Instigator / Pro
12
1730
rating
28
debates
89.29%
won
Topic

# Resolved: A bear, on average, would beat a gorilla in a fight

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
6
0
Sources points
4
2
Spelling and grammar points
2
2
Conduct points
0
2

Theweakeredge
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Nature
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
6
1650
rating
63
debates
73.81%
won
Description
~ 2,362 / 5,000

Fight - "Take part in a violent struggle involving the exchange of physical blows or the use of weapons." [1]
Beat - "Defeat (someone) in a game or other competitive situation" [2]
Bear - "a North American subspecies of the brown bear." [3]
Gorilla - "Mountain gorillas are a subspecies of eastern gorilla" [4]

[1] https://www.lexico.com/definition/fight
[2] https://www.lexico.com/definition/beat
[3] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/g/grizzly-bear/
[4] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/m/mountain-gorilla/#close

Interpreted Resolution: "A grizzly bear, on average, would defeat, in a competitive situation, a mountain gorilla in a violent struggle involving the exchange of physical blows"

Theweakeredge's burden of proof: "The bear would win in a fight on average"
Contender's burden of proof: "The bear would lose or tie in a fight on average"

Foreward:

To begin, this isn't a joke debate, well - it's a joke topic, but I expect my opponent to take the arguments seriously, as I will be doing. Though this debate is to have some fun. Some measurements for winning in a fight is: subduing the opponent for a long amount of time, killing the opponent, injuring the opponent beyond fighting, etcetera etcetera. I used some of what is typically talked about in the consideration of a bear and a gorilla, hence my specific choices. I am coming from this on a, this might be funny, a power scaling perspective to begin with.

I included both bits of the burden if proof, technically, I have specifically claimed that a bear would win, the gorilla either tying with the bear on average or beating it would be enough to win the debate. That should set the sort of goalposts for the debate, just to stay honest and such. I should also mention, animals are not always consistent with their showings, and the results can be very interpretable, anecdotal or a few examples that say a bear or gorilla could do something, or that their maximum x or y is much greater than the other x or y, is not sufficient to prove anything.

On balance, this means in most cases, a minority of cases cannot be my main point, perhaps a supplementary one, but definitely not the main one.

General Rules:
1. No new arguments in the last round
2. Sources should be posted in the debate rounds, hyperlinked or otherwise
3. Burden of Proof is shared

Round 1
Pro
Thank you Intelligence_06 for accepting the debate

This will only be a brief opening speech explaining the format I plan on using for this debate. First I will present an overview of both a Bear and Gorilla, going over 6 primary categories, and then a second contention comparing these aspects head to head, finally I will explain the outcome using these final comparisons to come to the fact that, on average, the Grizzly Bear would beat the Mountain Gorilla in a fight.

The Grizzly Bear

Grizzly's are anywhere from 5 to 8 feet long on average, and weigh between 700 pounds and 1,700 pounds, with the average usually being above the 700 pound mark [1]. They are omnivores that will usually eat things such as tuna, small game, berries, and other edible plants. The hump on their back is actually a mass of muscles attached to the spine and back bones of bears that give them the ability to dig. On top of these powerful muscles are long claws useful for hunting or digging. [12]

• The Grizzly Bear - As was asked of Montana State University for a documentary, they observed several groups of bears, recording the strength that they could test:
“The team also tested what the bears could do to a 700-pound metal Dumpster. "It was like a beach ball to them," Cairns said. "They could roll it over and over. It took a minimum of two people a concerted effort to tip it." After two days of testing, Cairns and Smith came back to MSU. In less than 24 hours, Schmitt assembled the data into a computer model that could illustrate how a bear shaking a tree compared to a human. "Our conclusion was that a grizzly bear is equal to 2.5 to 5 humans in strength. I'm certain if a bear were enraged it would be much, much higher," Cairns said. "We never did get them ticked off. We didn't want to.”" [14]

According to what I found, a 9 foot beach ball weighs 16 pounds [3], From that let’s compare the strength that a human can typically output, which of a male is about 135 pounds [4]. That is a 8.4375 difference, therefore given by the fact that bears should be able to output similar lifting feats due to their durable anatomy-though obviously not in the same way - that 700 from before is a theoretical maximum of nearly 6000 pounds.

