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

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

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.

Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey

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

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.

Fighting in Hockey Needs to Be Banned

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.

Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey

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

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 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

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!

fighting should be banned from the NHL

My opponent has forfeited. I win by default.

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

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

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

Even though the rules prevent it, people getting hit in the head with those sticks even with the helmet could cause some bad whiplash

is hockey too violent

Depends on what you consider too violent.

is hockey too violent

hockey is not too violent

is hockey too violent

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.

Hockey should change the rules to disallow body checking

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.

American Football Fighters

Hockey is kinda Violent

is hockey too violent

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!

Soccer is a better sport than Hockey

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

is hockey too violent

Here are a couple of points about the shootout that makes it notorious: 1. The shootout is not actually hockey. It is just a series of breakaways. Hockey is a team game, and what the shootout is doing is just hindering one of the main aspects of the game. 2. On March 23, 2017, Sergei Bobrovsky stopped 45 shots and managed a 1-1 tie at the end of overtime. A couple of minutes later, he's a loser because he couldn't stop someone on a breakaway. If you think I'm lying, here's a site for you: https://www.nhl.com... That is completely unfair to goaltenders who lose in the shootout, and the team feels cheated. 3. The shootout in hockey is the equivalent to a home run derby in baseball, a free throw shootout in basketball, and a quarterback throwing a ball through a hole in football. It just doesn't make any sense to be a tiebreaker. In the third round, I will refute any and all of your arguments. Resources: https://www.thoughtco.com... http://thehockeywriters.com...

The shootout should cease to exist in the NHL.

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.

Dog fighting shouldn't be illegal. If baseball,basketball,soccer,etc. are allowed, why not dog fighting? Wrestling,boxing and straight up fighting are allowed and dog fighting is not? Dog fighting is the same thing as wrestling and all those other sports but just it's dogs that are fighting, not humans.

dog fighting 11

In your first paragraph you stated that shootouts are not hockey, yet merely a series of breakaways. However, breakaways are a part of hockey as they are events that are seen happening in the game. The reason these shootouts are done is because hockey is a physically imposing game and if after 60 minutes of play and an overtime period a winner isn't yet deemed the league doesn't want to physically tax players more or risk injury; thus the shootout. The shootout is a quick way to determine a winner and is described by many hockey fans as the most exciting event in hockey. Even though a goalie could have a terrific game but have it negated by a shootout, that is still a fair ending because the shootout displays both the skills of the shooter and the goalie. In the specific game you mentioned, Braden Holtby, also had a good game, blocking 29 out of 30 shots. {1} He just continued his excellence further in the shootout and was rewarded in the win. It is not unfair to losing goalkeepers as shootouts are not based upon luck or chance: stopping breakaways as a goalie takes tremendous skill. The shootout in hockey, additionally, is not comparable to most of the things you mentioned because unlike the other examples a shootout mimics an exact situation that can be seen in hockey. In the Home Run Derby the ball is being pitched slowly and right down the middle which never happens in baseball. Additionally, a football players never has to throw through a physical hole in a game like one would do in practice. The only comparable situation you mentioned is a free throw shootout which would not be a bad way to break a tie. However, due to basketballs high scoring nature a quick tiebreaker isn't as necessary because there is never a long stretch in which no team scores. Not to mention that people are not getting body checked constantly in basketball. Returning to a perspective of a fan, as I am and assume you are, the shootout is exciting. The anticipation and the pressure that lies on one 5-second span makes a shootout an exhilarating event. ESPN ran a player poll on the shootout, 70 percent of the players stated they liked the shootout. The players are the ones who actually have to participate so their opinions should be held with high regard. One of your main points was the negativity players feel and the unfairness and how teams feel cheated. However if only 20 percent dislike it [10 percent said they were indifferent], then it seems as if the majority of NHL players do not feel the way you have described about shootouts. Sure a team will feel dejected after a loss but the general consensus is that players are in favor of shootouts. The players agree it adds a rush of excitement to the game for the fans. {2} To continue to use how the players feel as backing would be a logical fallacy because the majority of players says otherwise. In conclusion, the shootout is good for the NHL for these reasons: 1) It provides a quick and fair ending to a physically imposing game. 2) It is a showcase of skill and reaction for goalkeepers. 3) It is a thrilling conclusion for ties and makes it more exciting for the fans. 4) The general consensus among players is that they are in favor of it. Sources: {1} https://www.nhl.com... {2} http://www.espn.com...

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.

Boxing Should be allowed as a School Sport

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

is hockey too violent

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.

Fights to the death in an arena should be legal

I hope for an interesting and thought-provoking debate. *** Gladiator battles should be legal if both sides willingly want to fight. This is because there is a net benefit from allowing gladiator battles, there are already dangerous sports allowed, and both sides agree to the consequences. 1. There is a net benefit from allowing gladiator battles If gladiatorial battle is legalized, then a whole infrastructure system will pop up to meet the needs of the gladiatorial system. Arenas would be built or stadiums retrofitted to suit the needs of combat; weapons and arms makers would spring up in order to supply the demand of those who fight; gladiator schools would arise to train the fighters in the methods needed to engage in combat. Merchandizing would more likely than not be provided. All this would add jobs to an economy that is in desperate need of a kick-start [1]. This could only be beneficial. In addition, it would clear up prisons. As I have stated in the introductory round, prisoners would be eligible for being a gladiator. They--only if they wanted to--enter the circuit and become gladiators, freeing up room in our prisons. Putting prisoners in they gladiator system and not in overcrowded [2], dangerous [3], and expensive [4] prisons would is a step up form the current system. 2. There are dangerous sports allowed My opponent will no doubt like to bring up the injuries that the gladiators will inevitably suffer as unethical, and therefore grounds to negate the resolution. However, there are sports where there are also serious life-long injuries out in the world which are perfectly legal. One example is American football. There has been many incidents of football players who have had serious brain damage. The NFL player's association is suing the NFL over concussions sustained during the collective careers of the plaintiffs [5]. In addition, there have been multiple suicides--including the one committed by Junior Seau that is, at the time of writing, is making headlines--that probably have been caused by repeated concussions [6]. In addition, there are all the other injuries that football players sustain in the course of their career. Football isn't the only dangerous sport. Hockey is another sport with dangerous conditions, including actual fighting [7]. Concussions have been a major problem for the NHL [8], with a string of suicides of players, many who have had chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). Of particular infamy is the case of Derek Boogaard, a twenty-eight year old forward who's brain was studied and was discovered to have CTE. [9] The other skaters that were lost were Wade Belak [10] and Rick Rypien [11]. Again, there are other injuries like ACL sprains, broken bones, and concussions. Moreover, there are much more sports where there are conditions where the athletes are endangering lives willingly: mixed-martial arts, boxing, rugby, and wrestling are all sports that have very high risks for injury, especially brain injury. I'm not saying that gladiators would be safer than football players, but I am outlining the fact that there are dangerous sports today. While gladiator games are very, very dangerous, there are other games that also hazardous. According to Wikipedia, a few gladiators made it to one hundred fifty matches [12]. Wikipedia also mentions that gladiators fought two to three combats annually [12]; so, if one does the math (150 / 2.5) that means that a really special gladiator with an average schedule could have a sixty year career. Even though those gladiators probably fought a few more battles other than ~2.5 a year, that's still a pretty long time to be alive in a sport that puts one's life on the line. 3. Both sides agree with the consequences My opponent will bring such things as "it's unethical! " or "killing and/or injuringing someone is a crime! " etc. However, While most cases of injury and killing ARE indeed unethical, in this case, it is not. Because they are WILLING gladiators, there are a whole different set of rules with this. The police don't arrest people who failed at suicide for attempted murder. They have the right to their own body. However, the suicide analogy is going to be wrecked by opponent if I do not add that because gladiators sign over the right to their bodies--they are WILLING, remember. They are not hurt against their will, they as gladiators, accept that their line of work is potentially deadly and life-threatening. *** I look forward to my opponent's opening arguments. *** Bibliography: [1] . http://www.nytimes.com... [2] . http://www.correctionalnews.com... [3] . http://www.news4jax.com... , . http://www.hrw.org... [4] . http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov... [5] . http://video.msnbc.msn.com... [6] . http://www.kwch.com... [7] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] . http://bleacherreport.com... [9] . http://www.nytimes.com... [10] . http://www.cbc.ca... [11] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [12] . http://en.wikipedia.org...

Gladiator Battles should be Legal

I accept

The shootout should cease to exist in the NHL.

Dog fighting is a type of blood sport generally defined as opposing two game dogs against one another in a ring or a pit, for the entertainment of the spectators or the gratification of the dogfighters. Please note that just because I think dog fighting should be legal, doesn't mean I think it is good.

Dog Fighting Should Be Legal

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.

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.

Dog fighting should be aloud

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...

Hockey is better than soccer

Start arguing in the 1st round, BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2.

You should vote for PRO in the topic, "The shootout should cease to exist in the NHL."

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.

International soccer matches should be settled by fights, not penalties.

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.

