Question: Should fighting be allowed in hockey?

Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey Fighting in hockey, and in sports in general, should not be permissible for any reason. While fighting does have a historic place in the way hockey is played and is often a notable reason why people watch hockey in the first place, it should not be allowed moving forward. Player safety should be at the forefront of sports, and by allowing fighting in hockey, the sport is openly showing its disregard for such safety. Hockey leagues do not need players to police each other and hold each other accountable, that's what referees and league punishments are for. Basketball is a relatively physical sport as well, however the NBA generally does a good job of enforcing appropriate fines and penalties to discourage excessive violence on the court. These monetary fines, game suspensions, and other punishments all hold players accountable without relying on the players to do it themselves. Hockey is one of the very few sports where it is seen as acceptable to have designated players that serve no role other than to protect the team's talented star players from getting hurt in a fight - a sign that the sport needs to change its standards to reduce violence among its players. Cheap shots will always occur in sports, however it is better to address those dirty plays with real-life punishments that affect the player's ability to participate and make financial gains, rather than by putting them in a glass box for a few minutes.

Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey Fighting in hockey has always existed as a defining feature of the sport, and it has been accommodated in the rules for the NHL since the league's establishment in 1917. The practice of fighting in NHL games should be protected because it is not simply an exercise of unchecked aggression, but rather a tool to be used to hold players accountable for their actions. With 12 players on the rink at once and only 3 officials to regulate them, players often get away illegal/dangerous checks. In the absence of consistent regulation, fighting in hockey allows for the players to police one another. The knowledge that a dirty play or a cheap shot will likely result in retaliation offers an effective deterrent against players engaging in these potentially harmful activities. While fighting admittedly introduces a risk for injury, the severity of this injury pales in comparison to the potential injuries one might sustain from an illegal check.

Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey While fighting might not be too different from the natural physicality of hockey, the way it is presented and glorified within the sport does propose an ethical dilemma. A body check into the boards is violent but it is not staged the same way as a fight is. When the helmets and gloves come off for a fight, fans of all ages see a part of the game that no longer belongs in today's society. Big hits will always happen in sports, whether it be in hockey, football, lacrosse, etc., but that should be the extent of glorified physicality. Hockey and its designated enforcers leave a negative impression on youth fans and players who look to emulate professional athletes. Rather than working to become a talented hockey player, some kids would rather become the guy who goes for "big hits" and is known for their physical play rather than developing useful skills within the sport. This influence of violence does bring up ethical concerns, as it changes the way youth players see and play the game. Physical violence is not an appropriate response to conflict, even within a physical sport. The concept of sportsmanship and playing the game the "right way" is put in danger by giving fighting a home in the sport of hockey.

Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey Players and fans may prefer to retain fighting as a permissible component of the sport, however recent findings show that this is not best for the players' health. Fighting in hockey often results in the removal of either one or both players' helmets and gloves, resulting in an exchange of blows to the head. Players wear so much protective equipment that fights become more about punches to the head rather than a general pain to the body. This emphasis on head shots can result in an increased amount of concussions. Neurosurgeon Charles H. Tator suggests that 10% of concussions in hockey are the result of fighting rather than actual game play. This is an easily preventable source of concussions and player harm that has no place in the sport. The long term effects of concussions have become increasingly relevant as more former athletes, particularly professional football players, have been experiencing mental health issues as their careers and lives progress. The effects of concussions are just now becoming better understood by researchers, but it is becoming evident that athletes' brains are being severely affected by these traumatic injuries. Fighting also raises a concern about the recent painkiller epidemic in which athletes are being addicted to their prescribed medications, negatively affecting them even beyond the duration of their injury.

Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey While fines may be an effective way for the NBA to hold its players accountable, that is largely because there is no other historical avenue for conflict resolution in the NBA. As mentioned previously, fighting in hockey has been an integral aspect of the sport since the formation of the National Hockey League. Furthermore, it is not as if these fights are completely unregulated. In the 1980's there was an average of 1 fight per NHL (100%). As a response to this, the League implemented new rules governing fighting. These rules still allowed fights to take place, they just assigned a 2-5 minute penalty to the players involved. This penalty causes players to be judicious about when they choose to fight. This is similar to the penalty system in many sports: soccer players shown to be more judicious about the use of aggressive plays after they have already received a yellow card, NBA athletes are more cautious about play after they have received 3 fouls, etc. Additionally, if the concern about fighting is motivated by a concern for the players, then the opinions of these players should be considered. A survey of NHL players conducted in 2012 asked them whether or not they believed fighting should remain a practice in the NHL, 98% of them responded that it should be. This demonstrates that the players involved, who are cognizant of the risks associated with the activity, still see a value in it and would like it to remain.

Fighting in Hockey Needs to Be Banned Let me start by criticizing my opponents opening comments. I will build my argument as to why fighting in hockey should be banned in round 2. "Now I won't deny Fighting is dangerous and could potentially hurt you, but It is has been part of the game since the beginning. So there's no reason why Fighting should be banned when in reality it won't do anything and the fans will just end up fighting which will cause a whole lot of controversy. "There are a couple of things wrong with what my opponent has said, and I will explain. First he agreed that fighting is dangerous, then he said 'but it has been in the game since the beginning. ' In the beginning of the NHL, players, including the goaltender didn't have to wear helmets/masks, so saying that it should stay the same to follow tradition, isn't a good enough point. My opponent then continues on to say that there is no reason for fighting to be banned because "it won't do anything". If fighting is banned, which would make the punishment more than a 5 minute penalty like it is now, fighting would probably disappear because players wouldn't put their careers at risk. And yes banning fighting would prevent the injuries of many players, and if fighting was banned already, it would have most likely prevented the deaths of Wade Balek, Rick Rypien and Derek Boogaard, who have all died because of reasons related to their career as a fighter in the NHL. My opponent said that fans "will just end up fighting" if fighting in the NHL is banned. I disagree, because anger between fan bases occurs very often because of a fight between two players, which starts huge and bitter rivalries. Good Luck.

Fighting in Hockey Needs to Be Banned Fighting in Ice Hockey is very common, but there have been some people who wanted it to stop. Why? Because it's dangerous. Now I won't deny Fighting is dangerous and could potentially hurt you, but It is has been part of the game since the beginning. So there's no reason why Fighting should be banned when in reality it won't do anything and the fans will just end up fighting which will cause a whole lot of controversy.

Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey While the evidence concerning head trauma is troubling, it exists within the context of an already violent sport. An article published in WIRED magazine commented in April; "as of this writing, no fewer than 158 National Hockey League players " slightly more than one of every five in the league " are injured." These are substantial numbers and they would not be significantly diminished by the abolition of fighting. The players on the ice know the risk they assume when they go out and play the sport, and in the absence of any complaints or activism on the part of the players to abolish fighting, I don't see how it could make the game substantially safer. I do not see any ethical considerations that distinguish fighting from any other dangerous component of hockey. Unless it can be demonstrated to be uniquely harmful in a way distinct from the dangers of stray shots, eye-gouging hihi sticks, or knee-shattering collisions, then I maintain that it is nonsensical to ban fighting in hockey.

Fighting in Hockey Needs to Be Banned Since my opponent has forfeited round 2, I have nothing to refute and I'll just give points on why fighting should be banned in the NHL. Most fighters in the NHL, are put on the ice and told to fight. Their skills in the actual game of hockey are extremely limited, and all they're good at is fighting. In the old days of fighting in the NHL, fighters would actually make an impact and their fights would change the momentum of the game, now this is not the case. Also, in the past, fighters could actually play the game. Now, fighters take up roster spots that could be taken by goal scorers. All retired enforcers, or most at least, regret that they were fighters.3 retired enforcers died in the last 3-4 months due to fight related reasons.Hockey is the only professional sport that allows fighting.I don't expect my opponent to actually post something for round 3, so these are all of my arguments...

Fighting in Hockey Needs to Be Banned My opponent has forfeited. I win by default.

fighting should be banned from the NHL I guess this means I have won science you have forfeited. fighting in hockey should not be banned. that is my final answer. take it or leave it. (you better have taken it. or you better take it! :P )

fighting should be banned from the NHL noit shiuod not that is what majes most of the money for the nhl and i perwonaly think that it is very true (your point) but you know that some teen ager died from a slapshot to the neck so why not stip hockey alltogether? NEVER! besides i play hockey and its fun.

fighting should be banned from the NHL In discussing why the NHL had introduced a rule this season requiring players to keep their helmets on during fights, Healy explained the roots of the rule change trace back to the 2009 death of Don Sanderson, who suffered a head injury in a fight in senior hockey and never recovered. Healy: "Don Sanderson" hit his head on the ice, no helmet and he died. And if that happens in this game, the National Hockey League, fighting will be gone from the game." Simpson: "I guess you ask, Glenn, why does that (the death of a player) need to happen for that (the elimination of fighting) to happen?" It"s a great question. Whatever your position on fighting, it"s safe to assume that we can all agree that fighting to the death"even an accidental death"is an undesirable outcome. Right? We"re good with that? Death in hockey is bad.

fighting should be banned from the NHL do you think that fighting should be banned from the nhl? my answer: NOPE :-) what do you think ? if yes, WHY! HOW COULD YOU! whaaaa! ok whatever. just argue your point and good luck!

Hockey should change the rules to disallow body checking This is my first debate, but ill try my best. I agree to an extent but no i do not think that it should be taking out completely. Checking makes the game fun if done correctly. Hockey is a contact sport and should be treated as such. However we could take steps to make it safer. Such as better equipment. but to me, taking checking away would be like taking tackling away from football. It wouldn't feel the same.

Hockey should change the rules to disallow body checking From high school to college to the NHL, hockey always allows "Body checking." This is an action that involves a player colliding with an opposing player to stop his motion of going forward. This can lead to numerous injuries from players hitting one another or colliding with the surface of the ice that is just as hard as concrete. Body Contact does not mean "no contact." There will be legal body contact within the rules in Hockey. For example, lightly brushing by an opponent. These legal body contact shall not be penalized.

American Football Fighters The players should be allowed to fight because some teams bribe the referee to call stupid plays and make the other team win. To me thats not fair. So, yes the players should be allowed to fight on the field.

is hockey too violent Hokey is a game where you get smashed into walls and your supposed to be ok with that, to keep playing even though you know there was a guy that just floored you is just asking for a fight

International soccer matches should be settled by fights, not penalties. Contention 1: Public opinion My opponent first questions the survey I provide. I assure him and everyone else reading this debate that it exists and I read about it the Greek athletical newspaper "Ομάδα" (=Team) sometime last year in an article about referees some time in April or May. Then, he claims that his idea is ahead of its time. This is false, it was in the past when players would fight over a controversial goal, penalty etc, and that is why we have referees to avoid violence and rules are getting more and more strict against violence. On the contrary, in current days we are making and have made serious successful efforts to stop violence in soccer. Therefore, my opponent is wrong in believing that his idea is ahead of it's time, to the contrary it is behind (!). Contention 2: Violence My opponent continues to miss the point of the argument about bad examples and continues his irrelevant argument about violence being better than guns, which is true but COMPLETELY irrelevant. Not only that, his new argument includes the movie business, but this is even more irrelevant because the debate is about soccer and what a movie star that just happened to also have been a soccer player (while playing in a movie you are considered an actor) does, has nothing to do with soccer matches. In conclusion, my opponent once again fails to refute my argument that is therefore extended. Contention 3: Red Cards My opponent takes a boxing match as an example in a failed attempt to counter my argument. He fails to notice the reason why what he refers to happens: In boxing, you can't hit your opponent between rounds or after the end of the match (while still in the ring), simply because the game is not underway (paused or ended) and your opponent cannot defend himself. This example can not under any circumstance be compared with what I presented in this (3rd) contention. Contention 4: Grudges Personally, being a Manchester City fan (fierce rival of Man. United), I despise of both Rooney and Ronaldo, despite accepting their huge soccer talent. In spite of this my opponent basically strengthens my argument by showing exactly the kind of grudges can be devoted between fans and players (that of his own grudge against Ronaldo). Imagine what would English public opinion think about Portuguese if they had gained up on Rooney and injured him. Therefore just because you dislike someone doesn't mean you should hit him Contention 5: Penalties are thrilling My opponent says that managers could bring on players like Barton later on in the game when the match is heading towards a draw. He still fails to understand that Barton is a bad example. If Barton makes the team (even as a sub), this will motivate children to learn to be violent in order to play soccer that is currently the most popular sport in the word, therefore Millions will be motivated to become like Barton in order to play profession or armature and be good at an extra skill (violence). If this was allowed we would have accidents resulting to injuries and hate between players about hitting, while promoting violence in other parts of children's lives. I have already responded to the claim about this supposed heritage, still my opponent repeats it. If violence was in fact a heritage of soccer it wouldn't be rejected by the sport and banned by the rules! As for my opponent's claim about a supposed controlled situation, I would like to remind him about my example of the children in the schoolyard or in the neighbourhood pitch. In conclusion, my opponent failed to correctly refute many of my point (I extended my 2nd Contention twice!) and also failed to provide ANY contention or arguments of his own, because he failed to defend his Round 1 argument and only refuted my own points without notable success as I explain above. Therefore I urge negation. Thank you very much.

