CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I'm not sure I entirely understand the debate. In a face-to-face combat situation, I woulc bet on Bond. If the two characters were going toe-to-toe to solve a mystery, my money would be on Holmes. They each have their strengths, Bonds being suave ass-kicking and Holmes being witty intellect.
I am not sure is we should count holmes out of a possible physical confrontation. He is often described as being a fairly skilled fighter, especially in the films staring robert downey jr.
Altough if it were a gun fight, my money would be on bond.
I don't mean to count Holmes out, but Bond makes a living kicking the shit out of professional thugs and trained killers. Holmes might be a skilled fighter, but he quite simply lacks the scope and experience Bonds life of combat has granted him.
And hell yeah if it were a gunfight my money would be on Bond. The opening sequence to a lot of the movies makes a point of showing Bond is incredibly quick on the draw.
I'm not so sure in the books Holmes always carried a revolver and a lot of the films he's armed so I think he could hold his own in hand to hand or using firearms.
A revolver isn't much of a match against any high tech weaponry Q arms bond with. Plus, i figure bond is just a better shot since he uses his side arm more often than holmes.
Yeah, i was trying to say that is side-arm is a peice of high-tech weaponry. Did you see Skyfall (awesome movie btw). In it, Bond gets a new side arm that is coded to his palm print alone. I was assuming that the accuracy was also improved, but that wasn't directly stated in the film.
I have'nt seen Skyfall yet so I was assuming he was using his Walther PPK which while is probably a superior weapon to the Webley No. 5 they would probably be quite even in a straight shootout unless Holmes had to reload I think the PPK has a larger clip so I guess advantage Bond, it would all depend on who is the quicker draw and better shot.
While "elementary my dear watson" may not be found in the book, Holmes often does explain his reasoning as "elementary", such as in "The Crooked Man". Further more, the phrase is publically attributed to Holmes, so the reference was clear and thus justified.
Of course James Bond! Holmes is just some pitty movie of a random adventure with barely any exciting scenes. At least James Bond has endless amount of suspense and thrills.
Ah, this is a tough one. Although, I have to give the win to Holmes; not only does he have far more physical training, he also has a FAR, fare superior intelligence to Bond's.
A lot of this depends on which versions of the characters we're comparing but in a case of Wits and Espionage I think i'd have to give the edge to Holmes
Holmes makes a living outsmarting people more stupid than himself. Bond makes a living outsmarting criminal masterminds and other assorted people who are oftentimes much smarter than himself. Just saying I think Bond would be used to that particular disadvantage.
We also have to factor in that if Bond and Holmes ever went face to face, Bond would undoubtedly nail Holmes love interest and then use her as an inside-woman to bring Holmes down. And then she would probably tragically die, to free Bond up to nail a new chick in the next film.
Like I said earlier it all depends on which incarnation of each character are facing up to each other, if it was the literary or Robert Downey Jnr version of Holmes in a fist or gun fight with Bond they would be pretty evenly matched, if it was Bennedict Cumberpatch (or whatever his name is), or Johnny Lee Miller then my money would be on Bond
Not doubt Holmes does indeed outsmart people stupider than himself, but everyone is stupider than Holmes. Sure, Bond outsmarts criminal masterminds, but Holmes is not a criminal mastermind. It is two heroic titans.
In a hand to hand combat, Bond would win without a doubt as would he nail Holmes love interest, but as smart and witty Holmes is, he would easily deduce the espionage of the inside woman working for Bond. Remember, Holmes is the greatest detective, plus, Bond would never see a hand to hand combat because Holmes would just never show up. Holmes would always be two steps ahead of Bond.
Sure, Bond outsmarts criminal masterminds, but Holmes is not a criminal mastermind. It is two heroic titans.
The deposition of the individual doesn't matter in this comparison, only their intellect. My point is that Bond has repeatedly shown himself capable of using things other than his intellect to beat people who are clearly smarter than himself. If he wasn't able to do that, a number of criminal masterminds he defeated would have instead succeed in killing him. So I don't think Holmes intelligence is a "trumps-all" card you can play in this particular debate.
In a hand to hand combat, Bond would win without a doubt as would he nail Holmes love interest,
I'm not sure how that has any impact on a hand-to-hand combat situation.
but as smart and witty Holmes is, he would easily deduce the espionage of the inside woman working for Bond.
Not necessarily; love interests are so advantageous as inside agents precisely because they impair the logical judgement of their lovers. Holmes is smart, but he's not perfect, and love, of all emotions, makes it very difficult to think clearly and see the truth of things.
Remember, Holmes is the greatest detective, plus, Bond would never see a hand to hand combat because Holmes would just never show up. Holmes would always be two steps ahead of Bond.
I'm not sure Bond would be at quite such a disadvantage. If Sherlock Holmes is the worlds greatest detective, James Bond is the worlds greatest spy. Well, what is a detective and what is a spy? A detective is someone, usually associated with the police, who investigates (usually criminal) cases to obtain evidence and information. A spy is essentially the same thing, except they are usually associated with the state and they investigate national cases, usually regarding the military of enemy countries. James Bond is, if anything, just a more worldly, advanced, and suave version of Sherlock Holmes. So it seems more likely that if Sherlock is two steps ahead, James is four. I'm not sure how that works out in a linear representation, but I think you get the idea.
Holmes is far superior than Bond. Holmes has a higher IQ and doesn't try to sleep with every woman he sees. Plus Holmes was played by Robert downy jr. Your argument is invalid.