Legalize Fighting

Again I apologize for failing to submit my second round argument. Here is my original, unaltered text I failed to submit: First point you made was that 1. Skating Expends more energy than running. Second 2. Body Checking. 3. Fights/slashing/checking. 4. More time spent actually participating in and playing the sport. It may seem as though skating uses more energy than running, but there are several aspects to inspect. Skating doesn't necessarily expend/use more energy than running. When you skate you are sliding in slippery ice with little friction allowing them race around the way they do. They may have to change directions frequently, but I comes down to how hard that individual is pushing himself not the skating. Second you mentioned was body checking. Body checking is indeed rough, but taking hits and tackling in football is also rough. In hockey, players cannot out as much behind their hits. Since they are on skates they cannot get the leverage that football players get. NFL players can dig their cleats in the turf and get their center of mass much lower, giving them leverage against the player they are attempting hit/tackle. Also, the average weight of a NHl player in 2013 was around 204 lbs. [1]. The average weight of an Nfl team was in between 240-250 lbs, making the player average about 245.[2] We all know, thanks to physics that more mass equals more power. Mass x Acceleration = Force. The more weight plus more leverage equals harder more rattling hits in the Nfl than in the NHL. 3. You claim that fights, slashing and penalties make the NHL harder than the NFL. While fighting is definitely something hard to do it isn't an integrated part of the game. It certainly happens, but not every single game, and not every single player. Players aren't required to fight, and aren't expected to, it is merely a side effect you may encounter in your NhL career. Illegal checks aren't something NFL doesn't have. The NHL has illegal checking, and the NFL has blindside hits on defenseless players. They each warrant penalties and can cause serious injury. Lastly, I will not deny that NHL players overall have more time playing and participating, although they do get frequent breaks with the different line changes as NFL players get breaks in between plays. I will use your point that they are indeed playing for a longer time to benefit my argument. In 2012 the NFL had 261 diagnosed concussions. On 2013 they had 228 diagnosed concussions. [3]. The NHL had in 2012, 78 concussions and in 2013, 53. [4]. The NFL players suffer many more concussions than NHL players even with a significant difference in the amount of time playing. The NFL players even have high tech specialized helmets that are much more safe than NHL helmets, but still suffer these crippling injuries. ACL and MCL injuries are also much more ore leant in the NFL. [1. http://m.theglobeandmail.com...] [2. http://sports.espn.go.com...]. [3. http://m.espn.go.com... 4. [http://www.cnn.com...] Here is my third round text. Your first point is hand eye co-ordination. This probably belongs in the physical aspect but nonetheless it is a point. I concede, hand eye coordination for NHL players is more difficult than NFL players, but not by a large difference as the NFL has its co-ordination difficulties as well. Your second point was criticism/pressure. NFL players are under an immensely more amount of pressure than NHL players. According to Espn the NFL is the most popular sport in the USA for the 30th year in a row. [1]. The NFL clearly has more fans than the NHL (which is a shame because the NHL is a great sport). More fans, more pressure, more media, more social media, less privacy. The NFL players are exploited by the media. They're every move is being watched by everyone. Take the Ray Rice case and Peterson case. They have caused so much publicity and critisicm towards the NFL and its players. Social media has contributed greatly to this fact as anything and everything travels at great speed to the corners of the Internet. Other players such as Tim Tebow and Johhny Manziel have been dissected by the media and country. Also, every NFL team is guaranteed only 16 games to be played versus the NHL which is more than triple that. Every NFL game gets more exposure and tuned into more because people have less chances to watch their hometown heroes play. Every play counts, unlike the NHL which has a lot more room for error. Consider the Super bowl. This past super bowl with the Seahawks versus the Broncos. It was watched by 111 million viewers, the most watched televised even in the history of television. [2]. Quite unlike the Stanley cup of 2014 which averaged 2.8 million a game. [3]. Your third point is that it not only takes physical but mental strength when you are "checked, slashed, etc." this also applies to the NFL as they endure hard hits and penalties. They also endure taunting by opposing players which can be discouraging, but that varies player to player. Taunting is a lot more prevelant in the NFL than NHL. Lastly you said they must be mentally strong against losing and poor performance. This again can apply to many sports, but I believe even more so in football. With only 16 garnanteed games, there is no room for error. If you start out 0-4, your season won't look too well. Obviously it's possible to come back, but you will endure a lot of doubt from media/fans and doubt your own abilities. The NHL has 82 games per team. More than four times the amount in the NFL, you can start out 0-8 in the NHL and go on to win the Stanley cup. Start 0-8 in the NFL and your season is over. The NFL has a lot less room for error which can fry your nerves. Citation. 1. http://m.espn.go.com... 2. http://m.hollywoodreporter.com... 3. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

NHL Hockey is a harder sport then American Football

Since I've covered most of my points already I'll refute my opponents claims that mine are invalid then touch on some additional points: To begin my opponent claims I am incorrect that a shootout breakaway mimics a real life situation. He states that they have all day and go side to side. However, players usually start fairly quickly and only briefly slow for a move. If you care to take the time here is a shootout highlight video to view, entitled "Top 10 NHL Shootout Goals Ever Seen" {3} This video proves two of my points I stated in my previous argument. One, players do not just go side to side in all of these they go forward at a fairly quick pace. This is because the NHL rules state "Once the player taking the shot has touched the puck, it must be kept in motion towards the opponent"s goal line and once it is shot the play shall be considered complete." {4). Since you cannot stop forward momentum you cannot simply sift lazily from side to side, and this video shows this does not occur in the NHL like my opponent stated it does. Additionally, this video proves that the shootout creates excitement because the fans (provided its a home game) go crazy because these kinds of 1-on-1 battles create tension like my opponent said but with tension comes tremendous adrenaline and excitement; especially for the winner. So thank you, pensfan, for proving my point. Also, to briefly touch on the claim that the poll I provided does not matter, it does. While they may be retired nothing about the shootout has changed since then it was merely ten years ago. So why does their opinion not hold any water? Additionally, he stated: [and I'm paraphrasing] that because they are retired the opinions must have changed. Well, unlike my opponent I provided statistical proof that the opinion I am defending is a majority in the NHL. My opponent provided no proof that the opinion is different now, and unfortunately for him will have no chance to do so seeing as this is the last round. So to conclude and briefly add to my ultimate claim, the shootout should not be removed because it does create excitement regardless of the nature of said excitement, prevents risk of further exhaustion or injury [which is a topic my opponent never touched on], and is a fair way to break a tie in a timely fashion. Additionally, like penalty shootouts in soccer and the strange overtime rules in football, they may not be liked by everyone but they are traditional parts of the game and the NHL shootout has no major errors that make it worthy of removal. Vote CON. Additional Sources; {3} Video of Shootout; link listed above {4} http://www.usahockeyrulebook.com...

Debate impossible to accept. If you accept without my permission: You lose the debate, and automatically forfeit the whole debate to me. Wishing to accept, apply in comments. I am not letting someone will forfeit accept this debate. This will be a team debate.Team DebatePro1. yomama122. Con1. Fire_wings2. Hayd or EverlastingMomentResolution: Ban Violent Sports (Boxing)Rules1. No forfeiting, automatic loss2. No trolling3. No kritiks, semantics4. BoP is on Pro5. Definitons are arguable.6. Over 2500 ELO to voteStructure1. Rules/ Arguments2. Arguments/ Rebuttals3. Rebuttals/ Defense4. Defense/ WaivePro will make the definitons.Comment wanting to be my partner, or wanting to be my opponent.I want 5 judges, who are good at voting to vote on this debate. If you want to judge, tell me, and the people who want to judge, I will choose 5 people out of them to pick who should judge the debate.1. Famousdebater2. ColeTrain3. JOHNCENA17384.5.Thanks.

Team Debate: Ban Violent Sports

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).

As a first step, professional boxing at least should be banned.

"However, breakaways are a part of hockey as they are events that are seen happening in the game." Breakaways do happen in the game, but breakaways in a real game require the player to sprint. However, in the shootout, players usually are slower and it does not mimic an actual breakaway situation in regulation or overtime. One source I used said that "However, when was the last time you saw someone weave into the zone on a breakaway, and take their sweet time going side to side as if they have all day? Never." "The shootout is a quick way to determine a winner and is described by many hockey fans as the most exciting event in hockey." The shootout isn't described by many fans to be excitement, they describe it to be fear. For example, when the fans are watching their opponents shooting, they don't hope that their goaltender makes an acrobatic save; they hope that the opponents mess up or miss the net. "The shootout in hockey, additionally, is not comparable to most of the things you mentioned because unlike the other examples a shootout mimics an exact situation that can be seen in hockey." Again, the shootout breakaway does not mimic an actual breakaway situation, it has a crucial difference. "Returning to a perspective of a fan, as I am and assume you are, the shootout is exciting." Also, I am a fan too, but a shootout for me is the worst nightmare that I could have, it is fear. "ESPN ran a player poll on the shootout, 70 percent of the players stated they liked the shootout." At first, I thought that I was stuck for good, but I was glad I checked your sources because I found out that the article you have is more than 11 years old. Most of these players have retired from hockey, and the opinions of the shootout could have changed. Therefore, your source is outdated and the NHL teams/players could have changed their opinion about the shootout. "To continue to use how the players feel as backing would be a logical fallacy because the majority of players says otherwise." Again, the players' and goaltenders' opinions could have changed, and that they may dislike the shootout now. Your first reason that the shootout is good for the NHL is that "It provides a quick and fair ending to a physically imposing game." The shootout is not fair, as it is an event that does not replicate a real event in a game, as I have stated already. Your second reason that the shootout is good for the NHL is that "It is a showcase of skill and reaction for goalkeepers." The showcase of skill is also present in breakaways, which has the same skill requirements but is not exactly the same as the shootout. Breakaways are actually quite common during a game. Your third reason that the shootout is good for the NHL is that "It is a thrilling conclusion for ties and makes it more exciting for the fans." Wrong. Read what I already said about the "false excitement" that the shootout gives. Your last reason that the shootout is good for the NHL is that "The general consensus among players is that they are in favor of it." The source that you used to find this out, however, is outdated. Therefore, there is nothing good about the shootout, and it should not exist. Vote PRO. Sources: http://bleacherreport.com... http://thehockeywriters.com... https://www.thoughtco.com...

