The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

Wwe is fake

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/10/2017 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 593 times Debate No: 100789
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




WWE is fake because they don't really punch them, they are acting . They don't really hurt each other. That's why you barely see blood because if they would do the stuff to you, then you should definitely be bleeding.


While granted the outcomes are scripted the moves are definitely real and cause real injuries to the wrestlers. We see from Bleacher Report that there has been a huge surge of injuries as of lately with concussions, torn rotator cuffs and even torn ACL to Seth Rollins. The claim that there is no blood in the WWE is just false as there have been many instances of blood in WWE matches they even have list of the 15 most bloodies matches.

Debate Round No. 1


I accidentally chose the wrong wrong but anyways, if you watch it, the wrestlers don't even have any bruises. They use chairs so that should definitely give them bruises or cuts but you don't see it.


I am not sure what the "wrong wrong" is nor do you provide any counter-argument to my showing that injuries happen and blood does happen proving that the moves are real. Just because someone has punched someone once does not mean because skin is difficult to break with force its like an elastic band sure you can puncture it, but just stretching it or in this case punching it is immensely more difficult. I think you're comparing it to the UFC where the aim for weaker areas such as the nose. As for your claim about bruising that because bruising takes about 1-2 days to happen it doesn't form immediately not even UFC fighters have them.

Debate Round No. 2


Ok for one I put wrong twice , and I wanted to pick pro not con


Just switch them around people who vote on this my argument is that the WWE is not fake in terms of the moves my opponent argued that the WWE is fake in all actions. Thank you
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
>Reported vote: FuzzyCatPotato// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Con picked the wrong side; Pro provided sources.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is still required to at least show that Pro"s argument was relevant. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to do more than simply point out that only one side has sources " it must be clear that those were reliable.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 3 years ago
Con is against. You are Con, yet you're speaking FOR the topic.

I agree WWE is scripted, which is why I stopped watching it. There are some bloody episodes, like that Extreme Rules Brock Lesnar vs John Cena, expecially. But I do think they are getting hurt, but all in good fun.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by paintballvet18 3 years ago
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: The RFD boils down to the fact that the Con agrees with the Pro side. Therefore, all arguments made are essentially Pro arguments (con even admits this in Round 2), so pro must win argument points.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.