Football is harder then ballet

If my opponent could structure their argument with paragraphs and address the actual points that I made it would be appreciated. . One point that was addressed was if an NFL player had an essential skill beyond that of a six year old. My opponent cited agility drills as proof that they did. To illustrate the difficulty he admitted that he could not do the drills successfully. First drills and games are two different things. Second even if both teams agreed to just let that one player do drills as long as he stayed on the right side of the scrimmage line would we see a skill that a six year old couldn't do? No. We would only see a skill being performed better than a 6 or 16 year old can. Better does not equal a new skill. Again six year olds can kick, throw, run, push and catch. Is there an action that football players do that is not based on these skills? No. . Football players are expected to practice 150-180 days of the year, ballet dancers practice more than 300. If something is so hard why does it require substantially less structured training? Because expertise and competence is not as critical. . My opponent tells us, that his mom told him, that his sister's teacher told her that ballet would be easy for his sister progressed. Hearsay is seldom so irrelevant. Had the teacher said that the student could expect a successful dancing career if she merely reached age appropriate motor skills that would be an argument. In context, or lack thereof, easy has no meaning, nor are the levels needed to achieve this "easy" quantified. Dancers train young and long for a reason. My opponent credited opposition as proof of the hardness of football without addressing the fact that the ability to gain from an opponents mistake. Let me add to that, in football you can target or avoid your opposition, dancers do not get to target or avoid snooty critics or their audience. When two teams play each other one will win, even if they are incompetent and poorly coached, somebody will win. Performances have no such guarantee, if the performance is mediocre nobody walks away with a victory. If 99% of a performance is executed flawlessly, the lasting impact may still be centered on the 1% of mistakes. Succeeding at ballet is harder. . Please address the inability of the offense in football to execute something flawless in the absence of opposition, despite being allowed to scream verbal commands. If you cannot dispute it conceded the point. . I think the most telling argument was the one I ended with previously. It is easy to get a football game worth watching from 30 random strangers, it would be darn near impossible to have the same 30 render a ballet of any merit. Please tell me why this is wrong or concede the point. . I will finish this time by simply pointing out that in conceiving this debate my opponent recognizes an inconsistency in his own argument. Football requires more strength, involves more contact and is substantially more likely to result in grass stains on uniforms. Hard is about more than grass stains and sweat. That is not to say football is entirely easy, but it is only hard in so far as it aspires to the discipline, teamwork and technique exhibited in ballet. By asking the question in the first place you acknowledge the paradigm that recognizes the hardness of the callouses concealed within a professional dancers ballet slipper.