THW replay international sporting events if an extreme umpiring error affects the result.

Sorry for missing the last round -- I got really busy. I'll forfeit a conduct point, but the rest of the debate is up for grabs! :) 1. Pro's first point was that miscalls destroy the ethics of sports. I explained how that's not true; just because a bad call is issued by mistake doesn't mean that any ethics have been violated. Further, I pointed out that just because accidents happen doesn't mean that athletes or umpires will behave more unethically. Since most abuse of rules is observed and penalized, they have no incentive to do so. Pro's response was that it's unethical to not rectify bad calls if you notice any foul play later on when watching the game. However, because of all of the discrepancies that come with a rematch as well as the other points I made (about sports being a business, etc.) come into play, then it's easy to see why it's not unethical to avoid a re-match. Also, you'll notice that Pro COMPLETELY straw manned my argument. When I said that most bad calls were rectified and addressed, he said that I was "agreeing" with him that screw-ups should be penalized. Okay, I never said that they shouldn't be penalized... insofar as within the parameters of THAT game. This isn't about fixing bad calls during a match, i.e. them reviewing a football play and changing the ruling on the field. This debate has to do with entire new rematches, so, Pro not only didn't prove that not having re-matches was unethical but also acted unethically himself in manipulating my argument. 1a. I made the argument that professional sports was first and foremost a business. Pro gave a nice sappy response about being in it for the right reasons, etc. However, at the end of the day, it comes down to money. Like I said - there are certainly some players and coaches who have their whole heart into the sport. However, without the BUSINESS side of professional sports, there ARE NO professional sports. Commercials, advertising and marketing are a huge aspect of pro sports. If the players really didn't care about their salary, then why do they demand MILLIONS to play a game? Of course it's about the money. Replaying games would become too confusing and costly for the business side of sports. 1b. I said that bad calls were unfortunately part of the game. Pro challenges me on that and asks me how so. First of all, they've been a part of every athlete's life since the beginning of sports, because they happen all the time. Second, the reason they happen - as I already pointed out - is because sometimes players either do things like foul on accident, or on purpose. They do it on purpose for game strategy i.e. to stop the clock. In that case, if the ref doesn't see it, it's actually bad for both parties (as the team doesn't get to stop the clock if the ref doesn't call the foul, i.e. in a close game of basketball). 1c. I said that we should increase opportunities to avoid bad calls via having more umpires, issuing re-plays in sports like baseball and soccer the same way they use them in sports like football, etc. Pro says this is not enough. I think it is. 1d. Pro says my example of unfair advantages is not legit. You'll notice that he never actually addressed my argument. I said: A rematch would carry with it a lot of differences that could negatively impact a team. For instance, during the first game, the other team's coach may have picked up on certain plays or play calls which would give them an unfair advantage in the next game... If they had incurred any injuries during the first game it could hinder their second performance... The players and refs would be under pressure and a certain expected outcome. For instance, if the France/Ireland game were replayed, people would expect Ireland to win based on what happened last game, etc. Either way, it wouldn't result in a completely "fair" game. Pro says, "See, we are letting one team have the unfair advantage by NOT replaying the game, not by replaying it. The team that's NOT penalized for their misbehavior has the unfair advantage." The thing is - Pro didn't address any of my points. Yes, bad calls are unfair; however, they are a risk in every sport. As I said, we try to rectify the situation when we notice them DURING THE GAME. Pro had absolutely no response to my points about different conditions and variables impacting the game. The thing is, these variables could inhibit the losing team as well (or the team that was originally victimized by the bad call). For instance, if Ireland replayed France, but Ireland's best player was hurt in the first game and couldn't play, then the outcome might still be the same. Would Pro say it's unfair that Ireland's best player was out? Maybe, but you can't possibly replay the game under the same conditions or circumstances. 1e. Pro says that rematches would only be played in EXTREME cases; however, who gets to decide what is extreme? Ever hear of the domino effect? One thing affects another. So, if one fair ball was called foul in a game of baseball, for example, and the player then struck out after the next pitch - you might not think it was a big deal and therefore the game would not be replayed. However, what if that player got on base, and the next batter got up and hit a home run? That score might drastically impact the outcome of the game. So, again this idea is still impractical considering it would have to apply to almost every bad call. 2. Pro tried to make the argument that people would become so disenchanted with sports that they would no longer be fans, etc. if bad calls were made and rematches not issued. That was the most ridiculous argument ever and I completely proved Pro wrong by providing famous examples of bad calls and pointing out how sports are more popular than ever. So, Pro's point has been completely voided out by my own arguments. His only response is that we still remember bad calls from long ago... yep, and they were all unfortunate, but life goes on. The sport nor the athletes of today have been impacted in any way, except for us being more conscious of bad calls and trying to avoid them. 3. Pro said that after bad calls were made, enraged fans would react incredibly violently and viciously towards one another. You'll notice that Pro did not provide examples of this happening, but I digress. I pointed out that the fans should be punished according to their own actions if they decide to act this way -- it's not the responsibility of league owners to be their mommies and make sure they're on their best behavior. People are liable for their own actions. When a person acts poorly for ANY reason, they are punished plain and simple. Nobody should act like that no matter what - especially over a game, and ESPECIALLY in a game that you're not even playing in (or getting paid for), etc. 4. Again, Pro makes no argument. I said that kids would see how cheaters are exposed, condemned and crucified in the media and as such would choose to avoid cheating so as to avoid being labeled a bad sport. Pro's only response was about how the media influences kids (which proves absolutely nothing) and that he thinks this will encourage them to cheat. Well, we have disagreeing view points - surprise surprise. The fact is, Pro didn't effectively REFUTE or negate mine, so at best, this is just a moot point. CONCLUSION: Bad calls are unfortunate, but have been a part of sports since the beginning. Good athletes adjust and try to overcome these hurdles. Sometimes bad calls affect the outcome of the game, and because that sucks, we should continue to try and implement things to AVOID these mistakes! I favor more video replays and more refs, for instance. However, because sports is a business and replaying games would severely impact that (not to mention be impossible to replay so often) - AND - there's no way to replay the game under completely fair conditions, the best thing to do is move on.