The Instigator
rubbersoul
Pro (for)
Losing
58 Points
The Contender
Logical-Master
Con (against)
Winning
59 Points

bruce lee against Ali

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
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: 3/29/2008 Category: Sports
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,357 times Debate No: 3439
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (29)

 

rubbersoul

Pro

I am in favor of the argument that in a streetfight, Bruce Lee could beat Mohammad Ali. Any takers??
Logical-Master

Con

Greetings.

First, I'd like to thank my opponent for starting this debate. Second, I'd ask that voters vote on whose performance was superior. With that said, let us proceed.

As the contender in this debate, I strongly negate the resolution which states "Bruce Lee against Ali."

Contention concerning the topic: Bruce Lee is dead, thus doesn't possess the mental ability to be "against" anyone in any aspect by his will. The PRO provides no evidence to the contrary.

Contention concerning the PRO's argument: I really hate to use the following argument, but I cannot help but do so given the way the topic is phrased as well as the fact that the PRO didn't attempt to define it when he had the opportunity.

In the previous contention, we established that Bruce Lee was dead. Since that is the case, I ask you how a dead man could hope to defeat someone who is still alive. Since Bruce Lee is dead, Muhammad Ali would win by default.

Had the PRO phrased the resolution along the lines that would imply that we're talking about Bruce Lee and Muhammad Ali in their prime, this wouldn't be an issue.

Finally, even with the two being at their prime, the PRO has provided no evidence to suggest that Bruce Lee would be the victor. As the CON, I am free to insist that it would either be a tie or a defeat on Lee's part

In any case, the PRO cannot win this debate. Your reasons for voting are already in this round.
Debate Round No. 1
rubbersoul

Pro

Well, I didn't think that I would have to spell out that this debate is hypothetical, which common sense would say that topic does include that if they did fight, it would be when they were still in their prime. Nontheless, you gave no argument on why Bruce Lee would lose. I will tell you why it is most likely he would win. Simply, Ali was only a boxer, limited only by his hands. Lee on the other hand was skilled using hands, feet, knees, elbows,.........should I go on?.....yes?.....Ok, headbutts, the ability to trap an opponents arms and to strike at the same time. You might say well Ali was a heavyweight and Lee was smaller, sure ok but it is well documented that Lee could punch like a heavyweight....he was that powerful. Another example is if you put Ali in the Ufc with only his boxing skills, do you honestly think he would be good say an mma fighter like Chuck lidell or a Randy Couture? I think not because what these guys have in common is they are not limited to just boxing, but to all facets of fighting.

So take all this into account and factor everything in your rebuttal.

PS please dont take to long to answer back!
Logical-Master

Con

ATTENTION: For those who are inherently biased against the arguments I provided in the previous round, skip down to the part labeled "FIGHT." For everyone else, enjoy the show. :D

My opponent starts off his round by insisting that this topic having to be about Bruce Lee and Muhammad Ali fighting at their prime is common sense, but as what one may or may not realize, common sense is not as common as one might think. In other words, our world is broken down into many cultures. Each culture has a tendency to perceive communication differently.

The topic is phrased as "Bruce Lee against Ali." This phrase could mean many things; being against someone does not imply their to be a physical fight at hand. Hence, my first argument concerning the topic is well justified.

Second, there is my argument which I make to counter my opponent's opening argument. Again, all he suggested was that Lee would beat Ali in a street fight. I replied advocating that a dead man could not beat a living man in a fight. Furthermore, it would be one thing if my opponent had listed evidence that was referring to the two in their prime during round 1. Doing this would justify him in saying that I should have been okay with concluding that the topic concerned the two at their prime. However, as you can see, my opponent provided absolutely NO EVIDENCE in round 1 to support his claim. If anyone is to blame for any misunderstanding, it is him.

Third, I didn't provide evidence to support that Ali would lose simply because I don't have to. In this debate, I am free to advocate that it would be a tie. Furthermore, the burden of proof belongs to my opponent. The fact that he provided no evidence in round one would justify my move.

FIGHT:

My opponents rendering of Muhammad Ali is drastically inaccurate as he concludes that Ali wouldn't stand a chance against Bruce Lee merely because Bruce Lee does more than "punching."

However, in the past, Ali has managed to battle it out with professional wrestler Kenny Benkowski(#1). This disproves the notion that a boxer would not be able to do anything against someone who could resort to non-boxing techniques.