This is of course, theoretical - as accurately testing the limits of a Bear's strength is not practical considering the territorial nature of these bears and the inherent danger they possess whenever using this strength, but based on the fact that the 700 pound dumpsters were reportedly tossed around like "beach balls" it is reasonable to infer that they can, at the very least, output several more times the force they did with the dumpsters, especially given their habit of excessive digging and moving large quantities of dirt. The 2000 to 4000 pound range seems to be the least you could give the bear.

• As apart of the strength portion, I'll also give a report of the bite force of a grizzly bear, as they often use their oppressive bite force to maul other animals:
“Grizzly bears have a bite-force of over 8,000,000 pascals (1160 psi), enough to crush a bowling ball.” [7]

• Fortunately the speed and intelligence of Bear's is much easier to find out:
“Grizzly bears may look like lumbering giants but they’re surprisingly fast and agile. While their average walking pace is similar to that of humans, their top running speed is on par with lions. Clocked in the wild at speeds of 30-35 mph” [8]

“Considered by many wildlife biologists to be one of the most intelligent land animals of North America, bears possess the largest and most convoluted brains relative to their size of any land mammal. In the animal kingdom, their intelligence compares with that of higher primates. As highly evolved social animals, bears form hierarchies and have structured relationships with each other, sometimes even sharing resources.” [10]

• Finally we will put in the Bear's abilities as a hunter and fighter
“ If grizzly bears are on the hunt, their prey can include fish (especially salmon), rodents like ground squirrels, carrion, and hoofed animals like moose, elk, caribou, and deer. They are especially good at catching the young of these hoofed species. Grizzly bears can also target domestic animals like cattle and sheep and cause economically important losses for some ranchers.” [12]

There have been a long history of Bears fighting Pumas, Lions, Bulls, etc, etc, and most Black and Bear Browns have been shown injuring and surviving several attacks from Bulls, Lions, Pumas, injuring them before dying in some accounts [14]

The Mountain Gorilla

Unlike the Bear, a lot more details about the Gorilla are much clearer without as much need for extrapolation. They are about 4 to 6 feet tall, and weigh between 300 and 485 pounds [2]. They are herbivores that eat wild celery, shoots, roots, fruit, tree bark, and pulp. They have thick fur coats and powerful arms that are famous for outputting 20 times the force of a regular man. They are also famous for having opposable thumbs that they use to sometimes make or use tools to help them in the wild. [5]

• The Mountain Gorilla - As data being outputted by the Nyungwe Forest - we have records of the Silverback Gorillas' strength, and we will use this famous Gorilla for our debate here - as to give the Con the benefit of the doubt:
“The silverbacks are in fact stronger than 20 adult humans combined as they can lift or throw up to 815 kgs (1796.77 pounds) while a well-trained man can only lift up to 400 kgs. Any adult gorilla can lift up to 450 kilograms, not with a body size that can go as high as 200kgs.” [5]

• As I did with bears, I will include the bite force of a Gorilla, as they are known to be used by them quite often whenever they do engage in combat, as rare as it is in the wild:
“Gorillas’ bite force is one of the strongest in the animal kingdom. They have a bite force of around 1300 pounds per square inch, double that of a lion.” [6]

• Next will be the speed and intelligence of the Gorilla:
“If you were to be chased by a gorilla, you better have wheels underneath you as they can reach speeds of over 20 miles per hour with a top speed clocked at 25 Mph.” [9]

“Gorillas are highly intelligent. They don’t use tools as much as chimpanzees do, but Gorillas have been seen using sticks to gauge the depth of water, bamboo as ladders to help infants climb, and recently gorillas have been seen for the first time using sticks to eat ants without being stung.” [11]

• Finally - we see what the Gorilla can do as a fighter:
While the Gorilla doesn't hunt we do have some record of a predator for the Gorilla, the leopard!

