American football is a better sport than soccer

In response to my opponent's rebuttal of my complexity argument: I want to immediately concede that soccer is more than just the basic formula - my main intent was not to do deep into soccer's more complex strategies, but to compare the base formula with the unpredictable base formula of football. I will respond to those points, however. Yes, many plays are decided by coaches. This is common. I will note that, for the most part, coaches do not take 30 seconds to call plays. For the most part, plays are determined pretty quickly and sent to the QB so he has time to tell the other players and the team can line up. I concede my opponent is not inslulting my intelligence. :) I do concede soccer players do indeed set up strategy on the fly; the same also happens in football, for instance. Think about it this way - a quarterback can audible (change the play), a receiver can deviate from his route if he thinks it will work better (most likely if he isn't the first read), a running back can stop blocking on a pass play if he sees some opening, etc. Similarly, the defense can audible or make quick reads - this is actually required these days given the increasing complexity of offenses. The point of the game isn't to execute the plays properly, it is to gain as much yardage as possible, and if it works nobody is really going to complain about it. If it fails on the other hand. .. I agree any soccer player can technically score. However, how common is it for a defensive player (say, a full-back), to score? Like the linemen of football, defenders do not score that often as it is not their job. You might see one ocassionally do it (similar to the hilarious tackle-eligible linemen who might catch a pass at the goal line). I reject Con's assertation that football plays involve only some of the team - by nessecity, plays involve all the team. Soccer teams can and do function efficiently a man down - it doesn't help, but you aren't condemned to lose because of it. If even a single lineman decides to take a play off, it will not end well for the offense. Each player is required to pull their own weight for the entire game. I concede that soccer does involve teamwork. In response to the time management arguments: The 40-second rule is not designed to allow teams to reset, it is designed to prevent the offense from sitting on ball all game. Many teams use the so-called 'hurry-up offense', which is a fast-tempo strategy that minimizes the amount of time used up. The idea coaches waste timeout to give networks commercial breaks is, frankly, insane - they are paid to win games, not help the networks. My opponent is incorrect in saying the NCAA stops the clock after each play in the final 2 minutes; they do not. After each first down within that period, the clock is temporarily stopped until the ball has been spotted. I don't like this rule (I prefer the NFL rulebook in general, with a few exceptions), but the idea is to prevent lolligagging referees from hurting the offense. In response to the tie resolution arguments: I agree my opponent in that two-hour tied games are not very good. However, why not just run a full replay? That alone is more likely to determine a winner. As for the golden goal, isn't soccer a game of endurance? Why not reward that with the much-needed three points? I agree the NFL overtime system was originally flawed. They fixed it now. Why can soccer not do the same? NFL overtime was traditionally sacrosanct, but we realized something needed to be done - so we changed it. In response to the fan arguments: I agree that not all soccer fans are hooligans. I disagree that the vuvuzela is a sign of excellent soccer culture. :P I disagree wholeheartedly that popularity is a sign something is better. I agree with my opponent that fans reduce the reputation of soccer. I also agree that riots do happen after the Super Bowl, but that is the only time they actually happen. In game riots are unheard of in football, and fans throwing stuff at players is also unheard of. This is a good thing for football, not so much for soccer. Now, with the responses out of the way I will list the arguments my opponent has not refuted or responded to. These are only from the first round, since my opponent has not responded to my Round 3 comments yet (I assume he will do so in this round, and I would request he treat my responses similarly) Stoppage time, as determined by officials, is subject to abuse. Football fans do not attack other fans with deadly weapons. While the second point is rather minor - let's be honest, armed hooligans aren't common in the developed world these days - the first is very significant. More time equals more opportunities to shoot at goal. In the 2009 Manchester derby, Manchester United won on a stoppage time goal 5 minutes and 26 seconds in. Let's just say the time added was favorable to Manchester U - almost seven minutes were given, nearly twice as much as suggested minimum of four. [1] This sort of thing does not happen in football because we stop our clocks when they need to be stopped rather than retroactively giving time back. With that done, I would like to close my case. I believe my arguments have shown that football is better than soccer in a number of ways. In one of the most significant, timekeeping, my opponent did not refute the potential for abuse from the stoppage time system. Nothing in football is this bad. In addition, I believe I have refuted my opponent's key points - Simplicity, Excitement, Length, Fitness, and Injuries. At the very least my counterguments offer room for thought; at the most, the negate his points. In short, I think my arguments have proven that either football is better than soccer or soccer is worse than football. I turn the debate over to my opponent for his final responses and closing argument - thank you, and vote Pro! References: 1: . http://www.guardian.co.uk...