Question: Should fighting be allowed in hockey?

Title: Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey Content: 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.

Title: Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey Content: 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.

Title: Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey Content: 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.

Title: Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey Content: 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.

Title: Fighting in Hockey Needs to Be Banned Content: 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...

Title: Fighting in Hockey Needs to Be Banned Content: 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.

Title: Fighting in Hockey Needs to Be Banned Content: 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.

Title: Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey Content: 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.

Title: fighting should be banned from the NHL Content: 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 )

Title: Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey Content: 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.

Title: fighting should be banned from the NHL Content: 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.

Title: fighting should be banned from the NHL Content: 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.

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

Title: fighting should be banned from the NHL Content: 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!

Title: Hockey is better than soccer Content: 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...

Title: American Football Fighters Content: 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.

Title: Hockey should change the rules to disallow body checking Content: 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.

Title: dog fighting 11 Content: 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.

Title: The state permits individuals to risk harming themselves only where such risks can be independently scrutinised and regulated Content: A distinction should be made between socially legitimatized recreational violence- such as rugby or boxing- and stigmatized recreational violence- such as S&M[i]. Rugby, ice hockey or motor racing must, of necessity, occur in public. Each of these events incorporates large numbers of competitors and is regulated by a referee. It is not possible for a Rugby player to be forced to play a match against his will, nor will he be prevented from leaving the field if he is injured or feels threatened. Indeed, referees can force players to withdraw if they believe they are at risk. Where violent sports events take place without any form of official sanction or oversight, their size makes them easy to detect, and legal principles such as negligence and ineffective consent make them easy to prosecute. Society permits violent public events such as rugby, while condemning violent private entertainments such as S&M partly because consent, capacity and safety are much easier to determine in a public context. In short, individuals are allowed to consent to the risks inherent in participating in a rugby match because the state- and society at large- is satisfied that sufficient safeguards exist to ensure that players’ consent is informed – that the risks they will be exposed to are foreseeable. This level of control and accountability cannot be generally guaranteed within individuals’ private sexual relationships. Although S&M practices, when properly conducted, do not carry a risk of permanent harm and are not likely to result in non-consensual activity, oversight of participant’s behavior is simply not possible. Sexuality is inherently private and individual sexual acts are closed off from public discussion. [i] Farrugia, Paul, ‘The Consent Defence in Sport and Sadomasochism’ (1997) Auckland University Law Review, 8 (2), 472

Title: All things considered its best to let children play in trafic Content: Point 1(1) This is illegal and would be considered pre meditated murderIf parents were to allow there kids to do this, and ones "reaction time" and you put it where not fast enough, the child would perish. When they ran an investigation on the matter, the cops would be aware that parents are allowing this to happen. Key word being allowed. Due to the available facts, it would be obvious to cops that this was intentional which resulted in the death of a child. Everyone is aware of the danger from this, and actually parents have went to jail for this very same thing. They also went for not paying attention to their child, which would be under child neglect. Due to the fact that this is intentional and not unintentional, it would be considered pre meditated murder. I will also ask con to cite his sources that show this would improve reflexs. A specific study done about the effects of children playing in traffic. Closing.There is no good to come from this. There are other way to improve reflexes among children that will not get them killed. Baseball, basketball, table tennis, tennis, hockey and so many others that I would not be able to name the allThis is illogical, illegal, and just all around wrong.http://www.wisegeek.com...

Title: Should Students be allowed to listen to music during seminar Content: fight me

Title: Allow Gladiator Fighting Among Consenting Death Row Inmates Content: 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.

Title: NHL Hockey is a harder sport then American Football Content: 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.

Title: Hockey should change the rules to disallow body checking Content: 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.

Title: Soccer is a better sport than Hockey Content: I'll give you one thing. You are such a master at the profession of being a Hypocrite! Hey, at least you where honest. I will go and give at least one reason for 6 of my opponents points, on why they are flawed, including rebutting his rebuttal. :) DARTH KIRONES SECOND POINT: HOCKEY FIGHTS!!!!! This seems very flawed. Yes, it might be exciting as a fan to watch, but you have to put yourself in the player's shoes. You are getting punched and shoved, until you get slammed to the ice by your opponent. You start to black out, but vaguely see some hands carrying you on a stretcher into the Locker Room. How the heck is situations like this "good"? Also, my opponent stated that they give bigger penalties if serious injuries occur. This is also false. They only give longer penalties if it is a hit that injures someone. In a Hockey fight, even if you knock someone unconscious, the penalty is still five minutes. As Darth Kirones says: "the penalty is small". Too small! DARTH KIRONES THIRD POINT: The Scoring He fails to see two things when saying that goalies in Hockey try harder than goalies in soccer. Just because you do not face as much shots in Soccer does NOT mean, at all, that you are trying less hard. Yes, there was less shots, but, the goalie made all the saves, didn't he? IF the soccer goalie faced more shots, it would have been a more accurate comparison because the soccer Goalie in that game did not have to work very hard to block less shots. That definitely does not mean that if there was more shots he would not have to work very hard though. Another thing. Because there is a lot less defence it is way easier to get shots on net in Hockey, then in Soccer, where there is more defensive players. DARTH KIRONES FOURTH POINT: Hockey is a better team sport Just because there is a shift in people on the ice does not make it more of a "team sport". It just means that you have different players on the ice. How does that make it more of a "team sport"? And the limit for NHL hockey is 23 players per Club, where as in Premier League Soccer, there is a limit of 25 players at a time. Seems to me there are more "job opportunities", as my opponent puts it, in soccer. DARTH KIRONES FIFTH POINT: Diving So my opponent says that he doesn't like people getting hurt. Ok, one more Hypocritical thing. He is cheating for Hockey right? Hockey is one of the most physical and highest contact sport. Well look at this: "The highest rates of injury occur in sports that involve contact and collisions"- University of Rochester sports statistics. My opponent might say that hockey players have more protection to prevent them from bug hits. This helps, but not enough. Players are still injured daily from big hits in Hockey. DARTH KIRONES SIXTH POINT: Faster This point is flawed for one major reason. My opponent stated that "The word "Longer" and the word "Better" are NOT the same" If you where a true loyal fan to a soccer or Hockey team, like many sports fanatics are, "Longer" and "Better" might very well mean the same because fans would love to see there favourite team for longer. This makes going to soccer games more enjoyable. DARTH KIRONES SEVENTH POINT: Promotion of Winter Fitness My opponent states that you don't get the full experience of soccer indoors because you don't have the "sun shining on your face." Soccer does not need the perfect breeze and the amazing sunlight to be able to play. Also, if you wanted to emphasize that Hockey is such a winter sport, then why would you say: "Just play indoors!" That ruins your whole first point! If you want Hockey to be a winter sport, then you play outside, utilizing the ice. DARTH KIRONES REBUTTAL: Yes, hockey has unlimited overtime periods, but those very rarely go over 1 extra period, or 20 minutes extra time, and is ONLY IN THE PLAYOFFS! Thanks, jacobie1121 References: http://www.urmc.rochester.edu... http://articles.sun-sentinel.com... https://ca.answers.yahoo.com... http://www.fifa.com...

