Points: 2

The Supermarine Spitfire is better than the Hawker Hurricane

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
Joshua_Stebold
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Technology
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Points: 0
Description
We will be debating about Britian's top fighter aircraft during the Second World War
Round 1
Forfeited
Forfeited
Round 2
Forfeited
Published:
Hawker Hurricane has a catchier name. Supermarine Spitfire has more syllables on the first alliteration, making it terrible flow.
Round 3
Published:
Come on, RM. We are NOT debating about which warbird has a catchier name! So, I'll play easier and keep my argument shorter.
Now, my argument:
The Spitfire has a few major advantages over the Hurricane. These are:

1) The Spitfire is way faster than the Hurricane at 406 mph, but the Hurricane can only reach 340 mph. If, we use the German Messerschmitt Bf 109 as a 'reference point', we can see that the Spitfire can easily outfly it, however, the Hurricane has trouble even to match the 109s speed.
2) The Spitfire is more agile. Again using the 109, we can see that the Spitfire can outturn the 109. However, the Hurricane is like a stuck pig when it comes to a dogfight with the Bf 109.
3)The Spitfire has a better rate of climb. Without using the Bf 109 this time, we can see that the Spitfire easily climbs faster than the Hurricane.
4) The Spitfire also has better service ceiling than the Hurricane with 43,000 ft, however the latter can only reach 35,000 ft.

Over to you :) 

Postscript: Please try to keep your mind on the performances of these warbirds and not on their names.
Published:
Without saying what the SS is better at than the HH, this resolution is impossible to uphold. 

Better: More desirable, satisfactory, or effective.

 The name of Spit fire is violent, spitting fire is not what we want people to do to each other that's violent and grievous bodliy harm has come not just from fire but from literally the plan Supermarine Spitefire...


War is bad, killing is bad. The plan designed for that instead for covert ops and prevention of wars is therefore the more immoral one. 

I think the name flows better. Sup-er-mar-ine spit-fire is only catching because it's alliteration. Hawker Hurricane has a much smoother flowing exist from the lips as you can gawk as you say it and yell it powerfully


HAWKER HURRICAAAAAAAAAAAAANE YEAH BABY!

Going faster doesn't matter. The Hawker Hurricane is able to avoid crashing due to that. Why do you want to go that fast? Speeding kills lives, are you a fan of drunk drivers and how hooligans are on the road?

Speeding may not have the negative social consequences drinking and driving under the influence has, but it kills just as many people. In a recent 10 year period, nearly the same number of deaths occurred-- about 113,000 -- from passenger vehicle speeding related crashes as did from alcohol-involved crashes. And while drivers are aware that speeding is a safety threat, they acknowledge it is common in the US.

Those are the main results of a new study released last week by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).

“You can’t tackle our rising epidemic of roadway deaths without tackling speeding,” Robert L. Sumwalt, the NTSB’s acting chairman, said in a statement. “And you can’t tackle speeding without the most current research. Speed kills. This study examines how it kills and what actions can be taken to save lives and prevent speeding-related crashes.”

The study, “Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes Involving Passenger Vehicles” underscored the relationship between speed and crash involvement, noting speeding increases the risk of being involved in a crash and the severity of injuries by people involved in speeding-related crashes.

Thanks for this debate.

Climbing faster? more prone to crash, less prone to save.
Better at fighting? Better at killing humans, less prone to be safe.
Flies higher with superior service ceiling? Is built inferior at cruising lower down.

Every advantage is a disadvantage without context or an end goal.

More agile? What is that supposed to mean? You mean more flimsy. The HH is sturdier so it also is much better in brutal winds and this is why you call it less agile. Sturdier people are less flexible.

Flexibility is a hot topic now, as is natural movement and increasingly clever ways of working out that lead to strong, flexible and capable bodies. If you are someone who is naturally flexible, this may be a question you do not think much about, but on the other hand if you are more like a plank than a person, you may be wondering what you have been doing wrong all these years, and really miss being able to touch your toes. Generally speaking there are two main poles: Naturally Strong and Naturally Flexible, with most people being much closer to one than the other.