My opponent is making some interesting points here, but who's to say that all prisons will react to boxing as Cereso Mexico Prison did. 0 or lesser violence you say? Boxing is one of the most violent sports in the world and isn't the only one that may help release anger. There are numerous other activities that could be introduced in Prison that could release as much anger as boxing does but does not cause as much injuries. Football, Basketball and other types of sports can release anger and help prison members make friends because they would be working in teams. Trouble that could be caused with boxing in Prison could be that the inmates may feel favouritism towards there opponents and see this as an opportunity to make enemies. Who knows what kind of mental condition any one of these prisoners may have, they might even want to seek revenge if they were to lose. If we introduce Boxing to prisoners and make it clear to them that it will help with anger and be a great solution to any situation then some may interpret this as a way that it is right to use violence and that is the only answer to all your problems and may take this thought with them even when they leave prison.

Boxing should be allowed in Prisons

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

American Football Fighters

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.

Yes, pensfan3000

I would first like to clarify the rules. Rule 1: There is 4 rounds, the first being the round that you can ONLY accept and define the rules of this debate . Rule 2: The last round is only for Rebuttals, and neither opponent can say ANY points in round 5. I hope everything is clear. Good Luck Darth. :)

Soccer is a better sport than Hockey

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.

All of the claims you've brought at this point are coming out directly from you. I you got no source to back up what you said, then its regarded as false, simple. If you're so sure that America needs sports that haves people fights to the death, then bring a source. If you got no source, you're basically wasting our time.

How do we define violent sports? The word 'violent' is very subjective in and of itself, so how can we define what is violent and what isn't? Suppose we say American football and ice hockey is 'violent'. We must remind ourselves that in both of these sports, all players wear a significant amount of safety gear, which is getting better by the day, and there are many rules in place to prevent severe violence or injury. It is probably better for children playing these sports to break them earlier in their lives- bones will be much quicker to heal in their youth. Because of the safety equipment's prices, many families who play these sports are typically at least in the middle class, and can afford the medical expenses associated with this. If proper procedure is taken medically, such as casts and slings, there is no long-term damage to the bone. Also, at younger ages, kids are slower and have worse hand-eye coordination. As such, it is very unlikely to see severe injuries in younger sports leagues. The danger comes more at the ages my opponent has provided, 12 to 14, where there has been significant athletic and muscle development and kids are faster and stronger than they were. Ultimately, the ages should stand as they are currently.

At which age should young adults be to play violent sports

I appreciate Pro's arguments and the citations he brings forward to support them, though I find more than a few troubling spots here. So, to start, I think I need to take a step back from the line by line and address a couple of overarching issues that I see with your responses and arguments. To start, I need to get into this issue of morality and thoroughly address it. I appreciate that my opponent questions my perspective on morality, as it is often subjective. However, my view is that there are objectively sound moral values. I think we can all agree on at least two fronts as to what is moral: we should value life, and we should value the quality of that life. If Pro has a problem with either of those being standards by which we judge a moral harm or a moral benefit, then he may express them in his next post. Social acceptability doesn't affect this. The relative value of life that some people attributed to slaves in the past doesn't change the moral importance of that life in any time frame based off of these two principles. They chose to ignore the importance of life and its quality, but that doesn't make it less objective. Secondly, this this argument of hypocrisy, which seems to be a common thread in Pro's arguments. I'll make a stand here and now: I don't condone much of what Pro has stated as being similar in his arguments. Sports aimed at injury that lack appropriate protective measures for those involved should also be banned, since they are also blood sport. Hence, boxing is a blood sport. Football is not. I could refer to all the specific instances my opponent brings up, but the main distinction as I see it between what is and is not blood sport isn't the level of violence involved, it's any sport that is meant to cause bloodshed. That's all that's required, and I can take a stance against all of it in this debate and not show the hypocrisy you're discussing. The other portion of your hypocrisy argument is that other options are worse for these dogs. I have multiple contentions against this argument. One, stray or feral is still better than in a ring fighting with other dogs without consent. At least in these situations, the dogs in question have a measure of autonomy to their lives. Being thrown into a ring to fight other dogs is no such thing. Two, putting a dog down is still better than being thrown into a ring. At least in these cases, they don't suffer through grievous injuries and multiple fights (I'll get to the links on that on the line by line). I would argue that this continuous loss of quality of life, with almost certain early death included, is worse. Three, I can be against all of these things at once. I can be against the system that utilizes puppy mills to make purebred dogs for sale, which is a large part of the reason why so many people don't adopt. I can be against euthanizing so many dogs and advocate for more money to the Humane Society and other related organizations. I can also be against the way people treat feral dogs, which leads them to being aggressive. We need not pretend that these are absolutes. I want to dig further into this feral vs. domestic argument, though. Realize that Pro is arguing that it's fine to breed and train dogs for violent behaviors, but leaving some of them to acquire those natures in the wild is harmful. The only situation in which a dog is certain to become violent and aggressive is when they're trained to do so. Thirdly, we have this argument regarding legalization being a better alternative. I've already stated on the first point that legalized blood sport isn't moral. Blood sport is blood sport, whether it's regulated or not, and it should be spurned. There are two main problems with the transition from illegal to legal. The first major problem is that it invites more people into dog fighting? Why? It increases the number of people who will bet on it by availability, and improves access, making it easier to get into and more widespread. Beyond that, even if there is some benefit to dogs involved in this fighting, society as a whole needs to take a stand against blood sport like this. I'd make a slippery slope argument here, but on a basic level, this is just plunging us into a moral abyss, saying that we're OK with activities we recognize as harmful to the rights of animals. No amount of regulations will make this completely safe and still allow the practice in any similar form to what it is now. So we would be accepting legalized animal abuse. We don't allow people to beat in their own homes, but suddenly, we will allow them to throw their animals into a ring to attack each other for a live crowd? I'll get into the harms of this more on my final point. But let's get into the arguments proper. 1. I can protest overcrowded prisons, the extent of homelessness, and the way veterans are treated and still protest dog fighting. It's neither arbitrary nor hypocritical " I'm saying these are all harmful, this is just the topic we're discussing now. I don't see this sort of protest as a waste of resources either. These examples are all related to human beings, and while they should be addressed, animal rights should not be shelved to do so. Their lives matter too. I would also like to know exactly who Pro thinks will be running dog fighting if it were legalized. Are you suggesting that criminals suddenly going to drop their enterprises because it's legal? Or are you instead suggesting that there are legal enterprises that have been waiting for this moment and would be happy to take it up themselves? Both seem relatively unlikely, especially when criminals can suddenly run legit with larger audiences and more bets. I doubt they'll be outcompeted, and therefore criminal enterprises will only grow. On death - First, death isn't the only outcome we should care about. Injury is practically guaranteed, and is often permanent. Many dogs could develop terrible infections, lose the use of a limb or be mentally damaged. Second, dogs do often die of blood loss, shock, dehydration, exhaustion, or infection hours or even days after the fight.[1] Numbers are difficult to find, but some have been pursued.[2] Approx. 250,000 dogs in fighting pits nationwide. We can't possibly know how many have died from these fights, as they haven't been documented, but every single one of them gets injured, and many die. It doesn't matter if its hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands. Those lives matter. Third, though Pro didn't respond to them, I did make several arguments about their abuse outside of the ring (which can also lead to death), their being killed when they can no longer fight, and the loss of bait animals, which are taken from loving homes and always killed. 2. Pro refers to instances where dogs are treated well outside the ring. I'd like to point out that he doesn't cite this argument, and it's not at all realistic. As I pointed out in my initial argument, sending these animals into the ring makes them a commodity. It's no different than the cruelty that results from horse racing, where horses that don't make the grade are slaughtered for meat or enter a downward spiral of neglect.[3] 3. I've already responded to these arguments. What we currently accept isn't a reason to accept this. 4. This response was given in the comments, but yes, it is more wrong. Nature is messy, but that doesn't mean we have to actively participate in doing this. And since, in this case, it's not being used for food to feed a wild animal and instead just to showcase the dogs' violent tendencies, it's incredibly senseless. What's more, when you say in your own post how important it is that dogs have a good home, and yet ignore the fact that these animals often do have a good home, you're contradicting the importance of that home life. 5. Similarly in the comments, I'd say that any of the consent issues you're discussing here are very different from the ones seen in dog fighting. None of these thrust dogs into dangerous situations. None of them force injury upon them. None of them commoditize that animal based on its fighting capacity. Consent is an issue in all of these cases, but there's a different level of harm, and each of these cases simply involve the issues of cohabitation rather than issues of money. 6. You left this one out. Desensitized children engage in more animal cruelty and violence against humans. Those with a history of animal cruelty often engage in spousal abuse and child abuse.[4] This is not small, and legalizing furthers this problem, desensitizing the entire nation to these harms by condoning them. 1. http://www.humanesociety.org... 2. http://www.orangecountyfl.net... 3. http://www.animalaid.org.uk... 4. http://www.humanesociety.org...

Dog fighting (See initial argument)

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...

Dog fighting should be aloud

Prove what? Death matches would be awesome. I would like something to debate with, opponent, so actually come up with a claim because I have already made mine.

