to find a climbable tree. However, he forgets the fourth condition that I set forth upon accepting this debate:

"The 30 minutes of preparation occur without any external aid, is held within the fighting area, and can only involve parameters 2,3,4 and no other resources. "

My opponent has provided me with a certain number of resources set forth in his parameters 2,3,and 4. I have clearly stated that in the 30 minutes of preparation, I can rely on no other resources than those stated in 2,3, and 4. Nowhere in my opponent's parameters 2,3,and 4 did he state that I have access to a lodge, to a guide, or to a map.

My opponent the ends this section by asking the audience to dismiss my notion of a bear running much faster than a human. Let me then note that I am using that as part of my argument, saying that so long as I am on the ground and defenseless, the bear will catch up to me and kill me because I cannot outrun it. My opponent has no justification for asking that this point be dismissed, because it is indeed relevent.

I must also state that the stamina my opponent refers to is subject to debate as part of the conditions that I set forth. Indeed, I can run a mile in five minutes, but after that one mile, the regular Kleptin's physical limitations take over. I can barely *walk* a mile without complaining. Just to have that noted for later on.

===========================================================================
Utilizing biological weaknesses
===========================================================================

My opponent has conceded to one point and then refers again to the issue of rattlesnakes. By my opponent's own admission, snakes are rare to find. In addition, my opponent's proposal that I simply wait in the lodgehouse until the bear leaves violates the usage of resources other than the ones stated in the parameters. However, the notion of waiting in the lodgehouse until the bear leaves is also a violation. The very resolution states that I am given 30 minutes of preparation in order to vanwuish the bear. If I decide to wait in a lodgehouse, or otherwise to be safe for longer than a period of 30 minutes, I would then have MORE time to prepare, and that is a direct violation of the resolution. My opponents suggestion would give me far too much time for further preparation so yes, there actually *is* a time limit.

In the case of vital spots of the bear, I would rule out striking the bear through the skull because first, I would not be able to reach its head. Second, I would question my own ability to puncture the skull, which is thick and made of bone, (even with the good hunting knife, for fear of it becoming lodged and losing my weapon). As for slicing at the neck, I would also shy away from the notion because a frontal attack would be too risky. If it came down to hand-to-hand combat, I would simply be too hesitant because my entire body would be telling me to run.

For the argument my opponent makes for playing dead, I ask my opponent to reread the source he provided. Nowhere in the article did it say that bears are "fooled" into thinking that the target is actually dead. In fact, the source says that "playing dead" lets the bear know that you are not a threat. It is the equivalent of showing deference or inferiority.

In fact, there is no source that claims that playing dead fools the bear into actually thinking that you are dead. Every source uses the same language: Playing dead leads to eliminationt he notion that you are dangerous or a threat.

http://www.environmentyukon.gov.yk.ca...
http://www.arcticwebsite.com...
http://askville.amazon.com...

In addition, all of these sources say to avoid playing dead if you are being attacked and/or stalked. Wouldn't I be a fool to do otherwise? It wouldn't be feasible for me to follow advice that I personally will believe to be detrimental to my health, even if my opponent could prove otherwise.

My opponent concludes by saying that an average man's muscle bulk would not be quite as I have exaggerated. THe video provided shows a rather healthy and robust man, whereas I have very spindly and muscle-less arms. By making this argument, my opponent does his argument little good, because the issue is not how much I exaggerate, but whether or not it is feasible for me to subdue the bear in the manner that my opponent set forth, and honestly, it simply is not.

My opponent has listed many scenarios, none of which are feasible so far. In addition, there are a few points in last round that my opponent did not have the time to address. I look forward to seeing them answered in the next round.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
Logical-Master

Pro

N.TACTICS:

1) Even if we are to agree to the notion that the bench pressing skill would be useless here, my opponent forgets that the"well capable" part is certainly important as it exist to insure that climbing trees isn't an obstacle for Kleptin . . . Meaning that if a strength increase is necessary for these trees to be climbed, we must assume that Kleptin does in fact have the strength.

2)CON says that he'd be unable to propel himself in the air by relying on the method I listed, however, this would be a very simple process. In order to maintain himself in the air, he'd merely have to wrap both of his legs around the tree itself each time he moved the knife in order to gain additional leverage. Of course, thanks to the parameters, we must also note that Kleptin would be able to do this quite well.

3) CON tries to bypass his extraordinary tree climbing skills by pointing out that my parameters simply insure that he is capable of climbing trees. However, the term "well" exist for a reason. As already mentioned, it is to insure that tree climbing isn't an obstacle for Kleptin. Furthermore, the parameters say nothing about a a typical tree. Rather, it just says well capable of climbing trees PERIOD, thus we are to assume that every kind of tree is being taken into consideration. Finally, if you'll note the above, I've already shown that Kleptin has all he needs in order to climb the tree.