Legalize Fighting Would it really be legalizing murder? To an extent, yes. But is murder not already legal? The death penalty, the armed forces, police who are legally allowed to shoot first and ask questions later, those are all forms of murder. Fighting already happens, getting stabbed or shot in the midst of a fight or argument already happens, and people getting murdered because somebody did something stupid already happens. Legalizing fighting won't help or hurt the overall balance. Also, the passing of a new law or legalization of something always comes with a set of rules to regulate it. Rules could be made to ban the use of excessive force, or the use of weapons, or even that there must be witnesses at the time of the event to ensure that the fight is stopped and nobody is killed. It can be legalized and it should be legalized. Like marijuana, alcohol, or sex, just because it CAN be abused doesn't mean that everybody WILL abuse it. And for the government protection thing, the government does a lot more harm to its citizens than good. However, that's a debate for another time.

International soccer matches should be settled by fights, not penalties. With many thanks to my esteemed opponent for his considered response, I should like to rebut his rebuttals as follows: 1 - Public opinion Au contraire, my friend. People love violence. People used to pack the Coliseum and other amphitheatres during the Roman Empire to watch gladiators kick each other's heads in. Has public opinion really changed that much in a mere 2,000 years? Or is it just that political correctness has meant that extreme violence is perceived to be in some way undesirable in today's society? After all, when it all kicks off outside a nightclub at closing time and a couple of blokes who have failed to pull in the dash-for-gash start knocking seven shades of **** out of each other to relieve their frustration, do you tut disapprovingly and walk on by, muttering things like "I say, what disgraceful spectacle" and "utterly shocking behaviour, how perfectly ghastly" or do you stop and egg them on by shouting "aggro, aggro!" and maybe sticking your own boot in every now and again? 2 – It is true that soccer players are role models for school kids and that fighting on the pitch might encourage boys to imitate them in the playground. This is a good thing, however. Much better than bringing knives or guns to school, surely? 3 - Red Cards. Soccer as a sport should be allowed to evolve. In 1823, a pupil at Rugby school picked up the ball during a soccer match and ran off with it and the opposing team chased after him, caught him and kicked his head in and this is how the sport of rugby football started. http://www.rugbyfootballhistory.com... Similarly, when future international soccer matches end in a stalemate, wouldn't it be fun to see the game decided by means of a massive great punch up? 4 – Grudges You'd think that a huge scrap between players from the same club opposing each other in an international match would breed resentment between them, wouldn't you? I thought that Rooney would have kept his promise to split his Manchester United teammate Ronaldo in two when they returned to the club after the summer, but he didn't. He should have, but he didn't. 5 – Penalties are thrilling True, they are thrilling, but also nerve-wracking because of the uncertainty, which can be dangerous for fans with high blood pressure. Settling the matter by means of unmitigated violence would also mean that professional footballers such as Newcastle United's Joey Barton might get a place in the England squad. http://news.bbc.co.uk... http://uk.youtube.com... Soccer has a proud heritage of violence – football and hooliganism go together like salt and pepper – it's an integral part of the game and people that don't want to see violence can always watch cricket instead.

Boxing is a very dangerous sport. Every year both amateur and professional boxers die in matches. Boxers know the risks of their sport and choose freely to fight. They are also well-paid for the dangers of fighting. We have to allow people to make their own decisions in life. The government should not ban something adults choose to do unless it clearly affects other people. In boxing, it is the boxer who takes the risk and who will pay the price, no one else. Other sports are also dangerous, for example horse-riding, skiing or parachuting - should we ban those too?

Students should be able to defend themselves against bullies Well there is a fine line between standing up for yourself, and being a jerk who will attack anyone for any small thing. Let's say a student is constantly getting harassed by another student. If that student were to punch the bully, more than likely the bully will leave the student alone. Especially in high school, telling a teacher or a parent doesn't always work. If this is happens, and there's nothing else to stop the bullying except fighting back, then the child could get depressed. This depression could lead to suicide. Fighting back against the bully could stop this from happening, or help get the depressed victim's life become better. Not only that, but if the bully learns from this, the less chance he'll be like this as an adult.

BIRT This house will ban Combat Sports Lets talk about boxing since it is the most well known combat sport: All sports have the potential of becoming about much more than athletics, transforming into symbols of a culture’s and country’s mood, insecurities, conflicts, and hopes. But perhaps no sport lends itself to this kind of transposition more than boxing. For the purity of boxing gives it the nature of a blank canvas; there is no playing field or special equipment; the rules are few and easy to understand. There is but two men, facing off with nowhere to go, with only their fists and their determination to decide their fate. Thus boxing easily becomes a metaphor for debates over our values: good vs. evil, immigrant vs. nativist, bravado vs. humility, intellect vs brute strength.This connection to cultural ideals and masculinity has given boxing quite a history. At times when society felt its manliness to be on the wane, boxing was wildly popular and seen as the iron needed to fortify a unstable culture. All of which makes for a fascinating history and a subject every man should know something about.In the golden age of boxing, many great boxers, such Muhammad Ali in this example, fought in the ring. This image represents boxing at it's finest. http://content.artofmanliness.com...; width="500" height="428" />Final remarks: in the ancient Roman Colosseum, thousands of citizens watched eagerly as gladiators fought and lost their lives in front of a screaming, raging crowd. Today, we use our TV to broadcast our combat sports. Don't let this age old cultural tradition be thrown away. REBUTTAL: 1.) Kids aren't watching boxing on the TV; that would be absurd for their parents to let them to. The mass majority of Americans are rational beings, and wouldn't expose their kids to such violence. 2.) It is not the boxing on TV which makes people want to hurt store owners (or anyone else for that matter). Any rational person knows that if they hit a person in public they will get prison time or lose money , no rational person would want that to happen. 3.) My opponent hasn't actually provided any studies, his arguments are just unwarranted claims. 4.) Here is a study which shows that the crime in the U.S. isn't caused by mass media violence viewed on TV. The authors write: "The literature on the effect of exposure to media violence (including exposure toviolent pornography) on aggressive behavior is critically reviewed. Evidence andtheoretical arguments regarding short-term and long-term effects are discussed..... Exposure to violence in laboratory and fieldexperiments is as likely to affect nonaggressive antisocial behavior as it doesaggressive behavior .... The fact that violent criminals tend to be versatile—theycommit nonviolent crimes as well—is inconsistent with explanations that emphasizeproviolence socialization (from the media or other sources). I conclude thatexposure to television violence probably does have a small effect on violent behaviorfor some viewers, possibly because the media directs viewer’s attention tonovel forms of violent behavior that they would not otherwise consider. [2] This means that the behavior effect from violence is not only unlikely, but is only the case from some viewers, and is only true because a form of violence is revealed to them which they didn't prviously know. The violence isn't caused by repetitive watching of violent sports, it's caused by viewers being revealed to a new form of violence(and even this only has a small impact on the subject's behavior). 5.) Even if kids were watching violent sports, they would realize as they get older that that violence is pointless and meaningless, and would not incorporate it into their behaviors. For these reasons, I urge you to vote for the negative, to preverse the ancient cultural tradition of boxing and other combat sports. Thank you. [1] http://www.badlefthook.com...[2]http://www2.warwick.ac.uk...

Boxing Should be allowed as a School Sport Boxing should be taught as an extra curricular activity in schools. Boxing is good for you. You cannot box without getting fit just like you cannot swim without getting wet. That being said, having boxing in schools will help today's youth get in shape, as well as stay in shape. Nothing gets your blood pumping quite like boxing. Boxing is also a sport you must commit to. It is not a sport you can play with emotion. You must prepare yourself mentally and physically for the task ahead. Mentally boxing teaches you control and makes you calmer. It demands respect, for yourself and others. Most people see the athletes as wild, crazy men and women; and while boxing may attract those of that nature, it transforms them into calm and collected athletes. It teaches them discipline. Boxing changes a man. So if they allowed boxing in schools, then maybe it would teach today's youth what many of them are missing, respect. Boxing also teaches self defense. It would also end a fair share of bullying. If a bully knows that the person they are trying to pick on can fight, chances are they won't risk the embarrassment. As well as someone who is in boxing would not attempt to be the bully because they've learned the control and respect that was said earlier in the argument. Boxers don't see themselves as a force to be used outside of the ring. They see themselves as athletes. They realize what they are capable of and why they need to keep that inside the ring.

Boxing should not be banned. Boxing is a violent sport, but violence isn't going anywhere. Research shows that people are attracted to violence. The sport has been around since almost 700 years before Christ. https://howtheyplay.com... People who get into boxing are typically from hard-knock neighborhoods where they would have to use their fists in the street to protect themselves. Boxing provides an outlet for people with aggressive feelings. Rather than use their fists against other people when getting upset, boxing allows people to work out their violent energy in a constructive and structured way. Men in particular are likely to feel aggressive sometimes due to testosterone. It is our natural instinct, and boxing allows for men (and women) to decompress therapeutically through this mental and physical workout. http://www.scientificamerican.com... Another thing is that boxing requires a lot of mental focus and discipline. While some boxers are aggressive outside of the ring, many others have the strict discipline to channel their instincts and wait until they are in the ring. http://breakingmuscle.com... Nobody calls for horse racing to be banned, even though that sport hurts and kills people every year. https://www.theguardian.com... Boxing is not just "barbaric" but strategic. It takes a lot of skill and mental knowledge to succeed. http://www.cnn.com... People who get into boxing know and accept the risks. Obviously getting punched repeatedly can be harmful, but if people accept the possible consequences, it is their decision to put themselves in danger the same way people can choose to smoke cigarettes. Far more people have died from cigarettes and alcohol than boxing but we do not ban those things. We have the freedom to put ourselves in danger. Boxing also takes measures to protect the athletes. Some call for extra padding in the rings. You could also make sure trainers know how to run a safe gym, and know when to throw in the towel at the right time. http://cdnc.ucr.edu... And there are increased regulations to prevent cheating on weight, etc. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Some "rebel neurobiologists" argue that with regulations, boxing can be safe or not as bad as people make it out to be. http://www.nytimes.com... People have the freedom to engage in whatever sports they want. Many people are very passionate about the sport. If you don't like boxing you don't have to box or watch boxing. I've already explained that boxing is a physical outlet. Boxing is also a mental outlet that makes people feel better when they are weak or bullied. It gives them mental toughness and confidence. http://www.southvalleyjournal.com... Boxing offers a home "to the downtrodden and dejected." It is the sport of the lower and middle class. "In the 20s and 30s, the sport was a haven for tough Jews from the slums of New York... Likewise, the ring has been a home to America"s downtrodden blacks ever since Jack Johnson became the first black heavyweight champion of the world in 1908." http://www.floboxing.tv... You need to be in great physical shape to box, so it encourages fitness. People use boxing to learn confidence, discipline and self-defense. It's better to take out aggression inside the ring than outside the ring. It gives people opportunity and hope, plus keeps them off the street. Boxing is not the only violent or dangerous sport, and the purpose of boxing isn't to injure your opponent but to score points. Injury is part of the game, but efforts are being taken to promote safety. Boxers have used their fame, money and platform for good. http://www.floboxing.tv... Violence and boxing are here to stay regardless of law. At least let boxing be used for good and try to regulate it to promote safety, rather than have a free-for-all "Fight Club" type scene.

