Question: Should fighting be allowed in hockey?

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

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

Title: Competitive spoprts Content: Should kids be allowed to play competitive sports yes or no?

Title: Hockey is the best sport in the world Content: Hockey needs a lot of skill and it has a high physical component to the game. Any debate will have some opinion in it. Hockey is the best sport cause of what I previously mentioned. This debate was supposed to be opiniated.

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming Content: It might not be against the rules per se, but it's certainly against good sporting spirit. Perhaps you have had this debate at least one too many times. Let the voters vote against me if they wish, but you should accept your rebuke for unsporting conduct.

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

Title: The NFL is too soft Content: Sure, bone-crushing, skull-fracturing violence might be more entertaining... But consider the players. These new regulations are all about avoiding serious, damaging injuries.

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: That UfC should be banned. Content: UfC should be banned because all it is, is people beating each other up. It is very dangerous and they could get seriously hurt.

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

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: Hockey is better than soccer Content: 1.) Embellishment - If you are entire argument is based on a video made by some desperate guy determined to undermine the GREATNESS of Soccer using some archaic video footage of nondescript teams. I dont know what to say. I base my arguments on fact and the fact is that these days players who act like that are penalised. Here is the proof--- (there goes the argument on "embellishment". ) 2) Accuracy - This is a video of a 40 yard kick in the corner of the goal protected by a goalkeeper well above 6'3 with an entire wall in front of him . 40 yards almost the 2/3 of the length of a hockey rink. that's almost like an Ice hockey goalie scoring from his half. I doubt if you could show me a video of a ice hockey player make the puck swerve in the air from 40 yards out. 3) Toughness - Since you seem so hell bent on the toughness of this game let's analyze this a bit a) Adaptability - Soccer is played in rain , storm , snow and sweltering heats of brazilian maracana with temp of 42 centigrade, Does a Ice hockey player go through the same , No its always over ice , they would probably faint in any other condition. b) Endurance - How can one compare a game of 20 min halves of ice hockey with 45 min halves of hight tempo game of soccer. MLS in US is a very pathetic example of soccer , with sub standard players and worst style of play. If one wants to know how fast this game can be one should at least see barcelona FC in action, which would pale any. Yes any ice hockey game in pace and tempo. c) Ice hockey players wearing virtually a full body armor is not a contact sport, its sheer hypocrisy. I mean why have any protection if they are so tough play just the way actual rugby players slug it out. Rugby is a contact sport which in true essence has tough men not ice hockey. And if my purpose of watching sports is to see tough men i would watch boxing, judo , taekwondo , wrestling not ice hockey. The small minority of people who watch ice hockey watch it for their skill on ice not toughness. Some more facts which would make the position amply clear 1) Soccer largest watched sports in the world , World cup soccer most watched event on planet after olympics 2) Soccer clubs richest in the world more than NFL, NHL, Baseball etc etc. (If you can show me stats to disapprove this I would concede) PS - Ensure caution in choosing topic , either put "Ice Hockey is better than soccer "or accept both . Field hockey is still more popular than any Ice hockey.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Ice hockey is better than Hockey Content: I would first like to straight that my argument is specifically pointed towards that hockey is better than ice hockey because of the dangers, but first of all i would like pro to start with their statement before i interfere. To you Pro

Title: My Group of Hypothetical Dead Musicians is Better Than Yours. Content: Hey, sorry fr not posting but i broke my hand in a hockey game a coup[ple of days ago and that was myt reason for being inactive. Since I cant really type well, or fast currently I'm gonna forfeiut the rest of the debate in hopes of debating it sometime in the futre. Good luck to patsoz and I hope to debate this again sometime. Sorry.

Title: Dance is a Sport Content: I think you misunderstood what I said I didn't say there was no rules in competitive dance I said in dance. They're are two different things. Dance is not a sport but competitive dance is. It's like being in the nutcracker is not a sport but being in the competition is. I understand that competitive dance has rules I knew that but in say the ballet the nutcracker you perform so there's no rules. And I did not say AT ALL that you don't need to practice you do what I said is that the dance stays like same while in say hockey the plays change because someone on the other team changes that. No one changes you're dance that you compete against. You misunderstood what I meant. Competitive dance is a sport but dance is not. There's a difference in between the two and the question was is DANCE a sport. That's why my answer is what it is.

