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

i could beat up tate

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/15/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 624 times Debate No: 52616
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




Tate, may have had some self defence classes in the past, but so have I. In fact, I have almost spent a year, learning to fight and improving my bodily condition. I can now say I am in to physical condition. When is the last time you saw Tate run? I'm larger in stature, and he goes to davis well I go to viewmont, I would undoubtedly win in a fight.


Although you may have both taken self defense classes and are moderately the same stature, I believe Tate would win in a fight. While a major portion of this argument takes in to account the physical side of things, your personalities matter as well. For example, Tate is a stubborn individual and would insist upon winning. His pride would not allow for him to lose. You, on the other hand, are able to admit defeat, while having victories mean less, due to months of constant defeats and victories.
Debate Round No. 1


Did the chinise personality not allow for defeat against the mongilans? Probley. But that didn't help them much.

" There is no better than adversity. Every defeat, every heartbreak, every loss, contains its own seed, its own lesson on how to improve your performance the next time."

Malcolm X
Defeats can be good things, Tate has none neither does he have victories.


On the contrary, Tate has had both victories and failures, just not in the same aspect as you do.

Really, Tate's stubbornness leads to his inevitable tendency to do whatever he needs to - he's more willing to fight dirty. He has to win, and you would very much like to but are not banking on your victory.

To quote a great author, "It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." -Mark Twain

Not only that, but Tate has a far more analytical personality than you do. While you were trained, as a wrestler, to get in and fight, he was trained to think things through quickly and incapacitate his opponent more quickly.
Debate Round No. 2


This is true, Tate would try to think about it before fighting. But a truly good wrestler learns to assess his opponent well in the heat of battle. I have one matches doing this and lost to people who did when I didn't. It comes as small things, rising an inch or two when they go for a shot, taking a stutter step or a step backwards before they attack. I have this, Tate would predict what I will do rather than trying to learn what my flaws are while he can see them. You shouldn't count your chickens till after they hatch.
Secondly, I could go a lot longer than Tate. I run two to five miles every other day. And as a result, my body is in great shape. My endurance is near perfection.
I have doubts as to how in shape Tate is.
Lastly, Although we are close in stature, I would argue that I am stronger, I lift daily. Let me know when Tate can dead lift 305.


The major flaw of your argument is that you haven't the faintest idea whether or not Tate is stronger than you or not. You also don't know if he runs. Your entire premise is based on a guess that Tate doesn't do something you do.

Besides that, strength is not the deciding factor of a fight.

Merriam-Webster says to fight is "to use weapons or physical force to try to hurt someone, to defeat an enemy, etc. : to struggle in battle or physical combat"

The topic we are debating is whether or not you can beat Tate up. I believe that if this was a refereed wrestling match, you could undoubtedly beat Tate due to your experience. But in a fight, he is quicker, and sharper, while you'd rely on brute force.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by cevvlique 7 years ago
One would really need more facts about both parties to make an informed decision in this debate. One side argues that because of all the physical things he has done he could win, and one side argues that Tate could win because of his lovely personality. I hardly see any hard facts except what apaches mentioned about his physical training. Seems like a lot of speculation to me by both sides. Well, in MY opinion...Castiel would win (apaches I will win!).
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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