Women should not be able to play in the NFL

Actually I forfeited a round, not the debate. I ran out of time, I apologize profusely. I plead the voters to give Pro conduct. TO THE DEBATE:My opponent has not justified a law banning women from playing a popular game. He has given reasons as to why the average woman would be at a higher risk, which is obviously not sufficient enough evidence. Women are at a higher risk of dying or getting injured at many things, but we still do not outlaw them. Drinking for example. Men are generally larger, and could drink a little more without as much of as effect. [1] We do not make it impossible for women to drink. That would obviously be outrageous. Now if a woman was just as strong as a man, then why wouldn't we allow her to play if she desired? The *average woman* is obviously not capable of playing football in the pro leagues. Yet the average person in general wouldn't be able to do so to. The above average people are really the ones who are playing. Why is it justified to not allow a coach to choose his players? When there is a will for a female player to join the team, why is it okay for us to restrict her from doing so? Remember, this is not the supposedly average person. What you need to do now is show why it is justified to have negative rights for one over the age of 18. http://www.besthealthdegrees.com... [2] This link above shows your chances of dying from various things. I encourage readers to look at it, as it is very entertaining. Now, again relating to the drinking example, this is yet another showing of many things that women are weaker at doing. And as Pro has said, it is mostly due to their physique. Under the logic Pro has presented, it should be made illegal to allow a woman to do a high amount of these activities. Eventually women would not be allowed to really do much at all. Under Pro's logic, women would not be allowed to: 1. Swimming: Chances of dying is 1 in a million. It is increased though when you are a woman obviously. [2] 2. By cycling: Chaces of dying, a about 1 in 140,000. Increased risk for women. [2] 3. Skiing. Chances of death is 1 in 1.1 million. Women have weaker physiques, so the chance is of course increased. [2] 4. All mountain climbing would be made illegal for women to attempt. Chances of dying is 1 in 1750. Increased risks applied to women. [2] 5. Canoeing, 1 in a 10,000 chance of dying. Increased risk for women. [2] These are five popular things that we would be able to take away from women if I put your logic onto it. Otherwise why is it different? However, there are something's that men suffer a higher risk to as well. Smoking for example. Men are ten times more likely to die of smoking than women are. Therefore all men should be banned from smoking apparently. [2] I'm not sure if "It's a man thing" is a really sufficient enough argument to justify negative rights. You said that because men are the "first fans" ( not proven) if a woman started to play football it would take away the entire point of watching it(Not proven). I'd like to ask my opponent what exactly sexuality has to do with watching a game, and how It would take away the entire point of the game. Until then, it goes completely unproven. [1] http://www.helpguide.org... Thanks Pro.