Boxing Should be allowed as a School Sport Will it promote a "beat the crap out of everyone" lifestyle? A fighter can only excel in the sport with proper discipline and respect for themselves and others. May I ask for a reliable source for the 52.2% statistic you brought up? Just because someone knows how to fight, doesn't mean they walk around fighting everyone. Nature vs nurture. Your life and the way you treat others is completely dependent upon your upbringing and your lifestyle. Lately we have seen several football players involved in violent crimes including domestic violence, child abuse, and even murder. But we don't associate this violent behavior in correlation with the sport of football. So if we don't blame football for those violent crimes, why would we blame boxing? Maybe we should take football out of schools as well. Maybe we should take basketball as well since Kobe Bryant was accused of rape. What I'm saying is, the violent behavior of some, doesn't mean we should take the opportunities given in boxing away from today's youth. Child abuse, domestic violence, and even molestation are not brought upon because of boxing. That stuff all happens outside the ring, by people who have never fought a day in their life. It is brought on by the way you are raised, and your own mental state. You cannot blame a controlled sport for the act of people all around the world. With all this being said I thank you for having this debate with me over the past few days. I do believe boxing should be allowed for today's youth as an extra curricular activity in today's schools. It teaches discipline and control, and it allows students to create a closer bond that they could not get anywhere else.

This house would ban boxing Boxing is a type of sport, which main and basic aim is to bring physical injury to the opponent and to lead him to knockout. The sportsmen are taught from the very childhood to think and follow this way. Boxing is not just about keeping sport lifestyle, getting adrenalin, but about referring to the most violent human essence. Boxers participate in hundreds fights during their career, initially pursuing the target to hurt another person in order to get reward, that is exactly what differs it from other dangerous and severe sports. It is absolutely controversial to the principals of the modern society, which we live in. Moreover, it is barbarism and, no doubt, offense to the human dignity. The Australian Medical Association, which together with the British, American and Canadian colleagues since the 80-s of the previous century, actively conducts the campaign against boxing, identifying it, as "a public demonstration of interpersonal violence which is unique among sporting activities." Boxing teaches children and teenagers to harm the peers. It has no right to occur in the modern society.

BIRT This house will ban Combat Sports Thank you for joining the debate. I would now like to take the time to present my first point, Desensitization.believe that if we have violence on TV then that will lead to even more violence. People thought that watching violence on TV would get violence out of their systems but there have been many studies that show that watching violence on TV and being around violence will lead to even more violence. People will slowly start to think that fighting is ok and start fighting other people or letting their children watch and this will go on and on if we don"t abolish all combat sports. look at the world we live in there are stories every day about people fighting and going to the hospital because of injuries or even worse death. If you watch something over and over again than your brain starts to think that it is ok and if people watch violence than their brain starts to think that they do whatever they want and people will start fighting everywhere and this will lead to more injuries, death and people will steal more because they think that they can now knock out a store owner and that would leave a store unsupervised. If we ban All combat sports than Most of this fighting will go away, If people do not see people fighting on TV than they will stop because the main reason they are fighting is because of watching it on TV. There have been studies were if a crowd of people do something than the test subject will do the same, so if we ban all combat sports than people will stop fighting because they won"t see people on TV fighting.

Legalize Fighting Welcome, I negate the resolution that fighting of all sorts should be legalized as long as there are no mental impairments. 1. That's essentially legalizing murder. How you ask? For instance folks may not know when to stop. The fighting could include guns (as you said "all forms of human on human fighting should be legal") 2. People are stupid, as in other aspects of life, without government protection, some people would falter. 3. You may not know what your getting yourself into: A fight happens, one man is losing so he pulls out a concealed gun, boom dead. I await my opponents response.

Boxing Should be allowed as a School Sport Boxing teaches discipline. It would teach kids to remain humble. But you stated the bullies will be able to box their opponents, and this is where you are wrong. The student who have a problem with each other will not get the chance to box each other. The closest they will get it a sparring session which are heavily controlled and safe. There is no better bond you can form with someone than when you are preparing another for a fight. So the people you have a chance to spar with will actually become some of your closest friends. You make the statement of "The students getting bullied would have no chance at defending themselves from it" as it the bully will always be a stronger force. But like I said, if the bully is not a boxer, and the victim is, chances are the bully won't risk the embarrassment of possibly getting beat if the victim chooses to retaliate. But vise-versa, if the bully is the boxer and the victim isn't I mentioned how boxing does teach respect. As a fighter myself, we do not see ourselves as a force. We know what it's like to have someone stronger and better trained go against us, and that makes us humble. We would never put someone in the situation of making them feel weak. But the possibility of that happening is still there. But just like any school sport, there would be penalties to such action. Maybe if one of the boxers does become a bully, he is done for the season. That would motivate the athletes to not bully, or get in trouble at all.

Boxing should be banned I will protect my position by defending the debate topic. Definition of boxing: Boxing, the physical skill of fighting with fists, originated as a sport around 800BC.[1] It is a sport of antiquity that has had a troubled and contentious livelihood. The modern day sport has developed from rules and standards established since this time; with two participation forms: professional and amateur. Each has its own rules, although for both forms of boxing, a win is achieved by scoring more points than an opponent by delivering more blows to the designated scoring regions of the body (trunk and head), or by an opponent being unable to complete a bout.4 When first started, this sport was designed as entertainment for aristocrats who enjoyed watching two people "slug it out" to the death.[2] That history has continued into the present day sport which is a largely entertainment based activity, with millions of dollars of investment at the highest of levels. The potential dangers of the sport are a double-edged sword - they create both the entertainment aspect that makes boxing popular, but also run the risk of ending the sport altogether. In the 20th Century, approximately 1000 boxers died in the ring, or shortly afterwards.[3] The youngest death was in a 12-year old participant. In the first decade of this 21st Century, an additional 68 participants have died as a result of their participation in boxing. Such deaths are more common in professional boxing, but deaths in amateur boxing have also been reported. Thousands more boxers have suffered permanent disfigurement, detached retinas in their eyes and various neurological complaints. Unfortunately for the sport, the most well-recognised and revered of all of its participants - Mohammed Ali - is now seen shuffling and mumbling as a result of Parkinson"s Disease which many incorrectly contribute to his boxing career. While neurological conditions (including chronic traumatic encephalopathy - which has almost exactly the same symptoms and signs as seen with Parkinson"s Disease) have been reported at high rates in former boxers, Ali is not one of its victims. Despite a tightening of safety regulations, neurological and non-neurological injuries have continued with this sport[4]. Most medical associations have policies against boxing, including the World Medical Association and the national bodies of the USA, Britain and Australia. Although the tightness of regulations upon boxing varies from country to country, and from state to state within countries, only a handful of countries have any kind of ban in place. Sweden is one country that bans professional boxing, although amateur boxing remains an Olympic sport. As safety concerns over boxing have grown, high schools in most western countries have stopped offering it as a sport. Yet overall enthusiasm for boxing is at an all-time high; television audiences are up and record numbers of youngsters across the world are joining boxing clubs. In Britain the young Olympic silver medallist Amir Khan, who turned professional in 2005 and quickly won the title of World super lightweight champion, is a popular hero and role model. In a number of western countries where amateur boxing was losing popularity, especially the United States, interest has been renewed in the past ten years by the rise of women"s boxing and by white-collar boxing for office workers in their lunch-breaks. On the other hand, the large number of organisations claiming to be world bodies for boxing (e.g. WBA, WBO, IBF, etc), each with their own world champions, has damaged the credibility of the sport. Many people have also disliked the sight of aging former champions coming out of retirement in their forties or later, tempted by one last big purse. Reasons: Boxing is a barbaric sport, and it shouldn't be allowed in the 21st century.The British Medical Association has repeatedly called for a ban on boxing or a removal of the head from the permitted target areas. The body of medical evidence is growing that suggests even if a boxer survives individual bouts relatively unmarked, the cumulative effect of a career in boxing can lead to a greater susceptibility to chronic neurological injury. A doctor who has studied the effect of boxing on Parkinson"s specifically says that boxing causes unnecessary harm. He writes, "Unlike most degenerative neurologic diseases, this disorder can be prevented."[1] Although the incidence of injury is much higher in sports such as basketball, rugby or riding, the risk of serious injury in boxing is far greater. That risk is so great that boxing should be banned. A ban, quite simply, would mean fewer people dead, injured or permanently brain damaged. Conclusion: the statements above prove the topic in how it should be banned.

Legalize Fighting My position is that, as long as it is consentual and the persons involved are not impaired (by drugs, alcohol, or some form of mental handicap) when making the decision, all forms of human on human fighting should be legal.

This house would ban boxing Let"s imagine that boxing is band. Do not you think that it will lead to a big trouble? I strongly believe that A ban would not remove boxing from society; it would only drive it underground, creating a much more dangerous culture around the sport. Throughout history we have seen that placing blanket bans on things (alcohol, cigarettes, illicit drugs, cockfighting, etc) do not work. People will still find a way to do what they want and when you remove the ability to regulate something by ignoring its existence, you have the potential to create more problems. There is certainly the potential that such is the popularity of and desire to see boxing that a ban would just drive it underground, where fights would be unregulated and unsupervised by qualified medics. Crowd trouble can also be a problem at boxing venues, and unless the proper security arrangements are made, many people could be hurt. The safety of boxers and fans should be paramount and therefore to minimize the risk of injuries to all it should remain legal but regulated. One of the reasons for such popularity of the sport in recent years is the increasing use of boxing training as a fitness approach in gyms and other training venues. There is such an acknowledgement of the effectiveness of boxing training as a training approach that banning boxing clubs will make it difficult for people who are doing legitimate training to do so."

Boxing Bans Some people may think that boxing should be outlawed because it is too dangerous. For example, they argue that the main objective in the game is a knockout, and you are purposely injuring your opponent. While they argue that boxing includes a great risk of head trauma, this is only because many professional boxers suffer from it. However, this claim is invalid because there is no goal to hurt your opponent. In boxing you score points by hitting the designated spots on the body, not just trying to knock somebody out. Also, in football the goal is to tackle others, even sometimes injuring them, and yet football is not banned. While people argue that the sport should be outlawed because of its danger, boxing has no goal of hurting anybody.

Boxing is unlike any other sport. The aim of boxing is to hurt the other man. Boxing is unlike any other sport. The aim of boxing is to hurt the other man, and above all to knock him out. The sport appeals to the worst and most violent parts of human nature. Such a savage sport has no place in modern society. We should not let men do this to each other. We should not offer money to encourage them to fight. We should also ban it as a form of public entertainment.

