Random Debates
'The Finder' style
I think that since one is obviously trying to harm America itself, it is more anti-American.
Beats
vs
Melody
Which is more meaningful?
vs
Melody
Which is more meaningful?
Arguments:
“Beat is your heart. It’s what makes the world turn and holds up the sky.”
“Melody is the combination of pitch and rhythm. Beat, that’s only rhythm so no contest.”
Songs with loud eats make my head hurt. So I would have to go with Melody.
I say melody is more meaningful, for precisely the same reason the presented argument gives. Beat is good, but that’s all it is. Melody has beat in it, as well as other parts. So if beat is good, that makes melody good by default. Add to that the extras, such as rhythm, that melody alone has, and it’s clear that it has the edge in the comparison.
Charlemagne
vs
Dracula
Who was better?
Arguments:vs
Dracula
Who was better?
“King of the Franks, King of the Lombards, Emperor of the Romans. Victor of the thirty year Saxon war. Standardized European currency. Conquered Italy.”
“Transylvanian count, descendant of Attila the Hun, prince of the night. Three vampire brides. Could climb walls, turn into fog, played in the movies by Bella Legosi, Rugger Howar, Leslie Neilson. Fangs.”
That would be the reasonable immediate reaction, but we have to put ourselves in a mindset that allows a comparison. If these two characters were equally comparable, reality aside, who would be better.
I would have to go with Dracula, because he is supernatural. As great as Charlemagne’s achievements may have been, he is just a mortal.
I would have to go with Dracula, because he is supernatural. As great as Charlemagne’s achievements may have been, he is just a mortal.
- Samantha14
- All That Is Sam.
- Posts: 833
- Joined: November 2012
- Location: Wandering.
No, then Dracula has an EXCUSE to be awesome. Charlemang gets to be awesome without any forces or powers.
merp.
I would say Charlamagne, because he isn't a villain.
- Whitty Whit
- Whittier than you
- Posts: 5985
- Joined: June 2010
- Location: Somewhere
I would say Charlemagne. He was one of the world's known conquerors. Dracula never conquered any nation or anything. Charlemagne was just more powerful than Dracula ever was.
1x admin, 2x moderator. 3-26-11, 5-25-12
#FOREVERKITTYJehoshaphat wrote:I mean every election is basically just choosing what type of government we want.
Dracula was more powerful by far - he was undead! Charlemagne did some impressive stuff in his lifetime, but then he died and could do no more. Dracula could continue doing whatever he wanted.
Samba
vs
Rumba
Which is better?
vs
Rumba
Which is better?
Arguments:
“Samba. Fast. It’s all about Carnivalle and color and celebration. Hips shaking. Fancy footwork.”
“Rumba. Slow. Man, woman, the night, and romance. Hips swaying. Steamy passion, the language of love.”
Cough Cough could we skip this one.
Neither of these are ideal, in my opinion. The samba seems a bit too busy to me, but the rumba is too muted. It’s like in one everything is happening and in the other nothing is really happening. I’d prefer something in the middle. But for this comparison, I think I’ll have to go with the samba. If you can keep up you can appreciate what’s happening there, but the rumba gets dull after a while.
(Note that this is a judgment from the position of an observer. Not having danced either, I cannot make a call on which is better to actually perform.)
(Note that this is a judgment from the position of an observer. Not having danced either, I cannot make a call on which is better to actually perform.)