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: Hockey is the best sport in the world Content: Hockey players are not always getting charged like football players. Also who wants to watch a ball get kicked around for a couple of hours or have stoppages all the time in football, watch a ball get thrown at a net or hit back in forth over the net. Hockey is very exciting to both play and watch.

Title: Should there be Football at Mount Saint Charles Content: No you are living in New England, which is hometown of hockey. If you are a citizen of Massachusetts you should rather support hockey than football. I do not think that you won this debate but I think I did. So we should not have a football due to the reasons that I gave. beside we should more focus on our hockey program and make even more prestigious Mount hockey team.

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

Title: The Boston Bruins are the cheapest team in hockey as of their series against the Montreal Canadiens. Content: I didn't know high hits that break peoples jaw's were considered "clean" hits. Also at least the Bruins have enough respect that they will drop the gloves if a player from the other team doesn't like there rough style of play. Last the cheapest team in hockey was the 1974-1975 Flyers. Thanks to them rules like the third man in penalty came into existence. What they would do was they would have there star player Bobby Clarke do anything to get under a players skin. Then when the player reacted they would have every player get over to the fight and knock the snot out of the player who hit Bobby. Now that right there is messed up, and on top of that they ended up winning the cup because they beat the crap out of every team they played.

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

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: Soccer is a better sport than Hockey Content: Sorry for the delay. Argument #3: The scoring The year is 2010 and the world cup is blazing off in South Africa. Come June 25th is a match between Honduras, two OK-level teams, and Honduras shoots TWICE in 90 minute, Switzerland shoots t the net five times. and whats the score? 0-0. In a hockey game the average amount of shots is 30 and yet the score is almost ALWAYS higher. What does this say about soccer? That the players are slacking? I think it says that the goalies of Hockey are trying harder as I see no beauty in a 0-0 game. Now. Jacobie1121 may say the goalies in soccer do work hard and that there are 0-0 games in Hockey as well. To answer the first rebuttal by repeating myself. SEVEN SHOTS TO 30. A goalie has to block 15 goals wearing tons of equipment but a soccer goalie has to block 2-5 goals with just a special goalie shirt and pants but yet the one who wears less and has to block less is the harder worker? No. Simply no. The second rebuttal would be that there are 0-0 games in Hockey as well. There are more shots in hockey, allowing there to be more opportunities for goals. Whether it's a close miss or an epic goal those shots are what brings us to our feet. Argument #4: Hockey is a better team sport In a hockey game the team is constantly changed around allowing for there to be more job opportunities and time to play while in soccer it's almost always always the same players. Because there are more skilled players in a lineup there is a greater chance of an exciting game because the talent changes quickly. Different players play with different styles which can be both bad and good. And we all love a good game-changer or game-destroyer! Argument #5: Diving I don't like to see others get hurt. But I HATE people who fake getting hurt for their own benefit. They are athletes. And being fair is a code that all athletes should follow. Why should reward those who fake? They get another player in trouble to give him/her a penalty or to get the person who was framed kicked out. Imagine you were a respectable player in soccer and someone pulled a dive claiming you tripped them. Would you say at least he did not get actually hurt? Or would you mention how unfair that is? The answer is obvious. I have no tolerance for cheaters whatsoever. I include a video about diving to see the sheer quantity of these fakers. I'm ready for your response

