A Great Debate

[milktoaste]

While things have slowed down a bit, I figured a good old fashioned debate may spruce things up a bit. Well, the first question anyone can debate either side, if it works out maybe we can assign teams but that would be later. The rules are simple:
1.Debate will remain open for 3 days, at the end of those 3 days all arguements will be reviewed and an answer will be chosen.
2.Keep it clean and professional, and please keep your arguements on topic.
3.No switching sides or admitting defeat.
4.Stick to the facts, opinions do not count.

First question:

In a theoretical arena roughly the size of a soccer/football field and inescapable, is placed 100 random drunk college students. They are armed only with there wits, and are dressed in street clothes. Also in this arena,placed on oposite sides, are the ED209 (Robocop) and one running zombie(Return of the Living Dead) If we can assume every zombie turned and everyone killed by a zombie counts as a kill for the first zombie, and the ED209 is on a killing spree, who would kill the most people?

This will only work if the unpopular opinion is also argued for, I will only partake if the arguements become one sided.

[The_Return]

Does a zombie kill count as a kill for ED209?

If so, this'll be a whitewash: ED209 wins, hands-fucking-down. Otherwise...I might have to put more thought into this.

[ferretchucker]

ED209. The Zombie would spend too much time on each individual person whereas the ED209 could wipe out more in less time.

[Angra]

I disagree...

[Paul the Monk]

ED209 has a history of screwing up! I would pick the first zombie!:cool:

[Horrorible_Horror_Films]

I would have to go with the ED209.

Turning into a zombie takes time, perhaps as much as 24 hours. The ED209 would just keep firing its weapons until all were dead, and it can never be turned into a zombie.

An alternative solution:

Those drunk college kids somehow manage to kill the zombie, and dismantle the ED209 before either threat can completely destroy the group.

[milktoaste]

Once a student has been turned, the kill will already have been awarded to the running zombie. The are only 100 possible kills.

The possibility of the ED209 being dismantled or the zombie being destroyed before it can start an outbreak are factors you yourselves will have to weigh.

Don't forget to include why you think either one would score the most kills.

[Angra]

But George Bush will never become black. How will that change the world economy?

I think you're all wrong.

[Horrorible_Horror_Films]

But George Bush will never become black. How will that change the world economy?

I think you're all wrong.

Uh, lol wut?

[Angra]

Uh, lol wut?

I don't see how your answer has anything to do with grass growing in Uganda?

[scouse mac]

ED209 would win hands down. The infection speed of zombies is too slow for there to be many kills attributed to it.

It would be a different matter if it were the rage zombies from 28 days later. Their infection take a couple of seconds to take hold and they move very quickly.

[milktoaste]

Seems to be a landslide victory for the ED209, but I don't think it's so cut and dry. Surely the ED209 would jump to an early and commanding lead, but the real question is can it kill more than 50 drunk students before they incapasitate the robot. We know they ROTLD runing zombies cannot be killed, not even destroying the brain will stop them. We also know that once the ED209 is on it's back it will simply flail around and cry like a baby. The ED209 also tends to give you a couple of warnings before it shoots you, giving plenty of time for a small group to push it over. We've all seen footage (or been a part of) college riots and have seen small groups flipping over full sized cars, or pulling down goal posts.

If the same were to be done to the zombies, a group working together to incapasitate it would be incredibely vulnerable to infection. Once ED209 is down, it'll only be a matter of time before the zombies clean up the leftovers. Zombies win hands down, the giant bumbling robot can't compete with an unstopable, infection spreading, starving for human brains foe.

[milktoaste]

One more day of getting crushed by the 'what's your favorite soup?' thread haha. If no one else posts today, it'll surely be a win for the ED209. I'll try one more question tomarrow before I give up and start eating soup:D

[Haunted]

My favorite soup is butternut squash with a little bit of seasoning. Post a decent question, Milktoast, something that has some semblence of importance.;) :D

[milktoaste]

My favorite soup is butternut squash with a little bit of seasoning. Post a decent question, Milktoast, something that has some semblence of importance.;) :D

Ya, the trivial, pointless questions just aren't going to cut it. Picking a favorite soup however is impossible for me. Soup is completely dependant on weather, season and my own personal mood when I decide I want soup. Right now it's sprinkling out which is good soup weather, maybe I'll have to post my eventual soup of choice in the appropriate thread after lunch.

Tomorrow I'll see if I can't come up with a more engaging question.

[novakru]

I'm sitting in the disagreement box with Angra:cool:

[Haunted]

I might have to go with the college kids, because back in college when we were drunk (and stoned) we were like fucking McGuyver.