“Leopards have the ability to kill an adult gorilla. Leopards are big and smart felines that feed on meat from multiple animals. In their habitat, they can find unsuspecting gorillas susceptible to becoming their food.” [13]
Though it does go on to sasy that Leopards are the only animals in its range that can hunt it… though its competition, Elephants (don’t hunt), Buffalo, Parrots, and Hog, aren’t much to talk about.

Comparison

In terms of size and ability to naturally hunt other animals - the winner is clearly the bear, almost 3 times heavier than the heaviest gorilla, and nearly twice its size. The fact that the Gorilla is a herbivore while the Bear is a omnivore that naturally fights gives it the clear advantage whenever seeking out kill spots and instinct in battle.

Continuing onward, most people seemed convinced that in the strength and the bite force is where the Gorilla really shines. I mean... people aren't wrong whenever they say that Gorilla's are strong, especially for their body weight, but observation suggest that Bears are capable of much higher forces. While it is true that Gorillas do have a superior bite force to Bears, the force is a difference of 140 psi, and that psi is actually lowered, because the Bear has a bite force greater than 8,000,000 pascals (1140 psi). The advantage remains in the bear's territory with it's strength advantage and the bite force being negligible between the two.

In terms of durability and speed, while Bears have several layers of fat and muscle, the Gorilla has no notable defense. Not to mention that the speed advantage that bears have over gorillas is obvious at 15 mph. Now, speed might not be a big factor here, but factoring in how quickly the two can move compared to the other provides insight into the fight.

Surely, you might think, the Gorilla has the advantage in intelligence? As noted by my source above, Bears actually have intelligence comparable to higher primates. The relationships and hierarchy displayed by bears shows clear intelligence and even some forms of communication. Now, Gorillas' show more outward intelligence not because they are necessarily smarter, but because they have things such as opposable thumbs and more developed vocal chords. They are able to display more of the intelligence in a way that humans are familiar with, but Bears have shown problem solving and a mind in their own right. This is tied.

Finally we have the actual combat - While Gorillas are being hunted down by Leopards, Bears have faced Bulls, other Bears, Lions, Wolves, Tigers, Pumas, etcetera, and while some of these animals have a good rate of killing Bears, Bears also have a good rate of injuring and killing them. Bears have the clear wild combat advantage.

Having the size, weight, instinct, strength, durability, speed, and combat advantage the Bear clearly takes the win against the Gorilla in a fight on average. The intelligence is tied and the bite force would be canceled out by the Bear's thick coat of fur and muscle.

Onward to Con.

Con
Thanks Theweakeredge for such a good topic.

Premise

A bear, on average, would beat a gorilla in a fight. That is the resolution.

I believe that a bear has the power to trump a gorilla, but “a bear would beat a gorilla in a fight”, especially within the chosen species, would be unrealistic, as demonstrated by my argument.

Preamble
I will argue my side in the form of a syllogism. Each contention would be given their own section below.

1. If both fighters don’t do anything whatsoever, then the result is a tie
2. Mountain gorillas and Grizzly bears, on average, don’t “fight” with each other
3. Thus, on average, a mountain gorilla and a grizzly bear would tie in a fight

1. If both fighters do nothing

Suppose if only one fighter arrived at the arena and the other didn’t, then technically, there is nothing done by one to the other that counts as anything worth of giving points, meaning that the outcome is a tie. While in the real world, the one that didn’t arrive would technically lose as seen in an act of forfeiture, Pro has never specified the arena for the animals. The fight is nevertheless still scheduled, and if there is no actual conflict in the scheduled fight, it would be rational to conclude that neither of the fighters got any points, and at the end, a full stop was drawn by this uneventful but nevertheless existent fight.