RE 4: CON first states that I've claimed he could ask a park guide, but if you'll look back to my previous point, you'll note that I've stated this nowhere, hence strawman. I claimed that Kleptin could get a park guide (paper that illustrates the areas of the entire park) and this does not require outside aid given that park guides are free and easily accessible to anyone who happens to step foot into a lodge house or a hotel or a visitor center.

Furthermore, he and I agreed that the fighting area consisted of Yellowstone national park. If I recall correctly, Lodge houses, park guides/map are all within Yellowstone national park, thus my opponent's objection is to be dismissed without hesitation.

Lodge Houses (and hotels): http://www.travelyellowstone.com... , http://www.yellowstoneparknet.com..., http://www.nps.gov...

And on the off chance one park guide pamphlet couldn't not be picked up in either a lodge house or a hotel, it would be guaranteed to be found inside one of many visitor centers.

RE: by asking the audience to dismiss my notion of a bear running much faster than a human.

I understand what CON is getting at, but with the arguments I am using, there is not a single instance where he would be placed into the position where he'd have to outrun the bear, hence there is no need to debate the possibility and no need to weigh this into voting decision.

RE: my opponent's proposal that I simply wait in the lodge house until the bear leaves violates the usage of resources other than the ones stated.

Lodge houses being located in Yellowstone park is indisputable.

RE: waiting in the lodge house until the bear leaves is also a violation.

He claims that my lodge house strategy ought to be rejected on the grounds that it would allow him more prep time, however, it is made rather clear that the prep time was the amount of time there was before the battle began. Even CON acknowledges this or else he would have objected to my prior arguments on the grounds that the bear would have attacked him before he started climbing a tree or searching for poisonous vermin.

And if you'll examine the merits of his objection, you should note that it would technically apply to any situation after the 30 minutes of preparation before the battle officially begins. After all, what CON is merely claiming is that having the opportunity to plan further than he has in the initial 30 minutes would be against the rules, however, this absurd because unless his brain is somehow going to be turned off, there is no way that any additional thoughts or observations won't reach his mind, thus not allowing him to think about his actions while battling the bear.

RE: VITAL SPOTS PROBLEM:

1) It must be noted that the vital spots argument was being used in conjunction with the argument that Kleptin was able to latch him onto the bear in the illustrated position which would render the bear unable to harm him. Wrapping his arms around the bears, wrapping his legs around it's waist (or it's chest. It really makes no difference) would place him in a secure position which would enable him to easily be in range of the bear's head.

2) Nowhere did I claim that Kleptin would be puncturing the bear's skull. My claim was that he'd use the knife to puncture the bears eyes and the inject the knife far enough to puncture the bear's brain. This would not involve piercing any bones.

3) Slicing the neck is indeed feasible as I am arguing it to be the case in a situation where the bear cannot fight back.

RE: PLAYING DEAD DOESN'T WORK

http://www.ehow.com...

RE: KLEPTIN DOESN'T LIKE ANIMAL CRUELTY

This argument is irrelevant on the basis that this is a debate that concerns whether or not he could feasibly vanquish the bear (whether or not he could do it). Whether or not he'd actually want to do is a different story. Also applicable to the "time to think of ideas' claim.

RE: Kleptin IS TOO SMALL

He claims that my video depicts a rather healthy and robust man, but this is hardly the case at all. If you examine the video, you shall note nothing "extraordinary" about the size of the people (one who is just a typical woman). They all depict individuals of average build at best. As for the muscle mass, the technique does not rely on it, so that won't be a problem.

RE: THREE EXAMPLES OF MAN BEATING BEARS DON'T COUNT:

1) The dog did not serve as a distraction, granted the dog came from BEHIND his master, only to attack the bear who was in front of him. Thus, both the master and the dog were in plain site. This would have to mean that the bear had ample opportunity to detect this so-called sneak attack (as CON phrases it). If a dog in plain sight is all that is necessary to "sneak up" on a bear, just imagine what someone with 30 minutes of prep could do. 2) Bear had surpirse 3) The story indicates that the bullets had no effect on the bear as the bear kept charging while unfazed. In addition, this is yet again an example of the bear being easily susceptible to distraction.

FIRE IS KLEPTIN'S BEST FRIEND (best method):

Upon getting inside the lodge house, Kleptin could look for some flammable materials (preferably a gas tank, assuming one is inside the lodge house or, in which case, Kleptin would either have to remove or make an elaborate flammable trail leading to it) and/or wait for the bear to make it to the lodge house. Kleptin could leave a snack or a tasty meat product 10-20 feet away from the door. Either that, or he could simply cut himself, take off his shirt and stain the shirt with his blood and leave it in the aforementioned location if snacks or treats could not be find (which is doubtful).

