Debate competition round 2 UCMP vs tyrant king

Can I be one? :)

Sure, everyone is. But right now it is tyrant king vs UCMP. You will be for next week going up against gojira2k.

What about the one with me and SR?

You guys never posted. Do I will count it as a tie. Or in two weeks you can have a rematch where you two actually post.

I did not want to post without SR posting first, plus it was a long week for me. I had a lot of projects and quizzes for school. And there was also halloween and I had to hand out candy, I swear some of those kids do it until midnight. 

SR was waiting till you posted lol. And I know exactly what you mean.

torvosaurs

this is a 35 foot long, 15 foot tall, 5 ton beast. it is a megalosaurid which are known for their size,strength, and sheer immpressive bulk. and torvosaurus was no exception.

head.

they have large robust skulls with huge teeth meant for destroying what was ever unfortunate enough to be on the torvo's menu that day its teeth were huge for his size. it is said that these beasts had a bite as great if not even greater then tyrrannosaurs at parity. i say they had a very, very slightly weaker bite then a tyrannosaur at parity. but a heck of a bite nontheless. though i do have to say they probably had a larger mouth gape then tyrrannosaurs at same size. it is said that they have greater jaw mechanics and i would agree as reasons stated above.

arms

they, as i have said are very bulky animals which means they would have very strong arms. these arms would have been used in combat. their long,muscular arms with daggers for tips would be used to wreak havoc on rivals or prey. and in this case the tarbosaurus, whos arms are pitufully weak arems in comparison.

Tarbosaurus bataar

T. bataar, being a tyrannosaurine, was one of the most advanced theropod species, only inferior to Troodontids and Dromaeosaurids in mental capacity and second only to the most terrifying dinosaur known, Tyrannosaurus rex (as well as a few Carcharodontosaurs and Spinosaurs and perhaps Zhuchengtyrannus). Since it was a tyrannosaurine and lived during the last few million years before the KT extinction, it's safe to assume that it's mental capacity was well beyond a Megalosaurid (which, when compared to coelurosaurids, were quite lacking in that area to say the least) which lived almost 100 million years before T.bataar ever came to be. 

As we can see in that picture Tarbosaurus had exceptionally great binocular vision.

Torvosaurus on the other hand, had next to no binocular vision at all (not a big surprise seeing as how almost every Carnosaurid had pretty bad binocular vision) as we can observe in the following frontal picture of a Torvosaurus skull.

Tarbosaurus probably had a more powerful bite, going from their jaw length and depth, however, I cannot find a study with definitive calculations of Tarbosaurus' bite force for the life of me, so yeah...

Tarbosaurus and Torvosauurs were both similarly long and high, however, there is a huge difference in robusticity when you compare their skeletons:

(Keep in mind that both are at the same height and length) Since most of an animals weight is located in it's rib cage, we should compare that first. In width they are about the same, but the Tarbosaurus' ribs are a good bit longer, so this area is pretty equal with a very slight advantage for the Tarbosaurus. There is however something that is even more important in the estimation of weight and that is the spinal cord. The spinal cord has to carry next to all of an animals weight so an animal with a more robust spinal cord would be heavier and when comparing the spinal cord of this Tarbosaurus with the spinal cord of this Torvosaurus, you can see a clear difference, with the Tarbosaurus' vertebrae being a lot thicker and just more robust in general.

As for arms, I want to say that if you look at the Torvosaurus specimen I presented above you'll notice that it's arms, even though they were very impressive, couldn't have done anything to stop a Tarbosaurus from nomming it's face, since Torvosaurus had a horizontal posture, meaning that it's arms wouldn't have been capable of repelling a frontal attack directed at it's snout.

Nice post UCMP, but I just want to correct you that Torvosaurus was not a Carnosaur, it was a Megalosaur.

the arms could have been used if the torvo just rt and started hacking away. and before you  adapted for that i will say that it can handle it for short periods. i see no diffrence in construction as you say. and the teeth of torvo seem to look bigger then the teeth of tarbo. and torvo seems to also be more agile which it could dodge a few attacks and dart back and forth while biting. now there is no evidence to prove that tarbo was the bulkier of the two. and to say it was much bulkier is a bit of a stretch. the megalosaurid has binocular vision,just not as good as the tyrrannosaur. ALL predators have binocular vision. and the skulls are both robust but just cause the tarbo has a wider eye region on it's skull means nothing, or not as much as you think. 