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

Title: Video Games are a primary source of violence Content: Arguments4. If video games do cause violence and if it said that the government wants to ban violent games, then they might as well ban professional sports as well. You know? Sports that are extremely popular worldwide?Banning video games because they cause violence,but not ban soccer, hockey, basketball, and football? All the time, there’s an altercation between players in hockey, and the referees stand there, letting them fight each other until it gets out of control. It’s the same thing with basketball and football except it doesn’t happen very frequently and the referees don’t watch them fight. According to an article at Mandatory.com, “The most popular spectator sport in the world (where most countries call it “football”), soccer has incited riots and insane acts of brutality that beat anything football or basketball has to offer.” Referee Decapitated, Brazil (2013) – An article at Deadspin.com has shown that Brazilian soccer fans beheaded a soccer referee after he stabs and kills a player. Quoting: “Last Sunday, an amateur soccer match in Brazil came to an unbelievably gruesome end when a referee was murdered by outraged fans. His head was then cut off and placed on a spike. The beheading was retaliation; the ref initially stabbed a player to death. It happened in the Maranhão region of northeastern Brazil. Thirty-year-old Josenir dos Santos Abreu approached the referee, 20-year-old Otávio Jordão da Silva (pictured above) during a match to argue a call. Abreu reportedly threw a punch at da Silva, who then took out a knife he was carrying with him during the match, and stabbed the player. Abreu died of his wounds en route to the hospital. Meanwhile, the player's friends and family invaded the pitch and attacked da Silva. They reportedly tied up the referee, beat him, stoned him, lynched him, and then quartered him. When they finished, they cut off his head and placed it on a stake in the center of the field. So far, just one man, 27-year-old Luis Moraes Souza, has been arrested for the crime, and authorities are searching for two more. Valter Costa, the chief of police in Maranhão's town of Santa Ines, spoke in a statement. “Reports of witnesses have indicated some people that were in place at the time of the fact," he said. "We will identify and hold accountable all those involved. A crime will never justify another. Actions like this do not collaborate with the legality of a state law.”Kayseri Stadium Riot, Turkey (1967) – Using source #1, the article says, “Soccer violence isn’t a modern invention – fans and players have been doling out the brutality for at least half a century. One of the most insane post-game riots of all time happened in Turkey, at Kayseri Ataturk Stadium. The first league match between Kayseri and Sivas brought 21,000 fans to the stadium, and as the game went on they grew increasingly upset, bombarding Sivas fans with rocks and bricks. The visiting team fans surged to flee the stadium, only to be repulsed by police. Forty people were crushed to death in the melee, with at least 300 more wounded. The game was cancelled, and Sivas supporters hit the streets of Kayseri and destroyed the city’s gym along with over 60 automobiles, burning every car that had a Sivas license plate.”The list goes on and on and on. There’s a list of altercations in sporting events on Wikipedia. Of course, you wouldn’t say that sports are a primary source of violence would you? You wouldn’t come out here and say just because fights occur in sports, that means that sports cause violent acts right? Yeah, didn’t think so. So, why would the media just come out and blatantly state that “video games cause violence.” There’s no evidence to support that claim. So, it is unfair to blame video games for the violence matter while sports, films, and music lyrics (specifically rap) have the exact same basis if not a greater basis of violence. Evidence supporting the “video game causes violence” has been debunked as well. RebuttalsCountering: "Violence and Aggression are Closely Akin"Well, yes, agression does sometimes cause violence, but you didn't put in its correct form. You see, what you're saying is that just because a person shows an act of agression, that just comes down to him inevitably committing violence; however, that is incorrect. There is a difference between physically performing a violent act such as hitting, destorying one's property, kicking, killing, etc and thinking agressively. Thinking aggressive thoughts is not the same as violence. Of course, I'm pretty sure you've felt this way before. You've felt the need to physically beat up someone before or break something for whatever reaons. Everyone has. It's human nature. It's one of our natural emotions, anger. Anger is the"strong feeling of annoyance, displeasure, or hostility". Anger is not the same as violence. I've found a websites that states that there is a difference between anger, violence, and agression.- http://www.humankinetics.com...("Not all violence comes from anger and reactive aggression. Violence has, at its root, harm to another as its planned result.")Countering: "Effects of video games on violence are psychologically proven" and "The General Aggression Model have expounded the case for violence"This argument is so errenous for multiple reasons:1. Just becuse more people prefer violent video games doesn't really mean that video games cause violence. I can say the exact same thing for movies. I can probably say that the majority of movie watchers out here prefer to watch violent entertainment, yet you don't see people killing people primarilybecause they watched X, Y, and Z. According to an article atibnlive.in.com, researchers all over the world have stated that a wide statistic of movie watchers watch gory movies and why they do it. If you read the article, it says, "Some types of violent portrayals seem to attract audiences because they promise to satisfy truth-seeking motivations by offering meaningful insights into some aspect of the human condition."2. The "research" and "studies" that you used are outdated and they have been DEBUNKED long ago."According to an article at PBS.org, they list 10 video game facts that have been debunked long ago. If you actually look at it, the verysecond debunked fact is, "Scientific evidence links violent game play with youth aggression." (http://www.pbs.org...)The most recent and most in depth study on this matter ever conducted was from Chris Ferguson which has stated that the past studies "relies on measures to assess aggression that don't correlate with real-world violence. Some studies are observational and don't prove cause and effect."General Aggression Model: I can see what this model is saying. You see, what this model is correlating to is short term violence. Yes, sometimes long term violence can possibly be present, but 99.999999999% of the time will probably be short term. You see gamers getting angry and they blow off that anger for 10-15 minutes. I don't think this model correctly follows the scenario when gamers play games like Call of Duty, Battlefield, Mortal Kombat, etc. You see, this diagram is saying that people become aggressive and violent because of it's surroundings. However, most of the time, that's not the case. People get angry and frustrated because of the challenge and the competitiveness of games. Most likely, I never hear or see a player get angry because he's looking at blood. How does that make sense? I can say the exact same thing for sports again. I'm pretty sure you've seen coaches yelling at his players have you? Do you know why he's yelling? He's yelling and showing aggression because it's that competiveness that drives him into yelling. He wants to win. He wants to bring the best out ofhis team. Is that the same asviolence? There's nothing wrong with getting stressed because of comepetition and challenge.It's nature.But, again, don't get it twisted. Having an aggressive cognition is not the same as committing to the violent act itself. That's just plain common sense.According to another article from Kataku, "It's Video Game Competition, Not Violence, That Sparks Aggression" Countering "Children inevitably imitates aggression, resorting to violence without supervision"You've indirectly just proven my point because video games shouldn't take the blame. It's the parent's fault. They lack the supervision and guidance from parents and they are being notresponsible for taking care of their child. What people have failed to realize in this debate is that parental guidance is the #1 factor that determines the child's development throughout his/her life. If that factor is non-existent or lacking, then the child will feel that there are no consequences. This is where this "I can do whatever I want" mentality comes from. Yes, children imitates aggression, but it's the parent's responsiblity to teach their child the difference between right from wrong. Sources- http://www.mandatory.com...- http://deadspin.com...- - http://en.wikipedia.org...- - - - - - (This is a funny one)- http://ibnlive.in.com...- http://www.pbs.org...- http://www.humankinetics.com... - http://kotaku.com... I seriosuly don't know what's wrong with this text script. It's screwed up.

Title: Bull Fighting Should Be Illegal Content: My reasoning to ban bull fighting was not mentioned with regars to the health of the matador, that is just a sub section of my argument. The one being abused in these fights are the bulls who have no choice in participation for their inevitable death.To give you an example of how abused the bull is in order for it to be infuriated and lessen chances of the matador being seriously injured, I will quote my source: "The bull has wet newspapers stuffed into his ears; vaseline is rubbed into his eyes to blur his vision; cotton is stuffed up his nostrils to cut off his respiration and a needle is stuck into his genitals."[1].If bullfighting is reformed to lessen the chances of the bull being hurt, it skyrockets the chances of the death of the matador. Besides that, there are farms dedicated to providing beef, you don't need to kill the bull in the middle of the crowd for their bloody entertainment, it's barbaric. Another quotation I shall use to provide evidence that the final kill is not meant to be merciful, but for entertainment is "Even then, he is not allowed a little dignity to leave this world in peace, his ears and tail are cut off (often when he is fully conscious), and his broken, bleeding body is dragged around the ring by mules, to which he is attached by an apparatus made of wood and chains." [1]. The sport is simply to abuse an animal for the fun of the crowd. Even other animals come at the expense of bull-fighting. In some more sadistic arenas, horses are maneuvered by the matadors. Since taking charge of a horse is not that challenging when they're tame, the matadors take the liberty to provide an extra challenge by the following. "Horses have their ears stuffed with wet newspaper, they are blindfolded and their vocal chords are cut so they are unable to scream in pain." [1]. The arteries inside the bull are so deep that trained bull physicians would have trouble attempting to kill the beast in one try. And finally, as for your source, it is not founded by any other source link. I'm afraid I can't take it's word for it when it provides no other evidence to bulls being infuriated just by a waving cape. Reforming bull fighting any other way will still leave serious mental and physical scars to all parties involved in the event. It is best if the practice is just abolished.Source:[1] http://www.stopbullfighting.org.uk... Good luck to my opponent in the voting.

Title: Dog fighting should be aloud Content: 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.

Title: Fights to the death similar to those once held in the Colloseum in Rome should be allowed Content: Thank you for your argument. Now I would like to point out the multiple flaws in your argument. 1. Allowing fights to the death is simply ridiculous. There are laws against murder for a reason. With the allowance of "human cock fighting" it would open a gateway to other possible crimes being illegal as long as they are in a setting of "sportsmanship". 2. Humans are humans regardless of social status. Putting them in cages with swords and armor with a cash prize is completely unethical. This type of behavior would be illegal on the streets so what would the difference be when set in an arena? 3. Your suggested scenario is based on a world with no laws, a blood thirsty population who would pay to see people die, and sponsors to promote such violence. 4. Of course there is always the comparison to today Ultimate Fighting Championship but the relationship between fights with supervision, protective equipment, and TRAINED fighters creates a large gap between the two.

Title: Professional athletes should be allowed to be in the Olympic Game Content: They Shouldn't be it be Olympic Games because the Olympics was recreated for fun or peace and Pros bring attitude which makes fights.

Title: NHL Hockey is a harder sport then American Football Content: 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...

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

Title: Should we fight Content: We should fight

Title: is hockey too violent Content: 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

Title: Gladiator Battles should be Legal Content: 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...