Hockey is also better then tennis becuase hockey players are tougher then tennis players. you dont see tennis players taking out there teeth on the bench then countinue playing the game. Here is a video of Dupuis pulling out one of his teeth during a game. http://www.youtube.com... the game he was interviewed and said that he would try to put his tooth back in when he got home.... himself. The new rules that they make for hockey are for safty reasons. They dont change any rules for tennis becuase they only have to be worried about getting hit with the ball. Were in hockey your being slamed into the boards and the ice and have to worry about getting hit with a hard fast flying peice of rubber. Hockey is a tough contact sport. Some players just cant learn to control themselves (look at the nasty flyers for example). they hit players with an illegal check (when the player makes the hit and they can only see the number of the person there hitting against the boards) those are cheap shots by dirty players. its nearly impossible for a hockey team to go a whole season without an injury, its pretty much expected for players to get injured when theres as much contact as there is. in tennis there is no contact, the players cant hit eachother. There is more action in hockey then tennis. in tennis theres 2 people hitting a ball back and forth. in hockey there are a total of 12 players on the ice at a time ( 3 offense, 2 defense, 1 goaly for each team) and there always moving.

Tennis is better than hockey

I am Pro, and I will be arguing that Ice hockey is better than Hockey.Leggo:Since the first round is for definitions, I’d like to provide some.DefinitionsIce Hockey - A fast contact sport played on an ice rink between two teams of six skaters, who attempt to drive a small rubber disk (the puck) into the opposing goal with hooked or angled sticks. It developed in Canada in the 19th century [1. tinyurl.com/6p959ln]Hockey - A sport played on a hard surface in which two opposing teams of roller skaters, using curved sticks, try to drive a ball into the opponents' goal (i.e. roller hockey) [2. tinyurl.com/7q7act7]Better - Greater in excellence or higher in quality [tinyurl.com/7232uaq] Contention 1: Ice hockey is more exciting. Ice hockey employs many of the beautiful, thrilling, and scintillating moves possible only on low-friction surfaces, such as ice. The smooth surface of the ice allows for more versatile skating, which is essential for exciting game-play and athletic challenges. The sport uses the ice as a dynamic factor in its physical competition exhibitions on which amazing tricks are performed, skate paths are undulated, and the thirst for victory hangs in the balance like the sweet breath of angels. Ice hockey uses checking, which involves hitting another player’s body with yours. It is really exciting, because of the primal athletic aggression it unleashes; the fans love it as well. Ice hockey uses a puck, a flat cylinder of rubber, as the disk with which scoring requires. The puck is perfectly suited to the sport, because of its stable nature on the ice and the thrilling sound of the slapshot. The rolling ball as used in hockey is a banal, incongruous object to be used in the sport, as it makes passing, scoring, and general play awkward and disappointing. It’s as if someone brought golf into the sport, which instantly makes it less exciting. The puck is also more easily manipulated by the player in ice hockey, allowing for more exciting scoring opportunities and more creative shots. The challenge of deflecting these shots is much more difficult for the goalie in ice hockey than the goalie in hockey, because the puck has a slimmer profile, is moving faster with less air resistance, and is more difficult to block, enhancing the shooting experience.Therefore, ice hockey is more exciting because of the dynamic qualities of ice skating, the perfect object of play: the puck, and the creative play and goals (see the video for exciting and creative goals).Contention 2: Ice hockey is more popular than hockey. Ice hockey has more spectators in the NHL than in every single country’s roller hockey league combined. Ice hockey also has higher participation, more rinks, and a better societal image than roller hockey. Roller hockey is accompanied by a social stigma of nerdiness and awkwardness. The participants of roller hockey are even looked down upon by their familial sport neighbors, ice hockey. Ice hockey is known, watched, played, respected, and valued more than roller hockey.Contention 3: Ice Hockey is actually safer than hockey. Fewer common injuries occur in ice hockey than in roller hockey, largely due to the surface the game is played over. It is basic physics: friction is the resistance that one surface or object encounters when moving over another. The higher the friction on a hard surface, the more intense the impact when one falls. That’s why more concussions, broken bones, and fractures occur in roller hockey than in ice hockey. When a skater falls in ice hockey, much of the force of his impact is displaced into movement in a particular direction. Even ice skaters voluntarily fall and slide along the ice’s surface during performances to increase the aesthetic experience and variety in their routines. Now, if someone were to voluntarily fall and slide along a roller rink, he must be a masochist.Therefore, with a basic understanding of friction and force, we are led to the common sense conclusion that ice hockey is safer than hockey.It is for all of the previously stated reasons that the resolution is affirmed.Thanks for reading and debating :Dhttp://www.youtube.com...

Ice hockey is better than Hockey

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.

children should be allowed to box in school.

The debate will start at Feburary 25th. Remeber, that does not mean that you start to construct your arguments at the 25th, it just means that we start the debate, so you can construct your arguments and proofread them all times.Because someone accepted this, I will make it clear. Debate impossible to accept. If you accept without my permission: You lose the debate, and automatically forfeit the whole debate to me. Wishing to accept, apply in comments. I am not letting someone will forfeit accept this debate. This will be a team debate.Team DebatePro1. yomama122. LostintheEcho1498 Con1. Fire_wings2. Hayd Resolution: Ban Violent Sports (Boxing)Rules1. No forfeiting, automatic loss2. No trolling3. No kritiks4. BoP is on Pro5. Definitons are arguable.6. Over 2500 ELO to voteStructure1. Rules/ Arguments2. Arguments/ Rebuttals3. Rebuttals/ Defense4. Defense/ WaivePro will make the definitons.Comment wanting to be my partner, or wanting to be my opponent.I want 5 judges, who are good at voting to vote on this debate. If you want to judge, tell me, and the people who want to judge, I will choose 5 people out of them to pick who should judge the debate.1. Famousdebater2. ColeTrain3. JOHNCENA17384. dynamicduodebaters5. Probably donald.keller or whiteflame.Thanks. My opponent will be yomama12

Team Debate: Ban Violent Sports

Thank you for taking a part in this and for having much respect. I assume you play soccer because you seem to write more and be most passionate about it, but that is just an assumption. In soccer, the goalie may have to leave his small box to play the ball. But the hockey goaltender must do the same to play the puck. And as the goal may be 4x the size if an Nil size, the ball is 10x bigger than a puck. The puck can be tipped, there can be multiple passes before a shot, the goalie can be screened and the goalie can be hit by another player, which may be illegal but is rarely called by referees. In football, what I meant by they aren't on the field all the time is that if your a quarterback, your not going to be on the field when the defense is on the field. Baseball, the pitcher does need to choose the perfect pitch, but they have about a minute to do so. The hockey goalie must do the equivalent but in a split second Dance, dance is mostly a team sport where no body contributes the most. And if it is a single dancer, when they make a mistake, they cant be pulled and humiliated, they get to keep going on Wrestling, just so we are clear, we are talking about cage fighters and not that fake wwe stuff right, that being said, fists and kicks don't hurt as bad as a puck to the groin. Plus, id like to see a wrestler skate with that much pads on. On the armless ping pongers, I give them many applauds since I know I couldn't do it, but its still not that different id they're playing everyone like that. The goaltender may not be as important as you say, but it is the most difficult there is since all goalies must use the Same size net from mini mights to beer league, all goalies must skate which does not apply to any other sport. Finally all goalies must have some of the greatest hand eye coordination there is. Because unlike baseball players. If they miss the puck, its a goal. So I ask you this, if the hockey goaltender isn't the most difficult position in sport, then who is.

The ice hockey goaltendee is the most difficult position in all of sport

Debate impossible to accept. If you accept without my permission: You lose the debate, and automatically forfeit the whole debate to me. Wishing to accept, apply in comments. I am not letting someone will forfeit accept this debate. This will be a team debate. Dude, you could have forfeited round 1! Because if you accept without my permission, you lose.

Team Debate: Ban Violent Sports

Boxing makes violence look cool.

Boxing Should Be Banned

Theoretically, sure. But I'm asking you if you can find any real-world examples of this. The nose argument is fallacious because in both football and ice hockey players wear helmets with metal face guards.

A few things to clarify:I will be arguing that dogfighting should be legal Dogfighting is a type of bloodsport in which (generally) you oppose two game dogs against each other in a ring or a pit for the entertainment of the spectators or the gratification of the dogfighters. Although I am not entirely FOR dogfighting, I believe it should be legal.

Dogfighting should be legal

Just because hockey is played in the olympic games doesnt mean that football isnt popular. It isnt played the Olympic games because its an American sport and once again we have been arguing AMERICAN popularity. Also the Stanley Cup is televised just as much as the Superbowl but people just dont watch it as much. Have you considered this, that most of the people who play in the NHL are mostly from outside our country? Because of this, it shows that in the US not many people play hockey over football which is why the popularity is down in the US. Internationally hockey is way more popular than football but once again we are talking about the US. I myself am a hockey fan and enjoy the game because of its toughness and athletism it takes to play the game but to say that it is more popular than football isnt a fair judgement. As for the rule changes that the NFL has been coming too, the league is just trying to limit the amount of head injuries that are causing men to suffer alot of brain damage because of how physical the game of football is. Your right that it is a privelige to play in the NFL but why risk causing life threathing injuries over vicious hits that are completely illegal. To say that it is becoming a "touch football league" it is completely un-jusitfied because these head injuries shouldnt be nessessary and jeopardizing the lives of people. There are plenty of hard LEGAL hits in the NFL that show how physical of a game it is and always will be. Also, most of the rule changes in the NFL are just to protect the quarterback which i might say is something a little childish to the quarterbacks and favoring them a little bit but still doesnt take away from still being the most physical sport.

Hockey is a better sport than football.

