Resolved: A bear, on average, would beat a gorilla in a fight
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
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
Each consider the other to have sidestepped the issue...
Pro offers a strong case that bears would usually win in a hypothetical match. Whereas con bets the farm on a Semantic Kritik of the topic that the average bear and the average gorilla would never even meet and therefore not fight... I think con is right, and he proves that well, but as a voter I've got to look at the details in the resolution as expanded in the description... Were the debate that bears beat gorillas in fights, I would hand this to con without hesitation, but it was clearly intended to be a speculative matter, which aligns more into the what-if territory.
Of course there was some back and forth, pro even citing that bears used to be trapped specifically for gladiatorial matches.
Sources:
Leaning pro but con also did his work, so I'm leaving this a tie. That I ultimately preferred one argument, is not enough for me to to then dismiss sources that favor the other.
Conduct:
Missed round.
Arguments: Pro's analysis of relative capability of fighting in both animals in terms of weight, speed, intelligence, and offensive skills was superbly defined, allowing a comparison that was not adequately challenged by Con. Con's argument, rather than demonstrating a gorilla's fighting skill, chose to argue that [1] the two animal habitats do not have shared space and, therefore, [2] would likely not meet to have such a fight, [3] introduced the improbable case of if/then statements. All Con three arguments fail to meet the opposing BoP of the resolution because the resolution must be read to suspend these realities for purpose of debate and debate on the necessary points of contending the resolution proposed. One must assume there is a fight and offer conclusion of a winner. points to Pro.
Sources: Pro sources all supported the arguments pro presented on weight, speed, intelligence, and offensive skills of bears and gorillas, easily giving the nod to a bear winning the fight, "on average." Con's sources were dedicated to Con's argument, but as the argument points fail to meet the standard of Con's BoP, the sources fail to support a needed BoP. points to Pro.
S&G: Tie
Conduct: Pro forfeited R4, thus loses this point. Con argued all rounds. point to Con. The single forfeited round is not enough to declare Con the winner.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 5:1 (5 points awarded to PRO, 1 point awarded to CON)
>Reason for Decision: See Vote Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
I figured, that's why I reported the vote
FYI, here is the drafted tied policy for the upcoming referendum:
Tied Arguments
While arguments may be determined as a tie, without that analysis or an exception, they must be weighted.
Whereas wholly tied votes are generally considered borderline and not removed, due to their lack of any meaningful impact on the outcome. Still, if they fail to be better than spam, they will be removed.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5578
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: BearMan // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: None
>Reason for Decision: "Bears are best"
>Reason for Mod Action:
Presently, even wholly tied votes must evaluate arguments enough to conclude that.
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
**************************************************
hell yeah
I see you being satirical over there, the context was clear - space as in out of the atmosphere, and second of all - no - you would have to demonstrate that either of those scenarios would be the majority of fights, and you never put in that work, second, you never put in any work for why they wouldn't fight in the fight itself, or why either animal would say... stop fighting, and then the other might win, if you had done that that would have been a genuine argument, otherwise its just you floating, hoping for a win on some new voter who buys stuff like your cheap arguments. I never addressed your "arguments" because you dropped every single point I brought up in round 1.
1. You have dropped that a fight can exist without anyone scoring anything, and you have dropped the point that a fight can exist by simple scheduling a scenario.
2. The fact “humans will die within 5 minutes in space” is false is because by definition, the place we actually live is still a part of a space, and we don’t die there.
Not to mention your entire point is nonsensical, the resolution itself is saying "In the circumstance that they fight," etc etc, even a kritik doesn't work because of the resolution is only saying that "if" they fight, what is the average result of the fight, for example, if the resolution said, "Humans will die within 5 minutes of being naked, in space," You couldn't argue, "Well, you see, people don't go to space." Because that isn't topical to the resolution. Do you see the problem?
Your argument wasn't topical that's a priori issue.
To prevent future voters from misinterpreting my argument:
1. My opponent has literally dropped the point about that a fight that exists does not require anything with an element of scoring points. The fight exists when it’s concept exists, and if both fighters do nothing on average, it is a tie, which means the bear did not win if they don’t meet.
2. My opponent has dropped the point about that neither animals can meet each other, meaning the average outcome is a tie, and any concept of the fight between the two, as a result, the average result is a tie.
3. I do not have to prove that Gorillas are as strong as bears to win. The 2 above suffices.
4. I am just summarizing the points I have said. I genuinely do not believe my opponent’s sources did anything whatsoever, especially since he dropped most of my points.
Argument is basically ready, will post when it is needed
Change it to 1 week. I will accept it.
Pro probably has this one. I mean we're talking like a 200 kg weight difference
what? How so? Con has more goalposts than pro, and I had one of the strongest gorilla's put up.
seems pretty slanted towards pro