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

Contention 1: Public opinion My opponent first questions the survey I provide. I assure him and everyone else reading this debate that it exists and I read about it the Greek athletical newspaper "Ομάδα" (=Team) sometime last year in an article about referees some time in April or May. Then, he claims that his idea is ahead of its time. This is false, it was in the past when players would fight over a controversial goal, penalty etc, and that is why we have referees to avoid violence and rules are getting more and more strict against violence. On the contrary, in current days we are making and have made serious successful efforts to stop violence in soccer. Therefore, my opponent is wrong in believing that his idea is ahead of it's time, to the contrary it is behind (!). Contention 2: Violence My opponent continues to miss the point of the argument about bad examples and continues his irrelevant argument about violence being better than guns, which is true but COMPLETELY irrelevant. Not only that, his new argument includes the movie business, but this is even more irrelevant because the debate is about soccer and what a movie star that just happened to also have been a soccer player (while playing in a movie you are considered an actor) does, has nothing to do with soccer matches. In conclusion, my opponent once again fails to refute my argument that is therefore extended. Contention 3: Red Cards My opponent takes a boxing match as an example in a failed attempt to counter my argument. He fails to notice the reason why what he refers to happens: In boxing, you can't hit your opponent between rounds or after the end of the match (while still in the ring), simply because the game is not underway (paused or ended) and your opponent cannot defend himself. This example can not under any circumstance be compared with what I presented in this (3rd) contention. Contention 4: Grudges Personally, being a Manchester City fan (fierce rival of Man. United), I despise of both Rooney and Ronaldo, despite accepting their huge soccer talent. In spite of this my opponent basically strengthens my argument by showing exactly the kind of grudges can be devoted between fans and players (that of his own grudge against Ronaldo). Imagine what would English public opinion think about Portuguese if they had gained up on Rooney and injured him. Therefore just because you dislike someone doesn't mean you should hit him Contention 5: Penalties are thrilling My opponent says that managers could bring on players like Barton later on in the game when the match is heading towards a draw. He still fails to understand that Barton is a bad example. If Barton makes the team (even as a sub), this will motivate children to learn to be violent in order to play soccer that is currently the most popular sport in the word, therefore Millions will be motivated to become like Barton in order to play profession or armature and be good at an extra skill (violence). If this was allowed we would have accidents resulting to injuries and hate between players about hitting, while promoting violence in other parts of children's lives. I have already responded to the claim about this supposed heritage, still my opponent repeats it. If violence was in fact a heritage of soccer it wouldn't be rejected by the sport and banned by the rules! As for my opponent's claim about a supposed controlled situation, I would like to remind him about my example of the children in the schoolyard or in the neighbourhood pitch. In conclusion, my opponent failed to correctly refute many of my point (I extended my 2nd Contention twice!) and also failed to provide ANY contention or arguments of his own, because he failed to defend his Round 1 argument and only refuted my own points without notable success as I explain above. Therefore I urge negation. Thank you very much.