THW ban boxing

My strategy in defense: ("Rebuttal" -Defense)Defense: 1. " My opponent doesn't say how this is barbaric." -CON.- I said in round 1 : "they intentionally inflict injuries upon others for public entertainment" Not barbaric? So I do say it is barbaric, and yet my opponent says I didn't say how it is!2. "People enjoy it, and they want to do boxing, and they know it is barbaric. Did anyone "force" them? No." -CON.- People are drinking drugs. Did anybody force them. No. Then leave them? People are killing others. Did anyone force them? No. Leave them? Don't they too have their liberty? You would say, but they are harming others. What about the drugs? If somebody drinks drugs IN HIS HOME, why is it illegal?3. "My opponent provides no source that it is barbaric at all." -CON.- I don't to give a link for everything I write. If you mean how or why it is barbaric, refer defense argument 1. ^4. "My opponent doesn't say why boxing should be banned from the 21st century" -CON.- Simple. Because it is barbaric. I already said that.5. "Then do all violent things need to be banned? No!!! Then everything which involved violence needs to be banned. Almost all sports need to be banned, some talking needs to be banned, cars need to be banned, and every single thing that occurs violence needs to be banned" -CON- Seems like my opponent doesn't know the meaning of violence. Violence IS always intended. When it's not intended, it's NOT violence. So, yes, all forms of violence should be banned. Refer source [3]. 6. "My opponent says that children should not get these boxers as role models and not idolize people who injure others. This argument has zero connection to the debate, as yeah, they are not role models, but just because they are not role models, should boxing be banned? Then you should be banned, as there aren't any role models of you. Same logic, so boxing should be banned just because these people aren't role models. This arugment has no connection to the debate, therefore it is automatically refuted." -CON. - I never said that boxers aren't role models. Everybody is a role models. I said boxers aren't good role models, as the main thing making them a role model is their dangerous and barbaric job, boxing. I f you're job is bad too, you too aren't a good role model. Same for me! The sentence "Then you should be banned, as there aren't any role models of you" would not be understood even by Shakespeare. It's not English.7. "My opponent says that boxing causes many deaths. First of all, there are deaths of almost anything. Trees should be banned, as trees might fall and kill us. Cars should be banned as there are many deaths from car accidents. Lightning should be banned because it kills some people. Knifes should be banned. Almost anything involves killing. Banana peels should be banned, as you can slip and fall, and break your head, and die. Just because there are deaths, that doesn't mean we should ban it. We need to ban the whole world, and almost everything then. My opponent doesn't show how many deaths there are in boxing, but it can't be as much as guns or smoking. Ban them first. They have more deaths. Boxing has less deaths. Why ban boxing and not guns? There is absolutely no reason." -CON.- Now I'm sure you don't know what violence means, and can't differenciate between intended killed and not intended killing, or between something which GOAL is killing or injuring and something in which it happens occasionally. Knifes have benefits and dangers. Same for guns. As for banana peals, pranks with it SHOULD be banned. Throwing it in streets should be banned. Similarly, knifes and guns in the street should be banned.8. "Next, my opponent says that boxers are money-making devices for their promoters. My opponent provides a quote, but no source. If you click a source, only the main page comes out. I can't see how that is a proper source. And, still this doesn't make us ban boxing. People want to do it." -CON.- SOURCES DON'T MEAN INTERNET LINKS ONLY. Sources are sources. Refer source [4].9. "His sources were all books, which I don't even think will be in the book" . -CON.- Predictions with evidence can be wrong. Predications WITHOUT evidence are mostly wrong. You're predicting makes no difference in this debate. Just a red herring.In conclusion, I have given strong arguments, had strong rebuttal, and defended against all of my opponent's vague rebuttal. I thank my opponent for this debate.Adil,Qatar.Sources: [1] https://www.newscientist.com...[2] http://www.floridatoday.com...[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://www.dictionary.com...