In any case, after doing this, Kleptin could leave the door to the house wide open and allow the bear to come inside. While the bear is distracted by the food or the blood stained shirt, Kleptin could quickly escape the lodge house and close the door shut. Essentially, the bear would be trapped in the lodge house.

If Kleptin managed to create a flammable trail to a gas tank which was inside, the rest of the plan is cake as Kleptin could simply take his time igniting the flammable materials the old fashioned way(clashing rocks, etc). Or Kleptin could simply burn the lodge house down the other old fashioned way, only it would take longer and he'd have to gather some extra materials (using gas from gas stations in p
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for what has been a spectacular debate, and hope that the next one will occur in less busy circumstances.

My opponent has done a fantastic job detailing the methods by which I can feasibly vanquish this grizzly bear. However, from reading my opponent's last argument, I find it necessary to note that so far, my opponent has not been able to respond to my point of our very discussion taking far more than half an hour. What my opponent has been doing, is arguing that there exists a plan which, if carried out perfectly, will make it possible to vanquish the bear. However, this is not the resolution. The resolution is whether it is feasible that I can both feasibly DEVELOP a plan and feasibly CARRY IT OUT. The audience should take into account that my opponent needed to not only provide a plan, but also one that I myself could have come up with and put into action with 30 minutes of preparation. If my opponent develops a plan that is possible, but it is greatly hindered by the formulation and execution, then it no longer becomes feasible and regardless of the viability of the plan, we must disregard it. Please keep this in the back of your minds while I respond:

TREE CLIMBING

My opponent's points regarding tree climbing can all be answered with a simple analogy. Can I climb a bonsai tree? My opponent suggests that this parameter of his can apply to any sort of tree, and that no matter what, anything designated as "tree" will be completely climbable. I find this absurd. The act of climbing a tree is very common and I am sure we all know how the act is done. I find it very impractical to take this parameter and expand it unjustly. Yes, I may be well capable of climbing trees, but to be able to climb a tree that cannot be climbed using ordinary tree-climbing means is clearly not supported by this parameter.

As for my opponent's suggestion of using the knife and wrapping my legs around the tree, but neglects that my weak leg strength is detrimental to this process. Assuming I have the force to drive the knife well into the tree, I would need a substantial amount of force to drive the knife out. This forceforce would propell me backwards as I am trying to grip the tree with my feeble legs and cause me to topple off the tree.

LODGE HOUSES

I point out that my opponent's plan to use the lodgehouse as a way to stall for time is indeed a violation of the 30-minute prep time because it takes place before the battle has begun. My opponent's suggestion is that I sit and hide in a lodgehouse to wait it out. Obviously, this must take place before the battle because otherwise, the bear will most likely catch up to me before I can make it into the lodgehouse. Thus, since I am buying time before I encounter the bear, I am prolonging the alotted 30-minute preparation time stated in the resolution.

Second, I point out the violation of my opponent's suggestion that I hide from lodgehouse to lodgehouse. If I am in a safe area and the bear has left, the battle is in effect, over, and no vanquishing has been done. It is simply stalemate. We must assume that this bear has the sole purpose of trying to kill me and will be unfazed by other purposes. In addition, the bear could just as easily crash through a door and kill me. This makes the lodgehouse argument a poor one.

VITAL SPOTS

My opponent has admitted that the vital spots argument he made relied on the argument that I can latch onto the bear. As I have already made an argument against my ability to latch onto the bear, and my opponent has not responded to it, then the rest of his argument is similarly dismissed. To provide an actual point, I simply point out that the measured, precise movements that my opponent details are simply not feasible. While it is possible that administered perfectly, the plan is not feasible because the slightest digression from perfection would lead to certain death.

ANIMAL CRUELTY

This is where my opponent has misinterpreted my argument. My opponent is attempting to argue that if things go a certain way, in a certain fashion, then the outcome will be victory. If things go perfectly, then of course a positive outcome shall be possible. However, this is barring outside circumstances. A feasible plan must be both possible in conception and possible barring outside circumstances. My hesitation to harm this bear may cost me a full second or so of action which will decide whether I live or die. My opponent is focusing only on the feasibility of the plan and not the feasibility of execution to the standards that he sets.

MY SIZE

A bear's forearms and shoulders are considerably stronger since it walks on all four legs and supports its weight in that fashion. Despite my opponent's video evidence of size or shape, this does not negate the fact that in order to subdue an average sized grizzly bear, I would need strength far above and beyond what my opponent has listed in the parameters.

