The vuvuzelas should be banned from the FIFA World Cup.

I found a funny video while surfing the web that I wanted to share with you guys. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... I will once again adress the arguments in the order my opponet presented, than I will tell you why you should vote con. My opponet argues that moral limits should play a part with the legal limits. I agree that moral limits are needed to determine if the legal limits are just, but only for that reason. If you feel that the legal limits are immoral, than you should change the legal limits the right way by going through the courts or in our case, through FIFA. "Moral limits" do not EVER automatically override the current legal limits. Therefore, I say that soccer celebrations only need to follow the set legal limits. Next, My opponet CONCEDED that chants can still be heard, even with a stadium full of vuvuzelas. The fact that the chants were heard automatically indicates that the vuvuzelas do not interrupt the chants, as the fans chanting would just quit blowing the horns. Anyone judging out there must chalk up that argument to the con side. He says that in a few games he couldn't hear any chants. Is it possible that the fans of these teams do not often chant?, Is it possible that it's not very important to them and they'd rather blow the vuvuzelas? Once again, the fact that chants can be heard shows that the vuvuzelas do not interrupt the chants. We have already pointed out that it does not drown out all of the cheering and chanting. The vuvuzelas are hardly ever (if at all) blown loud enough to drown out the sounds of the referee's whistle. I want to stress the point that in the many games I've watched, that has never been the case. Even if it did happen, the refs would continue to blow and signal the game to pause. It's not like ithe game would go on for ever, just another second or two. The possible one isolated event in which the sounds have drowned out the referee's whistle is not enough to ban the vuvuzelas all together. We have shown that the vuvuzelas do co-exist with the chanting, cheering, and the referee's whistle. Keep in mind that no matter how my opponet spins it, the vuvuzelas are the way South Africans cheer and chant. My opponet's argument can not stand. You must also chalk this one up to the con side. Now onto his point about the hostile chants. No matter what kind of restrictions you place on hostile chants, they will not stop simply because you can not control what comes out of a persons mouth. Hostile chants happen all the time in football, thus proving that chants can be distracting and have been complained about. I'm not sure what he wants me to do with his point that chants have never been called to be banned. I have pointed out that chanting has the same effects as vuvuzela noise (both are harmful to ears, distracting, often annoying, and have received complaints). I posted more facts in the coming paragraphs that solidifies this. Since they have the same effects, I am taking his point that "chants have not been called to be banned" and saying that it is the precise reason that vuvuzelas must not be banned. It would be a major double-standard to ban the vuvuzelas and not the chants. This argument must also be awarded to the con side. My opponet wanted me to provide a source about footballers complaining over every little thing. While I've heard many ridiculous complaints, I could not find many online. I did find one however about a football player that quit his team, because the girls were uglier and drank more than the ones where he came from [1]. This illustrates my point perfectly that footballers complain about every little thing. I will take this one step further though. My opponet says that we should take stock when the complaints are "a clear and overwhelming majority." Before the World Cup started a clear and overwhelming majority of footballers complained about the new ball that would be used during the world cup [2]. As an article from fox sports puts it," It's hard to find a player who is happy with it." FIFA disregarded the widespread complaints about the ball as they made no changes to it. If FIFA didn't put much stock into the widespread complaints about the ball, which is crucial to the actual gameplay of the game, why should they put more stock into the player's complaints about the vuvuzelas? It appears that FIFA agrees with my opinion about footballer's complaints. I don't see how my opponet's arguement can stand, so chalk up yet another argument to the con side. So on to the vuvuzelas vs. cheering arguement. Since this is such a big issue. I found another article that is much more credible than the previous ones provided in this debate. This article is from the website of a world renowned hearing center. Doctors at the center have concluded that just 15 MINUTES in a cheering stadium can potentially damage your hearing. [3]. This number shocked me, but it is from highly trained doctors that treat hearing problems every day. My numbers are more credible than my opponets, because his comes from an experiment performed by college kids not even at a football/soccer game, or in a World Cup atmosphere, whereas mine comes from highly-trained doctors that deal with these issues every day. The conclusion that I draw for this is that both cheering and vuvuzela noise are harmful to the ears. If FIFA bans the vuvuzelas, than they must ban cheering as well. Banning cheering would be absurd, but according to my opponet's logic, that would also have to be banned as well. It makes no sense. I think that I have won this arguement as well. On to culture, my opponet gives a study that doesn't refute my point well. My point was that if FIFA would ban the vuvuzela, than FIFA would be viewed as putting down the African culture and telling them to celebrate the European (or rest of the world's) way. The vast majority of these voters are not from South Africa. They don't fully understand the vuvuzelas and what it means to the African people. I posted a second video just to give you an idea. They would force Africans to celebrate "their" way. As I've said, there is no right or wrong way to celebrate. My opponet has not refuted this point well. I think it's a big point, but a simple one. FIFA would force their culture, customs, way of celebrating or whatever you want to call it if you don't like the word "culture" onto the South African people. It's not Football culture as my opponet tried to say. If it was, than it would be universal with football games, instead it is only in South Africa. It must be South Afican culture. His second paragraph isn't relevant. It doesn't totally destroy their culture, it just slightly henders it. Vuvuzleas aren't the culture, but a part of it. I think that this simple arguement still stands and must be awarded to the con side. Why I won: I believe that I have refuted every single sentence of his sufficiently and have won all arguements except maybe the first in this round that I did not grasp 100%. There are two points of mine that my opponet did not refute. Remember that silence means consent. The point that vuvuzelas do not give teams an undeserved advantage was not refuted in the final round. Also, my point on personal responsibility was not refuted. I had one more thought on this point, if you don't want to miss the game, than you can just buy earplugs as many fans already have in this World Cup. So, with me refuting all of my opponets arguements and winning a majority in the round, I can see nothing but a con victory. I would ask the voters that since my opinion is probably not in the majority, that they would judge the round purely on the arguments made. Thanks. [1] http://football365.com... [2] http://msn.foxsports.com... [3] http://www.cleartonehearingaids.com...