So at the end, no specified arena, but an existent fight? That would mean that if they don’t even meet each other, it is a tie. Pro needs to put constructive criticism on this reasoning.

2. Never meet

Mountain Gorillas’ range is seen in source [1]. It is only in Africa.

Grizzly bears’ range is seen in source [2]. It is basically only seen in North America.

So in the end, on average, Bears and gorillas don’t “fight” with each other because they don’t meet with each other on average. Because in a supposed fight both animals do nothing to the other, on average, this would mean that both animals would tie in a 0-0, meaning Pro failed to prove his claim.

In most cases

Mountain gorillas are endangered[3], so it is extremely unlikely that one of those would be put to fight with a bear. In most cases, they would stay separate and that would mean a bear did not beat a gorilla in a fight like Pro specified it to be.

As conditions(such as their strengths) are to be considered realistically, the fact that chosen species of gorillas are to never meet chosen species of bears within this world on average is also to be considered seriously.

Conclusions
• On average, a bear and a gorilla never meet, and as a result, that would equal to a tie in a fight on average.
• Pro failed to prove his claim. Vote Con.

Sources

Onward to Pro.

Round 2
Pro
Thank you for such a quick response Con, into the debate

Constructive: Con has not rebuked my argument

Rebuttal:

Con uses very deliberately negligent tactics to try to take an easy victory, but apparently forgot to read the resolution correctly:

"Resolved: A bear, on average, would beat a gorilla in a fight"

Con tries to argue in three separate fashions - If the fighters were to not fight, that they don't fight, and because of that they would not fight at all. This is not at all reaching the goal post of the resolution. Con has to specifically prove that a Bear and a Gorilla would tie in a fight. The resolution clearly states that in the situation of the two fighting, the Bear would win. It is Con's purpose to challenge that, and he has not at all challenged that. Next we can actually get into the facts of the matter, and why even if this wasn't true, Con still wouldn't have a point in the matter.

fight is nevertheless still scheduled, and if there is no actual conflict in the scheduled fight, it would be rational to conclude that neither of the fighters got any points, and at the end, a full stop was drawn by this uneventful but nevertheless existent fight.
This makes no sense in context of the resolution, as it clearly indicates that the debate is going over the hypothetical scenario of if they were to fight. Furthermore, con goes on to claim that because they are not on the same side of the world, they would never fight in the first place.

So in the end, on average, Bears and gorillas don’t “fight” with each other because they don’t meet with each other on average. Because in a supposed fight both animals do nothing to the other, on average, this would mean that both animals would tie in a 0-0, meaning Pro failed to prove his claim.

Bears have been historically put into cage matches with other animals, other animals being exported even to have more and more exciting fights:
"Before the arrival of the Spanish in the 16th century, it was believed that California held around 10,000 grizzly bears. In the 19th century, California grizzlies were most sought for their intrinsic fighting qualities, especially when coerced into combat with a bull—an event that served as entertainment for a crowd on many Sunday afternoons" [1]

Regardless of how incorrect his specific arguments are, his entire framing of the debate is incorrect, voters, notice how his entire structure of argument relies on a misunderstanding of the resolution at play here.

Back to Con
Con
Never have I believed that I could push this far in the first week of the debate, but I believe Pro's concerns are addressed by the previous argument.

Pre-Argument

Keep in mind, Pro dropped the point that if both fighters don't meet each other, it is a tie.

Rebuttals

Con uses very deliberately negligent tactics to try to take an easy victory, but apparently forgot to read the resolution correctly:

"Resolved: A bear, on average, would beat a gorilla in a fight"

Con tries to argue in three separate fashions - If the fighters were to not fight, that they don't fight, and because of that they would not fight at all. This is not at all reaching the goal post of the resolution. Con has to specifically prove that a Bear and a Gorilla would tie in a fight.
Picking from the Pre-argument, we have our premise.