Title: is hockey too violent Content: Hockey is kinda Violent

Title: Soccer is a better sport than Hockey Content: I will NOT save my rebuttals for the end. I will Rebut my opponent's points now and give some more of my own: My opponent said that you could "play air hockey". The resolution we are debating has to do with if soccer is better "sport" than hockey. Air hockey is not a sport, no mater how awesome it might be. Also, my opponent says an advantage for hockey is fighting. Beating someone senseless does not seem like a great thing to me, no matter how much the fans like it. Take a look at this video where Kevin Westgarth of the Calgary Flames is fighting. He ends up getting a concussion: Anyways, back to the points. Argument #3: Popularity Soccer has a way bigger popularity and viewing rate than hockey. Here is a quote from fifa.com: "715.1 million people watched the final match of the 2006 FIFA World Cup held in Germany". Now, let's take a look at the numbers for the Stanly Cup: there was a average of 4.91 million viewers of the 2009 Stanly Cup Playoffs final round per game. What's more, most amount of people watching a single NHL game was between Chicago-Montreal in 1971 was 12.4 million. 12.4 million people versus 71.5 million people. Thus, soccer is way more popular than Hockey, creating a much better business from ticket buying and merchandise purchasing. Argument #4: Inclusiveness Worldwide Soccer can be played in so many countries, no matter the status. For Example, take the country Cameroon. They are not in the greatest situation for economy, yet still have one of the greatest National Teams in Africa. Soccer is also played in Canada and the USA, even though it might seem way to cold. Yet Hockey is only primarily played in North America and Europe. It is usually only in colder countries. Ever heard of a Hockey Team in warm Africa? At least I have not. Ever heard of a soccer team in cold Russia? Yes! Argument #5: Easiness to Learn Hockey takes a lot of skill and equipment to learn. First, you need a stick, a puck, skates and ice (if you are playing on ice, witch is the most common form of playing by far). Then, you need to learn how to skate, so you might take lessons. Lessons cost a lot of money. Then, you have to learn how to skate, shoot, and keep control of the puck at the same time! In soccer you need only shoes. My opponent might say: you have to run and shoot and dribble in soccer at the same time too, BUT, running comes naturally where as skating you have to learn and take classes. One more thing: Please take into account that in Debates you vote on a debater that has good points NOT the side you would personally take in a real life situation. Thanks

Title: Dog fighting should be aloud Content: 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...

Title: The Star-Spangled Banner Should Not Be Played at United States Sporting Events Content: The Star-Spangled Banner is a song whose lyrics were inspired from a battle of a war the United States was fighting in.(1) As the national anthem of the United States, the song is sanctioned by the federal government. The song thus carries with it a connotation of conflict, battle, war, military, and violent government victory(2). A lot of people might only go to sporting events for the experience. Once they experience first-hand the events are tedious and boring, they would not continue to attend them. That has been the case for me. There are so many interesting things to do other than to attend sporting events. Playing the national anthem at sporting events that are difficult for some, such as me, to attend gives the national anthem and the country a connotation that they are remote and difficult to access. When I mentioned a required playing of the national anthem at sporting events, I did not mean legally required. I may have meant a theoretically required playing. Nonetheless, playing the national anthem is required by some sporting associations' rules. The NFL and NHL (if a U.S. NHL team is playing) require the national anthem to be played.(3) Some states have laws that require The Star-Spangled Banner to be played in a respectful, regulated fashion. One such state is Massachusetts.(4) I reside in Massachusetts. According to Massachusetts General Laws chapter 264, section 9, the national anthem cannot be played as dance music.(4) Playing The Star-Spangled Banner just before festive, loud, obnoxious sporting events filled with alcohol and disrespect from spectators or sometimes even athletes themselves may not constitute dance music or a violation of the cited law, but it falls close. It seems more respect can be afforded to The Star-Spangled Banner and to the United States than what is afforded through those sporting events. Sources Cited: (1) https://en.wikipedia.org... (2) https://en.wikipedia.org... (3) http://www.espn.com... (4) https://malegislature.gov...

Title: Bull Fighting Should Be Illegal Content: It is not necessary to ban bullfighting because it can be reformed to not cause pain to the bull.A bull will charge at a moving cape without being previously infuriated, so the pre-fight torment can be removed. During the fight, the matador doesn't have to harm the bull until the end when it should be killed quickly and humanely. It can then be made into beef, sold, and eaten. With restrictions, bullfighting can become acceptable.

Title: children should be allowed to box in school. Content: 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.

Title: Boxing Should be allowed as a School Sport Content: 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.

Title: Soccer is a better sport than Hockey Content: 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!

Title: Hockey is better than soccer Content: 1. "In soccer, numerous parts of the game are spent teams getting organized, and just passing the ball around. In hockey, nobody slows down. " This is not always true. In soccer you are constantly moving to run after the ball. 2. "unlike soccer, which is timed to end at a specific time, Hockey has it's own schedule. Overtime hockey is a must-see, as it's a winner take all battle. " This is also not right. Soccer has overtimes too. If they get a tie. Also professional soccer is longer than a mini league. 3. "Nobody likes watching a rigged sport" I"m sorry but I disagree with you on this one. 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. 4. Action. 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. 5. Some pictures of horrible injuries. . http://farm4.static.flickr.com... . http://t2.gstatic.com... . http://t1.gstatic.com... . http://t2.gstatic.com... . http://t1.gstatic.com... 6. My resources: . http://www.historyofsoccer.info... Also soccer wins the World Cup. My next argument I will make my points of why soccer is better than hockey.

Title: is hockey too violent Content: Depends on what you consider too violent.

Title: should kids be able to twerk in school Content: First of all saying deal with it doesn't mean any thing. If I said fighting at school is allowed and told the kids who get beat up to deal with it, but that obviously doesn't justify the fighting. if you really think the "Deal with it" argument holds any weight then I could just tell you to deal with a twerking band and it would hold the same credibility. There are lots of ways to express your self that are justify banned from school. You can show up to school naked as a way to express your personality as a nudist but that's not allowed for obvious reasons. twerking has no positive affect on anyone's school life, it only brings a negative influence. twerking is commonly seen as a sexual act. which could possibly provoke people to make inappropriate sexual advances. some would even consider twerking as a inappropriate sexual advance. There's no reason hat you shouldn't be able to resist twerking at school so there's no reason to feel obligated to. whether or not your arrested for twerking has nothing to do with debate. A school band dose not mean that act is legally outlawed.

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

Title: Bullying should be allowed, as it builds character. Content: You should have fought back. In post world war 2 Churchill was at a meeting and and basically said that we must never surrender.But you did letting those bullies attack you you should have fought back that is the dumbest thing you could have ever done.That is literally dumb for you.You could have sued them for assault and harassment in the first,second,and third degree.Voters please note that my opponent brought you into her web of folly attacks.sound of sunshine if people dont listen to your story make them.Please voters dont be pressured or trust her just use caution when voting.Why didnt you call the police or FIGHT THEM BACK!OR just take defense lessons.Did it ever occur to you that Hm I should just fight back or were you to busy crying.Again voters it seems my opponent seems to lacks the mental capacity to understand volatile situations (No offense).But voters consider this she could have 1.Took fighting lessons 2.fought back 3.go to court.However my opponent seems to lack proper knowledge to take course of her actions and to defend her self putting her life and others at risk how let me explain She could have died not fighting back 2 her mother could have informed the police but she did not inform her parents 3.If she did and they did not listen she could have contacted the police her self.Voters this girl has delibritaly put her self at risk then calling someone the police,school counseler.My opponent may even have mental retardation because of all the lashes she suffered all the lashes she could have prevented she brought this to herself for not taking the appropriate actions.SHE could have helped herself if no one would but she would just stand idle getting punched over and over getting napkins constantly for the bleeding having fears of all most everything having multiple scars half dead and what did she do you ask?NOTHING she delibritly stood there being harassed and assaulted.Voters let me ask you if you choose sound of sunshine you will give the ever awaited attention she always wanted she still has a debate going with shadow gamer.Voters Churchill once said to never surrender and she did the exact opposite she let her bullies beat her she may have according to her story and my knowledge stockholm syndrome.What it is a person capture a bystander for harrassment or torture.Then which the victim enjoys it the torture.So she enjoyed may have enjoyed the punch after punch or jab after jab.And if she didnt why did you tack no course of action whatsoever.And or she may be a quidecintial child needy of approval and attention despratley allows a bully to beat her up for the sympathy and or pity.Please voters consider both sides but pay attention.(Note: This is not for harrasment or superiority)

Title: Should Students be allowed to listen to music during seminar Content: U Fight Me BOIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Title: Hockey is better than soccer Content: 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

Title: praying should be aloud in school Content: I do believe that you meant to say "allowed" not "aloud," but I'll debate both points seeing as the debate is only one round long. Praying should be allowed:It is allowed, as I said in the comments. It's illegal, in the United States at least, to prevent students from praying to any god inside public schools [1]. There goes that point: there's nothing to debate.Praying should be aloud: "Now a day fights are happening more"I would argue the exact opposite. Although could not find a reputable source on the issue, it only makes sense that sense that physical bulling and "fights" are getting less prevalent as schools continue to tighten their enforcement for such actions and crack down with harsher punishment. As an alternative, as we move into the 21st century, potential "fighters" have the option of using the internet as a medium to convey aggression: easy and near impossible to enforce. This argument is based upon a false premise, but even if the premise was sound, the point would not be.Prayer is defined as communication with a divine being. The only way that prayer would be "allowed" would be if students were forced to pray in unison. In being forced to pray, no connection is made with God and thus the prayer is empty. An empty prayer will do no more than no prayer to open one's spirit to be "touched" by God.Because this was a one- round debate, I've been forced to bring up new points. I assume that Pro was aware of the inevitability of this when he made this a "shot" (short) debate.Vote Con! http://www.archives.gov...;

Title: The shootout should cease to exist in the NHL. Content: 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...