Time for the rebuttals :) Starting at the top Longer games Longer games can be enjoyable if there is a lot of action. There is not much action in soccer compared to hockey. In hockey you are watching a game that is constantly in motion. No matter what position you play you are always moving. A soccer game can get boring after an hour of watching men/woman running back and forth with a ball, kicking it out of bounds and having to throw it back in. Break times/ toughness Hockey players are on the ice 35-45 seconds at a time because while they are on the ice they are constantly moving. If you were to watch a game of hockey, you would notice that while a player is on the ice they are never standing still. They are always skating from one end of the ice to the other. Soccer players might play longer shifts, but that is because they are not constantly in motion. To add to the fact of how tough hockey players are. When you see a soccer player get injured (or pretty much any sports player) you see them lay on the ground until they are taken off by stretcher or helped off. In hockey, the players get up and skate off on there on. The only time you will not see that happen is if they are knocked out. Here is an example. Last season, Paul Martin, who plays for the Pittsburgh Penguins, broke the upper part of his leg. He skated to the bench and sat down to wait for his next shift. He did not realize his leg was broken until he stood up for his next shift and felt the bone move. Another example would be Clint Malarchuk. During a game he had his jugular vein cut by a skate. He refused to get on the stretcher. He skated off the ice on his own. ( he lived) the link to the video is below. If you don't like the sight of blood DON'T WATCH. Easiness to learn Soccer might be easy to learn, but that takes the talent level out of it. Everybody knows how to run and kick a ball. It is very simple. But not everyone knows how to skate or or how to stickhandle. The fact that not a lot of people can do this makes it even more fascinating to watch. You are watching people do things that not everyone can do. Injuries Hockey might have a lot of injuries, but that is just part of the sport. That is how you know that hockey is much tougher then soccer. Occasionally you get players like Todd Bertuzzi who are way to violent ( i guess that's how i could put it without using colorful language :) ) those players are punished with suspensions from the games ( sometimes the rest of the season, and on one occasion a guy was kicked out of the NHL) and heavy fines. Take Shawn Thornton for example. He was suspended for 15 games ( should of been longer) for coming up behind Brooks Orpik, knocking him to the ice and punching him. (knocking him out). He also forfeited $84,615.45 in salary. Faking an injury is worst then the real thing. When you fake an injury you are wasting every ones time, and not to mention making a full of yourself. Goalies It takes more talent and accuracy for a hockey player to score a goal then it does a soccer player. Goalies are very flexible and also take dives. Just watch a game and you will see. They often go into the butterfly position which is like a split, and occasionally go down into a full split. Goalies have a lot of skills ( and guts) to be able to stop a puck moving at 95-118 mph. Plus being able to keep an eye on the small puck and knowing were it is every second of the game. A lot of hockey players use black tape so it is harder for the goalie or any other players to see the puck on the stick. Soccer goalies do not move that much either. And the ball is much easier to spot then a puck. http://espn.go.com...

Hockey is better than soccer

Dmetal has forfeited his round it seems.

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.

Legalize 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.

Fighting

YAY! THE FUUUUN PART. Ok. Here: I would like to point out that you did not refute all of my points. “Hockey is a faster sport.” (the whole point) Pensfan states facts about how it is literally faster moving. Alright, I agree, hockey is faster, however, that does not make it better. In fact, it makes it worse! Faster players mean harder collisions. Imagine two players, going “over 30 mph” (Pensfan’s figures.) That is a 60 mile collision. Enough to knock them both onto the hard ice, and that could possibly give them serious injuries. Concussion? Possible. Broken bones? Possible. Blood? Almost guaranteed. Where as in soccer, again I will use your figures, the collision would be two “20 mph” people colliding. Maybe make them stumble? Fall? But no broken bones, no concussion, and maybe a tiny bit of blood. That’s all. Also, a stumble on to grass is cushioned, but a fall onto hard, hard ice, is already enough you give you a concussion. Faster pucks mean obviously harder hits if the puck hits you. I admit, a soccer ball can hit you hard and MIGHT cause an injury. If a puck hits you though, again your figure, at “105 mph”, that is SURE to give you an injury. Take a peek at this video: OOF! The guy even has a visor on. That shows that in hockey, they need protection from all the flying pucks. But that protection doesn’t even work properly! Lastly, if the play is moving around so fast, it is hard to track that extremely fast puck. Imagine trying to follow the puck from here: http://upload.wikimedia.org... Hard Eh? Toughness from round 2: “A recent ESPN study concluded that ice hockey is the most demanding team sport in the world.” COMPLETELY FALSE! Here is evidence that ESPN did the study and said that “he toughest sport in the world is . . .Boxing.” Source? Here: http://sports.espn.go.com... My opponent is LYING! So judges, this should be enough evidence as it is. BUT, I shall continue. Toughness is not always good. Remember we are debating the best sport in general, not just the professional version of it. It Hockey, I agree, you need to be tougher, but is that a good thing? If you have to be durable, then that kinda shuts down the door for the people who are not tough enough doesn’t it? So if the professionals are tough, that doesn’t mean everyone is strong to absorb a check does it? Uh….you are Pro, right? You have the point about hard Hockey is. For those who are 4, learning to play, easier is way better. If it is harder it narrows the window for playing hockey a lot for only the people who are the strongest and the best. Pretty narrow, eh? Toughness from round 3: Soccer players usually play 45 minutes in a row while hockey players go off and on in shifts of 60 seconds. Soccer fields are bigger and and are not on ice, making the running bit much more difficult. “A large field, a fast moving ball, and rare substitutions mean soccer players can expect to log some heavy mileage over 90-plus minutes. Midfielders tend to run the most, sometimes reaching nearly 9.5 miles” Tackles and spiked shoes are quite painful, so soccer players are durable as well. To doubt the toughness of soccer players is intellectually dishonest. “Embellishment” Diving, really? http://bleacherreport.com... That is 15 different dives in hockey. Ever heard of Claude Lemieux? A little outdated, but still hilarious. Players dive in both soccer and hockey. Deal with it. People cheat all the time, hockey, soccer, debates, board games, cheating is no reason to say one sport is better than another. Accuracy: May I point out that Hockey players use a stick that has been designed to be as accurate as possible, while soccer players only use their feet? If hockey players spent their time kicking a puck then we could compare the two, but the whole purpose of the hockey stick IS TO BE ACCURATE! It is almost rigged. Time: Alright, fine perhaps most soccer games are longer than hockey games, but in the NHL playoffs if the game is 0-0 then the game will continue for as long as it needs to until a goal is scored, meaning that the LONGEST HOCKEY GAME IS LONGER THAN THE LONGEST SOCCER GAME. Also, imagine you are a fan of Soccer, or a fan of Hockey. Would you rather get the average game time of 90 minutes of watching your favorite team or would you rather have less time watching your favorite team. What’s more, you pay money for tickets. It’s better value for you ticket to see a longer game. Scorring: Again, I agree with you, there are more goals in hockey, but hockey goals are worth less than soccer goals. Why? It’s easier to score in hockey than it is to score in soccer. Another example is racing. There are more passes in indie races than F1, but F1 passes are more valuable. Skill: Um, no. Hockey players use a tool. IT’S CALLED A HOCKEY STICK. Soccer is difficult as well, I mean, on average soccer players run 7 miles in agame! That takes alot of skill. Out of Bounds. “Averages Offsides: 16 Icings: 9 Goals: 5 Penalties: 5 TV Timeouts: 12 Incidental stoppages: 34 (non-penalized skirmishes, puck leaving rink, puck frozen, etc)” That is a good amount of stoppages. Do remember that since according to you soccer games are longer, which means more stoppages. Alright, I am very tired, and a little lazy, but I think I have done a good job. Why we have won: We have provided sufficient evidence for our side We have successfully wrecked his points. He had false evidence. THANKS, DDD VOTE CON References (for the whole debate) http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.urmc.rochester.edu...... http://articles.sun-sentinel.com...... https://ca.answers.yahoo.com...... https://www.youtube.com...... http://www.fifa.com...... https://www.youtube.com...; https://answers.yahoo.com...

Hockey is better than soccer

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...

My apologies, a giant Nazi duck attacked my house and I was busy and stuff. Even though Boxing is a dangerous sport but how dangerous? It's more of a gentlemen sport, you're talking about MMA being dangerous. And I do boxing, there are a lot of rules as well; It limits how dangerous it could. So far, you never presented any evidence whatsoever, against my argument. I mean even if we do introduce other activities such as Football, (One of the most dangerous sports) there still might be violence but I favor Boxing because people can release their anger on their opponent instead of doing it in the courtyard. You still have not provided evidence that they will take this outside but, the prisoners actually became interested in boxing and some of them actually joined boxing leagues. There were no reports of violence outside the prison, upon release after boxing.

