King Kong Deserved to Beat V-Rex

Round 4/5, getting a bit feisty are we? thanks for getting this far pleco, I appreciate it! I'll defend towards my opponent's attacks first A quote from my opponent: "My opponent again states that we should look at what did happen, and not what could have happened... As I have previously replied to him, the film is fiction and all that did happen in it was dictated, and since both V-Rex and King Kong fought like puppet slaves to the corrupted minds of Hollywood, King Kong did not deserve to win" Why do you say he didn't deserve to win? After all, he dominated the whole fight. Again, I ask for you to look at the definition of deserving. " qualified for or having a claim to reward, assistance, etc., because of one's actions, qualities, or situation:" Notice how it says "because of one's actions", therefore it implies for us to look at the facts, not at the hypothetical s, like my opponent is doing. It's interesting to see how he has not said a valid reason as to why V-Rex deserved to win. All he has said is that King Kong didn't deserve to win (faintly), and has backed it up only with the Hollywood reason. As I have said before, there may be many odds against you, but that doesn't impede one to win. 2nd) "However, I still do not believe King Kong was deserving because he was puppeted along by a script filled with too many scientific flaws to count." He now brings up why King Kong didn't deserve to win. Now he says that he didn't deserve to win because he was puppet-ed around. Again, he is not taking into account what happened, he's avoiding this part, and ONLY arguing based on the fact that Kong was the main character. I'd like to point out that just because you are the main character does not mean you have to win every single fight you are faced in. There are many examples in which the main character does not win all the fights he does, therefore this should not be a turning point for this debate. 3rd) "It is true, the odds do not need to meet your favor for you to be deserving of a victory. However, King Kong's victory is the equivalent of me beating Chuck Norris in a cage fight only because I was possessed by God. Simply put, it's cheating, therefore King Kong is not deserving" My opponent agrees with my point now, by saying that the odds do not impede you to be deserving of a victory. By saying this, he has just backfired on his points, since all has stated is that the odds were against King Kong (he said that since it was 2v1, King Kong didn't deserve to win, therefore this quote backfires on him) He brought up an example of him vs. chuck Norris. For all we know, he could've beat Chuck Norris, you never know. As I stated before, not only does skill win you a fight, so does wit. Now to attack his answers. "An animal can fight out of fear, anger, defense... and so on" Did V-Rex attack and succeed because he was hurt? NO. Therefore his answer does not apply in this case. "V-Rex could have used his tail, or back legs to push King Kong off of him. He certainly wouldn't lay there wiggling around as Kong did what he did." Again, a hypothetical. He could've used his tails, but did he? NO. Therefore there he can't be deserving. Please take a look at the definition of deserving "A giant, scaled, unintelligent, , angry, and carnivorous V-Rex? I'm sure he wouldn't respond well to getting his toung bitten off." Of course, he did try and fight King Kong, but failed. He didn't try well enough, since V-Rex made a lot of mistakes. This is not deserving. The whole turn point to this debate is how deserving is defined. My opponent didn't attack my definitions, therefore he goes with them, and is obligated to look at how it's defined. In order to be deserving of victory, the quality of the fight has to be looked at. Looking at the fight, obviously a hurt animal that couldn't do much, can't be deserving Please vote PRO! ~Rad44