Boxing Should be allowed as a School Sport Boxing will not only affect kids in school, but also for the rest of their lives. It will promote a,"beat the crap out of everyone"lifestyle. It will make kids first reaction to get angry and fight, so what happens when they marry and get a little angry? Child abuse, wife abuse, and even molestation can occur. It was proven in studies that people who box are 52.2% More likely to abuse their wives and children than people who dont box. It is a bad idea to have boxing in schools.

Other sports have changed rules to make game safer. Dr. David Geier. "Should MLB ban home plate collisions?" May 30, 2011: "changing rules about trying to score on fly balls would not fundamentally change the game. It would eliminate the collision, not the ability to score on fly balls. It would affect a small component of baseball to make it safer. Eliminating fighting in hockey or tackling in football are not equal comparisons, as some have argued. Eliminating chop blocks in football or body checking from behind in hockey are much better comparisons. They are evolutions of the rules in these sports to protect their players while still maintaining the integrity and nature of the sports."

As a first step, professional boxing at least should be banned. As a first step, professional boxing at least should be banned, as it is already in countries like Sweden, Cuba and North Korea. Even if adults wish to fight each other for sport, violence should not be encouraged by financial reward. The amateur sport is at least much better regulated, with credible governing bodies and tough rules on wearing helmets, the length of fights, the role of the referee, etc. Knock-outs are very rare and serious injuries much less common than in the professional game (although there are still deaths each year in amateur boxing).

Dog fighting should be aloud Thank you for the debate. According to animal laws, there should be a humane treatment of animals, and that is why dog fighting should not be allowed. As a sophisticated society, we Americans do not force other creatures to harm themselves for profit entertainment. We kill them from nessecity, not barbaristic fun. http://www.americanhumane.org...

Soccer is a better sport than Hockey I will save my rebuttals for the last round Argument #1: Many forms of Hockey Hockey is a family of sports, meaning there are several forms of the game, making hockey a much-better suited game to everyone. Have disabilities in your legs but love hockey? Then play sledge hockey! Don't want to move around much but still play a version of hockey? Then play air hockey! Don't have a rink? Play field hockey! Too cold/hot to play hockey outdoors? Get a net in your basement,some hockey sticks and a ball, invite a friend over and GAME ON!!! There are many more types of Hockey then soccer, allowing everyone to pick their preferred version while soccer is just two nets and a ball. Argument #2: HOCKEY FIGHTS!!! Some people come to see hockey games and enjoy the sport, others want to see blood on the ice and some want both! The penalty is small (To be exact 5 minutes) and the punishment will be increased if serious injuries happen. Saying that these fights are dangerous is untrue most of the time and serious injuries are rare. Ice fights are viewed by many as a tradition, getting to the point that Ice fights are included and detailed in hockey themed games like the EA NHL series where the game allows the player to throw and block certain shots, eventually causing there to be a winner and a loser of a fight WITHOUT a simulation. The popularity of fights have even ushered in videos just about hockey fights, like this! I could give more, but I got to do some chores Thanks and I await your response!

International soccer matches should be settled by fights, not penalties. However, my opponent is clearly an adept debater and is using his formidable powers of persuasion to appeal to your sense of propriety. Don't be fooled, though, he is trying to convince you that post-match violence is actually undesirable in some way, when, in reality it would be fair and fun. Let's be clear, fighting is a far better way to settle a game than penalties and I will rebut his rebuttals to demonstrate this as follows: 1 – Public Opinion My opponent referred to a survey (though did not name it or provide a link), which suggested that public opinion might be against extra-time tussles. It may be true that my idea is ahead of its time but I believe that if FIFA introduced a pilot scheme to test the fans' reaction to my proposal, the response would be favourable. Why? Because you get to watch a soccer match and, should it end in a stalemate, you get the bonus of a big dust-up between the players afterwards. I also dispute that people that enjoy violence should go to watch wrestling – that's all scripted and choreographed – it's not real fighting. If you want to watch real, hardcore violence, you are better off hanging around outside the pubs in southeast London at closing time on a Friday night (come wearing body armour by the way). 2 – Violence It is true that soccer players do not directly promote the use of weapons, perhaps in the same way as gangster rappers or the NRA do, but some players such as former Wimbledon hardman, Vinnie Jones, have promoted guns through glamorising them in films such as Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. . http://www.imdb.com... Nevertheless, I still contend that boys will want to emulate their footballing heroes in the playground by engaging in conventional fights rather than relying on a weapon to do their violent bidding for them. 3 – Red Cards I disagree that to red card a player for violent conduct during normal and extra time but to allow it in the period immediately following would be in any way contradictory. Take a boxing match. During the round, the opponents are expected to knock seven bells out of each other, but at the end of the round they must stop fighting and return to their respective corners – any boxer that punched his opponent's lights out after the bell had gone would not be awarded points, he would receive a warning. 4 – Grudges My opponent used Christiano Ronaldo as an example of a player who took a hissy fit like a petulant little girl after his confrontation with Rooney, even though it was him that started it and it was Rooney that got sent off as a result. Fortunately, however, most players are not total, unmitigated scum like Ronaldo and will accept that the post-match fight is just part of the game and shake hands afterwards. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Ronaldo, by the way, he has a website dedicated to him: . http://www.freewebs.com... 5 – Penalties are thrilling. I wouldn't suggest starting Barton, rather keep him on the bench and bring him on as a sub if it looks like the game is going to end in a draw. Remember, the fights will only take place on those rare occasions where the match is all-square, even after extra time is played, so the manager will still be inclined to pick players rather than fighters for the starting line-up. My opponent mentioned that soccer violence is currently frowned upon and is punished both on the pitch and in the crowd. True, but what I am saying is that football is a physical game and it arouses a great deal of passion amongst both the players and supporters and violence is in the spirit, heritage, culture and tradition of the sport. I say it's time the rules were revised to accommodate that in a controlled environment.

International soccer matches should be settled by fights, not penalties. Contention 1: Public opinion I agree with my opponent that people usually tend to enjoy violence. Despite this, he ignores that 70% of soccer fans are happy with the way the sport is played, 15% disagree with the referee system and 5% disagree with other issues (1.000 people of different nationalities were questioned for this poll), this proves that very few fans support the resolution and therefore the negative is the one that has public opinion on it's side. I will repeat that if people want to see violence they can go to a wrestling match and if they want to see soccer they can go to a soccer match. Contention 2: Violence My opponent agrees with my point. He also states that children would in fact be encouraged to have fights in the playground I also agree. Finally he says that this is better than knifes and guns (???); this is irrelevant because soccer as we know it today does not promote gun usage etc, neither will gun usage nor knifes be limited because violence will be promoted, although the opposite is possible. Contention 3: Red Cards. My opponent says that we should let the sport evolve. His point is completely irrelevant to my contention that in a nutshell states that it would be hypocritical to ban players (red cards) who are violent and on the other hand give the win to the most violent team. Despite this, I will answer to his supposed counter argument. - I agree we should let the sport evolve, but we should let it evolve positively and promoting violence, going against public opinion and creating grudges between players is NOT positive. Contention 4: Grudges My opponent gives an example in failed attempt to counter my contention. I think we all remember what huge trouble the word cup incident caused to Manchester United, Ronaldo came close to leaving the club! All this turbulance occurred without there being an actual fight, we can imagine what would have happened to United and any other club in a similar position, if there was a fight. Contention 5: Penalties are thrilling My opponent starts by saying that penalties, effect fans with high blood pressure. In addition to this being a weak counter argument, I believe that a fight wouldn't really change the situation. He continues by saying that players like Joey Barton would be on the England squad. This is definitely not a good thing, one of the latest comments on the YouTube link my opponent provides is that Joey Barton is a bad example, I agree to this. Remember that the England national team is a SOCCER team and should have players who play SOCCER not people who fight, this is yet another problem of the affirmative, soccer would lose meaning, since clubs would hire fighters rather than football players. "Soccer has a proud heritage of violence – football and hooliganism go together like salt and pepper – it's an integral part of the game and people that don't want to see violence can always watch cricket instead." - False, violence is NOT part of the game itself, because violent players and teams whose fans are violent are punished by the rules. As for hooliganism, it is definitely a bad thing and serious measures to stop it have been made. Those responsible for the game (FIFA) and tournaments, as well as the game itself object to violence. Therefore violence is not part of the game, to the contrary it something the game objects to.

Boxing should not be banned. The structure of your argument is very inefficient. "Another thing is that boxing requires a lot of mental focus and discipline. While some boxers are aggressive outside of the ring, many others have the strict discipline to channel their instincts and wait until they are in the ring," "Boxing provides an outlet for people with aggressive feelings. Rather than use their fists against other people when getting upset, boxing allows people to work out their violent energy in a constructive and structured way.Men in particular are likely to feel aggressive sometimes due to testosterone. It is our natural instinct, and boxing allows for men (and women) to decompress therapeutically through this mental and physical workout." I've already explained that boxing is a physical outlet. Boxing is also a mental outlet that makes people feel better when they are weak or bullied. It gives them mental toughness and confidence." You have repeated an argument several times. This is because you have sorted your points by different sources, rather than by your arguments."Boxing provides an outlet for people with aggressive feelings. Rather than use their fists against other people when getting upset, boxing allows people to work out their violent energy in a constructive and structured way."There is something called a punching bag, if you don't know what that is look at these images: https://www.google.nl... "People who get into boxing are typically from hard-knock neighborhoods where they would have to use their fists in the street to protect themselves."Again, punching bags! The site http://www.scientificamerican.com...... doesn't provide any proof of your arguments. It just talks about not being aware of testosterone. the site you used https://howtheyplay.com...... provides arguments against you."People who get into boxing know and accept the risks. Obviously getting punched repeatedly can be harmful, but if people accept the possible consequences, it is their decision to put themselves in danger the same way people can choose to smoke cigarettes. Far more people have died from cigarettes and alcohol than boxing but we do not ban those things. We have the freedom to put ourselves in danger."Smoking is irrelevant because it is addictive. It has a short-term adrenaline buzz that will make you want more. "Cigarette makers know that nicotine addiction helps sell their products." according to http://betobaccofree.hhs.gov...;

Hockey is better than soccer Anyways, since you provided no arguments and no structure, I will just do a few arguments this round. On to debating! (ARGUMENTS) (1) Imagine that you were playing hockey, and you were skating up with the puck, when you get hit. Hard. You black out and wake up in the hospital, your career in Hockey over. The point I am making is that hockey is way too physical, which leads to many injuries. You are allowed to aggressively shove, slash and hit people in hockey with little to no penalty. You can get into a fight where you are only broken up after the fight occurs. Injuries come. A lot. I will post a few videos in this argument, so if you are squirmish, maybe don’t watch them. This first video shows a hit from Boston Bruins forward Zdeno Chara on Max Pacioretty of the Montreal Canadiens. Pacioretty goes down, In a lot of pain, with a concussion. This second one shows one of the all-time best hockey players get a concussion, which turned out to affect crosby for over half of a year {1} Last, but most likely the worst, was this: Imagine you are Steve Moore. He was your average hockey player. Then, one game, against Vancouver, his whole career ended. Todd Bertuzzi comes up to him and wants a fight. Steve Moore says no. A few minutes later, Bertuzzi comes up to Moore, grabs his jersey, viciously punches Moore in the face then shoves onto the cold, hard ice. As a result, Moore was knocked out cold for around 11 minutes. He got three fractured vertebrae and a very major concussion. His passion, career, and love for hockey was done. Over. This is all a result of the violent nature of hockey. Now this is just concussions/injuries from hits/on ice not fight stuff, but what about from fights? . http://www.nhl.com... In this video you will see he gets into a Soccer is not nearly as brutal as Hockey, while yes, I will not deny that there are injuries in Soccer, the severity of injuries and the amount of injuries are much higher in Hockey. Thanks DDD (REFERENCES) {1} . http://www.nhl.com...

is hockey too violent hockey is not too violent

This house would ban boxing Well, I agree that Boxing is a rather harmful. But it should not be banned; some changes in rules can be done. The World Health Organization has called for tighter regulation, including Simple rules, such as requiring medical clearance, national passports to prevent boxers from fighting under more than one name, restricting fights for fixed periods after knockouts, requiring that ringside physicians be paid by the state and not the promoter, and making sure that the boxers are aware of the potential long-term consequence of boxing may help protect boxers to some degree.(Friedman, n.d.) "The Australian Medical Association additionally recommends that media coverage of boxing should be subject to control codes similar to those which apply to television screening of violence. Finally, the World Medical Association suggests that all matches should have a ring physician authorized to stop the fight at any time. About 80% of deaths are caused by head, brain, and neck injuries, so the removal of the head as a scoring region may make a huge difference to the injury outcomes for this sport. That is why, of course, some reforms will prevent sad consequences.