[milktoaste]

Ok, so it was a really stupid question but really, I came up with it in as much time as it took to type it. ED209 is packing some serious heat, it's got fucking rockets for Christs sake. But can a winner really be picked out of a such a stupid scenerio, no, but it sure can get boring. I thought of atleast 20 more debatable questions, but they all seemed to be Subject A Vs. Subject B and I really want to avoid that. Instead I'll try to stick with a more standard pros vs. cons of a specific topic. A winner will not be chosen, atleast not by me, so that any past debates can be argued. I will continue to argue only for the seemingly unpopular side of any topic. So here's my first topic, I'll post another in 3 days. Don't just state a possition, but offer an arguement or rebutle. Pros vs. Cons.....

The rape scene, and not the camera cutting away and the audience left with the suggestion, but right there on the screen is a man raping a man/woman/child. I've seen atleast 5 movies with such scenes, Irreversable probably being the worst/most memorable for me. With these scenes a director can take us to horrible places, and can effortlessly effect our emotions, while we either turn our heads in disgust or watch unwavering at it's brutal honesty.

[Demonique]

I'm sorry . . . what was the question? I seem to have missed it.

[Haunted]

If you're implying as to whether or not we need to see actual rape scenes in films, I say no. Well, let's put it like this, I'm not going to watch your fucking film. I've had the experience personally, and I don't need to watch reinacted on screne.

Here's the thing about art: If it's actually good art it will carry itself. This is possibly the hardest intellectual arguemnt in the world, because everyone has a different take on what art actually *is*. Is a bowl of shit a work of genius or is it just a bowl of shit? A man raping a woman (or even vice versa) will never be art to me, and that's probably because it's happened to me twice. So it's a very personal level. Hell, a solid red canvass isn't art to me, but that's me.

So now I have to tell you what is art to me and contradict myself, right? Art should actually take me places that I've never been, make me see worlds that I've never seen. Art should take me outside of myself. Art should also make me explore myself, but art shouldn't violate me. It shouldn't violate anyone. If you say that a piece of art violated you, and you're happy about it, then that piece of art didn't violate you. It fucked you good and hard, but it didn't violate you.

Most people don't know the definition of violation until it really happens to them.

[novakru]

I say at least have a warning.
I know they do that sometimes now.
When I went to see Joan of Arc with Mila Jojanovich(sp?) years ago-
I was fucked up for months.

If there is a warning at least I could choose NOT to watch that movie.

People who have been through it, makes them relive it in all it's horrible detailed trauma right over again and then there goes thousands of dollars worth of therapy/medication right down the toilet.

[milktoaste]

I recently changed my mind and decided to go ahead with this, purely out of respect for my 9th grade teacher who taught me the importance of arguing for unpopular opinions. I realise it's a completely redundant thread and I could just post a new thread every couple days and more people would read it. So I'm just gonna go ahead and get this out of the way so I can atleast do what I said I was going to-even if I am a little late.

I'd like to start by pointing out that rape scenes don't fly in my house. I'm guilty of watching and at one time owning movies with such scenes in the past, today they're not even allowed in my house. I think more often than not they're used as a replacement for good writing, and are the equivalent of a cheap shot or a low blow. I have no problem watching people beheading one another overseas, but a make believe scene in a movie will turn my stomach, strange.

Historically based or based on true event movies seem like a respectable door way for some form of rape scene. The reality of a disgusting act can also help show the importance/impact that act can have.

I couldn't agree more with ample warning of any kind of sexual assault in a movie, I too will never watch another movie with one in it(neither will my children if I can manage to raise them right) However rape scenes will, and should, stay a part of cinema the same as any other tasteless act(ref. porno). It is one of the last taboo's in cinema.

[Leprucky Cougar]

Good thread milk. I also feel the same about scenes portraying sexual molestation encounters with minors...extremely distasteful. But perhaps writers continuously put them on the screen (movies and televison) not so much to create heightened trauma to past victims (Though I imagine it's hard not to feel upset for a victim to view such a thing) but to show us how devastating but also how real such an unimaginable thing can be--even if those who are guilty of such heinous behavior are close to us--after lots of scandals/reports of children confessing to being harmed by teachers, ministers, etc--it has really opened people up to be more cognizant and critical of the adults we have around our young people--and has taught us to never completely turn down skepticism of some adults (whom were thought upon as well-trusted individuals) If that is their intention for incorporating these scenes in, then that is a relatively understandable one.

[scouse mac]

Like with most things, its all in the context. Scenes of sexual violence are, in most cases, completely unnecessary and are in films merely as a cheap way to add shock value. Implied violence can be just as powerful, a good example being the implied rape of the girl in the recent Hills Have Eyes remake.

Having said that, there will always be times when showing the assaults take place are justifiable, like in The Accused.