King Kong Deserved to Beat V-Rex

Ah! The last argument, this has been the most challenging argument I've been in yet! I shall first answer my opponents question "Why do you say he didn't deserve to win?", and to respond to his definition of deserving. 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. "2nd) 'However, I still do not believe King Kong was deserving because he was pupated 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." Again, that is the only reason he did win, because of what is dictated by the film makers and previous films the 2005 version is based off of. What happened in the film was dictated, and the actions of the characters were dictated by the same thing. I didn't avoid what happened in the movie, in fact I criticise the very scene. "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." 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. "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." 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). I would like to thank my opponent for the debate, it was fun and challenging, I love him, and it has been honor being his first contender. I praise his conduct and his logical replies to my challenge, an obvious individual deserving of this win... However, I w contradict myself by asking the readers to vote for Pleco.