Boxing Should Be Banned Boxing makes violence look cool.

Boxing should be allowed in Prisons Thank you for accepting my argument. My opponent here is generalizing a bit but actually, there has been multiple prisons wherein they introduced boxing arenas and well, violence and aggression have decreased as well as convicts were more calmer. It reduced prison fights because, the inmates would meet each other up at an arena and spar or fight and it also increased sportsmanship among the prisoners. http://www.youtube.com... Go watch and pause at 0:59 and this video has information about the argument. In Cereso Mexico, the prison over there has not seen violence in one decade ever since they introduced boxing. Yet, where is the negativity you say? The inmates are having it good and their is also a spa included. If we introduced Boxing for an activity at a prison, there would be o or lesser violence at all because the inmates don't have to get butthurt at the food court and yet, they could just meet up and release their anger. So yeah, there is a lot of good coming out of it.

children should be allowed to box in school. If they are allowed to play rugby in school then why are they not allowed to box? If they don't want to then they could just say.

children should be allowed to box in school. If you look at the sport of Boxing there are a variety of techniques and strategies that can not only lower the time of your career but even your lifespan. The ban is justifiable by the fact that when you are in school your brain is still developing and any type of damage to the head could very well cause severe problems in your school life such as losing memory due to a blow to the head causing lower grades etc...

Boxing and Football IT SHOULD BE BANNED. IT should be banned because it causes problems to the brain that impacts the fighters/players for the rest of their lives.

Hockey should be America's past time. I believe Hockey should be America's past time for many reasons. 1: It takes a significant amount of balance and coordinating to skate on ice while controlling a stick and puck and also be run into. 2: Hockey is the most physical sport besides sports like boxing. It gives the viewer entertainment because fighting seems to be a big joy to watch for citizens o the U.S.A. Particularly men. 3: Hockey is, in my opinion, the most enjoyable sport.

children should be allowed to box in school. sorry I forgot to outline the rounds and i meant boxing in general (gym and after school). I feel it is wrong to allow them to play rugby which you sprint at other people and slam into them but ban boxing. you can get hurt much more in rugby with broken bones and being trodden on by studded boots and people see that as fine but with boxing if you control the power of your punch and where proper protection it should be reasonably safe. I understand that there is a degree of risk in every sport.

Dog fighting should be aloud Dog fighting should be aloud. dogs fight in the wild all the time. why shouldn't people be able to enjoy that.

There is no reason to think that if boxing was banned it would continue “underground”. Making boxing illegal would just drive it “underground”. It would still go on, in remote barns and cellars, because men would still want to fight and others would still be prepared to pay to see them. Banning drugs or underage drinking hasn’t stopped people from doing those things. Once boxing is underground, it cannot be regulated and fights will become much more dangerous. Bare fists may be used rather than gloves, fights may go on until one boxer is knocked out, and there will be no medical support when injuries do come about. Boxing is much safer when it is legal but regulated.

Boxing Should Be Banned Boxing is unlike any other sport. The aim of boxing is to hurt the other man.

Boxing is unlike any other sport. The aim of boxing is to hurt the other man. With running, boxing is the purest form of sport. All sport is about testing the human body and reactions against others. Boxing does this in the most simple and direct way possible. There is no point trying to deny our human nature - man is an aggressive animal and sports provide a safe outlet for that aggression. Contact sports such as rugby, American Football or Ice Hockey can also be brutal. Society was much less violent sixty or seventy years ago when children were often taught to box at school. That way they learned to control their aggression and to keep violence for the ring.

Dog fighting should be aloud Thank you for the debate. 1. "Dogs fight in the wild."- They fight in the wild to survive. Domesticated animals do not need to fight for "fun". Dog fights are held until one 'submits', which is usually death. 2. MMA has no relation to why dog fighting should be allowed. 3. "(Rules) insure 'ensure' the saftey of the dogs..." No, they don't. 4. "If they don't want to fight they don't have to." Dogs don't reatain the mental capacity to choose whether or not to fight.

Boxing makes violence look cool. Boxing isn’t just about a few minutes of violent activity. It is also about thousands of hours of hard training and self-discipline - that’s not a bad message to send to young people. Sports such as pro-wrestling, where violence is staged like a show are much more dangerous. At least in boxing it is obvious that getting hit hurts and does lasting damage. In any case, most boxing is on television too late at night to have much effect on young children.

MMA is Human Cock Fighting Blood is not always a factor. True, some fighters go out of their way to cause mayhem, but the majority are there to display their courage, and overcome the challenge of an opponent's skill-base. Furthermore, the principles governing MMA were present in the ancient Greek Olympics in the form of Pankration, and were also employed in the Japanese martial society to determine who had a better grasp of the human body and it's limitations. Anyone who has participated in any combative self-defence system will acknowledge the difficulty in handling an aggressive opponent, and can appreciate the discipline, control and training required to defend oneself from an attacker.

Fights to the death similar to those once held in the Colloseum in Rome should be allowed "Allowing fights to the death is simply ridiculous. There are laws against murder for a reason." Yes, the laws are for the good of society. I have put forward an argument to show that this would be for the good of society. "With the allowance of "human cock fighting" it would open a gateway to other possible crimes being illegal as long as they are in a setting of "sportsmanship". Like what? Who can take the most heroin? Who can rob the most houses? What I have proposed would actually serve a purpose to society. "Humans are humans regardless of social status. Putting them in cages with swords and armor with a cash prize is completely unethical. This type of behavior would be illegal on the streets so what would the difference be when set in an arena?" There will always be murderers in this world. Would it not be better to have them kill each other for our entertainment than to have them roaming the streets killing innocent people? "Your suggested scenario is based on a world with no laws, a blood thirsty population who would pay to see people die, and sponsors to promote such violence." I am arguing that the law should allow it, so obviously there is law. Your example of UFC supports the idea that we are a blood thirsty population. I have put forward an argument for why this would be for the good of society. It still stands.

children should be allowed to box in school. As a 16 year old boxer myself i can agree that their are ways to stay protected however the sport is not for everybody and it definitely shouldnt be forced onto somebody who isn't able to do it (The gym class scenario). You make a good point when you say that rugby is more dangerous: However, that is a statement that could very easily have bias behind as would me saying that boxing is more dangerous because i take part in it. "if you control the power of your punch" I like the point your trying to make when you say this but very few professionals can control their punch power let alone a bunch of school students who are new to the sport. And i too understand the risk factor in every sport.

Boxing I am going to be arguing that boxing is a dangerous sport which not only causes severe injury but also encourages violence among youth. I will post each premise of the argument below and a defence underneath. 1) Boxing causes severe damage Andy often deaths to those who participate in it. I think this premise is quite obvious. But just many deaths are there in boxing each year? The website www.livestrong.com had this to say: "In the journal article entitled "Boxing -- Acute Complications and Late Sequalae," Hans Forstl, M.D. and his team of researchers in Germany reported that there have been an average of 10 boxing deaths per year since 1900. Of these deaths, over 80 percent were due to head and neck injuries suffered in the ring". One might be tempted to say that the above figure if ten deaths per year is quite small in conparasent to other sports. Even if that were true the amount of people who die is irrelevant. All that matters is that there is one death(which shows the sport is too very violent). 2) Boxing encourages violence among youth. This premise is also relatively obvious. If kids see their favourite boxer on Tv beating the other boxer to a pulp and being celebrated for it they will want to aspire tonne like their hero. 3) Therefore boxing should not be played.

we should ban boxing as a sport professionally I am saying boxing should be banned for these reasons 1.Boxing causes many deaths, and medical officials have continually called for it to be banned.The British Medical Association has repeatedly called for a ban on boxing or a removal of the head from the permitted target areas. The body of medical evidence is growing that suggests even if a boxer survives individual bouts relatively unmarked, the cumulative effect of a career in boxing can lead to a greater susceptibility to chronic neurological injury 2.We are promoting violence. Boxers are presented as beacons of success for young people, but they are not good role models. Children should not idolize people who make a living by injuring other people. In addition to the violence in the ring, brawls often break out at press conferences and even inside boxing venues. The marketing of boxing exalts this mindless violence and those who perpetrate it. Mike Tyson is a particularly harmful example. Tyson was one of the most popular and successful boxers in history, when he faced Evander Holyfield in the most hyped fight of the year. Tyson cruelly bit off a portion of Holyfield"s ear in the fight, on live television. These are not role models of which we should be proud.

Dog fightning should be legalized in the USA. EconomyDog fighting will help raise revenues that will help get the USA out of debt. With a debt of about 19 trillion dollars [1] the U.S. needs all the money it can get. Black MarketDog fighting is already part of the black market. FreedomProhibiting dog fighting restricts freedom. By allowing dog fighting we help to maximize freedom. Links1. http://www.usdebtclock.org...

we should ban boxing as a sport professionally 1.You said people sign up for but look at it in all ways you need to care for your citizens health. If they retire they will have a lot of side effects after. So let's not spent money into that when easily avoiding that just banning boxing because your hit intentionally someone to hurt them 2.Boxing is a combat sport in which two people engage in a contest of strength, speed, reflexes, endurance, and will by throwing punches with gloved hands against each other. This simply means we are advancing our natural violence level which we already have. Even if wear gloves they work at all because people get cuts when fight. So said we were born violent but don't tell me a baby can do boxing according to how your saying it .So in conclusion am still standing that boxing should be banned

American Football Fighters I agree that football players should be able to fight because some teams call the wrong plays.