LORD OF THE SPINOSAURS and TYRANT KING - You're both extremely excellent gentlement for being so understanding! Indeed, last week was an extremely long one! Regardless, I had a very fun time with the debate and am honored to have tied with my debate partner! :)

UCMP118742 - What a fantastic and comprehensive look at Tarbosaurus! The sheer amount of detail is extraordinary! Thank you for the excellent work! :)

good, i have time to get my crap together before being entered in this thing....sweet

I think I'm gonna take Tarbo's side(and UCMPs by default) in this one. Nothing personal, but in a fight, I agree that Tarbosaurus would have an advantage over Torvosaurus.

Torvo wouldn't have been able to effectvely use it's arms in face-to-face combat because of their position, if it would've changed into a position in which they were as far out as his jaws it'd have to take a pose similar to the vertical-tail dragging reconstructions from the past, but those reconstructions are not really what one would call "exact". Torvo's arms would've been exceptionally effective against opponents not as high as itself, but not on something of similar or even greater height. 

It's quite easy to see when you compare their necks. 

I cannot find tooth lengths of any one of these dinosaurs for the life of me, but the teeth were a bit longer, but not as wide and robust, however, I can't tell you the excat difference because there isn't a single study which mentions the length/width of their teeth in the entirety of the interwebz. You should also keep in mind that often times the exhibits at museums will have their teeth partially pulled out of their sockets, making them stick out more than they did in real life.

Agility was probably one of the biggest advantages that Torvosaurus had over Tarbosaurus. 

I know that practically all (some rare exceptions do exist) predators have binocular vision, but as you have pointed out yourself, the binocular vision of Tarbosaurus was far more capable than the binocular vision of Torvosaurus.

Since all of the most important muscles used for generating pressure with a bite are located in the back of the skull and the neck, it does seem very likely that Tarbosaurus had a greater bite force than Torvosaurus.

I already told you that I agree about the bite force and I know I said that the torvo can rear up for a bit. It would not hurt it because its only for a short period of time. And about the museum pulling out teeth to make them look bigger, the same can be said for tarbo and also they don't pull them out a whole lot. And the teeth are not that much thicker then in torvo's skull. His teeth are  a bit larger, and more serrated which means it would cut through flesh and damage bone. While the tarbo's teeth are mainly for crushing bone, not cutting flesh. And by the way, as I have already pointed out torvosaurus had a very strong bite due to it's robust skull and build. Only slightly weaker then the tarbo in terms of sheer strength. 

P.s please don't take sides during the week if this debate:)

p.s.s I can't post pics/links/graphs at all so don't expect any from me.

It's not about hurting it, it's simply that it wouldn't be able to do that from an anatomical stand point. It would have to take this position:

Their teeth are similarly long (the teeth of Torvo were indeed longer, but that was a difference of half an inch at the most)

Because Tarbo had such crushing teeth and such a high bite force it didn't need the ability to cut since it's crushing teeth and raw force behind them was enough to kill anything under 30 tons in it's environment. It's like getting smacked with a hammer. If somebody were to smack you with a hammer, it wouldn't matter how good that hammer is at cutting, the pure force behind it would be enough to smash bones regardless of the amont of muscle in between.

P.S. Did you write this on your phone? because otherwise everybody here wouldn't have a problem with showing you how to do that.

Ok again. The torvo would only rear up for a short while. It would be like a human getting on all fours. We aren't designed for it since are back limbs are far larger and stronger then are front limbs, but we can get into a quadrupedal stance. It will feel uncomfortable and lok awkward but we can still do it. another example could be dogs. They are quadrupedbutane have a heavier chest then their abdomens. But they can stand on their hind legs for a while and actually swat with their front paws. Dinosaurs(well theropods) could do this since they had heavy chests. Just like dogs.

and about getting hit with a hammer being blind bit by a tarbosaur is true and getting bit by a torvo would be like getting whacked by a stick lined with rows of fairly thick knives. Which is just as deadly. And bone damaging.

Yes it would be able to rear up, but if it wanted to rear up high enough for it's arms to be of any use, it would've had to have taken a pose similar to the one in the picture I showed you, which would be anatomically impossible.

Both methods are similarly deadly, however, the crushing technique would do far worse fdamage to the skeleton, whilst the more balanced semi-cut/semi-slash method would have a weaker effect on the bones, but a stronger effect on the musculature and fat.

Oops, double post.