King Kong Deserved to Beat V-Rex

I must say, I was expecting an easier debate over this topic, but that is something that I did not get. Thanks joshpleco! This has been a good debate ;) "The definition is spot on, I don't disagree with it. However, considering King Kong won simply because of flaws made by the movie makers, I wouldn't say Kong is deserving of such a victory. I know you don't want to hear the Hollywood reason alone, so I will give you another reason. In the film Kong (along with the fierce enemies he battles) falls down a high cliff. All of the the fighters get caught in vines, perhaps escaping death. This event perhaps shaped the tide of the battle somewhat, and was certainly not planned by Kong. " I understand that my opponent said that his opponents fell down vines. But I unfortunately fail to see how this relates. Kong did NOT fall down into the abyss. He was, (As my opponent said) saved by the vines. This is perfectly possible to do, depending on the strength of the vines. Since the vines were quite strong, it is perfectly possible for this have happened, and not violating rules of physics. 2) My opponent says once more (as he has done before), that the film script did not make Kong worthy of victory. Again, like I have said many times, we also need to look at the skill that both animals/creatures have. King Kong has advantages beyond the V-Rex, as my opponent has agreed with in his previous attacks. Therefore, it's not just because of the script that Kong won, but because of his skill, and wit. 3) "Unfortunately in this movie this is not the case. The movie is based off of the original 1933 film, where King Kong was able to beat one T-Rex. The battle in the 1933 version was longer and more realistic in my opinion, but that's beside the point. The point is, the battle that took place in the 2005 version was more cheesy and unrealistic, however, we already discussed this and came to a neutral stance on it. " There were actually cases in which King Kong did not win. For example, when he got shot by the people. This is a clear example of how Kong did not win every match, and that stars don't necessarily need to win every fight. 4) "I never disagreed with you about odds impeding on any victory, and the odds were clearly against King Kong. As stated a million times before Kong only won because he was supposed to, which is basically cheating. Therefore, Kong shouldn't be considered deserving of such a title (which I was basically trying to point out in my Chuck Norris comparison). " As I stated in my previous attack, King Kong didn't need to win that fight. After all, it didn't shape towards the movie, win or loose, it didn't matter since it wasn't a major fight. A major fight was when he was on top of the building, and he unfortunately got shot. He was supposed to win this one, wasn't he? Yes he was, but unfortunately he didn't win this, proving my point; Kong did NOT have to win every single match in order to be the star This was a great debate, and I would like to thank my opponent for debating it, and creating the topic. In conclusion, Kong was deserving of the victory, because of his superiority, and because he was dominating the whole match. Thanks for reading all this guys!