THW ban boxing Arguments:My arguments will be the following:1. Boxing is a barbaric sport, and it should not be a part of any 21st century society.2. The celebrity status that societies award to boxers glamorizes and legitimizes violence in society.3. Boxing causes many deaths, and medical officials have continually called for it to be banned.4. Boxing is famously exploitative, but a ban could prevent youth from falling into the sport’s economic trap. Now please let me explain my points.1. Boxing is a barbaric sport, and it should not be a part of any 21st century society. Unlike in any other sport, boxers intend to physically injure their opponents by knockout. Allowing people to intentionally inflict injuries upon others for public entertainment and private profit is barbaric. Children especially are trained in these ways. When boxers turn professional, they have often already fought in at least 50 fights in their youth, which does not include the countless rounds of sparring during training sessions. Boxers are essentially being trained in violent ways, often at a young age. The Australian Medical Association actively opposes boxing for this reason, calling it, “a public demonstration of interpersonal violence which is unique among sporting activities. ” While there are other rough sports, boxing is different because its intent is harmful. The World Medical Association, which also opposes the sport, justifies this position by noting, “its basic intent is to produce bodily harm in the opponent. ” Boxing is a violent sport, in which youth are taught to try to hurt their peers. It has no place in modern society.2. The celebrity status that societies award to boxers glamorizes and legitimizes violence in society. Boxers are presented as beacons of success for young people, but they are not good role models. Children should not idolize people who make a living by injuring other people. In addition to the violence in the ring, brawls often break out at press conferences and even inside boxing venues. The marketing of boxing exalts this mindless violence and those who perpetrate it. Mike Tyson is a particularly harmful example. Tyson was one of the most popular and successful boxers in history, when he faced Evander Holyfield in the most hyped fight of the year. Tyson cruelly bit off a portion of Holyfield’s ear in the fight, on live television. These are not role models of which we should be proud.3. Boxing causes many deaths, and medical officials have continually called for it to be banned. The British Medical Association has repeatedly called for a ban on boxing or a removal of the head from the permitted target areas. The body of medical evidence is growing that suggests even if a boxer survives individual bouts relatively unmarked, the cumulative effect of a career in boxing can lead to a greater susceptibility to chronic neurological injury. A doctor who has studied the effect of boxing on Parkinson’s specifically says that boxing causes unnecessary harm. He writes, “Unlike most degenerative neurologic diseases, this disorder can be prevented. ”Although the incidence of injury is much higher in sports such as basketball, rugby or riding, the risk of serious injury in boxing is far greater. That risk is so great that boxing should be banned. A ban, quite simply, would mean fewer people dead, injured or permanently brain damaged.4. Boxing is famously exploitative, but a ban could prevent youth from falling into the sport’s economic trap. To be successful, boxers have to train for 8 hours a day 6 days a week, spending the best years of their lives in the gym. Because most boxers lack a formal education and spend all their time in the gym they employ managers to handle their business affairs; very often the boxer’s entourage control the fighter’s destiny. This relationship can be exploitative given the inequality of bargaining power and the fact that most boxers need to make as much money as they can before they are worn out. An average boxer will have about 30-40 top-level professional bouts in them before their health and skills will dramatically deteriorate. Whilst it may well be in the fighter’s interest to hang-up his gloves, those around him have a financial incentive to push fighters into more and more title defences or comebacks. The decisions that older boxers make provide further proof that they feel they have been exploited: over 80% of older boxers surveyed in Chicago said that they did not want their children to be boxers. The truth is that boxers are only treated as money-making devices by their promoters and the boxing industry. When American boxer Leavander Johnson died after a fight in 2005, his promoter told the press, “I don’t think there’s anyone to blame here other than the circumstances. He’s a victim of his own courage. ” This shows promoters’ desire to exploit boxers’ “courage” and willingness to put themselves at risk, without having any regret for such a dangerous system. Oftentimes the promoters actively make it more dangerous, exploiting their clients for criminal ends. In his exploration of boxing deaths throughout history, Joseph Svinth finds that in addition to health reasons, many deaths were criminal, with the promoter playing the dual role of “gangster. ” It’s time to break up this industry before any more young athletes get taken advantage of in a bad way. Sources: 1. Australian Medical Association, “Boxing,” 1997, reaffirmed 2007, accessed July 8, 2011, . http://ama.com.au....2. World Medical Association, “WMA Statement on Boxing,” (adopted by the 35th World Medical Assembly, Venice, Italy, October 1983 and editorially revised by the 170th WMA Council Session, Divonne-les-Bains, France, May 2005), accessed July 8, 2011, . http://www.wma.net....3. BBC, “Tyson: ‘I’d bite again,’” October 4, 1999, . http://news.bbc.co.uk....4. Friedman, “Progressive Parkinsonism,” 545.5. Loïc Wacquant, “The pugilistic point of view: How boxers think and feel about their trade,” Theory and Society, Vol. 24, No. 4 (August 1995), 489-535, . http://sociology.berkeley.edu..., 523.6. John Mehaffey, “Fighter’s death renews abolition call,” The Sun-Herald, September 25, 2005, . http://www.smh.com.au.......7. Svinth, “Death under the Spotlight. ”

Boxing makes violence look cool. Boxing makes violence look cool. The money and fame a few champion boxers get for hitting people sends the wrong message to young people. It isn’t just the fights themselves which are the problem. Fighting often breaks out at publicity events, or even in the audience.

BIRT This house will ban Combat Sports I graciously your invitation and take up the Negative position on the challenge. To insure that we are talking about the same thing I give the definition of a combat sport as a sport in which the competitors make physical contact with each other and engage in one-to-one combat. Examples are: Boxing, Karate, Jujitsu, MMA fighting, etc. It is now my job to argue that the Government should not pass laws banning combat sports. Rounds 1 and 2 are for preliminaries, 3 and 4 for case development, and whatever rounds remain for rebuttals and closing arguments. Good luck in the debate!

THW ban boxing I know his power in debating, and so I look forward to a great debate. Arguments:My arguments will be the following:1. Boxing is a barbaric sport, and it should not be a part of any 21st century society.2. The celebrity status that societies award to boxers glamorizes and legitimizes violence in society.3. Boxing causes many deaths, and medical officials have continually called for it to be banned.4. Boxing is famously exploitative, but a ban could prevent youth from falling into the sport’s economic trap. Now please let me explain my points.1. Boxing is a barbaric sport, and it should not be a part of any 21st century society. Unlike in any other sport, boxers intend to physically injure their opponents by knockout. Allowing people to intentionally inflict injuries upon others for public entertainment and private profit is barbaric. Children especially are trained in these ways. When boxers turn professional, they have often already fought in at least 50 fights in their youth, which does not include the countless rounds of sparring during training sessions. Boxers are essentially being trained in violent ways, often at a young age. The Australian Medical Association actively opposes boxing for this reason, calling it, “a public demonstration of interpersonal violence which is unique among sporting activities. ” While there are other rough sports, boxing is different because its intent is harmful. The World Medical Association, which also opposes the sport, justifies this position by noting, “its basic intent is to produce bodily harm in the opponent. ” Boxing is a violent sport, in which youth are taught to try to hurt their peers. It has no place in modern society.2. The celebrity status that societies award to boxers glamorizes and legitimizes violence in society. Boxers are presented as beacons of success for young people, but they are not good role models. Children should not idolize people who make a living by injuring other people. In addition to the violence in the ring, brawls often break out at press conferences and even inside boxing venues. The marketing of boxing exalts this mindless violence and those who perpetrate it. Mike Tyson is a particularly harmful example. Tyson was one of the most popular and successful boxers in history, when he faced Evander Holyfield in the most hyped fight of the year. Tyson cruelly bit off a portion of Holyfield’s ear in the fight, on live television. These are not role models of which we should be proud.3. Boxing causes many deaths, and medical officials have continually called for it to be banned. The British Medical Association has repeatedly called for a ban on boxing or a removal of the head from the permitted target areas. The body of medical evidence is growing that suggests even if a boxer survives individual bouts relatively unmarked, the cumulative effect of a career in boxing can lead to a greater susceptibility to chronic neurological injury. A doctor who has studied the effect of boxing on Parkinson’s specifically says that boxing causes unnecessary harm. He writes, “Unlike most degenerative neurologic diseases, this disorder can be prevented. ”Although the incidence of injury is much higher in sports such as basketball, rugby or riding, the risk of serious injury in boxing is far greater. That risk is so great that boxing should be banned. A ban, quite simply, would mean fewer people dead, injured or permanently brain damaged.4. Boxing is famously exploitative, but a ban could prevent youth from falling into the sport’s economic trap. To be successful, boxers have to train for 8 hours a day 6 days a week, spending the best years of their lives in the gym. Because most boxers lack a formal education and spend all their time in the gym they employ managers to handle their business affairs; very often the boxer’s entourage control the fighter’s destiny. This relationship can be exploitative given the inequality of bargaining power and the fact that most boxers need to make as much money as they can before they are worn out. An average boxer will have about 30-40 top-level professional bouts in them before their health and skills will dramatically deteriorate. Whilst it may well be in the fighter’s interest to hang-up his gloves, those around him have a financial incentive to push fighters into more and more title defences or comebacks. The decisions that older boxers make provide further proof that they feel they have been exploited: over 80% of older boxers surveyed in Chicago said that they did not want their children to be boxers. The truth is that boxers are only treated as money-making devices by their promoters and the boxing industry. When American boxer Leavander Johnson died after a fight in 2005, his promoter told the press, “I don’t think there’s anyone to blame here other than the circumstances. He’s a victim of his own courage. ” This shows promoters’ desire to exploit boxers’ “courage” and willingness to put themselves at risk, without having any regret for such a dangerous system. Oftentimes the promoters actively make it more dangerous, exploiting their clients for criminal ends. In his exploration of boxing deaths throughout history, Joseph Svinth finds that in addition to health reasons, many deaths were criminal, with the promoter playing the dual role of “gangster. ” It’s time to break up this industry before any more young athletes get taken advantage of in a bad way. Sources:1. Australian Medical Association, “Boxing,” 1997, reaffirmed 2007, accessed July 8, 2011, . http://ama.com.au.......2. World Medical Association, “WMA Statement on Boxing,” (adopted by the 35th World Medical Assembly, Venice, Italy, October 1983 and editorially revised by the 170th WMA Council Session, Divonne-les-Bains, France, May 2005), accessed July 8, 2011, . http://www.wma.net.......3. BBC, “Tyson: ‘I’d bite again,’” October 4, 1999, . http://news.bbc.co.uk.......4. Friedman, “Progressive Parkinsonism,” 545.5. Loïc Wacquant, “The pugilistic point of view: How boxers think and feel about their trade,” Theory and Society, Vol. 24, No. 4 (August 1995), 489-535, . http://sociology.berkeley.edu......, 523.6. John Mehaffey, “Fighter’s death renews abolition call,” The Sun-Herald, September 25, 2005, . http://www.smh.com.au..........7. Svinth, “Death under the Spotlight. ”

Fights to the death similar to those once held in the Colloseum in Rome should be allowed Like what? Who can take the most heroin? Who can rob the most houses? What I have proposed would actually serve a purpose to society." I still see no factual evidence that this would serve a purpose. You are merely confirming my response by listing more preposterous examples of "games" that would have no point. who can take the most heroin you ask? At what point does killing become a better example than that? "There will always be murderers in this world. Would it not be better to have them kill each other for our entertainment than to have them roaming the streets killing innocent people?" I believe that instead of sending them against each other to kill we should be helping them. If we create an environment that our kids grow up in telling them it is okay to kill where would we be? I would now like to lead a discussion on the effects on children: ~~ As in today's society, children model themselves after what their parents do and the things that they grow up around. If we tell them it is okay to fight in an arena to kill then they will no longer strive for excellence by going to school. If you offer them an option to drop out of school and become a "gladiator" so to speak where does the drive to succeed go? It goes directly into violence. Today, we also have parents who will do anything to make their children succeed. We see this in today's sports, academics, etc. Imagine a parent pushing their children to fight, to become ruthless, to kill, JUST FOR SPORT. Then what type of society would we be living in? I await your response.

Boxing should not be banned. A lot of people think boxing should not be an official sport because it's very dangerous. I say that despite the risk, boxing should continue to be an official sport. I will accept the burden of proof and begin in Round 2.