This in itself is not a massive problem, because if you are naturally strong you can stretch and work on maintaining your mobility and if you are very flexible you can strengthen yourself to keep your body in balance. Unfortunately, as you have probably often seen, strong people love to lift weights and bendy people love to stretch and do yoga classes, when these two groups of people should really be swapping their training routines, at least part of the time. However it often feels like our natural instincts are telling us to stick to the things we’re good at – the challenges we enjoy.

Even within those two main groups there are further causes of physical imbalance. For example; naturally strong people may still be weak in some areas and be avoiding them unconsciously or consciously and naturally flexible people may have tight areas that they avoid by going around them, without even thinking about it. Part of the reason for this is that the body is very sensible, so it will always make a movement in the way that requires the least effort. Also, bodies always expect to be healthy so they do not focus on difficulties so much as make substitutions to get around those problems and continue to work as best as they can.

However, it is very important to know that strength and flexibility have to be balanced within a person’s body to maintain their posture, efficiency and health. Too much flexibility and you put your body and joints at risk from instability and increased risk of strain. Too much strength without flexibility and the body will become like a self-compacting pressure-cooker without a way to release itself, preventing healthy movement and causing unnecessary wear and tear in the joints.

In order to make sustainable increases in flexibility we need to be strong all the way through the range of motion we are opening up, or we will lose access to it again. Partly because we keep that pathway open through strength work and partly because the body does not see the point in going to the end of a range of motion if we lack the strength to do anything or bring ourselves back when we get there. It is a liability rather than a gain without strength to stabilise it.
Round 4
Published:
Ok, firstly about this:

"The name of Spit fire is violent, spitting fire is not what we want people to do to each other that's violent and grievous bodliy harm has come not just from fire but from literally the plan Supermarine Spitefire..."

I do not care about which has a less violent name and by the way, the meaning of spitfire is: A person with a fierce temper, according to https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/spitfire. Another fact, what is the meaning of bodliy. Did you mean to say bodily? And it is spelt S-P-I-T-F-I-R-E, not Spitefire. Also, I would appreciate it if you typed Spitfire as one word, and not Spit fire. Plus, the plane does not literally spit fire.

Next:

War is bad, killing is bad. The plan designed for that instead for covert ops and prevention of wars is therefore the more immoral one. 

We are NOT debating about which plan is more immoral. As a matter of fact, the Spitfire is not only designed to kill. Haven't you heard of a Spitfire designed for reconnaissance? The Spitfire PR Mk XIX is not designed to bash Germans out of the sky, but rather it's used to 'spy'. 

Next:

I think the name flows better. Sup-er-mar-ine spit-fire is only catching because it's alliteration. Hawker Hurricane has a much smoother flowing exist from the lips as you can gawk as you say it and yell it powerfully

As I have mentioned, we are NOT debating about the planes' names. Also, please spell Spitfire with a upper case 'S', as it is a Proper Noun (Please do not make me give you english lessons).

Now, I do not get what this is about:

HAWKER HURRICAAAAAAAAAAAAANE YEAH BABY!

Next:

Going faster doesn't matter. The Hawker Hurricane is able to avoid crashing due to that. Why do you want to go that fast? Speeding kills lives, are you a fan of drunk drivers and how hooligans are on the road?

Well, as a matter of fact, we are talking about planes in the SKY. Both your argument and source are talking about the road, which is not relevant to this debate. Why I want it to go that fast? Well, because firstly, you would really want to get the hell out if a Nazi Bf 109 is on your tail and is trying to shoot you down. Secondly, it would be beneficial in some way if you get to the enemy while he is not already bombing the asses off your own factories. It would also be good if you could get up there before the enemy starts strafing you to the bones and shooting your brains out, literally. And, the Hurricane's slow speed did not do anything to reduce crashes. For example, it is impossible to do a upwards roll in a Hurricane at low speed, which compared to the Spitfire, is very slow indeed. 

