Instigator / Pro
7
1627
rating
37
debates
66.22%
won
Topic
#2959

Greco Roman Wrestling is preferable to Kung Fu for winning fights

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Sum1hugme
Tags
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
12,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
4
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
won
Description

No kritiks

Fight - take part in a violent struggle involving the exchange of physical blows or the use of weapons; not necessarily restricted by a ruleset
Win - to end the fight by physically subduing the opponent

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Argument - "Greco Roman Wrestling is preferable to Kung Fu for winning fights"

Now, fighting is a tricky business, and fighting styles are even moreso - but I do think that I have a valid vote here: Ultimately the debaters were trying to argue that their respective style was better at winning fights, I'm including - knocking out, exhausting, causing the opponent to give up, winning in regulated matches, etc - all of those encompass winning fights.

Starting with the most impactful argument - Kung Fu's practice without resisting opponents. Not once did Con argue against this, and while Con does point out - what seem to be very effective and unrebutted points for strikes that can end fights - Con never actually provides sources to prove that pracitioners can actually pull these kinds of moves off - and Pro directly attacks these arguments. That moves like eye-gouging and neck grappling can't really be utilized by KF without the Wrestler taking advantage, and while I don't actually buy all of those arguments - Con simply never provides evidence that KF users can actually pull these moves off enough to win fights. This argument goes to Pro.

The Distance - Pro argues that all fights will inevitably enter clinch range, and that from there - the fighters trained to dominate in such spheres will obviously defeat the strike-based fighters. Con argues that such a distance isn't necessarily the case, as KF users will keep distance and stop the wrestler from getting their hands on them. Now - Con actually backs this up - they provide a source proving that KF increases reflexes and health of their users, and Pro never really argues against this point aside that the wrestler would just be able to pull it off anyway. My problem with Pro's argument is that he provides a single example of a regulated match - so even if I buy that Pro's argument is true - it only applies in one instance of a fight. Con's argument that KF users would deny Wrestlers their speciality isn't properly rebutted and the logic behind Con's arguments are sound - so I'm giving the point to Con here.

Variety - this is another of the most important arguments to me - this is what determines which is more useful in non-regulated matches. Con brings up some good points, that Pro's chosen style is something which is very likely to be taken down if the circumstances aren't just right - as being able to wrestle down your opponent is relying on the fact that no one else will just intervene; however, Con's argument is just as weakened, as he provides no real proof that KF will be able to hold off multiple opponent's any better, and Pro also throws doubt on KF ability to even strike - even if I buy that KF users can dodge, Con just doesn't give enough to argue that they can win the fight. Con at least does prove that Wrestling is effective at taking down people in regulated matches, and good at 1v1 situations - this goes to Pro, although it is very narrowly.

To summarize the main points: Pro puts heavy doubt on KF's ability to actually bring opponent's down, and Con does very little to address the criticism, Pro attempts to further discredit Kf by arguing that fights will almost always end up in Clinch where Wrestling will come out on top, but Con does have a solid argument to say that KF users can stay out of range of their best ability. Finally, Con argues that Wrestling can't take out more than a single opponent, but Pro's arguments put KF on the same level - so far Pro is leading in points that have convinced me - ultimately I am swayed to Pro's side - Con you just didn't give enough evidence that a KF user would actually be able to utilize those moves effectively - and you dropped the points whenever Pro brought it up, I need proof that KF can do what you claim it can that aren't movies. Pro, I didn't buy a lot of your arguments about how superior wrestling was, as a lot of your logic was contradicting, but you ultimately had more evidence that proved it could actually bring down foes.

Both debaters did a bad job of backing up their claims with substantive evidence, but Con did just a little worse in that regard, and with Pro's specific attack on KF's veracity, that leaves Con at a loss.