We should ban boxing

Oh, thank you for informing me of that. I will attempt to steer clear of citing videos as sources in the future. ... 1. 1,000 Deaths. I would like to thank my opponent for posting these sources. However, I would like to question the reliability of said sources. My opponent's first source is a WikiAnswer speaking of 1,465 total recorded fatalities in the year 2007. However, I would like to question the real reliability and the credibility of said source. Anyone, including me, can go and edit your source immediately, bending the statistic to my will. In fact, this is a controversial topic seeing as there are many conflicting WikiAnswers on said topic.[1] So I believe that, unless my opponent is able to prove the credibility of said source, this source should be considered illegitimate. My opponents second source SEEMED reliable, but the way my opponent phrased it is misleading, whether intentional or not. My opponent stated "0.13 participants die out of 1000 participants", and states that this "means about 13 per participants". I would like to clarify this on the behalf of my opponent. What the quote actually SHOULD state is that "13 participants die out of every >1,000,000< participants.", that is, if we are to actually believe that there are 0.13 deaths per 1,000. I would also like to point out that your source is out of date. This statistic is from June 4th, 1995, and may not reflect the actual rate of death/participants after 15 years of medical advances. My opponents third link is completely irrelevant to the issue we are addressing. However, I do accept that claim, because I wish to discontinue this trivial topic and also acknowledge the likelihood of 1000 deaths over a period of one millennium. ... 2. Free will I would first like to thank my opponent for agreeing with my point. In this section my opponent claims that boxers die not of their own free will. However, my opponent has made an obvious logical fallacy, for this is irrelevant and not part of my original point at all. My point was that boxers were COMPLETELY INFORMED of the potential consequences of boxing, and they acknowledge that DEATH IS A POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCE. So no, they did not choose to die, however, they did choose to enter the ring KNOWING that this could result in death. ... 3. Safety in Boxing My opponent states that we "cannot prevent brain damage when you 'knock-out' your opponent", however, this ties into my free will argument, because boxers acknowledge the potential for brain damage. Therefore, I can safely state that we are not responsible for ensuing brain damage. My opponent also states that "if you are angry, you cannot control yourself... referees cannot stop you.". I would like to request an example of said quote. Alone, without a source, this is just another irrelevant, opinionated, unsupported claim. "Therefore, we should ban boxing." No. Potential injuries is NOT a justifiable reason to ban something, especially when the participant is informed of these potential injuries. If society functioned based on your logic, then gambling, BMX riding, smoking, alcohol, surfing, and cheerleading, amongst many more should also be banned, having the same potential for injury. However, these activities are not banned, proving that you need more than simply the potential of injury to justify the abolition of something. ... 4. Boxing Harms and Benefits. You're welcome. I thought you needed it ;) Yes, I realize that death is an unfortunate possibility, but my point is that boxing is not the barbaric activity that many people believe it to be. It is constructive and has the potential for building discipline and releasing tension. Recall that earlier I stated "Mohammed Ali (Cassius Clay) was asked whether he regretted taking up the sport... replying "Not at all!".[2] This proves that even AFTER experiencing the possibility of death and the actual consequences and pain boxing brings, there ARE boxers who believe that the fulfillment boxing provides is worth the consequences. ... 5. Enjoyment In this argument, my opponent claims that "It may be fun to watch boxing, but it is certainly not fun for the boxers.", whilst likening boxing to the gladiators of ancient Rome. I believe that this proves just how little understanding my opponent truly has for the sport of boxing. First of all, if you read carefully, my opponent has not even directly stated WHY boxing is not fun for boxers. All my opponent has done was liken Boxers to Gladiators, and add "spectators watch or laugh when someone gets 'knocked- out.'". I honestly have no idea, under what line of logical fallacy, how he arrived at the conclusion, "Therefore, it is not exactly fun." Second of all, my opponent must realize that Boxers and Gladiators are TWO SEPARATE THINGS- The gladiators of Rome were FORCED to participate in combat. Boxers CHOOSE to box. The gladiators of Rome DUEL TO THE DEATH. Boxers only aim to SCORE POINTS through hits, and/or KNOCKOUT the opposition. I mean, the very fact that most boxers are free to drop boxing if they are miserable, yet they don't, PROVES that boxers enjoy the sport itself. So the sport is enjoyable for both participants and spectators, and "Therefore, it is not exactly fun.", is a misinformed opinion. Additionally, my opponent seems to be holding the opinion that Gladiators did not enjoy combat, which is an opinionated, biased, unsupported claim made based on no apparent reasoning at all. I mean, how do you know that all Gladiators suffered? Perhaps some actually enjoyed the sport, for all we know. ... 6. Not a Viable Solution. My opponent, for some reason, has not touched this argument at all, so for clarity's sake, I will restate it here. Even after acknowledging my opponent's incomplete reasoning and his failure to justify enough reason for a ban, and even if we WERE to actually abolish the sport, a ban is simply NOT a reasonable solution. I mean, with the popularity of boxing by itself, all a ban would serve to do is force matches underground, where safety would be even more severely compromised.[3][4] So, by raising a ban, all we would do is endanger more lives, which is the opposite of what we want to do, and what my opponent suggests with his points. ... ===Conclusion=== As anyone can possibly see, under society's policies today, the mere potential for injury is not enough to justify a ban on boxing, as I stated above. So in the end, I don't even have to refute ANY of my opponent's points, for my opponent bases his entire argument on the potential dangers boxing provides, and that alone is not enough justification for a ban. So, unless my opponent can bring in some other reason to ban such a sport as boxing, I do not see why we should ban such a noble pastime. ===Sources=== [1] http://wiki.answers.com... [2] See above video. [3] http://www.15rounds.com... [4] http://www.profighting-fans.com... (Example of one such fansite)