Title: Hockey is better than soccer Content: The reasons which have been enlisted are the Speed and Toughness or the level of contact allowed.I am a bit appalled at the choice of the two. Firstly the topic is Hockey is better than soccer. Where as my opponent fails to give legitimacy to the game of field hockey which is more popular and widespread, rather he chose to focus all his attention to Ice hockey. I don't want to get into semantics but Hockey is a much broader term which encompasses both forms and hence ignoring one for the other is unjustified. Secondly the quality of the game is never judged solely on the pace of the game. The parameters are the level of skill required , technical ability, team cohesion, simplicity and the high stakes involved. A spectator gets his money's worth while witnessing the sheer wizardry of Lionel Messi as he dribbles past 4-5 opposition players before putting the ball into the goal. While doing so he displays the positional awareness of both his teammates and opposition players, moving the ball at pace , performs evasive maneuvers, makes several judgments almost simultaneously. If this is not the what displays peak of human ability then I do not know what might. Similarly when Cristiano Ronaldo takes a free kick from 40 yards out , he kicks the ball with strength at specific angle which makes the ball swerve at pace before hitting the back of the net , leaving the goalkeeper dismayed and the spectator amazed. This is what elevates football from being just a game to a religion a faith. And talking of pace Borussia Dortmund forward Pierre emerick aubameyang clocked faster than WR sprinter Usain bolt over a 40 yard stretch. I would love to see an Ice hockey player attempt such a feet on foot . Thirdly Soccer is not a contact sport it is a game played in the mind and executed with skill on the field. There is no scope of contact in this sport hence it is looked upon severely by the referee. Ice hockey players have elaborate paraphernalia to make this a contact sport. Yet contusion , lacerations , concussions, broken bones are regular part of it. We do not know how many promising careers might have prematurely ended because of a rash tackle in hockey rink. Moreover judging a game just because it is not tough enough and players avoid injuries is just a bit sadistic. I recommend Boxing if someone is so inclined towards manning up, let the skill prevail on the field and not brute force.

Title: Is Horseback Riding A Sport Content: You propose a good statement saying that there is not a possible ground for opposer to argue. What I do not understand is why, by choice, did you decide to accept this debate? If you knew it was a truism, why continue with this arguement? In definition, it is a sport, but to some people, it is not considered a sport because of the appearance of the level of difficulty it is set at.

Title: Collisions are an example of violence that has no place in baseball. Content: Baseball is not a contact sport. It is not a sport that is supposed to rely on violence. This is one commentator’s point: “if you want to watch violent collisions, you can watch [American] football. Or hockey. Or MMA. There’s no reason baseball needs to have similar kinds of plays; it’s an entirely different sport with a different premise and different rules.”[1] Baseball tries to make the game safe for its players. That’s why beanballs—pitches that endanger hitters—are disallowed. Baseball should not promote violence, and it certainly shouldn’t allow it when players’ careers hang in the balance. [1] Dave Cameron, “It’s Time to End Home Plate Collisions,” FanGraphs, May 26, 2011, http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/its-time-to-end-home-plate-collisions/.

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: Should rugby and other violent sports, wrestling boxing be compulsory in schools Content: CON has lost. CON's last statement was the following:'Ok, i never said i wanted it banned or anything but people that dont want to do it shouldnt have to, forcing physical activity is abuse. if its not forced then it isnt. 'That entire statement is irrelevant. (S)He hasn't responded to the fact that no sports are violent, and the resolution is: 'Should rugby and other violent sports, wrestling boxing be compulsory in schools. ' Therefore, the statement 'but people that dont want to do it shouldnt have to, forcing physical activity is abuse. if its not forced then it isnt,' does not have anything to do with the resolution.

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: Should we ban contact sports for 12 and under (youth) Content: I'd like to point out that my opponent actually meant to be pro (saying that we should ban contact sports for 12 and under), so he still has the burden of proof. 1. "First of all, there are about 3.5 million injuries regarding contact sports per year" You need to cite your sources 2. " Let's say you make B team or C team at your school, you might think your not good enough so you might do something to hurt your self" If you join the team you have to understand that they chose you because you are good. They wouldn't let you join if there was any way you couldn't meet up to the standards. Even if they did let you in and you weren't good at it, you wouldn't hurt yourself. You would quit or get kicked. 3. "If you get hit hard in a game or practice it can lead to serious brain injuries or a broken arm or leg" Most youth injuries are minor and don't last long. Now to prove why they should stay. (I'd write more but there aren't enough characters)

Title: eSports should be recognized and respected as official sports Content: Alright time to get down to work here. Your argument is now based on the fact that there are other less physical competitions that are considered sports however there is some problems with that. Should we start drawing the line on what a sport is? By definition there are already games that are considered sports that shouldn't be. Such as pokers, chess, and the only one important in this debate videogames. Let's examine virtual verses reality. Every sport that is a sport has interactions between two or more people. Someone you can touch and interact face to face with. Egames does not have such teamwork as hockey, basketball, Soccer or any other "classic" or real sports. Stressful situations does not make something a sport. If you can make a good comparison between a classic sport and egames we may have something. However all we have is people glued to monitors. If esports is going to be considered a sport all videogames will become a sport. Rough and tumble interactive skilled sports is what has been the sports since the beginning. From the stoneware when ancient hunters would hunt wooly mammoths, sports have been around since ancient times. It is not time to make a virtual reality where what I watch on TV is other people watching a screen. For the definition of sports and the difference between reality and virtual it is clear that now is not the time to confuse the two. http://mp1st.com...