Boxing should be allowed in Prisons

1. Embellishment- In soccer there are many players who love to fake injuries, as you can tell from the video in my last argument. It is very rare to see that happen in hockey. When a player embellishes an injury they are given a penalty. Accuracy- Hockey players have better accuracy. Under NHL rules, the opening of the goal is 72 inches (6 ft ) wide by 48 inches (4ft ) tall. In soccer, the uprights are 8 yards, or 24 feet, apart and the lower edge of the crossbar is 8 feet above the ground. Now take the goalies and place them in the nets. In hockey you have a goalie at least 6 ft tall with pads on. That is covering almost every opening of the net. In soccer you have a goalie of about 5'11" standing in a large net with many openings. However the average score in a soccer game is about 2 (depending on the team). In hockey the average score is about 4. Toughness - A recent ESPN study concluded that ice hockey is the most demanding team sport in the world. Durability is a quality that hockey players display perhaps, paradoxically, more than any other athletes. They play a sport that is more physically demanding than any other - 60 minutes in a confined area with no "comfort zone" out of bounds. Hockey is non stop action. Either you are rushing on a break, or hurrying back to get into your defensive zone. There is no time, especially in the NHL, where a player would really have the chance to catch their breath during a game. In hockey you are constantly moving your feet. There is no such thing as standing still while on the ice. Each period lasts is 20 minutes long and there are 3 periods in a game. There are only 2 intermissions which last about 15 minutes so they can clean the ice. Each game lasts about 2 1/2 to 2 hours. http://www.iihf.com... (this debate is only about soccer and ICE hockey. not field hockey)

Hockey is better than soccer

... is naughty.

fighting

I will again start by refuting my opponents points then giving some of my own. Refute/Rebuttal My opponent desperately tried to think of ways he could stop a possible rebut that I might possibly say, yet failed to discern one thing. You know why there are less shots in soccer? Because defense plays way, way better, and has way more players so it is hard for an attacker to score in soccer. In Hockey there is only 2 defense that in some cases are complete flops. This is not to say that soccer defense players can not flop, they definitely can, BUT they have more players to back them up! Also, my opponent stated that Hockey is more of a "Team Sport". Well, in soccer you have an average of 420 passes per game. How is that not a team sport? And, if you want more of a "Team Sport", saying that having more shifts and different players does not make it more of a team sport but instead just switches the player talent around. Also, if you wanted more of a team sport, wouldn't you want more of the team playing on the field/ice at the same sport? One more thing: REFS CATCH THE FAKERS IN SOCCER. The players learn that this ridiculous. Yes, the players where faking it, but refs see through it, and give them penalties for "faking". Anyways, back to the points!: Point #6: Injuries In any league of ice-hockey, there is many, many injuries, because of the physical play of hockey players. Concussions, broken bones, ribs injured and sprains are very often, which makes the game way more risky. These injuries come from the constant hitting and fighting in hockey, where as in soccer, if you check or rough anyone you are given a yellow or red card. Injuries in soccer are usually minor sprains. In hockey, big hits lead sometimes to a life-ending injury. In this next video, Lars Eller of the Montreal Canadians takes a really, really nasty hit (the video commentator is french but the point is still made): Scary Right? THAT"S HOCKEY! Point #7 Goalies In Hockey, the Goalies are almost the size of the net, making it almost too easy for them to save a puck. They move rarely and have a very non-flexible job: SAVE THE PUCK. Where as in Soccer, as a Goalie, you have to dive for the ball, which takes skill, and in soccer, players kick the ball on spin so it is hard to read the play. Soccer goalies know this and have fine-tuned there skills to read plays. What's more, in soccer, the goalie has to boot the ball an incredible distance and they do it just fine. This goes to show that the Goalies in Soccer are way better. Thanks for this awesome debate, jacobie1121 :)

Soccer is a better sport than Hockey

Only one more round till the best part: Rebuttals. :) Anyways, back to the points!: Point #6: Injuries In any league of ice-hockey, there is many, many injuries, because of the physical play of hockey players. Concussions, broken bones, ribs injured and sprains are very often, which makes the game way more risky. These injuries come from the constant hitting and fighting in hockey, where as in soccer, if you check or rough anyone you are given a yellow or red card. Injuries in soccer are usually minor sprains. In hockey, big hits lead sometimes to a life-ending injury. In this next video, Lars Eller of the Montreal Canadians takes a really, really nasty hit (the video commentator is french but the point is still made): https://www.youtube.com...... 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. Watch: I will elaborate way more in the rebuttal. And what's the worst that soccer has? Suarez? OK, and so he fakes that he does it. But what is worse, faking, or the REAL injuries? Point #7 Goalies In Hockey, the Goalies are almost the size of the net, making it almost too easy for them to save a puck. They move rarely and have a very non-flexible job: SAVE THE PUCK. Where as in Soccer, as a Goalie, you have to dive for the ball, which takes skill, and in soccer, players kick the ball on spin so it is hard to read the play. Soccer goalies know this and have fine-tuned there skills to read plays. What's more, in soccer, the goalie has to boot the ball an incredible distance and they do it just fine. This goes to show that the Goalies in Soccer are way better. Yes, hockey goalies make some crazy saves, but a crazy save in soccer is jut way harder. Judges, what would be harder? Making this save: Or these: The choice is obvious. Soccer! Thanks, DDD

Hockey is better than soccer

I request that voters appreciate that due to the very short round timings of instigator we both have unfortunately forfeited one round each and that neither my opponent nor myself should receive penalty for this since our acts cancel each other out.I shall like to point out that my opponent chose to defend ice hockey as opposed to field hockey (which is definitely what one would assume hockey on its own meant since hockey was originally field only).Nonetheless I shall rebut her points and hope to conclude in a very formal and appropriate manner.My opponent seems to begin justifying hockey's supposed superiority over football by stating that " In football, you fall on soft ground. In hockey, you slam into hard boards and solid ice." This is as if to say that running into a slab of ice is a superior activity than running into a wall of muddy grass. I can assure that the bloodshed and overall damage of the ice is far more gruesome and malignant than the latter unless of course by chance the field happened to have very infested mud (which the well-cleaned professional fields of football do not). Thus this is a rather futile point to raise in favour of hockey as it merely proves the stupidity of ice hockey over football."There are no weapons in football." This is exactly why it's a safer and superior sport. It is a sport that turns the body into the weapon, one need only master his or her body and then train with it to master football. To master hockey is a far more dangerous and risky ordeal make it far more of a 'who is lucky enough not to get hit?' ordeal than a 'who is the best player?' ordeal."In hockey, every player carries a stick that can do serious damage." Yes and in the ghetto everyone carries a gun. Does this make the ghetto better than the uptown city?"If a football hits you in the face, your face guard will protect you. If a hockey puck is slapped into your face, your facial bones will be broken and teeth lost." This is because American football is a far safer sport played by very risk-averse individuals usually who will go far in life. In hockey there is a huge element of risk that you could literally get your head cracked open or jaw smashed in, in the blink of an eye due to bad luck. Thus it is a far more barbaric and inferior sport in terms of its system of regulations and safety measures."if it[the hockey stick] strikes you hard enough and in just the right spot, you will die." Yes exactly, this is why it is a far more dangerous and less pleasant sport to play, referee and watch." Football cleats might give you a tiny puncture wound." That's because American football players want to be safe while training and competing in their sport, not sorry for ever taking it up."A hockey skate blade is razor sharp and at least two players in recent memory came close to bleeding to death after having major arteries sliced by them." Because that's exactly what we wants to happen in a sport... Not."I could go on but there really is no contest here." Then why offer a debate if there's no contest?"Hockey is infinitely more dangerous to play than football." And this is exactly why football is the better sport.Do we think that slitting arteries of people open is a better option than not doing so? The law would suggest we do not.Do we think that smashing someone in the 'right spot' therefore, in essence, committing murder is a better option than not doing so? The law would suggest we do not.So then tell me why is it that a sport that incorporates both of those risks is deemed the better one? The simple fact is you can't tell me why because there is no reason why.As I said in round one, "in American football anything is being involved in the sport." The brutality in American Football isn't one f danger, it is one represented through the fact that one must wear severely heavy padding in order to avoid the possible injury that could occur. Hockey endorses only shin pads and gum shields. This will not stop the hockey stick hitting you in the 'right spot' to cause a fatal blow and thus is a far inferior and barbaric sport in comparison with the civilised and rational sport of American football.I have refuted all points raised by pro (in fact favouring con's side throughout) and re-iterated my own.I leave it to the voters.

is hockey better than american football

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.

That UfC should be banned.

Time for rebuttals First argument The cost and the simplicity does not make soccer better than hockey. Hockey is a sport of talent. Not everyone can skate or stick handle, but everyone can run and kick a ball. Second argument The pace of the game has a big factor in entertainment. Would you sit and watch a game of any sport were the players just walked around slowly? That would not be a good sport to watch. While you talk about a man dribbling past 4 guys, a hockey player can do just the same with a puck. Have you ever watched someone split the defense before? Hockey players also display the positional awareness of there team mates and opposing players while keeping pace with both them and the puck. Hockey players are the fastest people on two feet while on the ice. Hockey players also demonstrate skill on the ice during a game while also adding in contact, making more of a challenge. Longer games can be enjoyable if there is a lot of action. There is not much action in soccer compared to hockey. In hockey you are watching a game that is constantly in motion. No matter what position you play you are always moving. A soccer game can get boring after an hour of watching men/woman running back and forth with a ball, kicking it out of bounds and having to throw it back in. Third argument The video is just showing a few clips of what constantly happens during a soccer game. Hockey players do not embellish because that gives them penalties. Soccer players embellish a lot. Fourth argument This one is simple. Large net small goalie, not many goals. Small net large goalie, still more goals then soccer. Simple as that. Fifth argument Have you ever watched the winter classics or the other outdoor games hockey players have been in? They play in a lot of snow. Hockey is mostly played in doors so they are not really exposed to this weather. That makes it better for fans. You do not have to worry about games being canceled/rescheduled because of weather. Sixth argument The equipment does not protect you from everything. There are gaps in the equipment. And getting hit as hard as they are, the equipment just simply absorbs some of the power behind the hit, but it will still hurt ( trust me) when players fight they take off there gloves ( throw down) helmets are not allowed to be taken off, but most of the time they come off with the power of a hit. Hockey players are on the ice 35-45 seconds at a time because while they are on the ice they are constantly moving. If you were to watch a game of hockey, you would notice that while a player is on the ice they are never standing still. They are always skating from one end of the ice to the other. Soccer players might play longer shifts, but that is because they are not constantly in motion. To add to the fact of how tough hockey players are. When you see a soccer player get injured (or pretty much any sports player) you see them lay on the ground until they are taken off by stretcher or helped off. In hockey, the players get up and skate off on there on. The only time you will not see that happen is if they are knocked out. Here is an example. Last season, Paul Martin, who plays for the Pittsburgh Penguins, broke the upper part of his leg. He skated to the bench and sat down to wait for his next shift. He did not realize his leg was broken until he stood up for his next shift and felt the bone move. Another example would be Clint Malarchuk. During a game he had his jugular vein cut by a skate. He refused to get on the stretcher. He skated off the ice on his own. ( he lived) the link to the video is below. If you don't like the sight of blood DON'T WATCH. Seventh argument Out of bounds rarely happens during a hockey game. Getting the game back in motion happens in a matter of seconds. http://video.nhl.com...

