Resolved: A bear, on average, would beat a gorilla in a fight
Participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
The voting will end in:
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- One week
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
Fight - "Take part in a violent struggle involving the exchange of physical blows or the use of weapons." 
Beat - "Defeat (someone) in a game or other competitive situation" 
Bear - "a North American subspecies of the brown bear." 
Gorilla - "Mountain gorillas are a subspecies of eastern gorilla" 
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"
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.
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
- 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.”" 
- 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.” 
- 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” 
“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.” 
- 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.” 
- 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.” 
- 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.” 
- 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.” 
“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.” 
- Finally - we see what the Gorilla can do as a fighter:
“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.” 
- If both fighters don’t do anything whatsoever, then the result is a tie
- Mountain gorillas and Grizzly bears, on average, don’t “fight” with each other
- Thus, on average, a mountain gorilla and a grizzly bear would tie in a fight
- 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.
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 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.
"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" 
Keep in mind, Pro dropped the point that if both fighters don't meet each other, it is a tie.
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.
- If both fighters don't meet each other at a scheduled fight, it is a tie.
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.
Bears have been historically put into cage matches with other animals, other animals being exported even to have more and more exciting fights:
- 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.
- 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)
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.