Football is harder than Rugby in a high school game

House Keeping a. My opponent's arguments are just cherry-picked refutations. He doesn't respond to the entirety of my arguments, just the ones he wants to. This has two big impacts, first: the arguments he doesn't respond to are drops and automatically flow Con. Second; his responses don't actually hold water. But we'll get to that in a moment. b. My opponent drops his entire on-case. He openly admits that he couldn't find the evidence to support his own argument, and instead just says the equivalent of 'trust me on this guys'. That is still a personal argument, and doesn't need to be accepted in an empirical debate. The impact here is big, and even is I make no other clashing arguments in this debate is should warrant a vote Con -- it completely wipes all unique impact from the Pro's ground and doesn't give him any fodder to urge a Pro vote. To explain, let's pretend for a moment that arguments were rocks, and we were stacking up said rocks to see who's were the heaviest. If said that my opponent couldn't use his rocks because they were actually pieces of steel, and he accepts that, there are no rocks on the Pro's scale. So even if only a pebble remains on my scale, I win because a pebble is heavier than nothing at all. Drops My opponent drops my endurance argument, as well as my uniqueness argument. These where the two things I really focused on in my prior speech, so it needs to extend across with some pretty big impacts. See, this is where I argue that my opponent's arguments are cherry-picked. He doesn't actually respond to the clash already present on the flow, he just kind of responds to whatever he wants to. Not cool, and kind of a fallacy. This means that it's not just little pebbles I have on the scale, but still some big 'ol boulders. Refutation When I say refutation, I'm really just responding to my opponent's arguments here. On the youtube video, there are a couple of problems here; a. My opponent just links an 8 minute video and claims it as evidence. There's no analysis, not impacts, and for all my opponent knows I can't view videos on my internet (I can, but just barely). I really could just say that and move on, but there are other problems as well. b. This video deals with professional players -- grown men. Not high school students with rules and regulations in place concerning player safety. My opponent makes it pretty clear in the constructive that we're talking about high school specifically, and much high school football doesn't allow for tackles. c. The experiment to test the impacts of this video are pretty unscientific. First, the football player doesn't tackle another person, but a dummy. Second, the video admits that the force is ultimately the same either way. Finally the video shows that rugby players actually take more hits than football players. So the video doesn't prove anything. On the Business insider article, this is really irrelevant because the source evidence doesn't have any numbers of rugby. It's not a comparison, it's stand-alone data with no impacts. Here's the first source for the business insider article [ http://www.unc.edu... ], as you can see they don't keep the numbers on rubgy injuries. There's no comparison here. This is also another example of my opponent cherry-picking the arguments he wants to respond to, and ignoring what he doesn't care to speak on. Vote Con! (This 24 hour time limit is killing me)