Title: Micheal Vick should play in the UFL (United Football League) if the NFL suspends him next season. Content: My position is that Michael Vick shouldn't be allowed to play professional football with any sanctioned league, whether it's the National Football League, the United Football League, the Canadian Football League, etc. , because of the crimes he committed. For those who might be unfamiliar with Vick and the controversy that surrounds him, here's some information: <"Vick and three others are charged with competitive dogfighting, procuring and training pit bulls for fighting and conducting the enterprise across state lines. Michael Vick was indicted Tuesday on charges of illegal dogfighting. The dogfighting operation was named "Bad Newz Kennels," the indictment states, and the dogs were housed, trained and fought at a Surry County, Va. , property owned by Vick. The indictment alleges that the 27-year-old Vick and his co-defendants began a grisly dogfighting operation in early 2001 in which dogs fought to the death — or close to it. Losing dogs were sometimes killed by electrocution, drowning, hanging or gunshots. "> (1) All of this can be substantiated by the following link: . http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:PPytD-HmYL4J:espn.go.com/media/pdf/070730/taylorstatementfacts.pdf+tony+taylor+summary+of+facts&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a That link takes the user to a summary of the facts in Vick's case, which were used against Vick and his accomplices in court. In features a confession from Tony Taylor, who was partners with Vick in their heinous "business. " <"Beginning in or about early 2001 and continuing through in or about September 2004, in the Eastern District of Virginia and elsewhere, defendant TONY TAYLOR, also known as "T," knowingly and unlawfully combined, conspired, confederated and agreed with PURNELL A. PEACE, also known as "P-Funk" and "Funk," QUANIS L. PHILLIPS, also known as "Q," MICHAEL VICK, also known as "Ookie," and with other known and unknown persons, to commit the following offenses against the United States, to wit: a. traveling in interstate commerce and using the mail or any facility in interstate commerce with intent to commit any crime of violence to further any unlawful activity and to promote, manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, and carrying on of an unlawful activity, to wit: a business enterprise involving gambling in violation of Virginia Code Annotated Sections 3.1-796.124(A)(2), 18.2-326, and 18.2-328, and thereafter performing and attempting to perform acts to commit any crime of violence to further any unlawful activity and to promote, manage, establish, and carry on, and to facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, and carrying on of the unlawful activity, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1952; b. knowingly sponsoring and exhibiting an animal in an animal fighting venture, if any animal in the venture has moved in interstate commerce, in violation of Title 7, United States Code, Section 2156(a)(l); and c. knowingly buying, transporting, delivering, and receiving for purposes of transportation, in interstate commerce, any dog for purposes of having the dog participate in an animal fighting venture, in violation of Title 7, United States Code, Section 2156(b). TAYLOR agrees that he entered into the conspiracy willfully and with the intent to further the conspiracy's unlawful purposes. "> Not only does it describe the crimes in detail -- but it has ~50 pieces of information which collectively prove the guilt of Vick and the other members of his nefarious gang beyond a reasonable doubt. In essence, Vick and company knowingly ran a dog fighting ring, which resulted in the brutal and disgusting deaths of many dogs -- but not only did they kill the dogs who lost, but the methods used to kill them were sociopathic; the dogs were tortured. The dogs also suffered an abundance of injuries. The killing and torturing of all these dogs seems to be more than morally equivalent to the killing of an individual human, which would still have Vick in prison, and not in a position to be reinstated to any football leagues. Knowing this, it's my belief that Vick should still be in prison, and thus, not playing professional football. (1) = . http://www.cbc.ca...

Title: is hockey too violent Content: hockey is not too violent

Title: Bull Fighting Should Be Illegal Content: The matador takes the risk of injury by his own conscious choice, so that is not a reason to ban bullfighting.The bull will charge without being infuriated, so it doesn't have to be tormented prior to the fight. http://www.livescience.com...Matadors should have mandatory training to make sure they can kill the bull painlessly.In conclusion, bullfighting can be reformed to eliminate the harms. It does not need to be banned.

Title: Hockey is better than soccer Content: 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.

Title: Tennis is better than hockey Content: 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.

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

Title: Hockey is a "better" spectator sport and requires more athleticism than baseball. Content: I am just trying to offset some of the more serious debates I have seen on this page. I know I am fighting a seemingly uphill battle here but I figured I would give it a shot for my first debate until I get settled here. I am for the idea that hockey is a "better" sport than baseball with respect to athleticism and available spectator enjoyment. For the first round I would just like to define what I mean by "better" and set the parameters of the debate. I know "better" is a subjective term and is based on opinions, so I would like to make the arguments as objective as possible. I plan to do this by talking about the following topics: average game length, average in game action, the percent of action per game, the amount of games per season, the importance of each game as it pertains to the season, the in-game skills required by all athletes, the difficulty scoring, and the type of team play (team vs. individual aspects). I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and in the spirit of good competition, good luck. If there are questions/concerns or any other parameters my opponent would like to discuss, please mention them in the first round before we proceed. Thank you.

Title: candy Content: candy should by allowed or not

Title: is hockey better than american football Content: obviously yes

Title: Bullying should be allowed, as it builds character. Content: Listen sound of sunshine!You have the upper hand your story was depressing and sad but nevertheless flawed.Let me point out why: #1 You have debated about this before with shadow dragon the topic was should bullying be allowed.#2 you fail to point out that during that sad story that you did not inform anyone any proffesional for help.#3 YOU could have fought back in the face of a fist or a gun you must not stay idle if you do death is immenat.#4 YOU must change the future by taking initiative to fight for yourself regardless the excuse or back story.Sound of sunshine let me tell you something about the would no one cares really about that sad story people have kids and family so other people and there backstory dont really matter to them sure they may care or show pity but those same people on the inside dont care.Your story was sad but in the modern world not all of the US will hear your cry that bullying is bad.I will end this your argument has been a waste of time.Let me tell you why even if you are sucssesful in banning bullying forever it will still happen superiority will linger in human mind what will you do to the bullies put them in the electric chair that would be more gruesome.You brought this on yourself if you defended yourself of fought back or went to somewhere else that could have been avoided.OR took defense lessons.Your gpa from 4.2 to 1.2 was your fault let me point out why my teacher always says "Don't be with your feelings"that means whatever your feeling is meaningless.Please voters note that this story may have been made up since there is no video proof of any of these events and a great writer could come up with this story so it doesn't seem to me real it may be fabricated.Sound of sunshine you got your wish you have my pity and my attention if you made that story for pity and attention if it was real then I pity you for not doing the right thing which is Telling an authority,a teacher,a well trained psychologist,Or a defense teacher

Title: Micheal Vick should play in the UFL (United Football League) if the NFL suspends him next season. Content: On to my opponents arguments, and then I will present my own: Yes, Micheal Vick was guilty of running a dog fighting ring, which he was convicted for and would be the result of his absence from proffesional football and the open world for the past two years. However, Micheal Vick has been relesed from fedreral prison (. http://sports.espn.go.com...). He has paid dearly for his crimes. Vick is left in debt, jobless, and without two years of his life. You have merely listed the facts of Micheal Vicks case, and stated that he is a convicted felon and that convicted felones cannot play proffesional football. You have no warrent to this claim, so why can't they? Yes, it is likely that the NFL and suspension happy Roger Goodell will suspend Vick from playing this season, but that is soley up to his personal judgement, not based on any rules that prohibit convicted felones from playing. Basically with no warrent to back up the claim that convicted felones can't play professional football (which is rediculous and can't be backed up) my opponent presents no reasons why Vick can not play in the UFL. Micheal Vick, if suspended from the NFL next season, should play in the UFL. Contention 1#- Vick Needs a Job After all the dust has cleared from the horrific dog fighting incedent, Micheal Vick finds himself alone and broke. He actually owes people a lot of money. Vick needs not only a job, but one that can pay well enough to overcome the massive amount of debt he posses. Vick posses only one major proment career path that can make up the money he owes: Playing proffesional football. At this point, it becomes more about paying the bills then playing in the NFL, or getting the big contract with the big endorsments (and trust me, noone is going to endorse him). Vick needs a place he can play and the UFL is just the option Contention 2#- The UFL needs Vick Honestly, how the UFL is still planning to carry out their season is beyond me. The recent american economic crisis has hit the sports industry hard, and crippled many minor and supplemental leagues. The AFL (Areana Football League) cancelled the entire 2009 season, and after 25 years, the future of the league is still in question and it easily could fold. Instead, the UFL looks to fight the recession and open a new football league, and not only do that but play games in the fall on Fridays to compete with high school football games, and have a season run con-current with the premier American Football League the NFL. The UFL is taking a huge risk, and amoung all this risks, they need one certainty: A house hold name. If Vick where to play in the UFL, he would at least be one person everyone knows in a league of otherwise nameless players. Vicks obscure form of playing quaterback, with his flushing out of the pocket speed made him a spectical to watch in the NFL before his legal troubles. Vick could be the face of the UFL, and while doing show use the good fame to help relieve his name and show the world he has changed. The move at most would only be temporary, probally last just one season. But if the UFL doesn't fold after its first season, like other leagues have done that have tried to compete with the NFL (Noteably the XFL), then some at least people would know something about the UFL. With these clear advantages of Vick needing a job, and the UFL needing some plubicity: its clear that Vick should play in the UFL, because my opponent has not presented any reason why he shouldn't play except that his a convicted felon which has paid his debt to society. Should a convicted felon not be aloud to obtain a job, to make a living?

