Points: 9

The F-22 Is Better Than The F-35

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
RationalMadman
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Technology
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Points: 11
Description
No information
Round 1
Published:
Hello, RM.

Well in my opinion, the F-22 Raptor is better and more advanced technologically than the F-35 Lightning. And according to my previous research, the F-22 is equivalent in power to five F-15 Eagles. However, the F-35 cannot even match a F-16.
Published:
Well in my opinion, the F-22 Raptor is better and more advanced technologically than the F-35 Lightning.
In my opinion that makes it worse, doesn't matter and/or is a lie.

the F-22 is equivalent in power to five F-15 Eagles.
However, the F-35 cannot even match a F-16.
I think you screwed up a bit here. The former statement has nothing to do with the latter one.

F-35 is super relevant, making latest News headlines and something Russia and China want to get hold of, F-22 is yesterday's News. This makes it extinct in superiority as it's no longer even in the discussion other than an old-school fighter jet from a time when fighting by planes was the way wars were fought.



This makes it better. It's so relevant and better at crashing.
Round 2
Forfeited
Published:
             
Round 3
Forfeited
Published:
               
Round 4
Published:
Yes, but the F-35 cannot match the F-22 as a air superiority fighter, as proven by /nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/f-22-vs-f-35-which-stealth-fighter-wins-shootout-41652militarymachine.com/f-22-raptor-vs-f-35-lightning-ii/also proves that the Raptor has more advantages than the Lightning II. From another perspective, the Lightning II was designed as a multi-role combat aircraft, however it cannot even match a much older jet, so it can be considered, to some degree, as a failure.
More sites:

Published:
If F-22 is upgrading, that would mean it's a different vehicle to the one being debated here. The 'is' in the resolution was at the time of making it, not what it will be post-debate creation.

F-22 needs upgrading because it's so bad. F-35 isn't designed to fight, so you're comparing them in different leagues.

Neither are actually 'better' when we consider the difference purposes. F-35 can cruise and comfortably fly in ways F-22 can't and this is because it's nto designed to fight in the same brutally fast way but to survey more.

As for 'improving and upgrading' the F-22 is near obsolete with the F-35 having far more upgrades and national backing from Israel and a couple of other nations.

So, even in that regard,  you lose.

Round 5
Forfeited
Forfeited
Added:
--> @Scott_Manning
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Scott_Manning // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments, 1 point to con for arguments
RFD: I absolutely agree with Ramshutu. I would also like to say that I think Con screwed up a bit at the better at crashing part.
Reason for mod action: (1) The voter must assess the content of the debate and only the debate, any reasoning based on arguments made or information given outside of the debate rounds is unacceptable. This includes reasoning that stems from already-placed votes, comment sections, and separate forums. Votes that impermissibly factor in outside content and which are reported will be removed. In this case, the voter relies on Ramshutu's vote, which is forbidden. (2) Finally, the conduct point is not explained. In order to award conduct, the voter must:
Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
Compare each debater's conduct from the debate
Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic. In the case of awarding conduct points solely on the basis of forfeits, there is an exception to these steps: a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points (or explains their decision not to award argument points in a manner which meets the argument points voting standards).
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
*******************************************************************
#7
Added:
--> @Joshua_Stebold
He technically wrote " "
#6
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
How did you manage to publish nothing at all?
Instigator
#5
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
Better at crashing?! Are you feeling alright? You need a doctor?
Instigator
#4
Added:
Forgive me if I put up too many sites.
Instigator
#3
Added:
I like this topic because it has to do with public policy and is a subject I've never really researched. I bet the questions involved in fighter jet design and engineering are fascinating. If I was debating this, however, I'd be tempted to go after the weakness of "better than." Better for who? Not better for ISIS fighters or Yemeni villagers. And aren't we comparing apples and oranges? The F-35 is an air/ground attack vehicle, the F-22 is an air/air attack vehicle. The F-22 is designed to beat a plane like the F-35.
#2
Added:
A plane with 2005 avionics vs one with mid to late 2010s avionics?
#1
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
original topic. I would like to see this re-framed as a genuine, current policy debate.
Both debaters offered minimal effort. Pro opened with irrelevant opinion and a sloppy comparison that offered no insight. Con correctly called the sloppiness but nearly lost me by arguing "better at crashing." I understand Con is K'ing a subjective thesis but Con is also profoundly undermining an already scanty case.
Ultimately, Pro loses arg because Pro failed to offer substantial offense which seems to have given Con an excuse to phone in the defense. Links to other people's arguments are seldom persuasive to this voter.
Conduct to Con for Pro's triple forfeit.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Conduct to con as pro forfeited most rounds.
A large number of subjective and arbitrary reasons for why one machine is better than the other. The resolution is comparative, so any examples where there is a clear comparative ground to say one is better than the other is what will score this one for me.
Con doesn’t provide much in the way of objective comparison between the two that doesn’t fall down on more than subjective grounds - one is old news, or not relevant is not a great reason to vote for con. While con did spend time indicating there is some differences in their roles, there is no reasonable objective data upon which to vote that the F35 is better and thus vote for con.
Pros main argument, and only example of a compelling objective difference is that the F22 our performs the F35. This appears to be both relevant to the topic, and obviously an intuitive reason to conclude the F22 is better than the F35. On those grounds: arguments to pro.