Furthermore, in a street fight, Ali (heavyweight boxer) would no longer be restricted by bulky, restrictive gloves, and while his punches would have the potential to break his own hands, they would also be potentially lethal to a non heavy weight fighter such as Bruce Lee. Moreover, all the Queensberry rules would not apply to this bout, so the nasty ring tricks like low blows, head butting, elbowing that the heavyweight champion knows all too well can be used fully without having to worry about violating any rules. Add in the fact that Ali was known for using psychological tactics to manipulate his opponent

I'll admit that I like the clich´┐Ż Hollywood idea of a scrawny guy with some martial arts prowess defeating a bulky bodybuilder, but realistically speaking, the scrawny guy won't stand a chance in most cases. Plus, this isn't just any heavyweight we're talking about; this is someone who is still referred to as the greatest boxer of all time to this very day. At best, Bruce Lee could make this matchup a tie if he devoted the entire fight to evasive tactics. Then again, at his best, Ali is also known for his nimble movement in the ring, so this may very well be another advantage Ali would have.

Thus, even if we are to treat this debate as an argument which concerns the two fighting at their prime, the PRO still loses.

With that said, I now await the final round.

#1. http://slam.canoe.ca...
Debate Round No. 2
rubbersoul

Pro

WOW.........so many words.....so little substance. All I can do is just reiterate what I said before, you can use your own judgement about who the victor would most likely be.
Logical-Master

Con

And there you have it, ladies and gentleman.

My opponent has openly ignored all of my arguments and insists that you read what he said above. In short, since he has omitted my entire case in his previous round, he has conceded to it.

He closes by saying that you should use your own judgment to determine who the victor would be. However, for a DEBATE, this is absolutely impractical. You should make your judgment based on the arguments presented rather than your own personal input.

Points to note: I went over why my opponent has failed in terms of the topic, his actual argument, as well as if we were to consider a hypothetical street bout between Bruce Lee and Muhammad Ali (both at their prime). As you can see, he could not offer a rebuttal to my case and hence loses by default. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
sorry, meant to say three on one.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Lol, well I think I could have found some means to counter that argument, though I doubt I would be winning in the votes.

By the way, who do you think would win in a two on one match with Bruce Lee at his prime against both Jackie Chan, Jet Li, and Chuck Norris at their primes?
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
It's simple really. Some people suffer "mouse hand jitters" and clicked on the wrong box by accident.

The clincher here was the "dead vs alive" argument. It was never responded to and Pro essentially forfeited his round 3. It's really not possible to declare him an objective winner.

However, I have to say that if Lee and Ali were fighting in their prime, Ali wouldn't stand a chance. First of all, he was primarily trained in Wing Chun, which is especially focused on close hand to hand combat. His personal style, Jeet Kun Do, remodeled Wing Chun especially for chaotic street fighting where there are no rules. Lee also has pro boxing experience so it would be easy for him to know all the strengths and weaknesses of a pro boxer and organize his attacks accordingly.

Ali, however strong and fast he may be, would be no match. The way I see it, Ali would be floored within seconds (not KO'ed, just put to the ground by a throw, a sweep, etc.) and probably would not survive any of the moves coming after that since he's not used to fighting without a ref protecting him while he's down.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Some clarification on these recent votes would be nice people. Share you thoughts for voting issues.
Posted by rubbersoul 8 years ago
rubbersoul
Did you not read round 2 stating Lee's fighting skills he would have used on the streets?
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
How do I have an ego? Would you mind elaborating?
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Well Hypnodoc, I personally believe Bruce Lee would win in a street fight, but in the realm of debate, personal opinion is irrelevant. Besides, I actually did provide a reason which I agreed to. And that reason concerned the fact that Bruce Lee is dead. :D

Glancing over wikipedia, there were indeed a lot of impressive feats my opponent could have cited for the street fight portion of the debate. It is a pity that he didn't.
Posted by gurenman 8 years ago
gurenman
It seems like "logicalmaster" has a bit of an ego.

I must say i didnt know alot about Lee, but "logical" said a bunch of stuff that was all about ego.
Posted by Hypnodoc 8 years ago
Hypnodoc
Con, Better debate. However I must state that Ali in his best shape was not as fast nor a versatile as Bruce Lee.
Bruce could throw an astounding number of strikes per minute.
I am not decrying the ability of Ali he was the greatest boxer of all time.

In a street fight Lee would win because of the training he trained to fight not for sport and he could in his prime throw punches so fast that cameras could not catch them fully.

Pro there was alot of info you could have used.
Posted by Spiral 8 years ago
Spiral
Such a poor tribute to Bruce Lee *mock sighs*
29 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
rubbersoulLogical-MasterTied
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: don't know what the hay happened the last round
Vote Placed by MikeyMike 4 years ago
MikeyMike
rubbersoulLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: As both a boxer and MMA fighter, Pro's argument made more sense to me.
Vote Placed by brokenboy 6 years ago
brokenboy
rubbersoulLogical-MasterTied
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:43 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
rubbersoulLogical-MasterTied
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 Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
rubbersoulLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
rubbersoulLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by db 7 years ago
db
rubbersoulLogical-MasterTied
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 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
rubbersoulLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
rubbersoulLogical-MasterTied
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 Riddick 8 years ago
Riddick
rubbersoulLogical-MasterTied
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