International soccer matches should be settled by fights, not penalties.

I negate: International soccer matches should NOT be settled by fights, rather than penalties. "England subsequently lost the match on penalties, which was a cruel way to exit the tournament" - I agree that England should have won that match and probably would if not for Rooney's red card, but that's soccer. Despite that, the match was won on penalties were numbers don't count, which one the basic reasons that they exist. England had a chance to beat the 11 Portuguese players with 10 of their own, but they missed it. "Penalties are such lotteries – the goalie can only just guess which side of the net the striker is aiming for, he might be lucky, he might not." "Penalties are such lotteries – the goalie can only just guess which side of the net the striker is aiming for, he might be lucky, he might not." -This is false. Most of the time goalkeepers DO choose the right side, although they don't block the ball from going in most of the time, is just coincidence? – No its skill. You have to both anticipate were the kicker will shoot and be good enough to block the ball. Reflexes play a huge role in the above and many times a bigger one than luck. If you try to score a penalty on a professional goalkeeper, believe me, you would have a hard time (I've tried it). So penalties are not lotteries, you have to be a good goalkeeper to block even if you do guess right. Also you have to be a very good kicker, to place the ball hard enough and accurately enough in the corner in order to score. The Portuguese were better at doing so. Also, Ricardo (their goalkeeper) was better at blocking than the England goalkeeper, therefore they won the match. "On that occasion, all the England players would have been queuing up to give Portugal's dirty, cheating, pretty-boy midfielder Christiano Ronaldo a proper kicking and I suspect I wouldn't be the only England fan to say that that spectacle alone would have been worth the price of the ticket." - I suggest that my opponent attends a kick boxing match rather than a soccer one, if he wants to see a fight rather than soccer. Contention 1: Public Opinion Common logic tells us that if you ask soccer fans, if they believe that international soccer matches should be settled by fights, not penalties, the vast majority of them would either laugh or simply say no. Contention 2: Violence Soccer has been used over the years to pass messages to the public due to that it has many supporters and has been very successful in doing so. Some of these are "no to racism" (we remember this from the 2006 world cup) and "no to violence". If soccer were to promote violence, imagine what influence it would have on the public and especially children who usually imitate their heroes, the soccer players. Contention 3: Red Cards Red cards are usually given to players that do hard tackles or play violently. For example, if you punch your opponent, you are very likely to get a red card. It would be both confusing and hypocritical if on the one hand, you send him off for being violent and on the other declare the better puncher the winner. Contention 4: Grudges Many players would object to the system (certainly not Rooney), because in most matches, they would not be motivated to hit their opponents. Also, take into consideration that most soccer player are constantly on the move and who knows, the day after the fight they may find themselves on the same team as the person they knocked out the previous day. This would develop hatred and personal grudges between players and we certainly do not want that to happen as soccer fans. Contention 5: Penalties are thrilling, anyway Personally, I believe that penalties are absolutely thrilling (and many people share this belief). I don't think that even my opponent, being an England fan, can deny being glued to the screen, with his heart pounding, to see if England will win or lose the shout-out. Thank you.