THW ban boxing First I'll respond to Pro. 1. Boxing is Barbaric Boxing is a violent sport, but violence isn't going anywhere. Research shows that people are attracted to violence. The sport has been around since almost 700 years before Christ.https://howtheyplay.com...People who get into boxing are typically from hard-knock neighborhoods where they would have to use their fists in the street to protect themselves. Boxing provides an outlet for people with aggressive feelings. Rather than use their fists against other people when getting upset, boxing allows people to work out their violent energy in a constructive and structured way. Men in particular are likely to feel aggressive sometimes due to testosterone. It is our natural instinct, and boxing allows for men (and women) to decompress therapeutically through this mental and physical workout. http://www.scientificamerican.com...Another thing is that boxing requires a lot of mental focus and discipline. While some boxers are aggressive outside of the ring, many others have the strict discipline to channel their instincts and wait until they are in the ring.http://breakingmuscle.com...Nobody calls for horse racing to be banned, even though that sport hurts and kills people every year. https://www.theguardian.com...Boxing is not just "barbaric" but strategic. It takes a lot of skill and mental knowledge to succeed. http://www.cnn.com...2. Celebrities Glorifying ViolenceMike Tyson is a questionable character, but a single person does not represent everyone in boxing. Tyson launched the Mike Tyson Cares Foundation, to give children from broken homes like the one he experienced “a fighting chance” by offering them safe places to coalesce. Like most people he can be both good and bad. He also suffers from drugs and has other problems that are separate from boxing, so he is not the best example. http://www.floboxing.tv...Boxers are celebrated for dominating in their sport, not for injuring others. No boxer promotes random acts of violence. Many boxers are very charitable and do amazing things with their prize money and celebrity status. There are also a lot of boxing fundraisers and charities. http://www.knockout-cancer.com...3. Boxing is Dangerous People who get into boxing know and accept the risks. Obviously getting punched repeatedly can be harmful, but if people accept the possible consequences, it is their decision to put themselves in danger the same way people can choose to smoke cigarettes. Far more people have died from cigarettes and alcohol than boxing but we do not ban those things. We have the freedom to put ourselves in danger.Boxing also takes measures to protect the athletes. Some call for extra padding in the rings. You could also make sure trainers know how to run a safe gym, and know when to throw in the towel at the right time. http://cdnc.ucr.edu...And there are increased regulations to prevent cheating on weight, etc. http://www.dailymail.co.uk...Some "rebel neurobiologists" argue that with regulations, boxing can be safe or not as bad as people make it out to be.http://www.nytimes.com...4. Boxing is Exploitative Pro says the people who box are uneducated, but this proves how boxing provides opportunity. Uneducated people from poor neighborhoods don't have a lot of options or feel like they do, but boxing gives them the chance to work hard at something, train and become successful. Ultimately it is the boxer's choice to fight. They surround themselves with the people they feel give them the best chance to win. Who they surround themselves with is important. It gives them a mental edge if they have a good entourage. Boxers want supporters, promoters, spiritual guidance and practical advice from their posse. https://joshjenkins116.wordpress.com...Boxing is a business. People make money off athletes in every sport. Agents, managers, coaches, owners, the press, trainers, colleges, etc. all capitalize off the athletic efforts of other people. It is not limited to boxing. And now I'll explain why boxing should not be banned.1. First, people have the freedom to engage in whatever sports they want. Many people are very passionate about the sport. If you don't like boxing you don't have to box or watch boxing. 2. I've already explained that boxing is a physical outlet. Boxing is also a mental outlet that makes people feel better when they are weak or bullied. It gives them mental toughness and confidence.http://www.southvalleyjournal.com...3. Boxing offers a home "to the downtrodden and dejected." It is the sport of the lower and middle class. "In the 20s and 30s, the sport was a haven for tough Jews from the slums of New York... Likewise, the ring has been a home to America’s downtrodden blacks ever since Jack Johnson became the first black heavyweight champion of the world in 1908."http://www.floboxing.tv...4. You need to be in great physical shape to box, so it encourages fitness. 5. People use boxing to learn confidence, discipline and self-defense. 6. It's better to take out aggression inside the ring than outside the ring. 7. It gives people opportunity and hope, plus keeps them off the street. 8. Boxing is not the only violent or dangerous sport, and the purpose of boxing isn't to injure your opponent but to score points. Injury is part of the game, but efforts are being taken to promote safety. 9. Boxers have used their fame, money and platform for good. 10. Violence and boxing are here to stay regardless of law. At least let boxing be used for good and try to regulate it to promote safety, rather than have a free-for-all "Fight Club" type scene.

Destroying the pleasure of watching certain sports Firstly, passionate viewers of these violent sports are not watching them only for seeing blood and broken noses, but for the technical abilities and the strategic tactics in these sports. As a result, they tend to focus more on the speed and precision of one’s uppercut than rather on the effects it has on the opponent’s body, thus they will be able to ignore the violence towards women, as they currently do towards men. Secondly, if indeed there is a part of the population who watches violent sports but is averse to watching if there is violence involving women, then they should feel nothing but excitement when a woman will win a boxing match for example against a man, overcoming this irrational stereotype. This is because a lot of this hatred against violence against women even in a competitive situation is based on the idea that the woman is both powerless in front of the man and not willing to fight him; essentially a view that women should be subservient. Obviously, neither of these points stands when talking about professional sporting competitions.

Dog fighting should be aloud Dogs fight all the time in the wild. 65% of the american population watches mma.which is people getting paid to fight.aside from the point, its the way champions where bread in the pass yet if you knew anything about the subject you'd know that dogs choose to fight they could submit if they want. Rules.These will insure the safty of dog during the fight.1.Vets must be on the sidelines.2.if they dont want to fight then they dont have to. And if dogs fight we should find a way to make money of It

Fights to the death similar to those once held in the Colloseum in Rome should be allowed These fights would differ from those held in Ancient Rome in the following ways: 1. All contestants would be contestants by choice. 2. They would be competing to win cash prizes. 3. There would be no unfair advantages betweed contestants. The weaponry and armour would be similar to those used by the Gladiators of Ancient Rome. I believe that these fights would benefit society in the following ways: 1. Those with nothing to lose might be tempted to take part rather than commiting the crimes that they do. In this way it would transform the misfits of society into respectable or dead people. Neither of which we need worry about. If the contestant won he/she would earn an honest wage and would more than likely become a celebrity. As a celebrity he/she would not be able to do much wrong without drawing attention to himself/herself. 2. It would create plenty of jobs. Stadiums would be built, armour and weapons would need to be crafted, merchandise to do with the fights would be sold and it would definitely be broadcasted on television and radio. 3. A requirement of entry could be that the contestants agree to be organ doners which could lead to as many lives being saved as lost. I've already thought of so many counter arguments. Ah well.

Boxing Should Be Banned Boxing has to have stricter rules than other sports because it is so much more dangerous.

Bullying should be allowed, as it builds character. That is a load of bull. The world wouldn't be "calm" Just because bullying wouldn't be allowed does not mean people wouldn't do it, it just means that they would get their well deserved punishment for doing so. "Because it is a feeling to be respected and the human brain sees that as intimidation as the only form for respect." Exactly, bullying is meant for INTIMIDATION. This, is not good! Not good at all! It does not show bravery or courage at all., it shows that some arrogant prick is feeling a little low on himself so he wants to go make someone else feel horrible too. Now, what if it's not bullying between men, but between women? A young girl, like myself, being brutalized and harassed every day until she reaches the breaking point. Is this respectable? Does this make me want to say "Hey, she's pretty brave and because she has intimidated me, had ten girls gang up on me and beat me to a bloody pulp, and made me feel like I was not worth breathing, I should respect her!" No!

That UfC should be banned. Ok, but these people are intentionally causing harm to each other. I'm sure they could find another sport.

We should ban boxing Okay, I suppose I will wrap things up here. ... 1. 1000 Deaths. Like I stated in the round before, I do not care to carry this argument further. I have already accepted this statistic, if you are willing to state it as "1,000 deaths in the past millennium of boxing". However, please note that this is simply a statistic, and not a valid argument. ... 2. Free Will My opponent agrees with me on the basis that boxers enter the ring out of their own free will. My opponents states that "I don't know where your going with the free will part". So allow me to clarify. This means that my opponent cannot base his arguments on grounds of exploitation or coercion. This also means that to an extent, we, as the people are NOT responsible for the injuries that boxers sustain in the ring. The potential for injury in boxing is comparable to the potential injuries in many other recreational activities and sports. Yet scuba diving is not banned, and neither is surfing. This proves that the potential for injury does not justify the abolition of something. ... 3. Safety in Boxing. My opponent's argument clearly falls apart here. Instead of acknowledging the fact that extensive safety measures, such as ringside medical servicing, physicians, are available, and constantly updated, to ensure the safety of boxers, my opponent tries to base his arguments in this category on the belief that "if you are angry... You kill your opponent.". Additionally, instead of using an actual, disputable example to back this up, he decides to use the quote- "Above all things, I must not get angry. If I do get angry I knock all the teeth out of the mouth of the poor wretch who has angered me." And then he states that- "Thus, being angry will cause yourself to lose control and perhaps kill the other person." Can you believe this? He is basing his arguments, and drawing a conclusion, from a quote! If you think that a quote suffices as evidence, well wouldn't this- "A boxer must exercise and develop every part of his body."[1] "Boxing brings out my aggressive instinct, not necessarily a killer instinct."[2] "Boxing is the ultimate challenge. There's nothing that can compare to testing yourself the way you do every time you step in the ring."[3] Be able to prove my arguments? But it doesn't. This is because quotes are subjective, simply the words and opinions of ONE individual. Quotes are not sufficient evidence. Thus YOU DID NOT MANAGE TO PROVE YOUR POINT. And since you could not manage to dig up the SPECIFIC, real life example of a boxing match where a referee was not able to restrain a boxer resulting in death, your point is invalid, and simply a personal prejudice, because you have no proof. ... 4. Boxing Harms and Benefits Here, my opponents argument falls apart again. He makes obnoxious claims, saying that "Muhammad Ali, must have been those people that just love to beat another guy up", and "boxing is considered barbaric by some people that believe that violence never solves anything". First of all, I would like to point out that those claims are completely subjective and unsupported. It is obvious to all that my opponent is simply trying to base his argument on a disdainful sense of disapproval, and upon realizing that he cannot win through any objective means, posts BS claims to attempt to back his opinions. So it is clear to all that he has not managed to refute any of my points on the constructive benefits boxing provides, and the fact that boxing at heart is simply a enjoyable sport rather than the barbaric monstrosity my opponent would have you believe. ... 5. Enjoyment. Tying with the previous argument is the dispute on whether boxing is enjoyable for the boxer or not. My opponent opened his argument by likening boxers to gladiators. "Therefore", my opponent quips, "it is not exactly fun.". However, he does not explain to us WHY boxers and gladiators cannot enjoy the sport. He draws a conclusion from nothing at all. After I prompted him by reminding him of this obvious logical fallacy, he says "All gladiators suffered... they would at least be bruised". However, this is yet another logical fallacy. Many examples of sports have pain linked within it. Football hurts. Sprinting causes the lungs to burn. Does it logically follow that neither football or sprinting is enjoyable? I wish to also remind any spectators that boxers may choose to drop the sport at any time if they believe it to be not enjoyable. The sheer fact that people still box should already be proof enough. ... 6. Not a Viable Solution. My opponent states "If we ban boxing, this will actually save more lives, because of the fact of brain damage and the thought of a boxer holding a grudge on you." and "Banning boxing would save more lives than without banning boxing.". However, My opponent fails to refute why the sheer popularity of boxing would not simply force boxing underground in the case of a ban. So I refute his second statement. Banning boxing would probably cost MORE lives. In the case of illegal underground matches, there would be NO ringside medic, NO referees. Safety would be even further compromised if we ban boxing. So therefore, my opponents statement- "Therefore, banning boxing is pretty much a reasonable solution", is illegitimate. ... ===Conclusion=== My opponent redundantly states "he (my opponent) left some of my arguments untouched.". However, we can all clearly see the absurdity of this statement. You gave me six arguments, I gave you six refutations. The irony of my opponent's statement is that he has not refuted my greatest argument of all. The fact is, most of my opponents arguments are based off of the potential injuries of Boxing. However, if this was proper justification by itself, Gambling, Hangliding, Bungee jumping, Surfing, Cheerleading, Alcohol, and Smoking should also be banned. However, society deems it not, proving that you need more than potential injuries to justify the abolition of something. So, overall, we should NOT ban boxing. I have shown you the benefits, refuted my opponent's points, while he left some of my arguments untouched. However, I thank my opponent for this entertaining debate and wish him good luck on his future debates. I wish the readers and my opponent happy holidays. Thank you. I apologize for any pretension or condescension, as it was done in the spirit of the debate. ;)

Boxing Should be allowed as a School Sport I will give a source for the percentage. I do not deny that that had happened to football players, as well as basketball. But it is a proven fact that things, like video games, can effect ones emotions and way of acting. It was shown in tests that even music effects ones emotions. Violent video games like Black Ops 1-3(I do play them)can and will effect ones emotions, and many have faced it. It even says on in the game,"WARNING, extended play may influence ones emotions." Thought not all violence can relate to things like this. My sources~ https://www.wikipedia.org... http://www.aaas.org... https://www.google.com...