Title: THW ban boxing Content: I will mostly be using the default font and Times New Roman. Unlike my opponent, I will not be making my arguments as a section, just as paragraphs. I assume that my opponent will agree with me that boxing is a violent sport. I will be talking that we should not ban violent sports, and boxing. I will be using the phrase, "My team" some times, as I mostly wrote these arguments in a team debate in another account. Now, let's get started with the debate. First of all, to my first point, boxing, and other violent sports bring lot's of entertainment. In this source [1], 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. Boxing is a violent sport, and is entertaining. We shouldn't ban it. Also, in this source [2], 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. 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 [3]. 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. More people As in this argument I have shown that boxing and violent sports are very entertaining to watch, and that we shouldn't ban boxing, and shown what could happen, and probably would happen. Because of entertainment, vote for Con. 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. 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. My last argument is really a basic question. .. What is a violent sport? Boxing is a violent sport [4], and my opponent would agree. There are many sources to see that boxing is violent [5]. So, boxing is a violent sport, and it says that violent sports are fun, but what are violent sports. They involve killing, probably. 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 [6]. My source gives a big list of kills, you can click into each one. Like, most violent sports are fun. Boxing is a violent sport. It is fun. Most other violent sports are fun and famous too. But almost every sport is violent. Then if we ban boxing, people will argue that there will many other violent sports which we won't ban, and ban them too. Then baseball, soccer, etc. Will be banned to. So we have two choices. 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. I have shown that boxing is violent, and that we shouldn't ban these sports. Therefore, vote Con. Thank you. My sources[1] . http://www.thetoptens.com...[2] . http://www.thetoptens.com... [3] . http://www.dailymail.co.uk...[4] . http://www.bcmj.org...[5] . https://www.google.fr... [6] . https://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: FIghts me Content: no

Title: is pushing allowed in soccer Content: yes it is

Title: is hockey too violent Content: Even though the rules prevent it, people getting hit in the head with those sticks even with the helmet could cause some bad whiplash

Title: Hockey is better than Soccer Content: 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.

Title: Tennis is better than hockey Content: First of all I want to apologize for taking so long to post my argument. I have had a ton of homework this weekend. Tennis is better because in hockey some 4th liners will only play like 5 minutes sometimes less. In fact I heard of one NHLer who had more PIM that TOI. Also, tennis is a lot more pure than hockey, it is a sport that has not been significantly altered since the 15th century. However at the start of every season the NHL releases a bunch of new rules now they are even controlling how players can wear their jersey. Also hockey is becoming more dirty every year, I feel like its almost every day I get a notification from my Game Center app telling me someone else has been suspended for an illegal hit while the other guy is out indefinitely with a concussion. Tennis doesn't have this problem. Tennis has a lot of action because you see something special a lot more than you see in any other sport. Go to you tube and search "Roger Federer Tweener" and you will know what I am referring to.

Title: Hockey is the best sport in the world Content: Hockey is the best sport on earth because we have the best fans, the best playoffs, and the best trophy. There is also many teams youth to pro that play and it is the most enjoyable to watch. Hockey also has fights which make the game enjoyable to watch.

Title: Competitive sports should be allowed at recess Content: First of all, I want to clarify my position on this debate. I am not explicitly debating that there should be competitive sports on the recess playground, but that there already is. Lets take a look at the definition of competitive, shall we? Liking competition or inclined to compete, having a strong desire to compete or to succeed. Now, absolutely any sport could be considered competitive, I.E. Four Square. I will set up a hypothetic situation: You are at your cushy private school,and you decide to play a game of Four Square. You run to grab the ball and slam it into another players square, only to run into a "that was the line!" "No it wasnt!" argument. Now, reread that definition, think about the decision and your feelings, and then tell me that four square is not competitive. At least at my school, football is played all the time at recess, and that gets quite competitive, as one student was suspended for fighting with another student after the game got heated. I am fine with competitive sports being included in recess, but I argue that it is already there. Thank you and I await your rebuttal.

Title: Bull Fighting Should Be Illegal Content: Round 1: Opening Arguments Round 2: Rebuttals Round 3: Finishing Statements Bull fighting is an immoral sport and a complete affront to the progression of animal rights and basic humanity, let alone the danger to the matadors. I will start by describing the process of bull fighting. In Bull fighting, the bull is kept in horrible conditions with little care for it's health or well-being. The bull is teased constantly by fans and audience members to be put in an aggressive state. When the bull is released, it is relentlessly teased, abused and aggravated. Eventually, when time runs out, the bull is tired, or the matador is caught and injured the bull is constrained, and put down in an extremely immoral manner. The matador uses multiple spears to attempt to sever the artery either in the back of the neck or heart. Due to the matador not being an experienced bull-health specialist, it takes multiple times for the bull to be killed. Even when the artery is severed, the bull experiences severe pain until it bleeds to death [1]. Let it be known, that is the summarized version. My source link has much more detail. My argument is that any person with any form of empathy should realize how much pain the bull, who doesn't understand why this is being done to him, faces in the last hours of its life, until mercilessly and bloodily killed. (Source: [1] http://www.stopbullfighting.org.uk... )

Title: Allow Gladiator Fighting Among Consenting Death Row Inmates Content: Death row inmates should not have the option to participate in gladiator battles. Killing other humans is cruel and disgusting. Gladiator battles would promote the idea of murder. Death row inmates most likely got to death row by killing people. You should not give them what they want because the do not deserve it, especially if it is killing other humans for fun. Also, it would never be on television. Watching movies where people kill each other is different than watching real people kill other living people. You would be watching living people die for your entertainment. Even the idea of humans doing gladiator fights is disgusting and unbelievable. Letting people legally end each others life for fun would be unacceptable. Only sick, disgusting, cruel, and evil people would even consider that idea.

Title: Rap Battles should be allowed on DDO Content: Whassup b*tches it's MC Z.I'm coming at you hot from Micky D's. And here I stand, defender of the best,my opponent stands there, solid in his protestto suggest that rap battles shouldn't throw down.Stupid clown, he's leaving this town with a frown.My first ill line is that in this fair landit's the terms of use(1) that makes stuff banned.It's against these rules that rap battles standto withstand the demand placed by high command.To expand, survive the test of time,it'd be wrong to make it a crime to rhyme.DAWGGGMy second ill line is that against my stance,there stands no line that can dance this dance.It's on my opponent to advance and expanseon why rap battles on DDO stand no chance.At first glance since my opponent is scared to wear the pants(2)he probably doesn't have something that can do this war dance. The fact is that rap battles are realisticTheir characteristics are some that critics can be optimistic.The logistics of linguistics(3) is something that can always come around.Crown me the champ, my opponent's in the pound.I won't calm down with the lyrical beat down.It's the countdown to the profound end.Where I ascend to godhood and my opponent's left penned.Drop the mic, MC Z out.Illest Proofs you motherf*ckers ever seen:(1) - http://www.debate.org...(2) - http://www.debate.org...(3) - https://www.google.com...;

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

Title: FIghts me Content: No.

Title: FIghts me Content: No.

Title: Boys Should Be Allowed to Play with Dolls Content: "I'm sorry if I insulted you. I wasn't calling you stupid, I really wasn't." It's all good! Now then... There are many unforeseen consequences that can occur if boys are allowed to play with dolls, you may think that "boys can play with anything" and "dolls are harmless", but you'd be very wrong. First what do boys typically like? Fighting, playing with toy guns, sword fighting, tag, football, etc. All of which in some way are violent and competitive. But did you ever think to ask why? Well theses types of rough physical sports prepare young boys to become men later in life [1,2]. Dolls just can't provide this type of learning, can boys learn how to fight? No, can they learn how to stick up for themselves? No. They really can't learn much from dolls. And the few lessons they possibly could learn, like "playing nice" or "sharing", could just as easily be learn through, regular boy activities. Also as i previously stated most boys do not play with dolls, at least boys in the that are older then seven , so what that means is that they will have a harder time making male friends as most of their (male) classmate will not be interested in playing with dolls. How many boys do you think would accept the invitation to "come over! and play tea with my doll's" Very few when they could play football, build a fort... set things on fire, etc. And sure maybe some girls would say yes, but then that boy would have a harder time making male friends. So boys should go make swords out of tree branches, or some other masculine activity and shouldn't play with dolls.

