American football is a better sport than soccer

While my opponent makes excellent points, I believe they can be refuted:My opponent argues that soccer is simpler than football, especially at the amateur level. I would like to quote a book:"I started playing football when I was eight or nine years old. In those days there was no [modern entertainment], so e just used our imaginations. There was an empty lot alongside our house... We used to play there every day until someone decided to build a house on it. We always organized games ourselves. Sometimes we didn't even have a real ball, but we'd still play. We'd stuff some rags into a paper bag, and just like that we had a football... Because we never had twenty-two guys to make a full eleven-to-a-side team during football season, we would create a game for whatever number of players we had. We even played one-on-one if there was only two of us. Sometimes it was two-on-two or four-by-four... No matter where we were or how many guys we had, we could always play football"Now, who would this seem like at first? At first glance, this seems entirely like the story of Pele - a young kid playing pickup soccer on the street. However, this is not a quote from Pele this is from Hall of Fame coach John Madden, who said this in his book Heroes of Football.[1] Like soccer, football can be picked up and played easily - my opponent notes that a specific shape of ball is needed (an oval-shaped object), but the same is true for soccer - soccer needs a roughly round-shaped object. An oval object would not work in soccer, nor would one that is unkickable. A football is somewhat difficult to throw, but throwing isn't a required aspect of the game - many youth leagues run only a few pass plays a game. Passing isn't required in football because you can also run with the ball. My opponent also notes that you can play soccer by yourself - however, there are many ways to play football by yourself as well. Legendary quarterback Sammy Baugh spent hours on end throwing the football through a moving tire swing,[2] and he spent even more time than that punting the ball.[3] As a second point, my opponent notes that scoring tends to be more exciting in soccer than in football. l would argue this is generally the case, but what about the many nil-nil ties? 0-0 games are unheard of in football, and there is always some form of scoring. Celebration is only the case because it is so uncommon; in football, it isn't a great idea to get cocky and celebrate early because the opponent almost always has a shot to come back. Another factor in football is that group celebrations are essentially prohibited, but they still go far beyond just the spike that my opponent notes - for example, let's have a look at the celebrations of Steve Smith, a WR for the Carolina Panthers. His celebrations have included, among other things, being a swashbuckling pirate (at a Bucs game), making a snow angel, being a boxer, being a Hawaiian dancer, changing a baby's diaper, and sliding down the base of a goalpost. His most famous is perhaps the rowboat celebration, which mocked the Vikings' "Loveboat scandal".[4] Steve Smith is not even the best celebrator out there - Chad Johnson and Terrell Owens were much better known for theirs. The fact of the matter is, however, football celebrations are often creative - they just have to confine to a different set of rules.My opponent notes that football does run longer than soccer, mainly due to play stoppages and commercials. I do not dispute this; this is a well-known fact. He proceeds to argue that soccer's constant gameplay is better than football's start-and-stop style. I disagree with that idea. To put it into a narrative perspective, is a movie with constant action for half the movie, a short plot break, and constant action for the second half always better than a movie with rising and falling actions? Of course not. I like an action flick just as much as anyone, but is that formula always better than a more plot-oriented film? Probably not. My opponent also notes that soccer is constant - however, how much of that is actually significant play (ie. fast breaks or shots on goal)? Frankly, much of soccer is spent around midfield, with both teams constantly stealing the ball and nothing really getting done. Further, upon research it has been found soccer players go an average of 6 miles a game - this averages out to roughly 4mph per player. Two-thirds of this distance comes from walking or jogging, and the rest comes from running - mainly in short bursts of 10-40 meters.[5] No such studies are out about American football, but almost all action in the game takes place as a result of short bursts of running. In other words, the constant set of movement in football is running for short bursts - often ending with contact with another player.. The voters can decide which is better, but I do think there is merit to football being a physically exhausting game.My opponent next argues that soccer players are more fit. It is not deniable that lineman are indeed, by typical standards, overweight - the average is 260 pounds.[6] However, the fact of the matter is these players are very fit. Simply being large does not make you a good lineman - you need to be in excellent physical shape to be effective. You must have an extremely quick release off the line (ie. be able to move properly), eat the right foods, and maintain a solid exercise routine. A former Penn State lineman noted that his diet included eggs, whole grains, fruits, and vegetables.[7] Like the Sumo, linemen must be large - but they must also be flexible and fit.Finally, my opponent argues that the worst injuries in soccer are a fractured limb. Football does have its deal of injuries, but sadly, this is not the case in soccer - many soccer players have died on the pitch. Here are a list of deaths resulting from soccer:[8] In 1907 Tommy Blackstock of Manchester United died after heading a ball. In 1909 James Main of Hibernan F.C. died after suffering fatal stomach injuries from a collision. In 1931 John Thomson of Celtic F.C. died after fracturing his skull while diving for the ball In 1934 Sam Raleigh of Gilligham F.C. died after suffering a head injury In 1995 Michael Goodard of Dundela F.C. died after being hit in the chest by the ball In 2001 Serhiy Perkhun of CSKA Moscow died after suffering a head injury in a collision In 2004 Cristiano Junior of Dempo Sports Club died after a collision with a goalie In 2008 Hrvoje Ćustić of NZ Zadar died after colliding with a wall on the sideline In 2009 Jumadi Abdi PKT Bontang died after suffering severe internal injuries from a collision This doesn't even include people like Patrick Battison, who damaged vertebra and had teeth knocked out following a collision.[9] Clearly soccer is not immune to injuries; incredibly, no deaths have ever occurred in the NFL except for Chuck Hughes, who died of a heart attack in 1971.[10] Heart-related deaths are relatively common in soccer, outnumbering basically every other form of death besides lightning strike.[9] Since American football essentially prohibits games or practices from being played in lightning, this is not a real issue there. As I had responded to all of Con's arguments, I turn the debate over to him. References:1: Pg. 1, Heroes of Football2: http://espn.go.com...3: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com...4: http://www.youtube.com...5: http://www.livestrong.com...6: http://www.livestrong.com...7: http://www.livestrong.com...8: http://en.wikipedia.org...9: http://bleacherreport.com...10: http://bleacherreport.com.../3