The Instigator
datgy
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
SeventhProfessor
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

weeping angels are better than daleks

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 5 votes the winner is...
SeventhProfessor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/10/2014 Category: TV
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 689 times Debate No: 54405
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (5)

 

datgy

Pro

A weeping angel is quick and merciless. even though it is quantum locked, it is harder to outsmart than a dalek who will: kill itself if ordered, exterminate own team in some cases, and even believe a jammy dodger is an explosives detonator. In summary, a weeping angel only has one weakness while the daleks are a flawed species
SeventhProfessor

Con

As the contender, I shall negate the resolution "weeping angels are better than daleks". Therefore, I need not prove that Daleks>Weeping Angels, only that Weeping Angels are not necessarily greater than Daleks, at least per my opponent's arguments. Now, I shall begin.

A weeping angel is quick and merciless. even though it is quantum locked, it is harder to outsmart...

Do you outsmart anything without smarts in the first place? Weeping Angels blindly feed on others' time energy, and donn't really think where they step. It's not very difficult to trick one into a mirror, or looking another of its kind in the eyes (Time of the Doctor and Blink, respectively).

kill itself if ordered

But they would only be ordered if death is a known strategic advantage, showing there high senses of strategy, cunning, and, most of all, intelligence.

exterminate own team in some cases

See above

and even believe a jammy dodger is an explosives detonator

From a distance, and they were able to figure out it was a Jammy Dodger within minutes. Even if they were suspicious, better safe than sorry.

........................................................................................................................................................

Now, I'd like to reiterate the Weeping Angels' complete lack of brains. They couldn't even compete with the time the Daleks accidentally erased Shakespeare from time, trapping themselves in a time rift, and using a combination of the knowledge of humanity's desire to get Shakespeare and time travel knowledge to trick the humans into helping them escape (Time of the Daleks). Clearly, the Daleks are not a dull bunch.
Debate Round No. 1
datgy

Pro

Sir,you have proved my argument invalid, but a weeping angel can multiply by picture while daleks must be enginerd in a lab or created in some long process while one picture or look into the eyes of the angel creates another in minutes to an hour at the longest
SeventhProfessor

Con

a weeping angel can multiply by picture

Assuming someone takes/draws a picture, and someone doesn't destroy the photo/video. The picture isn't s strong, and takes no solid form, as shown in the series 5 two parter.

daleks must be enginerd in a lab or created in some long process while

Not necessarily. The very first ones, as shown in the first season's The Daleks, mutated from a common species on Skaro. Afterwards, somehow, a man named Davros started creating more through forced mutation of Skaro inhabitants (Genesis of the Daleks), and have recently developed the ability to transform humans, and presumably other species (Asylum of the Daleks). Soon Dalek technology may advance to Empty Child level, turning organisms into Daleks at a touch. The Daleks have constantly evolving methods of transformation, always fixing flaws. Weeping Angel reproduction is pure cloning, and therefore no mutation, and by extension evolution, possible, leaving any improvements a mere dream.
Debate Round No. 2
datgy

Pro

I have,been beaten by you ma'am but I must ask you something,have you ever considered that a dalek can be manipulated by humans (as shown with rose Tyler) or parts can be used to build weapons against dalkeks themselves
SeventhProfessor

Con

Yes, Daleks have been manipulated by humans many times, but only individual or small groups of Daleks. Only in situations like Time of the Daleks where they are in desperate need of help, will they be vulnerable to trickery. Weeping Angels, on the other hand, were easily tricked into looking at eachother when at their strongest, as shown in Blink.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SeventhProfessor 2 years ago
SeventhProfessor
victory at last
Posted by datgy 2 years ago
datgy
I will
Posted by SeventhProfessor 2 years ago
SeventhProfessor
Next time just set it to ten days, lol
Posted by datgy 2 years ago
datgy
Then you are a friend of mine only a weeping angel fan could pick apart an angel debate with ease I like your styke
Posted by SeventhProfessor 2 years ago
SeventhProfessor
It was fun debating with you, thanks :D
Posted by SeventhProfessor 2 years ago
SeventhProfessor
Devil's Advocate. It means I disagree with my stance, and argue against the one I agree with. So, I actually prefer Weeping Angels to Daleks.
Posted by datgy 2 years ago
datgy
Da?
Posted by SeventhProfessor 2 years ago
SeventhProfessor
Haha, no problem. I'm actually playing DA.
Posted by datgy 2 years ago
datgy
Sorry, madam
Posted by datgy 2 years ago
datgy
I shall accept I have met a mind greater than mine'good debate sir I would love to debate with you again.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
datgySeventhProfessorTied
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: pro barely gave any arguments
Vote Placed by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
Jonbonbon
datgySeventhProfessorTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded all of the arguments, and Con referenced specific episodes as evidence.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
datgySeventhProfessorTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. I have no idea why the previous voters gave Conduct to Pro. Both seemed to practice good conduct, and for that, they tie. S & G - Con. Pro only finished two sentences throughout the entire debate. Everything else, was failed to be met with a period at the end of the sentence. Clearly obvious. Since this category is included for voting, I include this error by Pro. Arguments - Con. Successfully rebutted every point raised by Pro. This effectively upheld his position and negated all validity from Pro's arguments as admitted by Pro himself. Pro conceded in last round, solidifying the victory for Con. Sources - Con. Not once did Pro back his points up with sources, whereas Con consistently provided sources for reference to strengthen his rebuttals. This allowed the audience to verify his claims, thus earning him the points for this. Overall, fun debate to read! For Pro, I would suggest utilizing references to strengthen arguments, and to rebut your opponents responses
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
datgySeventhProfessorTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: I have no idea what you guys are talking about, but pro conceded in the final round.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
datgySeventhProfessorTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession. An interesting idea for a debate, but lacked a clear standard for "better."