Title: Bull Fighting Should Be Illegal Content: "If bullfighting is reformed to lessen the chances of the bull being hurt, it skyrockets the chances of the death of the matador."It's still the matadors choice to participate."Besides that, there are farms dedicated to providing beef, you don't need to kill the bull in the middle of the crowd for their bloody entertainment, it's barbaric."Sure, you don't need to, but there isn't anything wrong with it. It's not barbaric either, we're not publicly sacrificing humans to humiliate them. Bulls can only feel very basic emotions, so they can't be humiliated. To a bull, being killed in front of a crowd is no different than being killed in a slaughterhouse."The sport is simply to abuse an animal for the fun of the crowd."Your source says otherwise: "The vast majority of tourists are appalled by what happens at a bullfight and leave after they see what happens to the first bull." Most of the crowd doesn't think it's fun to watch a bull being tortured to death, that's why reforming the practice to make it painless would actually make it more entertaining.You also mention horses, but that can also be fixed by reform."The arteries inside the bull are so deep that trained bull physicians would have trouble attempting to kill the beast in one try."There are other ways to kill a bull quickly (such as lethal drugs)."I'm afraid I can't take it's word for it when it provides no other evidence to bulls being infuriated just by a waving cape. "Read this quote from my source: "Thus, the bull is likely irritated not by the muleta’s color, but by the cape’s movement as the matador whips it around."The source explicitly states that the bull charges because of the cape's movement. Your objection is baseless.ConclusionBullfighting does not need to be banned. It can be reformed so that the bull is killed painlessly, which would not only make the practice humane, but it would be more entertaining and much less likely to leave mental scars.

Title: Ice Hockey Hardest Sport to Play at the Professional Level. Content: I would like to start my stating my disappointment in con for deviating from the planned debate, but we can be flexible for the sake of time and amicability. In Con's first refutation he states the he would assume that if you do not know how to ice skate he hope you would not be playing professional hockey, and I agree, but he is leaving out one major thing about professional sports. Each and everyday of their lives including their professional career they are constantly learning and re-mastering fundamental skills. So even though we are debating common fundamental skills, you can not deny that a professional player at one time had to learn how to play the game, and must continue to practice. I chose the professional level of play so that common rules would be placed into effect instead of certain rule sets where balks are not counted in baseball or checking isn't allowed in hockey, or any other rule differences among different age groups. I gave you flexibility, I think I may appeal to you for some leniency in this instance. In addition to mastering skating, which if anyone has ever tried before, you know it is very difficult to simply go slowly with your girlfriend, much less go balls out towards a puck with a defender hanging on your back. A hockey player must also learn how to use his stick as an extension of his hands, which is not easy to get used to either because the stick is not a part of your body as in soccer or basketball where you can use your feet and hands respectively. Applying more to the professional level a hockey player must also be quick to think as there is a certain strategy to the game that takes more than a couple years to master. A player must learn where to move without the puck as well as with it, and players must jostle with defenders in order to get that crucial positioning, in addition to the offensive side, players must also recognize the same opportunities the other team has while they are playing defense. Conclusion: Although Con would like to make my mastering skating argument irrelevant the fact of the matter is that hockey players must continue to practice and work hard at that skill in order to maintain their high level of play. In addition if a hockey player suffers an injury he/she must, in some cases, completely re-learn how to skate and play in general. While he/she will pick up the concept more quickly the fact of the matter is there are more skills a player must master and practice in professional ice hockey than say boxing where they must only learn to punch, or football where players must mainly know how to kick and ball handle. In Con's second refutation he/she has misunderstood the my argument. I am not saying that a sport's danger defines it's difficulty, but instead that danger compliments the skills the players on the ice possess and perform. . http://www.youtube.com... in this video we see Blackhawks defenseman Brian Campbell skate back to track down a loose puck with Capitals forward Alex Ovechkin, known as a dirty player on his back. In the video at the 0:04 mark we see Campbell look back and see Ovechkin, knowing full well that he will be hit on this play Campbell maintains focus, tracks down the puck, and gets rid of it. A display of speed, skating, hand-eye coordination, strength, and most importantly focus all in one simple hockey play. You can see it again here . http://www.youtube.com... where Vernon Fiddler at the 0:03 second mark tenses up because he knows a hit is coming but keeps focus on a get rid of the puck. I can pull this examples all day. The point is that yes hockey being dangerous does not make it the hardest sport to play, but the danger the players are put through and the skills they are expected to being able to command under that danger make ice hockey a difficult sport. In Con's their refutation we see him/her come back to a point made earlier which I have already touched upon. Even though the skills are expected of pros you can deny the fact that they have once had to learn the skills, and they must still continue to practice and master that skill in the present. But Con does bring up an interesting point, "As you see, hockey is not the only sport that requires hand-eye coordination and focus. I have shown you many other sports that require the same skills. And just in case Pro says that skating is difficult to learn, I would say swimming is much harder to learn, as there are several different strokes that you need to learn. Therefore, hockey is not the hardest sport to play on the professional level, all sports are equally difficult. " In the excerpt above con basically states that difficulty is relative, which is the whole basis of his argument, which I must admit is a tad bit annoying, no offense con, but everything can be relative. Hitler is evil to me, but I'm sure the White Power group down the street thinks of him as revolutionary, so I view your whole argument invalid in a debate setting. In addition you view swimming as harder, but I can guarantee you there are more people who can swim around the world than there are who ice skate, one continent in particular comes to mind. *Cough*Africa*cough* And with a whole continent out of the running I would say I have substantial evidence to refute that point. Argument: Con unfortunately I can not provide you with a player who has experienced both professional ice hockey and another sport. I think I know why though, because ice hockey players must devote their full attention and focus to their sport because they must practice so much to continue to master the skills and fundamentals of the game. But I challenge you to find me a professional ice hockey player who said hockey was easy, and don't give me some sarcastic quote please, it must be sincere. Conclusion: Ice Hockey is and continue to be the hardest sport to master and play at a high level. It is a team game, so you must rely on other people to perform their duties which let's recap, involves hand-eye coordination, balance, strength, accuracy (shooting), and most importantly and most underrated SKATING.

Title: The ice hockey goaltendee is the most difficult position in all of sport Content: 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.

Title: NHL Hockey is a harder sport then American Football Content: Here is how hockey is mentally challenging, first of all hand to eye coordination , knowing were to pass to plus a lot of criticism. Also when you get checked , slashed ,ect in hockey you not only need physical strength you need mental strength. Finally you need mental strength to keep playing well, even if your team is losing badly.

Title: At which age should young adults be to play violent sports Content: No, it isn't. That's something that *could* happen, not necessarily what *will* happen. It's a theoretical example. I need proof. Concrete, observational proof that you could show to me of kids getting severely injured in these sports. Since you have failed to provide this proof, I will continue with my contention that it isn't dangerous enough to warrant restriction to younger ages. To the audience, I must reiterate my contention: In these so-called "violent" sports, there is no serious harm to the players that could affect them more than temporarily. In football, ice hockey, and other sports a significant amount of safety equipment is worn to make sure these problems don't happen. Furthermore, kids are slower and not as strong as they are in later years, so the risk of serious injury is also reduced by the fact that they aren't moving as fast or with the same amount of force as kids who are going/have gone through puberty. In fact, the real danger is in high-school and in college sports, where we have seen serious concussions severely affect these players for the rest of their lives. However, I must remind the audience that my opponent contends that these sports should be restricted to *youth* leagues, not high-school or college leagues. Thank you for your time, and I urge you vote against this resolution.

Title: Opponent picks Topic Content: I will be arguing that Mario will never beat Sonic the Hedgehog in a fight. Rules: 1. Neither debater is allowed to give cases in which there is a sure way to know who would win. Posting YouTube videos of this happening is also not allowed. 2. All example fights created by debaters or posted from YouTube must have the outcome resulting with both Mario's and Sonic's free will. 3. Mario and Sonic will be allowed to use power ups, but cannot get help from their friends or get help from each other's enemies. They will also be allowed to use each other's power-ups. 4. Both characters will be allowed to use all of their techniques. 5. All types of fights are allowed. 6. All arguments must be scientifically valid. 7. All arguments concerning the scientific probability of their abilities and feats are irrelevant. These rules are not meant to twist the debate to my advantage. They are simply meant to keep the result accurate. My opponent will be the first to argue.