1. If both fighters don't meet each other at a scheduled fight, it is a tie.
Pro concedes about this point. I have used my arguments to prove that said species of bears and gorillas don't meet at any given time on average, and it is a tie if they don't meet each other.

A fight can nevertheless be scheduled at any given time, however, on that both animals don't meet on average(Pro dropped this) at any given time, and it means a tie, I simply have proven my claim.

A fight, in common sense, does not fight at the special given time in which the two fighters start brawling. In fact, they stand separate at the start. Now, if both of them don't do anything once in the arena, it is simply a tie. There is no reason for Pro to deny this as he has already conceded that if both fighters don't meet, it is a tie.

So in conclusion, should an American bear "fight" with an African gorilla(with the latter being endangered, see R1, [3]), on average, they don't even do anything to each other, and as a result, nobody wins anything.

On average, not most of the Gorillas nor the most of the bears are picked on to fighting, so in a manner, if a designated fight is to be tracked to one given bear and one given gorilla, it is a tie because no one did anything to each other.

Hypothetical

This makes no sense in context of the resolution, as it clearly indicates that the debate is going over the hypothetical scenario of if they were to fight. Furthermore, con goes on to claim that because they are not on the same side of the world, they would never fight in the first place.
A fight can be scheduled at any given time within any two animals, and they are shown to not fight with each other in the first place. The reason we don't schedule fights with Trump and Xi is because it makes zero sense as both leaders would have almost a 0% chance of fighting with each other, let alone be meeting each other at a given time. This is the same with two animals. A fight could be easily scheduled for both of them but instead, nobody touches anything.

Things should nevertheless be considered realistically. What if the gorilla knows how to operate a laser gun? What if the bear just drank two liters of poison? What if there are spikes on the floor, preventing either of them from moving?

Bears have been historically put into cage matches with other animals, other animals being exported even to have more and more exciting fights:
The law prohibits such fights from happening, especially when at least one of them are endangered[4]. On average, bears and gorillas would not brawl with each other in any fight scheduled.

Conclusion
• If realistically considered, nobody fights nobody, which means tying
• Scheduling a fight is easy, making them actually brawl with each other is illegal. Considering all cases, one to another, in the majority it is a tie 0-0.
• I have proven my BoP, vote CON.

Round 3
Pro
Thank you for your response Intelligence_06

Interpreting the Resolution

Let me restate the resolution: "Resolved: A bear, on average, would beat a gorilla in a fight"

"in" - This is a preposition - which is "They allow a speaker or writer to express the link between separate items" [1]

Though more specifically it is apart of the prepositional phrase "In a fight" This shows the state of the gorilla and the bear - in a fight - the resolution is not, "Would a bear and a gorilla fight" It is speculating that IF they were to fight who would be the winner. Therefore Con's argumentation falls flat based on the Topicality of its arguments, which is an priori issue. The arguments that Con attempts to bring do not fall under the resolution, as them not fighting does not fall under my burden of proof. The only thing I must prove is that if the two were to fight, the bear would beat the gorilla, which I have done and have received no rebuttal.

Essentially Con is attempting to use red herrings by arguing that "Gorillas and Bears would never meet" or "Gorillas and Bears wouldn't fight" Neither of these are effective ways to prove that a Gorilla would beat a bear in a fight, or that they would tie in a fight, as the resolution implies would be Con's goalpost. They are  points to distract the voter from the fact of the matter. That in a fight, a Bear would defeat a Gorilla, that has been demonstrated with so far no rebuttals. Con tries to throw in random situations but ignores his own practice of "realistic", why would any of those things happen? The only thing which is stipulated by the resolution is that they are to fight.