THE THREE EXAMPLES

The fact remains that in each instance, there were definite advantages that were deciding factors. In addition, as I have said before, these were black bears which are considerably weaker than grizzly bears, and the last one of which was a grizzly that was shot twice. The fact that the bear did not seem fazed is irrelevant, because metal tearing through flesh *will* have an effect. These stories are negligible because they bear little similarity to my case.

FIRE

My opponent's proposal to use fire is a good one. The problem is that I am sure all the inhabitants of that lodge as well as the people overseeing that lodge will do everything in their power to keep me from setting fire to the lodge, or luring the bear inside, or stealing their food. If I admit to my purposes, they would most likel see me as insane and call park services to dispatch the bear, robbing me of my victory and leaving me incarcerated for trying to endanger the welfare of others.

************************

As it stands, we have now spent several days thinking, plotting, planning, trying to come up with ways to vanquish this bear. Alas, even the combined efforts of us two bright, knowledgable people, along with the great database of the internet, we cannot develop a plan that is BOTH feasible in conception and feasible on execution. Admittedly, my opponent comes up with some very good plans, ones that might well work if we did not consider my own weaknesses. If I were a predictable automaton with precise physical motions and actions, then some of the combat techniques MIGHT be feasible. However, I am not. My weaknesses and flaws, as well as an extremely high amount of uncertainties make my opponent's suggestions highly impractical.

Now, with all the testimony, it is up to you, the audience, to ask yourselves some questions.

1. With all that was discussed, is it FEASIBLE that I can think up these ideas all by myself, within 30 minutes?
2. Since this several-day-long discussion has yielded no fruit, would it be FEASIBLE to say that I will cancel out these plans and proceed to one that works?
3. If you honestly believe that one of these plans my opponent listed is a good one, is it FEASIBLE to say that *I* would come up with it by myself and implement it perfectly?

Taking into account the depth, the precision, the detail, and the length of time involved in this fruitless discussion, you must understand that it simply is NOT FEASIBLE for me to conceive of, develop, and implement the perfect plan out of thousands of possible ideas leading to my certain death.

So while I thank Logical_Master for using his brainpower in an attempt to lead me to glorious victory, I must conclude that such a plan is simply not feasible. I will most likely ask a Park Ranger to remove the bear and lead me to safety. Afterall, who knows me better than myself?

Thank you to the Audience and to my opponent. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 4
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
removed vote bombing that is.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
False alarm. The forum confirms vote bombing as being the culprit.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Someone just got banned it seems. Either that or two people changed their votes. I'll have to look into this matter if I gain more interest in it.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Yeah, I had intended to say something along the lines of the parameters having implied either that neither the bear or Kleptin would receive outside help (in other words, the people inside the lodge house wouldn't be present in order to insure that this remains a fair battle) or that Kleptin wasn't allowed external aid ONLY during the 30 minutes of preparation (which would mean that getting a forest ranger to deal with the bear after the 30 minutes passed would be allowable), but the pesky character limit got in the way. :(

Still, fun debate though. :D
Posted by snelld7 7 years ago
snelld7
>>>"My opponent's proposal to use fire is a good one. The problem is that I am sure all the inhabitants of that lodge as well as the people overseeing that lodge will do everything in their power to keep me from setting fire to the lodge, or luring the bear inside, or stealing their food. If I admit to my purposes, they would most likel see me as insane and call park services to dispatch the bear, robbing me of my victory and leaving me incarcerated for trying to endanger the welfare of others."~Kleptin

lol wow! My fav. part
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
Take a look at his profile pic L_M, we're not dealing with an individual who can be punished with humiliation XD

Best sweep away the riffraff than waste resources calling them out :P there are bigger fish to fry.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
My friend, surely you can do better than "you guys are strait f a g s." As a debate site, we members prefer to think of ourselves as a bit more "highbrow" than that. Please, in the future, consider your choice of words as well as what they indicate. If this is all you have to show for your wit, then I'm afraid you'll have a hard time getting anyone to take you seriously (ironic, considering your post, no?).

And please, don't report such comments Kleptin. The sheer humiliation from having posted such a pathetic elementary school level comment should be punishment enough. It would only be generosity to have it removed. ;)
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
Comment reported.
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
This one was hard >.> I haven't tried so hard in a debate in a veeery long time.
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
I loved it! Well done, gentelmen. Well done. I had to side with LM on this one, but my decision was hard.
27 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
Logical-MasterKleptinTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Logical-MasterKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Logical-MasterKleptinTied
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:40 
Vote Placed by shadow835 6 years ago
shadow835
Logical-MasterKleptinTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by wweasel 6 years ago
wweasel
Logical-MasterKleptinTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by pbplk58 7 years ago
pbplk58
Logical-MasterKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Logical-MasterKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Madoki 7 years ago
Madoki
Logical-MasterKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
Logical-MasterKleptinTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
Logical-MasterKleptinTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05