Ping Pong is More of a Sport than Golf

Thanks for the prompt response, this is also my first debate. .. on debate. org at least. Mr. Pote is my father. My opponent concedes to my definition of a sport and that "If both are sports, and nothing can be more of a sport than a sport, then they are equal sports. " This is found at the end of my first contention. The most important part of this quote is "nothing can be more of a sport than a sport". Since we have already agreed that both golf and Ping Pong are sports, then neither of them can be "more of a sport" than the other. The resolution is impossible to affirm. My opponent makes several arguments against my second contention, subpoint c). The first argument is that the majority of golf games are in tournaments, and that "there can be just as many opponents in a ping pong tournament as a golf tournament". I will concede this point, that there are EQUAL numbers of opponents in each of the tournaments. The second argument is that ping pong is more difficult to consistently win because each player must play multiple games in order to win. My opponent does not cite a specific number of games. In each golf tournament each player must play 18 holes. If we use the example of 25 competitors per tournament this comes out to 450 holes per tournament. Each hole is a competition that can literally cause a player to lose the entire tournament. The third and final attack on my case is that there are variables that affect ping pong, including "paddles(size and weight of paddles), balls(weight of balls), table(what tables are made of), ect. " My opponent agrees that there are more variables affecting golf though, so even if there are variables affecting ping pong they do not overpower the variables affecting golf. Thus, golf is more affected by variables and is therefore harder to consistently win at. My opponent asks " Generally is golf not played on nice days with little wind? ", and the answer would be yes. The key word in his question is generally, which leaves room for golf to be played on not so nice days and/or with a lot of wind. Ping pong does not have any of these variables ever because it is played indoors or under controlled circumstances. I would like to note that my opponent does not offer any arguments against my first contention, or my subpoints a) or b). I will try to show the importance of these points in my next round. My opponent then goes on to defend his case. He defines Skill as "competent excellence in performance; expertness; dexterity" I accept this definition. He says that "Skill is not defined by the distance hit but the accuracy of the ball hit" I do not see accuracy anywhere in the agreed upon definition of skill, but I will argue that golf requires more accuracy than Ping Pong. My opponent fails to recognize that in a larger area there are more points that can be the possible landing spots of a ball. It requires more accuracy to hit a single point 100 yards away than to hit a single point 1 yard away because of all the variables affecting the ball while it is in the air. This can be cross applied to my variables argument in subpoint c) of my contention 2. A golf ball stays in the air for a much longer period of time and therefore variables have more of an effect on its final stopping point. Variables lead to inaccuracy, which means that golf requires more accuracy to compensate for the variables affecting the golf ball. My opponent argues that "It takes more skill to hit a ping pong ball in the exact spot that will make your opponent to miss than it does to hit a golf ball in the general vicinity of something on a huge golf course" but the golf tournament victors do not simply hit a golf ball in any "general vicinity". There are many examples of incredible accuracy including the above video. . http://www.youtube.com... My opponent also argues that "the distance is irrelevant. ", which would mean that golf and ping pong require the same level of accuracy, which would negate the resolution. My opponent agrees that he was comparing two very unlike things and that means that they cannot be accurately used to compare golf and ping pong, so the comparison he made in his first case is moot. My opponent then argues that the force required to hit a ping pong ball across the table is greater than the force required to hit a golf ball across the course. He cites that Force=Mass x Acceleration and plugs in a few numbers to calculate the force for each sport. His math is incorrect. 115 grams x 78 m = 8.970 Newtons is correct. (m is actually the incorrect unit for acceleration, but I assume he means m/s2, that is, meters divided by seconds squared)(1) However, 77 grams x 1.875 m would actually be .144375 Newtons. It's .077 x 1.875. I hope that this was a simple decimal error and not a deliberate attempt to skew facts by not converting the 77 grams that a ping pong ball weighs into .077 kilograms. The weight of a golf ball was properly converted into kilograms. Newtons are "the force required to accelerate a one kilogram mass at a rate of one meter per second squared"(2) This means that the force required to send a golf ball the distance that golf balls are sent is much greater than the force required to send a ping pong ball the distance that ping pong balls are sent. This does not take into account constant motion however, but there have been no calculations done as to the force required for constant motion and thus it cannot be proved that constant motion is more stressful than the difference in force between golf and ping pong. My opponent's last argument includes is that "In every type of action it is harder to hit a moving object". This is actually false. The direction of movement is what matters. My opponent brings up the example of hunting deer and how it is more difficult " to kill it as it is running away", but this is only based on the direction of the movement of the deer. If the deer were running in a straight line in the same direction as the hunter fires the bullet in, the deer will be hit. Likewise, if a ping pong ball is sent towards your paddle, it requires no effort on your part to hit it. It does require some effort to hit a golf ball and some effort is more than no effort. I realise that professional ping pong players do not send the ball directly into their opponent's paddle, but so far I have no reason to think that the effort required to hit a moving ping pong ball a short distance is greater than the effort required to hit a stationary golf ball a very large distance, especially when the golf ball has so many variables affecting it. (1)-. http://en.wikipedia.org... (2)-. http://en.wikipedia.org...