The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheRealJamesArq
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

not getting shot, is more important then shooting the bad guy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
TheRealJamesArq
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/20/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 219 times Debate No: 92929
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

vi_spex

Pro

control..
TheRealJamesArq

Con

Good day!

Contrary to the ambiguous message the proposition has left, I will be providing a more substantial comment.

My name is James, and I will speak for the opposition on the motion that not getting shot is more important THAN (assuming the proposition meant to say than over then) shooting the bad guy.

Let us start by defining the terms which, if left not redefined, will be use throughout the debate.

1.) Not getting shot refers to the act of avoiding being hit by a bullet at all costs, irregardless of the practicality.
2.) Bad guy is the term used for criminals, murderers, and people of the sort of nature.

With those definitions in mind, happy debating! :)

Once again, I'm James, stating that shooting a criminal for the safety of your life is better than the naive alternative of trying to avoid being shot even with the higher risk of getting killed.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

so you assume i am assuming my position is correct.

to be more clear, not getting shot by the bad guy=surviving

ok if you are in a battle, and you see you can get one of the real bad guys, and you run out of battle formation and get killed, it was better to stay in formaton
TheRealJamesArq

Con

Good day, Vi!

You've misinterpreted my statement, I have never assumed your position was correct (and frankly, never will). What I suggested was that you meant to use the word "than" over "then".

Anyways, on to the debate...

In your example, you show how even if a soldier can "get one of the real bad guys" it would be better to avoid shooting the bad guy.

This is faulty logic for a couple of reasons.
(i) If you have the ability to shoot and get rid of a bad guy yet not take it, that is a wasted opportunity.
(ii) As you stated, they are in a battle. It would be an incredibly ludicrous assumption that any side can win by simple "staying in formation" without trying to shoot at the bad guys.

It is simple logic, survival should be the ultimate priority, not avoiding shots. It is ineffective and completely unpractical. By focusing your attention on avoiding getting shot, you run the risk of making decisions that are not sound and that could potentially get you killed. The better alternative would be surviving at any cost, even if it means having to shoot a bad guy.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

you said, "I will be providing a more substantial comment."
so you did assume it, mjahaha

and good day to you sir.

comparison is comparison.

shooting some one with a gun purposefully=attack with the intent to do damage..........

there is no, you and my logic.. logic is true

if you have the ability to shoot and get rid of the bad guy you should do it

a battle formation is not necessarily motionless like a rock on flat ground.. or tanks without wheels

shooting the bad guy to survive is important.
TheRealJamesArq

Con

Thank you for expressing your views, Vi!

I will not tackle the misunderstanding of my text as they are sound and reasonable if read properly. Instead, I will wrap up the debate and explain why my side should ultimately win.

Throughout this debate only confusion and poorly written text have come from the proposition. Like a derailed train, it has completely gone off track. The arguments presented were all rebutted and are filled with hypocrisies and contradictions.

Examples of text that were completely irrelevant yet were spewed out frequently are as follows:
"control.."
"comparison is comparison."
"there is no, you and my logic.. logic is true"

In sharp contrast, the opposition was able to present the impracticality of dodging bullets to survive and avoiding shooting criminals at all cost -- even at the expense of your own life.

I can say that in the end the proposition has also agreed with me as he states "shooting the bad guy to survive is important."

I can close with that, if your life depends on it, dodging bullets and avoiding shooting criminals at all cost is absurd. Instead, if you could survive by shooting a criminal who is threatening your life, do it.

Once again, thank you Vi for agreeing with me. Yes, as you put it "shooting the bad guy to survive is important." I'm glad you could finally see my side and agree with it.

Cheers!
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by vi_spex 5 months ago
vi_spex
making it sound smart makes it sound smary, never defeat me
Posted by vi_spex 5 months ago
vi_spex
mufassa
in the sky
say hey simba
whats up
Posted by vi_spex 5 months ago
vi_spex
it is said they need no explanation for their origin
Posted by vi_spex 5 months ago
vi_spex
you guys ever heard of, bullshitties?
Posted by TheRealJamesArq 5 months ago
TheRealJamesArq
Can you clarify the motion a bit more?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ubermensch-Tsoa 5 months ago
Ubermensch-Tsoa
vi_spexTheRealJamesArqTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had an overall better performance.
Vote Placed by 42lifeuniverseverything 5 months ago
42lifeuniverseverything
vi_spexTheRealJamesArqTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I won't take a point away for S&G even though I could have. I give arguments to Con for a couple reasons. a) The debate centered on which gave one more control. Firing the gun, or not firing it, as evidenced by Pro's opening statement. So when Pro contradicted by saying that leaving formation to dodge bullets got one killed, that implied a loss of control by my understanding. Also Con rightly points out good control opportunities are not wasted on his side of the resolution. Con wins this argument. b) Concession by Pro in final statement. Saying that "shooting the bad guy to survive is important." is the same as saying that Con's side of the resolution is correct. Con wins this argument. Something to improve on for both, is to attack the core argument more, and focus less on examples. Much could have been made upon idea-based arguments here, but that was not deeply delved into. Good debate!