Football is harder than Rugby in a high school game

Thanks to my opponent for such a concise argument! Before I get into the nitty-gritty of rebuttal, there are a couple of general over-view arguments that need to be made. Overview Framework First; Personal experiences unto themselves are illegitimate in an academic debate. Or really any debate for that matter. Personal examples, stories and shared experiences lack a crucial element otherwise known as 'falsifiability'. Because these stories are personal experiences, I'm not able to review any kind provided evidence to determine the empirical soundness of said argument. For that reason these kinds of arguments need to be rejected a priori. If we give personal examples even the benefit of the doubt when uncoupled with empirical evidence, no real clash can happen. Second; The resolution leaves tons of room for interpretation. This includes regions of practice, a determinant for 'hard' and even a discussion of what qualifies as a game of rugby. The problem here, is that with all of these determining factors, my opponent limits the resolution unfairly to 'Minnesota youth rugby' rules in a speech following the acceptance round. This is hardly a definitive definition as it outright ignores other rugby leagues. Third; there is no real impact calculus in play to compare and contrast these two sports. My opponent states outright that the BOP is shared, but he doesn't provide any means to actually weigh the clash in this round. The impact, is that there is no impact. My opponent's arguments end up being a collection of claims with no real purpose. They end up being meaningless. On-Case Framework a. Presumption of belief- If at the end of this debate you as the voter find neither argument for difficulty compelling, you default negative in argumentation. Let's that my opponent and I live in the same house, and ever since we've lived in that house we've eaten dinner in the kitchen. If my opponent decides we should start eating in the bathroom instead, he'll make an argument as to why we should do that; however if his argument is not compelling enough to have me change where I eat, I'm going to continue eating in the kitchen. Presumption works the same way. My opponent is arguing for a change in how we interpret the difficulty of these two sports, and unless is argument is more compelling than mine, you default Con. Even if my argument is equally lame. Constructive My opponent's cited number for how long a rugby game lasts are. .. well wrong. A typical rugby game lasts 80 minutes[1], high school or otherwise. And even you're not going full force the entire hour and 20 minutes, it's still more of a work-out than foot ball is. The obvious cardio impact is there, Pro would be hard-pressed to refute that, but there's also the issue of in-field clash and lactic acid build-up in the muscles. So you're going to need more endurance to play rugby. There's no way around that, and that's an unmovable point in favor of rugby. [1] . http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com... However the issue of clash is also one that needs to be covered. According to the guardian, the risks of football are all present in rubgy, but the added risk of spinal injuries which can cause crippling injuries and handicaps[2]. Point? Rugby. [2] . http://www.guardian.co.uk... Rebuttal You're going to reject these arguments outright because they're entirely personal examples and unwarranted conjecture. If my opponent warrants these claims and provides appropriate evidence in the next round then we'll talk.