Hockey is better than soccer

Pro, who has full burden of proof, has made the point that hockey is more fun as you move at faster speeds. This is firstly untrue as the players themselves, if anything, move faster in soccer as they fight in a 'melee' style with the ball rather than a 'ranged' style in hockey. In hockey you can be moving our stick as a pivot around your body and shoulder rather than actually be speeding around. In soccer all tackles and all moves involve actual body-based movement and therefore you are moving at greater speeds. The only thing that moves faster in hockey, whether it's on field or ice, is that the actual ball or puck move faster within the game than the soccer ball does in soccer. This not only makes spectating and filming it for TV-based spectating a lot harder as well as real-time commentating but also is a major health risk and is why soccer players can wear nothing but shin pads and be fine but hockey players on field have to learn to use the bat itself as defence and on ice have literally padding top-to-bottom and still get life-threatening injuries. I won't use sources, case studies or go into details as yet. If Pro wants to call me out on any of my claims, I'm happy to oblige in later rounds.

Hockey is better than Soccer

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.

Legalize Fighting

Lets get the points over with. Argument #6: Faster I'm going to be a bit hypocritical and break the rule that I set for myself that I will save my rebuttals for the end. The longest game of hockey would be longer then the longest game of soccer. Why you may ask? Hockey has unlimited Overtime Periods in the playoffs. Now, I know that totally contradicts my point, but I felt I needed to refute your first point right away. Anyways, my point. Usually a Hockey game is 60 minutes long with two intermissions. Not only the game is faster but the player moves faster and the pace is faster due to the small area of play. The speed causes more action because the players can catch up quite quickly to the puck. They also may know that due to the limited time frame they need to put on a very fast but entertaining show. The word "Longer" and the word "Better" are NOT the same. Argument #7: Promotion of Winter fitness We can all agree. Hockey is a winter sport. Whether your a Canadian like me or from Scandinavia or Russia or any where cold you know that it's difficult to do exercises because of the winter. You can't go jogging. Soccer and Baseball are much more difficult to play but Hockey? All you need is some gear, a puck and friends and your ready to not only have snowy fun but much-needed exercise. The cold should never stop you from being healthy. In fact I would say Hockey promotes fitness year-round. There is field hockey in the spring and summer, In the fall you can play street hockey and I am sure there are many more types of hockey that can be played! Now Jacobie, I can already here you typing "What about indoor soccer?' Well, do you get the full experience of the wind at your back? The sun shining on your face? Do you get that warm summer feeling in indoor soccer? Two letters: NO. I'm looking forward to your rebuttal my friend! Thanks.

Soccer is a better sport than Hockey

Hockey is better than soccer

I hope you'll feel better soon and I understand your situation. We have now reached the final round and I will refute my opponent's points, reinstate my main arguments, and tell you why I believe I should win. Refutations 1. "Like in baseball, a hockey puck is 5 and is shot between 80 and 100 mph, which requires strength, speed, and accuracy because the puck needs to fit into a very small space between the pads of the goalie and the posts of the net. I feel that this is more difficult because of the shot to goal ratio compared to the pitch to hit ratio in baseball. " I agree with your statement that making a hockey goal is difficult. However, as you yourself stated, it is easy for a goalie to save a goal, for he has a 90% chance to. In hockey, there is an easy and a hard end, whereas, in baseball, nothing is easy for the batter, pitcher, and catcher. The pitcher has difficulty by throwing the ball into a 4 ft x 6 ft box and throwing a fast pitch and knowing how to throw numerous pitches. The batter needs to judge the pitch's speed, time the ball, and make good contact so that he can get on base. The catcher also has difficulty because sometimes a pitcher can throw a wild pitch and the catcher needs to get it or else runners will advance on the bases. Hockey difficulty is as difficult as baseball, which is exactly what I am arguing for. 2. "Typically in baseball, the pitchers are not good hitters, and thus are not great on offense. Hockey players need to have skill sets that make you good at both offense and defense. " Not necessarily, because in hockey you have your specific positions i. e. your forward left winger, center, and right winger and your left and right defenseman. You also have your Star and Sniper who are considered the best players. You also have an Enforcer to protect the Star in a fight. Each hockey player has his designated role to win the game. In baseball, you have some people who specialize and focus on a specific role, such as pitcher who wants and needs to excel at his job. Just because you are well-rounded, doesn't necessarily mean you are good. You can be a jack of all trades, but a master of none. Hockey and baseball are similar in this way. 3. "Fitness is very important in every sport. Baseball has "spring training" where baseball players train, however, the sport itself is less physically demanding than hockey. Hockey players that - " Seeing as your argument was for some reason suddenly cut short, I can't truly refute this. However, I will try to say something about this. Batters need plenty of muscle to hit the ball well and deep and leg muscle to sprint around bases. Catchers need great reaction to catch wild pitches. Infielders need reactions and speed to catch line drives and good throws to get runners out. Outfielders need to run fast to some fly balls and catch them. Pitchers need arm strength and endurance to get through those tough, long games. Hockey players need endurance to move up and down the ice, speed to get to the puck, and strength to hit it hard to score a goal. And they especially need good eyes to find the puck and good coordination. These sports are similar in skill and fitness. Here are my arguments once again. 1. As the Proposition, I stated the resolution and argued that hockey and baseball are similar in skill. 2. Baseball requires strength as does hockey. 3. Coordination, endurance, and speed are evident in both sports. 4. Both have their own difficulties that players can overcome.

Convince me that baseball is more entertaining and a "better" sport than hockey.

I agree two those term's, I would like to start with the physical aspect you probably think it would go to Football but if you think about it not really. Number one you are skating which uses up more energy then running. Second body checking which is pretty physically demanding, you could say is not as hard getting tackled. But with the fights , slashing , illegal checking , ect... about one of these thing's happen during a game and some times all of them. So really it's about as bad as getting tackled. The last thing is the player's in Hockey spend a longer time on the ice none stop playing, when a Football play is about 4 seconds.

Thanks, Leojm for your response. I would like to respond to my opponent's argument. 1. "In soccer you are constantly moving to run after the ball." Most of the game is spent with the teams passing the ball around to get organized. 2. "Soccer has overtimes too. If they get a tie. Also professional soccer is longer than a mini league." In soccer, if you give up a goal, you still have a chance to win. There is still room for error. In hockey, if you give up a goal in overtime, the game is over. There is no room for error in hockey. 3. "Soccer fans are crazy when it comes to soccer matches. Soccer also dates way back to BC. Romans also played soccer. Soccer is liked all over the world." My opponent did not show how soccer isn't rigged. 4. "Soccer has a lot of action. There are constantly horrible injuries. People get kicked in the face, get knocked out, and break their legs. It"s a dangerous sport. By the way, people love a fight that"s why the referees let the fights go on." Injuries do not make a sport entertaining. In fact, injuries slow the game down. 5. "Also soccer wins the World Cup." The same argument can be made about hockey. In the NHL, teams compete for the Stanley Cup, which is known to many people as the best trophy in professional sports.

Hockey is better than soccer

Stucture R1. Acceptance and definitions onlyR2. ArgumentsR3. RebuttalsR4. Defense of arguments against R3 rebuttalsWill use wikipedia definition for dog fighting. This is the only round to dispute this definition."Dog fighting is a type of blood sport generally defined as opposing two game dogs against one another in a ring or a pit for the entertainment of the spectators or the gratification of the dogfighters, who are sometimes referred to as dogmen" [1]Links1. https://en.wikipedia.org...

Dog fightning should be legalized in the USA.

Hey Chris,This is not a serious debate. It will be light hearted and jokes/minor insults are allowed. No conduct points should be taken away for these things.BoP is sharedAll 3 rounds for debateMay the best sport win.Limit 3 arguments per round + rebuttals.I'll start off with some arguments. 1) Basketball uses a ball.Ball sports are obviously better than non-ball sports, and a ball is a lot less dangerous than a puck. A common hockey injury2) Basketball takes less skill to playAnyone can pick up a ball and throw it into a hoop, hockey takes skill and skating around on the ice is hard enough by itself. Even kids can play. Fun for the whole family.3) Basketball is cheap to playAll you need is a ball and a hoop. Struggle basketball being played by kids. Minimal resources required.As we can see, hockey is clearly more expensive, harder to play, and more dangerous than basketball.

Basketball is better than hockey

Definitely hockey. In football, you fall on soft ground. In hockey, you slam into hard boards and solid ice. There are no weapons in football. In hockey, every player carries a stick that can do serious damage. If a football hits you in the face, your faceguard will protect you. If a hockey puck is slapped into your face, your facial bones will be broken and teeth lost; if it strikes you hard enough and in just the right spot, you will die. Football cleats might give you a tiny puncture wound. A hockey skate blade is razor sharp and at least two players in recent memory came close to bleeding to death after having major arteries sliced by them. I could go on but there really is no contest here. Hockey is infinitely more dangerous to play than football.

is hockey better than american football

I think that if death row inmates want to, they should be allowed to participate in gladiator battles. They are going to die anyway so if they choose, they can fight to the death. Whichever inmate wins would face the next one until there is another champion and it would just keep going on. It could even be televised as a sport.