Title: The shootout should cease to exist in the NHL. Content: I accept

Title: The shootout should cease to exist in the NHL. Content: 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...

Title: Should Girls Be Allowed To Play Football (American) Content: Ok, let me first knock this out of the way. I think females can do many, many things. Females can do anything thing a male can do. SO, I will not be arguing male VS female. What I will be Arguing, is a physical contacted sport such as American football, is too demanding on the womans body. Such as (CTE), legs, arms, upper body, and other injuries. The other part of this argument, I will be discussing, is male football is more entertaining, Female WNBA is not as entertaining as the NBA, why because for one reason is the basketball hoop is 10ft tall, and woman can't dunk, their only been two females in the WNBA that could dunk. So there for it not as entertaining, it will not be popular like the men's Basketball. Another sport is woman hockey, they are physical, but not like the males, they are faster, stronger, more out athletics, than the women. So, they for more people will be watching the male's sports more than the woman's. I will go further in detail in the later rounds, on why Woman or girls shouldn't play American football. I'm here to discuss why women shouldn't play American football, not touch football, or if you want to talk about just girls playing pee wee football. I guess i could still argue why they shouldn't play American foot as well. SO i'm looking forward to what my opponents response will be.

Title: In a fight, Voldemort and Dumbledore would beat Megatron and Optimus Prime. Content: I will gladly answer my opponent’s questions. 1. Yes, the forbidden spells are allowed. Please note that rule three already indirectly answers this question. 2. I suppose you could say it is a fight to “the death”. If it wasn’t, then that would limit Megatron and Optimus, since it’s kind of hard to K.O a wizard without killing him. 3. They will fight until they destroy one another. You can destroy something that is not alive, so this should resolve the conflict. 4. No. 5. The battle will take place on earth. To be more specific, it will take place in a city. It doesn’t really matter which city they’re fighting in. All right, now I will get on with my arguments! 1. Dumbledore and Voldemort can use the spell stupefy to harm their opponents. It is common knowledge among most Harry Potter fans that the spell “stupefy” is used to stun or knock someone out. Optimus and Megatron, being giant robots constructed from metal, won’t be bothered by such a small spell. However, that is assuming that a normal wizard is using this spell on them. Remember that both Voldemort and Dumbledore are some of the most powerful wizards of all time; therefore, the spells they cast would exceed that of the average wizard. Proof of this lies in the fourth book, when Dumbledore casts the spell, “stupefy” right before Barty Crouch (in the appearance of Alastor Moody) was about to cast a spell on Harry Potter. Dumbledore managed to not only to blast the door that was standing in his way apart, but also hit his intended target—Barty Crouch. Had any other wizard used this spell on the door, it simply would have glanced off. At best, it would have left a scorch mark or perhaps a small dent. However, Dumbledore, being one of the most powerful wizards of all time, managed to blast the door into splinters and still hit his target. This goes to show that when Dumbledore uses the spell “stupefy”, it is the equivalent of a small explosion. Likewise, it is only logical to conclude that Voldemort could also cast the spell with the same affects, if not better. Therefore, if Dumbledore and Voldemort chose to use these spells on Optimus and Megatron, it would do significant damage if Voldemort and Dumbledore aimed at their heads. 2. Dumbledore and Voldemort could use the spell “reducto” to harm their opponents. I have proved in my other argument that the spells the two wizards cast exceed that of the normal wizard. When a normal wizard casts, “reducto”, it is usually the equivalent of a small-medium explosion. However, when Dumbledore and Voldemort cast this spell, it is probable that the spell is the equivalent of a big-huge explosion. Thus, it would be immensely useful in battle, since several big-huge explosions would tear Optimus and Megatron apart. 3. Dumbledore and Voldemort can apparate. In case there are those who have no idea what apparating is, it is when a wizard teleports himself/herself to another area. This will be another extremely important factor in battle. With the ability to teleport, Voldemort and Dumbledore could easily dodge any attacks Megatron and Optimus throws at them. At the same time, it let’s them hide in areas where the two alien robots would not expect to find them. Then, when the time is right, they could use a spell and apparate yet again. This tactic will wear Megatron and Optimus down until they are nothing more than heaps of metal. 4. The wielder and owner of the elder wand cannot be defeated in a duel [1]. Dumbledore, who is both the wielder and owner of the elder wand, cannot be defeated in a duel; therefore, even if Voldemort happened to die, Dumbledore would be unbeatable as long as he had the wand within his possession. As a result, Megatron and Optimus are extremely likely to lose, since they cannot possibly beat Dumbledore as long as he had the wand within his possession. 5. Dumbledore and Voldemort could use the spell “Petrificus Totalus” to disable their enemies. “Petrificus Totalus”, also known as the full body-bind curse, would be an easy way for the wizards to win this fight. I realize that Megatron and Optimus are huge, so it will take more than one shot to make them freeze in place; however, because the two wizards are so powerful, one shot of “Petrificus Totalus” will probably freeze an arm or a leg. If this is the case, then Voldemort and Dumbledore could have both their enemies’ arms rendered useless in seconds; thus, the robots can no longer use their weapons. Once they have done so, they can work on the rest of their bodies and within a minute, Megatron and Optimus will simply be unmoving hunks of metal. Afterward, they could work away at the two robots as they please. 6. Dumbledore and Voldemort could use a transfiguration spell of some kind on their opponents. It would be too much to hope that the wizards could some how turn Optimus Prime into a harmless bunny rabbit; however, it isn’t too much to hope to turn Optimus Prime’s gun or sword into a harmless bunny rabbit. Alternatively, they could use a vanishing spell to make it disappear completely, leaving Optimus with no weapons (not including himself). Likewise, they could do the same to Megatron. On the other hand, they could use a vanishing/transfiguration spell of some kind on the body parts of Optimus and Megatron (i.e. change a foot into a rock, change a hand into nothing, change the head into a bomb, etc.). That last example should be particularly useful when battling the two robots. 7. Dumbledore and Voldemort could use “fiendfyre” on their opponents to destroy them. “Fiendfyre” is an extremely powerful type of fire that is made from Dark Magic [2]. The fire will pursue anything for more fuel and seems to incinerate anything through mere contact. Thus, Voldemort and Dumbledore could have Megatron and Optimus Prime trapped within the burning city and then apparate safely away. Should the two alien robots attempt to stop the flames, it is extremely likely they would fail. This is because “fiendfyre” cannot be put out like a normal fire would. One of the only known ways stop the fire is to get the caster to make it go away. Another way is if a different wizard counters the fire or attempts to put it out. Because Megatron and Optimus are neither the casters of this fire nor wizards, they are very likely to die within seconds after the fire had been cast. Conclusion: I have shown a variety of ways in which Voldemort and Dumbledore could disarm/attack/evade Megatron and Optimus Prime so that the two wizards would triumph over the two robots. I’m intrigued to see what my opponent has in mind for my arguments and for his own. I wish him luck and hope he does not underestimate the wizards’ powers! Just as Optimus Prime once said, “Like us, there’s more to them than meets the eye”. [1] http://harrypotter.wikia.com... [2] http://harrypotter.wikia.com...

Title: Legalize Fighting Content: 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.

Title: Bull Fighting Should Be Illegal Content: The bull will not be motivated to drive towards the cape without being infuriated. You have no source to back up your claim, I'm afraid. The audience shows up to bullfighting for the sense of danger. Since bulls are not instinctively aggressive animals, they would simply walk around the arena unless being hit or provoked. My source in round 1 backs that up. I'm not vegan, I don't have an opinion or advocate against farming and herding in questionable conditions, although in bull-fighting there is no cause except for the sadistic joy of the audience to see the matador get hurt or the bull being abused. They try to kill the bull quickly and humanely, but again. Matadors aren't bull health specialists. My source again backs up that it takes multiple tries to just strike the bull in the artery, and then comes over a minute of bleeding to death in agonizing pain. The entire practice of this sadistic 'sport' needs to be abolished.

Title: High School football should be banned Content: I have three observations: 1. History/Culture 2. Banning is useless 3. Freedom 1. Football is a major part of American history (considering you used examples within the United States. It has been around forever both on the high school, college, and professional level. Considering this ban, you might as well ban ALL football. Also, many people are extremely passionate about football and consider it even a family tradition to play. This leads me into my next point: P.s - if it was considered bad it probably should've been banned a while ago. 2. Banning is useless. Football is inevitable. It will still be played in college and professionally. Meaning injuries will still happen and this is useless. Actually, playing during high-school will teach the correct way to play and avoid serious injures when the students are younger, rather than beginning in college where injuries are much more severe. Even if football was banned on all schools (including educational and professional) - people will play WITHOUT PADS individually in their off time. This will at least double the risk of danger. Also banning will not include other sports, people who deeply love sports will switch to still intense sports, like Hockey or Boxing - both of which have devastating potential. 3. Freedom. Banning football would make it illegal. This is not a good idea. This is because laws are meant to prevent harm from one to another. Key phrase there: Laws are to prevent harm to others. This topic is an example of one joining football knowing it can cause harm. They are essentially risking their own body. This means that they have put them self in danger. This ban makes no sense - if i want to risk myself i should be able to do it. I have some examples: A - Military I know I am putting my life at danger if I join the military. I know I have an external cause to motivate me to do this task. (Soldiers protect the lives of their citizen, I want to deeply thank all of you who may be reading for that) Does this mean it should be banned to join the military? Under the same logic that PRO illustrates, it should be. I am proud to say High School football should not be banned.