Con
Pre-Argument

Due to Coronavirus(actually only a few hundred) cases, I am unable to leave school until Jan 22nd. As a result, I wrote this argument on Jan 9th, and waited an entire week so that I will finish the debate with a more functional desktop. The 3rd argument was out of spare time and may be a little rushed. Please note that I have tried my best to deliver logic and ideas with limiting tools.

Dropped Points
• If both fighters do nothing, then it is a tie
• Fights could be scheduled in all scenarios possible, even if realistically there is no way that the two would actually brawl with each other(will add on later)
• The bear, on average, does not meet the gorilla
• (That is basically everything that I have said)

Resolution
With a valid interpretation of the topic as well as the BoP, “A bear, on average, can defeat a gorilla in a fight”.

Backup: Scheduling fights

In reality, scheduling fights between any two individuals (or even any two things) could be just on the basis of a whim, say I am scheduling a physical brawl between Theweakeredge and a mountain gorilla at Osaka, Japan, 2021/2/1, 9:00 AM. Of course, the fight exists because it is scheduled, but judging by that gorillas are endangered in the contexts of this debate and my opponent is not likely to be interested in fighting, the fight would likely end up a tie because they wouldn’t meet up and brawl with each other then. Pro dropped the point(not meeting for a fight=tie) and he has no opportunity to respond to it in the next round.

Scheduling fights and having them actually brawling are two different concepts. Ultimately, a fight is defined and existent when one schedules it, but the fight is a tie if neither takes it seriously and lives their own life uninterrupted like Kira Yoshikage.

Rebuttal: The futility of “If”

This is a topic by the debater Fauxlaw in which it is my first ever debate on the site(which I lost). I am reciting it because I can prove that adding the logic of “if'' doesn't make my interpretation a non-valid one.

• Though more specifically it is apart of the prepositional phrase "In a fight" This shows the state of the gorilla and the bear - in a fight - the resolution is not, "Would a bear and a gorilla fight" It is speculating that IF they were to fight who would be the winner.

I am scheduling an adult, healthy grizzly bear and an adult, healthy mountain gorilla to fight at the top of the Rockefeller Centre, NYC, NY, USA, on Jan 15th, 1:00 AM. The fight thus exists.

Due to the unlikelihood of this fight actually having both contestants be there at the scheduled time and place, this fight is a tie. Due to that any “actual(meaning a fight with actual fighting elements, and not just neither of the two animals not arriving)” fight between the two given animals is of extremely slim chance, I can say, that upon any scheduling format like above or so, it will on average end up a tie.

The “If” doesn’t work, because even IF there is a fight, in most cases, nobody would even turn up. The “if” is completely futile here.

Conclusions

• A fight would end up a tie even if it exists
• My opponent’s argument is unsound
• My opponent dropped most of my points
• I have proven my case one more time
• Vote Con.

Round 4
Pro
Forfeited
Con
My opponent, given 7 full days, was unable to respond ultimately. I will conclude because there is nothing left to do.

Conclusion

• A fight can exist with any degree of dedicated scheduling. For example, Now I am scheduling Billie Eilish and Emma Watson to fight at 221B Baker Street at 1/25/2020 1:00 UTC+0. The fight exists even though there is little to no chance for it to happen, and saying "Billie will win" or "Emma will win" is simply nothing even if there is an in-depth analysis of how strong they are because on average, they would not meet and fight in the right time and place.
• The same is with gorillas and bears. On average, my opponent's defined group of gorillas live in Africa and bears in North America, with the latter being a protected animal. On average, they would not meet each other even if a fight is scheduled, which can be done with ease.
• Not meeting each other means nothing according to the rules of fighting that specify what is counted as winning is achieved(Common sense, people), as a result, both the bear and the gorilla ties in a 0-0, meaning the bear did not win even if a fight is scheduled.
• So in the end, on average, a bear would tie in a fight with a gorilla.
• Proving that the two will tie fulfills Con's BoP and not Pro's, and Pro failed to respond anything
• Please vote CON, thank you.