Football is better than basketball

I would first like to apologize for missing my argument deadline. Secondly, since this is the final round, I will not be presenting new arguments, but rather I will address PRO’s arguments and restate my own position. PRO’s Arguments: Popularity PRO claims that football is a superior sport because it is more popular. First of all, PRO’s unsupported claim is not necessarily correct. For instance, I do not debate that the Superbowl draws more viewership than the NBA Finals, but since the commercials are more popular than the game [1], strict popularity cannot be used as a measurement tool. Also, PRO’s whole argument from popularity is a logical fallacy. The fact that something is popular doesn’t make it right or better [2]. Injuries Part of PRO’s argument is about injuries is an attempted rebuttal against my point. I will address the rebuttal later; here I will address PRO’s argument that football is superior because it involves violence, and people enjoy watching violence. First of all, this pure opinion; PRO has offered no support to back up his opinion. Secondly, even if it is correct, PRO is again relying on an Argumentum Ad Populum (its right because its popular) fallacy [2]. Salary PRO’s final argument is that the players make a lot of money. This isn’t even an argument regarding the sport itself; it’s essentially another argument from popularity [2], since popularity and viewership fuel salaries. Therefore, this argument fails just like PRO’s first two. My Arguments The Ball I will address my third argument first; the argument regarding football’s unusual ball shape. As PRO noted in his opening round, this was to be a “fun argument.” As many of the arguments for fun here on Debate.org are downright silly, I was unsure how to take this debate. Therefore, I included two serious arguments, and one a little more on the lighter side. I withdraw this argument. Equipment My first argument was regarding the accessibility of the two sports due to the amount of equipment required to play. I showed that basketball is superior due to requiring less equipment. PRO chose not to rebut, or even to address this point, so it stands. Injuries I argued that basketball is superior to football because it has lower contact and causes fewer and less severe injuries. PRO’s rebuttal was that the players are compensated for their risk and that the violence is popular. PRO’s first point only applies to professional athletes, not to everyone who plays the sport. In fact, as less than .5% of college football players are drafted to play football professionally [3], his argument is largely irrelevant. PRO’s other rebuttal is that violence is popular, which, as I have noted above, is relying on a logical fallacy to claim superiority of the sport [2]. My argument stands. Conclusion PRO's three arguments basically boil down to a claim that football is superior because it is more popular. I have shown how this reasoning relies on a logical fallacy; therefore, PRO’s arguments can be disregarded. In contrast, I have argued that basketball is superior because of its greater accessibility, and lower level of injuries. PRO never addressed my first point and I have shown how he failed at rebutting my second point. Overall, PRO has failed to show why football is better, while I have shown how basketball is superior. [1] http://www.marketingprofs.com... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.beyondusports.com...