bruce lee against Ali

ATTENTION: For those who are inherently biased against the arguments I provided in the previous round, skip down to the part labeled "FIGHT." For everyone else, enjoy the show. :D My opponent starts off his round by insisting that this topic having to be about Bruce Lee and Muhammad Ali fighting at their prime is common sense, but as what one may or may not realize, common sense is not as common as one might think. In other words, our world is broken down into many cultures. Each culture has a tendency to perceive communication differently. The topic is phrased as "Bruce Lee against Ali." This phrase could mean many things; being against someone does not imply their to be a physical fight at hand. Hence, my first argument concerning the topic is well justified. Second, there is my argument which I make to counter my opponent's opening argument. Again, all he suggested was that Lee would beat Ali in a street fight. I replied advocating that a dead man could not beat a living man in a fight. Furthermore, it would be one thing if my opponent had listed evidence that was referring to the two in their prime during round 1. Doing this would justify him in saying that I should have been okay with concluding that the topic concerned the two at their prime. However, as you can see, my opponent provided absolutely NO EVIDENCE in round 1 to support his claim. If anyone is to blame for any misunderstanding, it is him. Third, I didn't provide evidence to support that Ali would lose simply because I don't have to. In this debate, I am free to advocate that it would be a tie. Furthermore, the burden of proof belongs to my opponent. The fact that he provided no evidence in round one would justify my move. FIGHT: My opponents rendering of Muhammad Ali is drastically inaccurate as he concludes that Ali wouldn't stand a chance against Bruce Lee merely because Bruce Lee does more than "punching." However, in the past, Ali has managed to battle it out with professional wrestler Kenny Benkowski(#1). This disproves the notion that a boxer would not be able to do anything against someone who could resort to non-boxing techniques. Furthermore, in a street fight, Ali (heavyweight boxer) would no longer be restricted by bulky, restrictive gloves, and while his punches would have the potential to break his own hands, they would also be potentially lethal to a non heavy weight fighter such as Bruce Lee. Moreover, all the Queensberry rules would not apply to this bout, so the nasty ring tricks like low blows, head butting, elbowing that the heavyweight champion knows all too well can be used fully without having to worry about violating any rules. Add in the fact that Ali was known for using psychological tactics to manipulate his opponent I'll admit that I like the clichï¿½ Hollywood idea of a scrawny guy with some martial arts prowess defeating a bulky bodybuilder, but realistically speaking, the scrawny guy won't stand a chance in most cases. Plus, this isn't just any heavyweight we're talking about; this is someone who is still referred to as the greatest boxer of all time to this very day. At best, Bruce Lee could make this matchup a tie if he devoted the entire fight to evasive tactics. Then again, at his best, Ali is also known for his nimble movement in the ring, so this may very well be another advantage Ali would have. Thus, even if we are to treat this debate as an argument which concerns the two fighting at their prime, the PRO still loses. With that said, I now await the final round. #1. http://slam.canoe.ca...