Allow Gladiator Fighting Among Consenting Death Row Inmates

Thank you.Worthy opponent, we are going to have a slight change in the strategy. In this round, please rebut my arguments mentioned in the second round. In the fourth round, please have defense and conclusions. Thank you again.I don't know why my arguments in the second round are written as a whole argument in one line. Please copy it, paste it in MS Word, and then read it.Some of my rebuttals will be very short, but if I explained every one, we could make an essay out of it. I'll do that as I have more than 3 debates going on, all with arguments due. I ask my opponent to forgive me for that. I also ask voters, if my opponent does not mind that, to do the same.My strategy in rebuttal: ("Argument" -Rebuttal)Rebuttal:1. "First of all, to my first point, boxing, and other violent sports bring lot's of entertainment." -CON.-Legalize duels then!2. "In this source, the top ten are the following, football, ice hockey, basketball, soccer, Baseball, gymnastics, tennis, volleyball, lacrosse, and golf. This is just in the U.S., though. It is funny to see that 6-7 of the sports on the list are violent, and dangerous. I will be expanding this point later on in my argument, but this argument was about that violent sports can be entertaining. And, with this source I have shown tha violent sports are more entertaining then other normal sports." -CON.- NONE of them are violent. I will be expanding this point later on in my rebuttal.3. " Also, in this source, it shows that the 10 greatest sports. Boxing is in number 9. If you look at the comments they say, "Boxing should be on the top..." And in golf, it says, "This is really a sport, but..." Look at the differences of a boring non-violent sport, and boxing, which is a violent sport. "-CON.- Two things. Firstly, I agree boxing is entertaining. Very entertaining. But at the same time, very dangerous, too. You will be at fault if you ban any sport just because it is not entertaining. Ban boxing because it's DANGEROUS.4. "What if we ban boxing? All the fans will be mad, and probably do some stuff. Look at what happened when France lost against Portugal in the UEFA. This is just when they lost. Imagine what will happen if the whole sport will be gone? All these fans will be bazooked!!! They will throw things like this, and make tons of fire. We can call in World War Boxing. To actually prevent this, we should not ban boxing."-CON.- What if fans suddenly began loving duels, armed duels, leave them? Just because if you ban duels they'll become violent? So you musn't see what the public wants in everything. Public wants to legalize terrorism, suicide, etc. leave them? So democracy is in matters you can actually change or keep as it is, without danger. Not in dangerous SPORTS like boxing.5. "My next argument will be that the boxers liberty, and the people who watch's liberty. This will be kinda connected with the first argument. Why do the boxers do boxing. Well, there are lot's of reasons. Yeah, they earn lots of money, get famous, can possibly win, it can be entertaining, and it can entertain the viewers. If the game is boring for the viewers, then it will be infamous, and the sport will not be watched. So we need to entertain the viewers. And as I said in my first argument, boxing is exciting for the viewers. Let's think if we ban this. As I said, there will be rages, as the picture up there, only worse. And all the viewers cannot watch boxing anymore. It is literally banning soccer, just a different sport. Socrates says, "Even a bad law is a law." The same thing with sports. Even a bad sport is a sport. However boxing isn't a bad sport, just less famous then soccer, but still famous. Think about the people's, the watcher's liberty of watching. They want to watch, they should be allowed to watch. Why should thre government even ban boxing when it does no harm for them? Banning it will harm the watcher's liberty. They want to watch these sports, and we should give them the right to, they should watch it, and the government shouldn't make it banned just because of "safety". That is ridiculous. "-CON.- I don't know why my opponent is just debating about whether boxing is good or not. His arguments are full of red herrings[1]. WORTHY OPPONENT, THIS DEBATE IS NOT ABOUT WHETHER BOXING IS GOOD OR NOT. FAMOUS OR NOT. ENTERTAINING OR NOT. If a sort is good, famous, and entertaining, and at the same time DANGEROUS, BAN IT! Boxing is EXACTLY like duels in this debate. As for the liberty thing, then legalize suicide. Legalize duels. LIBERTY!6. "And also, why do boxers do boxing? Becuase they want to do boxing? Then why do they do boxing? By doing boxing, that means they accept all the risks to actually do boxing. They want to do boxing, that is why they are doing it. They don't really care if they get hurt, because it is part of their job. They know they might get hurt, because they are boxers, and they know their job. They want to be boxers, that is why they are boxers, and we shouldn't really ban boxing because they get hurt. They know they might get hurt, and by playing, they accept all the risks. Therefore, we shouldn't ban boxing because it can hurt them. "-CON.- Legalize suicide.7. "This is the problem. Think about every sport which is not dangerous. There is only few which one is golf. Baseball is dangerous because you can get hit by the ball or get tripped and fall or bump to each other. Soccer is dangerous because the ball can hit you and you might foul and the others might get hurt. Basketball is dangerous too. This is like almost everything is dangerous. Then this means we cannot play those sports million of people around the world like. My source . My source gives a big list of kills, you can click into each one. " -CON.- 1. Ban walking in the street and eating sugar. 2. Violent doesn't mean everything that hurts or kills. Violent means sports that actually goal to killing or hurting. A boxer's goal is to knock out his opponent. Violent. Whatever happens including injuries or deaths in other sports isn't intended. In boxing, it is.8. " a) ban all violent sports, which is on my 5th source list, and other sports not on the list, like broken fingers when volleyball, etc. Then all these fans, on every single sport will be mad. There will be a war, only worse, much worser then the picture above. Or b) we can not ban all sports, and make the fans in peace. Obviously peace is better than a fight, so we have to follow b), and not ban any of these violent sports."-CON.- I've already showed that other sports like volleyball and basketball aren't violenrt as injuries and deaths aren't intended. On the other hand, injuring is intended in boxing. By this, I've already cancelled the two choices, as only boxing from these sports is violent.In conclusion, I've rebutted all of my opponent's arguments. NO DEFENCE IN THIS ROUND PLEASE.I know my language is very bad in this debate. I'm not getting right words. Sorry. Please don't mind that, as I have many debates.Adil,Qatar.Sources:[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...

THW ban boxing

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.

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.

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.

Boxing should be allowed in Prisons

So is that for this debate?

Boxing should be allowed in Prisons

Collisions are often not entertaining, and when they are, it’s for the wrong reasons.  Most collisions do not show two athletes engaged in a skilled showdown; they feature athletes awkwardly trying to achieve their goal (scoring or getting the out) without injuring themselves.  It’s not fun or exciting. Fans also tend to be horrified by the injuries they witness in these crashes.  Watching Buster Posey’s leg snap at an odd angle was hardly entertaining or amusing; it was stomach-turning. And if fans do find this sort of thing entertaining, they’re wrong to do so.  Violence should not be glorified, at least not in this sport.  Nobody should delight in watching baseball players put their careers in jeopardy.  Baseball is fundamentally different from other sports; if people want to see athletes impose harmful blows on each other, they can watch boxing or ice hockey or ultimate fighting.

Collisions are exciting and fun to watch.

Hockey is NOT the MOST skilled sport in America it does take alot of skill but not the most here is why 1. There is a cap on skill 2. There is a team to help 3. There are refs to stop violence 4. There is little creativity To begin, i would say that Chess is a sport that takes more skill than hockey. Chess is a mind-sport and it is under-recognizzed on how much skill it takes 1. There is a cap on skill in hockey, not chess A body can only get so fast, so strong, and so good. A brain cannot. A hockey player will eventually reach a peak of skill, and stay roughly around there. A chess player can keep learning and increasing his skill as high a possible. This cap will never be reached because it keeps expanding exponentially. 2. There is a hockey team, not a chess team In hockey, you have other team mates to help you, protect you and boost your confidence. In hockey, the pressure of the whole game does not rest on your shoulders. In chess, you have no one to depend on, no one to help you, and the pressure of the whole match is on you. 3. There are refs to stop violence there reaches a point in hockey were you can't do what ever you want to the other player. example, they can't take off their skate and stab someone with it. In chess, there is no higher-power to tell the other player to take it easy. No ref to tell him he is going to make a move that will hurt you too bad. 4. There is little creativity in hockey but a lot in chess How many ways can you win? how many ways can you score? how many formations are there? In chess, the answer is infinite. You can win with any combination of moves. The challenge? you MUST RAISE YOUR SKILL AND BE MORE CREATIVE THAN YOUR OPPONENT. in hockey, i could be more creative than any other player, but i would suck. in chess, i could be more creative than any other player and i would do well. It takes another amount of skill in chess to develop creativity than hockey

Hockey is the most skilled sport in North America

i would like to start off by saying good luck. I also think it is very cool that you played hockey, i have been playing since i was 4 ( so about 11 years) and it takes a lot of energy which is good for my ADHD. i would also like to apologize in advance for my spelling i have dyslexia. to start hockey is better then tennese because theres more action. in hockey players are always moving from one end of the ice to the other and you have a puck moving all over the place at speeds of up to 90+ mph. there is also fighting involved. were in tennis players cant fight, hockey players can drop there gloves and start throwing punches. ( although not until college or profesionals) hockey players never stop moving, they skate faster then anyone can run. it takes up so much energhy that they have to change lines every 30 to 45 seconds so they always have fresh legs on the ice.

Tennis is better than hockey

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.

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.