We should ban boxing

Okay, I suppose I will wrap things up here. ... 1. 1000 Deaths. Like I stated in the round before, I do not care to carry this argument further. I have already accepted this statistic, if you are willing to state it as "1,000 deaths in the past millennium of boxing". However, please note that this is simply a statistic, and not a valid argument. ... 2. Free Will My opponent agrees with me on the basis that boxers enter the ring out of their own free will. My opponents states that "I don't know where your going with the free will part". So allow me to clarify. This means that my opponent cannot base his arguments on grounds of exploitation or coercion. This also means that to an extent, we, as the people are NOT responsible for the injuries that boxers sustain in the ring. The potential for injury in boxing is comparable to the potential injuries in many other recreational activities and sports. Yet scuba diving is not banned, and neither is surfing. This proves that the potential for injury does not justify the abolition of something. ... 3. Safety in Boxing. My opponent's argument clearly falls apart here. Instead of acknowledging the fact that extensive safety measures, such as ringside medical servicing, physicians, are available, and constantly updated, to ensure the safety of boxers, my opponent tries to base his arguments in this category on the belief that "if you are angry... You kill your opponent.". Additionally, instead of using an actual, disputable example to back this up, he decides to use the quote- "Above all things, I must not get angry. If I do get angry I knock all the teeth out of the mouth of the poor wretch who has angered me." And then he states that- "Thus, being angry will cause yourself to lose control and perhaps kill the other person." Can you believe this? He is basing his arguments, and drawing a conclusion, from a quote! If you think that a quote suffices as evidence, well wouldn't this- "A boxer must exercise and develop every part of his body."[1] "Boxing brings out my aggressive instinct, not necessarily a killer instinct."[2] "Boxing is the ultimate challenge. There's nothing that can compare to testing yourself the way you do every time you step in the ring."[3] Be able to prove my arguments? But it doesn't. This is because quotes are subjective, simply the words and opinions of ONE individual. Quotes are not sufficient evidence. Thus YOU DID NOT MANAGE TO PROVE YOUR POINT. And since you could not manage to dig up the SPECIFIC, real life example of a boxing match where a referee was not able to restrain a boxer resulting in death, your point is invalid, and simply a personal prejudice, because you have no proof. ... 4. Boxing Harms and Benefits Here, my opponents argument falls apart again. He makes obnoxious claims, saying that "Muhammad Ali, must have been those people that just love to beat another guy up", and "boxing is considered barbaric by some people that believe that violence never solves anything". First of all, I would like to point out that those claims are completely subjective and unsupported. It is obvious to all that my opponent is simply trying to base his argument on a disdainful sense of disapproval, and upon realizing that he cannot win through any objective means, posts BS claims to attempt to back his opinions. So it is clear to all that he has not managed to refute any of my points on the constructive benefits boxing provides, and the fact that boxing at heart is simply a enjoyable sport rather than the barbaric monstrosity my opponent would have you believe. ... 5. Enjoyment. Tying with the previous argument is the dispute on whether boxing is enjoyable for the boxer or not. My opponent opened his argument by likening boxers to gladiators. "Therefore", my opponent quips, "it is not exactly fun.". However, he does not explain to us WHY boxers and gladiators cannot enjoy the sport. He draws a conclusion from nothing at all. After I prompted him by reminding him of this obvious logical fallacy, he says "All gladiators suffered... they would at least be bruised". However, this is yet another logical fallacy. Many examples of sports have pain linked within it. Football hurts. Sprinting causes the lungs to burn. Does it logically follow that neither football or sprinting is enjoyable? I wish to also remind any spectators that boxers may choose to drop the sport at any time if they believe it to be not enjoyable. The sheer fact that people still box should already be proof enough. ... 6. Not a Viable Solution. My opponent states "If we ban boxing, this will actually save more lives, because of the fact of brain damage and the thought of a boxer holding a grudge on you." and "Banning boxing would save more lives than without banning boxing.". However, My opponent fails to refute why the sheer popularity of boxing would not simply force boxing underground in the case of a ban. So I refute his second statement. Banning boxing would probably cost MORE lives. In the case of illegal underground matches, there would be NO ringside medic, NO referees. Safety would be even further compromised if we ban boxing. So therefore, my opponents statement- "Therefore, banning boxing is pretty much a reasonable solution", is illegitimate. ... ===Conclusion=== My opponent redundantly states "he (my opponent) left some of my arguments untouched.". However, we can all clearly see the absurdity of this statement. You gave me six arguments, I gave you six refutations. The irony of my opponent's statement is that he has not refuted my greatest argument of all. The fact is, most of my opponents arguments are based off of the potential injuries of Boxing. However, if this was proper justification by itself, Gambling, Hangliding, Bungee jumping, Surfing, Cheerleading, Alcohol, and Smoking should also be banned. However, society deems it not, proving that you need more than potential injuries to justify the abolition of something. So, overall, we should NOT ban boxing. I have shown you the benefits, refuted my opponent's points, while he left some of my arguments untouched. However, I thank my opponent for this entertaining debate and wish him good luck on his future debates. I wish the readers and my opponent happy holidays. Thank you. I apologize for any pretension or condescension, as it was done in the spirit of the debate. ;)