Title: Football is to dangerous to be allowed at high schools and colleges. Content: I hold the stance it isn't too dangerous. I will now present my argument"According to CBS news, Tipton football player Chad Stover died after receiving a major brain injury to the head during the football game, on a Friday night. There was not an ambulance or even a sports trainer at the field when this game was occurring in 2013 at Smith-Cotton High School"I looked all over the Internet, and there is NO claim there wasn't an ambulance or sports trainer. That argument is false unless you can prove otherwise."Football is the most known sport when it comes to the athletes receiving concussions"While it is notorious for having high concussions, it's not the highest. Believe it or not...Women's Ice Hockey has the MOST concussions. The claim "football has the most concussions" is false. [1]"The entire point of this game is to tackle the other team, and stop them from scoring touchdowns. That just sounds dangerous in itself."While it is dangerous, it is required the players are protected. There are more dangerous sports than American football.I'll present my argument nowi. Scholarships for college while playing in high schoolCollege is VERY expensive. $29,400 was given to 7/10 college Seniors at one time for student loans and through 2008 and 2012 it increased [2]. Scholarships are important and football is one easy way to get extra money for college. It also looks great when applying to college for extra curricular activities and if you want to play college football.ii. Skills you developLeadership is one big benefit. It's important to be a good leader in society, often you'll be better with people. You'll also have some rivalry, which is also good. You have to be competitive in this big world.iii.HealthPeople who play sports have better health. It's true! Older people who played sports had less brain shrinkage [3]It also develops healthier relationships. It allows you to be with people who share a common interest in athletics and you can make a lot of friends.There's a myth about being a jock makes you "stupid". This is also very false. Being sports forces you to balance time between homework and sports. Organization is important. [4][1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://projectonstudentdebt.org...[3] http://www.livestrong.com...[4] http://www.pamf.org...

Title: Colleges and Universities should prohibit the public expression of hate speech on their campuses Content: No rebuttals! Please keep it clean. I wish I could use more rounds, but this week is really busy. This arguments are from my case for an upcoming tournament. Arguments Hate speech bans are counter- productive More Speech is always better We cannot infringe on hate speech without providing grounds to ban legitimate opinions Clarifications: a. Fighting words: A term used by the supreme court referring to slurs whose sole use is to start a fight. b. Public expression: Simply expression that is public; Hate speech inside a dormitory room is not public expression. c. Free speech is an idea expressed in the first amendment of the US constitution as a guideline rule for the government. This means that if colleges feel that hate speech is something to be against, they as a private institution are free to ban it. 1. Observation 1- Hate speech and fighting words are two different things. The resolution states that the opposition must defend hate speech, not fighting words. 2. Observation 2- That said, many things defined as hate speech can be prosecuted under other laws, such as destruction of property, or trespassing. The action is what should be punished, not the feelings behind it. a. "In its 1992 decision in R. A. V. v. St. Paul, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a city ordinance that prohibited cross-burnings based on their symbolism, which the ordinance said makes many people feel "anger, alarm or resentment. " Instead of prosecuting the cross-burner for the content of his act, the city government could have rightfully tried him under criminal trespass and/or harassment laws. " states to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Arguments: 3. Contention 1-Bans on hate speech fail in their purpose a. A (good) example of this is the University of Connecticut"s speech code. It named "inappropriately directed laughter" and "conspicuous exclusion from conversations and/or classroom discussions" as violations of its code. The ban was struck down in federal court. i. The problem with this ban is a number of things, but the big issue is how easily it would be to be prosecuted for violating such a ban. There are a few cases in which "inappropriately directed laughter" and "conspicuous exclusion from conversations and/or classroom discussions" would constitute hate speech. However, about 99% of the time, this is either a misunderstanding, or it has nothing to do with race, ethnicity, religion, or any other group the excluded belongs to. b. Because speech codes need to be so broad, they are often too broad. As a result of being broad, they are very vague. i. A case concerning the University of Michigan"s speech code was thrown out by a federal judge because the code stated it banned language "that stigmatizes or victimizes an individual. " 4. Contention 2- More speech is ALWAYS better a. You should convince people they are wrong, don"t just tell them to shut their mouth; Counter- speech is better than a ban. People whose opinion has been banned can bottle up their anger and take it out on unsuspecting innocent people. i. The ideal solution would be to find the root cause of the hate speech and reason through it, not stifle one's beliefs. b. Teaches college/university students to respond to hate speech in real world. In the real world, people cannot prevent all hate speech, so it teaches students to prepare for real life. c. In an academic learning environment such as a college or university, we cannot ban arguments we disagree with. This also helps to form peoples beliefs. If all you hear for your whole life is, "Chocolate ice cream is great", how could you learn to love vanilla ice cream. d. The supreme court refuses to ban hate speech. In the case, Phelps vs. Snyder, the court ruled that the Westboro Baptist church had a right to protest homosexuality at a military funeral. 5. Contention 3- The same laws and principles used to protect all speech protect hate speech, therefore, we cannot infringe on hate speech without infringing on the right to protest or have any opinion a. "I have always felt as a minority person that we have to protect the rights of all because if we infringe on the rights of any persons, we'll be next. " states an anonymous african american educator b. Infringing on hate speech could provide legitimate grounds to prosecute reasonable protesters Notice I am not supporting hate speech, only that the best way to help stop it would certainly not be to ban it.

Title: Boxing Should be allowed as a School Sport Content: 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.

Title: Should Girls Be Allowed To Play Football (American) Content: I thought i mentioned i didn't want to turn this debate in to man vs females. Anyways i will go ahead with this debate, but remember that warning. Now how can you state your claim "statistically proven that women play harder and more aggressive". Without providing any evidence? Another issue on your claim is you went ahead and say woman can play in the NFL. They are many reasons why that's a bad idea. First women not as strong, not as tall, not as fast, not as athletic, to play with grow men. You know why you don't see a professional boxer going against an women professional boxer, because it would be a no contest. It no difference on playing a team sport. Women would get manhandled, it wouldn't be fun to see. Just like the WNBA, Woman hockey team, woman soccer, softball, they all have they own league, they would not be able to actually beat a professional male athlete. That's why they have their own league. Women have limitations on playing physical sports against mens. "Sex has been identified as a major determinant of athletic performance through the impact of height, weight, body fat, muscle mass, aerobic capacity or anaerobic threshold as a result of genetic and hormonal differences". You went on to say "scientifically and psychologically proven, that women are more aggressive and controlling both towards and more so then men" again you saying this without any proof. If you going to say something like this then we need evidence on those claims. This should not have been male vs female. But you insist on thinking women would have a great chance on beating a man in football. But there are problems with that, a physical one, and a mental one too. Playing on a team sport, a sport that you get paid a lot of money. You need trust in your teammates, that would not be the case if a woman is on the team. Guys would not be able to trust them on the field. Like i said before there are reasons why women have they own leagues and not playing on the same team as a guy. They are other reason too. Like entertainment, it clear a male sport, would win the popular vote, and would get the high ratings than women. For example the NBA VS the WNBA. "WBNA average per-game attendance last season was only 7,138"the lowest mark in league history, and well below the average per-game NBA draw of 17,849". Not saying the WNBA is bad, it actually good. But they need to change some rules, because they are playing with nba rules. Which doesn't make sense. A male sport will always get more attention, and that is a proven fact. Women is fighting a uphill battle just for having there own league. Why because the public would prefer watching a male sports. https://sports.vice.com... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Title: Boxing Should be allowed as a School Sport Content: 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.

Title: NHL Hockey is a harder sport then American Football Content: Number one the average weight thing is useless because in hockey there is more acceleration and less mass. You said you self there is less friction on ice so when skating at high speed's in the intent of hinting that person they are basically a speeding torpedo. I should have said this before in Football you get tackled in OPEN field but in hockey your pined between two hard places.Yes Hockey players have less fan's but more crazy fan's https://video.search.yahoo.com... in Vancouver so you have that presser on you and this goes for all team's. You also said that Football player's have less privacy well really for both sport's it's about the same it's really about the most famous player's. Finally this is how hard to get into the NHL. Out of 30,000 kid's in Ontario Canada are selected and studied 48 get drafted, out of that 48 only 39 end up signing a contracted. Out of that 39 only 32 actually play in the NHL and only 15 play more then one season. But out of that 15 only 6 play 400 games which is the amount of games to by able to play that NHL position.http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Title: The shootout should cease to exist in the NHL. Content: "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...