We should ban boxing . .. My opponent claims that "About 1,000 boxers died,", however, he does not specify whether the 1000 boxers died "in the last month", or "in the last millennium", nor does he cite a certifiable source. His first link speaks of ONE boxer's death, and his second link speaks of 40 recorded deaths, not 1000. His third link is simply an irrelevant Wikipedia article on "Boxing". I would like to ask my opponent where he pulled this unsupported statistic from, and if he could please specify what time frame this statistic is addressing. Nowhere in any of his links anything is stated about "1000" recorded deaths. . .. Additionally, one cannot deny that boxing, by itself, is the second purest form of sport, next to running. One also cannot deny that significant injuries do arise from the sport. However, my opponent must realize that boxers are COMPLETELY AWARE of the possibility of injury, and that boxing is their PERSONAL CHOICE. If we ban boxing simply because of the injuries it may cause, should we not also ban hangliding? Or smoking? Or gambling? Or bungee jumping? If these boxers were being exploited, or coerced into the arena, or ignorant of the consequences that may ensue, than that would be a different case. However, in professional boxing, boxers enter the arena out of their own FREE WILL. Not because they have no choice. But because they enjoy the sport, and the sense of self discipline it supplies. . .. My opponent must also realize that every attempt is being made to ENSURE THE SAFETY and the well-being of boxers. We have emergency medical attention present by the ringside, if necessary. We have referees to prohibit an opponent from going too far. We have medical checks, boxing gloves, and division by weight to maintain the equality of the sport. We have even gone as far as providing free medical insurance, so boxers do not have to cover the cost of potential injuries. [1] We have the best the government can do to PREVENT permanent injuries to boxers. If we were to abolish a sport simply based on the number of sporting injuries that result from it, should we not first ban Street Luging? Or BMX? Or surfing? Or cheer leading? Because these sports have a much higher rate of injury than boxing. [2] . .. "Boxing is intended to harm others. ", quips my opponent. I cannot deny the absolute reality of this. Like running, being one of the the purest forms of sport, it's beauty is in the simplicity of which it pits man against his own limits. Now, it's no use denying it. Boxing IS done with intention to harm. However, man is NATURALLY aggressive. So why go around denying and suppressing this nature rather than apply and release this violence constructively? And it's not just boxing, because any contact sport, be it, rugby, lacrosse, hockey, or football, can be brutal. In fact, unlike the opposition would like you to believe, boxing in fact has, many benefits. In fact, regardless of the fact that "boxing is intended to harm others", many boxers claim that boxing helps build discipline and release bottled up feelings of violence. For example, when the world famous boxer Mohammed Ali (Cassius Clay) was asked whether he regretted taking up the sport, he was recorded replying "Not at all! ", along with stating how boxing helped him build discipline and a stronger sense of self. [3] . .. Additionally, there is no conceivable reason why A BAN AGAINST BOXING WOULD ONLY SERVE TO DRIVE IT UNDERGROUND. With the enormous amount of fans and desire for the sport, the popularity of boxing would only result in holding underground tournaments with extremely compromised safety features, in the case of a ban. So, even if we were looking for an abolition of boxing, a ban would only serve to further endanger the lives you want to protect. So in conclusion, while my opponent has presented some valid and legitimate points, he has failed to present enough reason to instigate a full on ban. ===Citations=== [1] . http://www.law.cornell.edu... [2] . http://itthing.com... [3] . http://www.youtube.com... See above video.

Legalize Fighting Murder is unlawful killing. http://dictionary.reference.com... So no. As a side note, a police officer is allowed to shoot when their life is threatened; furthermore, when an officer shoots someone there is a several month legal process in which they must go through (while being relieved of duty might I add) they don't just "shoot and ask questions later". And it's illegal, and murder. Legalizing it would help nothing. "Also, the passing of a new law or legalization of something always comes with a set of rules to regulate it. Rules could be made to ban the use of excessive force, or the use of weapons, or even that there must be witnesses at the time of the event to ensure that the fight is stopped and nobody is killed." And who is to judge? Everything you just mentioned is far to subjective and circumstantial to ever create a system of guidelines sufficient and thorough enough to work.

Boxing Bans One reason boxing should not be outlawed is because it allows people to get out of poverty. Boxing is a good way for teens to help out in their family without too many duties or extra stress. Some teens feel the need to help their family if they are in financial trouble, and boxing is a safe way to earn money quickly. Boxing is an inexpensive and also an easy way for families to earn money. Boxing doesn't require any equipment other than a glove, meaning it's accessible for poverty stricken people. A perfect example of how people bounce back after poverty is Manny Pacquaio. Manny grew up in extreme poverty and had to live in the streets, forced to quit school. But now, Pacquaio is a known boxer, and is used as a symbol of hope for how far he has come. Boxing allows people to get out of poverty, yet many people want to outlaw it.

Boxing should not be banned. The obvious point to make is that boxing is dangerous. A report in the journal Neuroscience estimated that since the year 1900, on average, 10 boxers died from ring injuries each year(https://www.wsws.org...), 10 times more than the shark fatalities worldwide in 2007(http://www.nytimes.com...). Independent says that "Of these deaths, over 80 percent were due to head and neck injuries suffered in the ring. These injuries included ruptures in brain vessels, epidural haemorrhage's and subdural haematomas, in which bleeding occurs in the brain" Would you like me to present to you what that looks like or have the words alone already disgust you? Wikipedia defines duelling as "An arranged engagement in combat between two individuals, with matched weapons in accordance with agreed-upon rules" it also said that "Legislation against dueling goes back to the medieval period. The Forth Council of the Lateran (1215) outlawed duels" Boxing highly correlates with that definition, and so must be banned.

That UfC should be banned. I think in this statement "but these people are intentionally causing harm to each other. I'm sure they could find another sport" you have clarified your position better. Now we can debate the topic of what I refer to as "blood sports." In my definition of blood sports, the goal is to do as much damage to your opponent until they are so weak that the winner can claim victory. This can be solo competition, for example UFC, martial arts, or boxing, where the goal is to literally beat your opponent into submission, or team sports like rugby or football, where the goal is to get your ball to the other side, and crowds cheer when you knock down, dominate, and "damage" the other team. Before we continue, I think it would be best if you agree or disagree with my belief that UFC, boxing, martial arts, rugby, and football, are all examples of sports where "people are intentionally causing harm to each other." If you agree, then we can debate freedom of choice. If you disagree, then this turns into a debate about what "causing harm to each other" means.

This house would ban boxing The last my argument in favor of the banning of boxing is about its exploitation, which is widely-spread in this sphere. Due to the fact that the majority of the boxers, since they begin their careers, leave the education and devote full themselves into the trainings, they employ special managers to deal with all their finances. This eventually often leads to their being exploited with the aim of more income by encouragement and disregard of their possibilities and probable risk for their health. The sportsmen since the very youth are used by their sponsors and promoters just as the tools, bringing money. At the same time, no one does really care about them. Moreover, managers even actively use their clients in rather dangerous ways, exploiting them for criminal purposes. In the investigation of the statistics and causes of boxing deaths throughout the history, Joseph Svinth, an editor of the Electronic Journals of Martial Arts and Science, finds that beside health reasons, many deaths were criminal, with the promoter playing the dual role of "gangster" (Svinth, 2007). So now we have to put an end to this system for no more young sportsmen to be used and treated this absolutely inappropriate way.

All People should know how to fight. *foreward* Thank you wheover takes this... Kind words and such. I hope not to provoke! In my belief all people should know how to fight. To know how to fight one must be in experience of such moments. Essentially to allow the knowledge to be present so that they posses the capacity to provide fortification of their own entity when necessary.

Fights to the death in an arena should be legal I need more blood because MMA is not enough, football is a joke, and baseball obviously isn't a sport. Sports are not violent enough. People need entertainment, and the current sports do not provide the proper kind of entertainment this country needs. Uncle Sam is a bloodthirsty warrior! He needs swords and morning stars slicing and crushing skulls. I want to see a bear fight a convict! I need to see this, this country needs it. It's going to be the only thing that will get us out of this recession. Opponent, since we cannot debate this in the Colosseum like real men, to the death, then debate.org will have to do. Instead of me crushing your skull with a war hammer, I will have to destroy any proposition that you bring against me.

is hockey too violent Even with the rule oh having the hockey stick below the waist, by human reaction its very easy to swing the stick high, making injury chance high

Fighting I believe that if someone is going to fight and someone knows about it then that person should not tell a teacher or a authority figure. Because all they will do is get involved. It is not there position to handle it. The people that are going to fight should He able to. Because either way , it will be handled. Whether it is in school or outside of school. People will always be looking for you Ecspecially in this generation. It is better to duke it out then be worried about getting shot by their friends or something. It is way better to handle it in school and get suspended then out of school where way worse can happen to you.

Dog Fighting I apologize for the forfeited round, was busy this week. Anyways we can easily replace the dogs with other animals like pigs or tamed wolves. Everything you sad, a domesticated wolf or pig can do. Also, dog fighting is entertaining to many people and is fun to watch in some cases. It is a good way to release and let out primal, natural, violent instincts and cravings without actually engaging in combat.

Boxing Should be allowed as a School Sport Hello! First i would like to thank my opponet for letting my debate this topic with you. I disagree, i do not think that boxing should be allowed to be catagorized as a school sport, or to be allowed in school at all. Boxing will actually increase the amount of bullying that goes on in school. The bullies will be able to box their opponets, and be allowed to beat the crap out of them, and get away with it. What will people do when they go up against a guy who can box? And worst of all, it would be allowed. The students getting bullied would have no chance at defending themselves from it. Thus boxing would be bad for bullied students.

Boxing Bans "Boxing has kept me off the streets, stops me smoking and gives me something to do," says Billy Joe Saunders. Saunders is a professional boxer who currently holds the title for WBO middleweight champ. People have been arguing that boxing should be banned for many reasons. They say that it's dangerous and too physical, but what about other contact sports? Will those sports be banned as well? Boxing should not be outlawed because it allows people to get out of poverty, teaches young people self defense, keeps kids off of the streets, and out of problems. Although there are some dangers to boxing, it should not be outlawed.

Depending where you are in the world, some of the rules do appear brutal Although this is could be seen as brutality, it is not a pure form of fighting. One of the Gracie brothers from Brazil retired from the current form of fighting due to the pacification of what he considered pure. There is a movement within MMA to return this sport to its origins. In reference to foot stomps, it is still allowed, at least by the UFC, but only from a standing position and stomping on another's foot.

Boxing should be allowed in Prisons In this debate I will be giving my reasons on why boxing should not be allowed in prison. First off I would like to say, what is the reason for prison? Prison is a place where criminals go so that they can learn to become better people and introducing boxing into this atmosphere is nothing other than a bad idea. All it would do is teach them violence and negativity towards each other, not to mention getting injured. Honestly I don't see anything good coming out of it.

Boxing should be allowed in Prisons Wow seriously? This is the worst first debate ever.

Boxing Should Be Banned Boxing is a very dangerous sport. Every year both amateur and professional boxers die in matches.