Now:

Climbing faster? more prone to crash, less prone to save.

Well, as I said, this would be a great advantage if you're being chased by a Messerschmitt Me 262 or any of those 'big boys'. You don't want to be caught at a height disadvantage in a dogfight, or in other words, you don't want to stare upwards at your opponent as he could easily dive, and trading altitude for speed, he could riddle you with bullets, which is the most unpleasant thing in a fight.

Next:

Better at fighting? Better at killing humans, less prone to be safe.

Firstly, you would most probably get killed yourself if you don't do something. Secondly, fighting and killing are two different words. Fighting: The action of fighting; violence or conflict, and displaying or engaging in violence, combat, or aggression. Killing: An act of causing death, especially deliberately. So, you could simply damage your enemy's plane and force him to bale out instead of killing him.

Next:

Flies higher with superior service ceiling? Is built inferior at cruising lower down.

Going higher is important. As I have said before, you don't want to be stuck at a height disadvantage. And, who needs to be cruising down low when you can simply pounce your enemy from high above?

Now:

More agile? What is that supposed to mean? You mean more flimsy. The HH is sturdier so it also is much better in brutal winds and this is why you call it less agile. Sturdier people are less flexible.

More agile is supposed to mean that it can turn tighter, which is a great advantage if you're stuck in a twisting dogfight with a Mitsubishi A6M or a Messerschmitt Me 262. I do not mean more flimsy. Also, please write the names instead of typing SS or HH. As a matter of fact, if you are caught in brutal winds, you're opponent would also be caught in the wind, and he will most probably retreat too, so what's the use in fighting better in brutal winds if there's no fight at all? Also, your source is talking about humans, which is a totally different topic altogether.

More sources:
https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/compare-aircraft-results.asp?form=form&a (From this you can see proof of my first argument and also note that the Spitfire has better range, enabling it to attack the enemy at greater distances.)
From http://blog.covingtonaircraft.com/2012/12/27/spitfire-pilot-vs-hawker-hurricane-dog-fight/ you can see that the Spitfire is designed with a focus on the highest technology available at the time. Although the Hurricane is easier to repair, this does not change the fact that firstly, the Spitfire's pros outweigh its cons and secondly, stressed metal is a better material to make planes than wood and fabric.






Published:
Absolutely nothing you say makes it 'better'. Better AT WHAT? Better at killing? Why is that better? Which way of killing?

Everything that is one way an advantage and disadvantage is in another context the opposite.
Round 5
Published:
Well, about this:
Better at killing? Why is that better? Which way of killing?

Have you not read my first argument? I did not mention better at killing.

Sources:

Published:
Better at WHAT? This is an impossible resolution to uphold.
Added:
Hello
Instigator
#1
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Pro gave 4 solid advantages- each of which needed some documentation and none of which got any.
Fortunately for Pro, Con again works the subjectivity of the word "better" but he's on much flimsier ground this time because Pro offered an objective offense. Con's approach amounts to wordplay and non-engagement: everything is relative.
Pro correctly chastises Con's irrelevant and rather lazy defense. Args to Pro- Con clearly didn't want this one.
I would have given Con a point for forfeits but this debate is win/lose.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Con argues this is an impossible resolution to uphold. Unfortunately - which is the better of two war planes used extensively in combat, doesn’t appear to be hard to draw a contrast, or to determine key properties. Not only this, the correct approach here is to outline what makes one better in a way that suits your side of the resolution, not to simply throw out absurd and arbitrary comparisons.
Pro showed the spitfire is faster, more agile, has a better rate of climb, and is more Able to match the ME109. Con offers nothing but a selection of arbitrary and subjective reasons. Better name, more agile is worse, faster is more prone to crash. These were all either subjective or absurdly unwarranted. Only one side appeared interested in even debating the resolution at all.
Because of this, arguments to pro.