THW ban boxing

My opponent's arguments are divided into four parts, I will rebut them turn by turn.1. Boxing is a barbaric sportMy opponent says that Boxing is very violent, and it should not be a sport, and should not be in the 21st century in modern society. My opponent doesn't say how this is barbaric. And, we should ban it because it is barabaric anyways. People enjoy it, and they want to do boxing, and they know it is barbaric. Did anyone "force" them? No. My opponent provides no source that it is barbaric at all. My opponent doesn't say why boxing should be banned from the 21st century, and how it is should be banned because it is barbaric. My opponent just asserts that because it is violent, it has no place for modern society. My opponent doesn't say why. It is in modern society, as there is boxing. Then do all violent things need to be banned? No! !! Then everything which involved violence needs to be banned. Almost all sports need to be banned, some talking needs to be banned, cars need to be banned, and every single thing that occurs violence needs to be banned! !! So, no, we should not ban boxing just because it is violent. Also, when I go into my opponent's first source, which will probably be important, it gives the homepage of the website, not the actual thing about boxing, so the source is actually very irrelevant, and can't be used as a source.2. Role ModelsMy opponent says that children should not get these boxers as role models and not idolize people who injure others. This argument has zero connection to the debate, as yeah, they are not role models, but just because they are not role models, should boxing be banned? Then you should be banned, as there aren't any role models of you. Same logic, so boxing should be banned just becuase these people aren't role models. This arugment has no connection to the debate, therefore it is automatically refuted.3. DeathsMy opponent says that boxing causes many deaths. First of all, there are deaths of almost anything. Trees should be banned, as trees might fall and kill us. Cars should be banned as there are many deaths from car accidents. Lightning should be banned because it kills some people. Knifes should be banned. Almost anything involves killing. Banana peels should be banned, as you can slip and fall, and break your head, and die. Just because there are deaths, that doesn't mean we should ban it. We need to ban the whole world, and almost everything then. My opponent doesn't show how many deaths there are in boxing, but it can't be as much as guns or smoking. Ban them first. They have more deaths. Boxing has less deaths. Why ban boxing and not guns? There is absolutely no reason. Secondly, the boxers want to do this. They know the injuries that can happen. They die, it is part of their job. They get injured, they know they get injured because they are boxers. They know it can happen in their job, and they still do it. We shouldn't ban it because thing happen in their job. This is immoral. So we shouldn't ban boxing.4. Their trainingMy opponent says in his first paragraph that boxers need to train a lot, and waste precious time. My opponent doesn't link how this says we should ban boxing. They have to train, we have to practice and train for almost anything, there is almost nothing we can do without practicing and training. I don't know how this training shows why boxing should be banned. My opponent's next statement says that 80% of the boxers don't want their children to be boxers. This is a bare assertion. My opponent might be talking about a book, but it is imposible to actually refute the book, as I don't even have it. And, there can be reasons. They don't want their children to be harmed, but there are other people who want to do boxing, the boxers don't maybe want their children to do it, but how should that make it banned? Next, my opponent says that boxers are money-making devices for their promoters. My opponent provides a quote, but no source. If you click a source, only the main page comes out. I can't see how that is a proper source. And, still this doesn't make us ban boxing. People want to do it. ConclusionAll my opponent's arugments were bare assertions. His sources were all books, which I don't even think will be in the book, sources which I click go into the main page, nothing about boxing. My opponent's arguments all state something, but doesn't say why boxing should be banned because of this, making his arguments all wrong, as there is no impact. An argument needs a claim, a warrant, and an impact. My opponent has a claim, but lacks warrants and impacts, therefore his arguments fall. Becuase his arguments fall, vote for Con. Don't buy Pro's arguments, as they have no impact to "why" boxing should be banned. Thanks.