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

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

Title: Basketball is better than hockey Content: Hockey is no doubt the better sport. 1. It is full of fast paced action, as well as exciting hits and goals. 2. No one makes dumb comments about hockey, like "ball is life" for basketball. 3. Hockey players don't yell stupid taunts at each other like "brick city" or "biscuits"

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

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

Title: Should rugby and other violent sports, wrestling boxing be compulsory in schools Content: Hello, CON. Your thesis is: 'Rugby and other violent sports, wrestling boxing should not be compulsory in schools.' My thesis is: 'Rugby and other violent sports, wrestling boxing should be compulsory in schools.'The resolution is 'Should rugby and other violent sports, wrestling boxing be compulsory in schools,' however, rugby, wrestling and boxing are not violent sports. PRO hasn't provided any definitions, so I have the honors now. DEFINITION OF 'VIOLENT' :Noun1: Behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or somethingREFERENCE:http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...DEFINITION OF 'WRESTLING' :NounThe sport or activity of grappling with an opponent and trying to throw or hold them down on the ground, typically according to a code of rules.REFERENCE:http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...So as you can see, if you wrestle with someone, that person doesn't intend to harm you, all they intend is to hold you to the ground, with means of using force if necessary The article 'Should Boxing be Banned? Arguments For and Against,' [1] states: 'There is no general intent in boxing to injure the opponent. Rather, the primary aim is to score the most points by hitting strictly defined regions of the body.'Therefore, boxing is not violent. Rugby is not violent because when tackling in rugby, all you mean to do is bring the opponent down by using force, you don't intend to hurt anybody. This debate should already be over because my opponent's listed sports are not violent but, even if they were violent:REBUTTALS:1) 'No of course it shouldn't, some kids are not up for this and it embarrasses them,'Yeah, and track-and-field in my school is mandatory, I don't feel up to it (I don't like jumping and running around; I like more organized sports) but I still do it anyway. CON also said that it embarrasses kids but why would a kid be embarrassed? 2) 'we must also take into account physical harm could be caused. It is child abuse and a way of embarrassing kids.'Every physical activity has the potential to end up in harm. Again, track-and-field is mandatory in my school, and it can end up in pain. Again, how does any sport embarrass somebody, let alone a 'violent' sport?3) 'I know some dummies will say its about toughening people up but its unlikely it will happen in real life' ...What? Sports do toughen you up. The article: 'Should Boxing be Banned? Arguments For and Against,' states: 'Boxing requires a high degree of physical fitness, if you wish to be successful, and so it teaches young people to look after their bodies.' You have to be fit to play any sport.4) 'Also IT IS NOT EXERCISE AT ALL BECAUSE WRESTLING ISN'T RUNNING AROUND, AND RUGBY IS PHYSICAL ABUSE'I want to point out that my opponent just did the Internet equivalent of shouting. Shouting at your opponent in a debate is never acceptable, and there should be no exceptions here. Apparently, the only form of exercise is running around. How about push-ups? Also, rugby does involve running around, and CON claimed it was a violent sport. Rugby is not physical abuse.DEFINITION OF 'PHYSICAL ABUSE' :Physical abuse is an act of a person involving contact of another person intended to cause feelings of physical pain, injury, or other physical suffering or bodily harm.REFERENCES:http://en.wikipedia.org...You do not intend to hurt somebody when tackling in rugby, therefore, rugby is not physical abuse.5) 'although its not that serious physical abuse but people could feel uncomfortable doing it so there are some dumb people who think people should have to embarrass themselves for the sake of some dumb pe thing but after what i have said no one could come up with an opposite arguement.'My opponent just admitted that violent sports don't have very much physical abuse. How do kids get embarrassed from a sport?I just refuted everything my opponent said, and demonstrated that rugby, boxing and wrestling are not violent sports. Therefore, I urge the audience to vote for PRO.[1]-http://superbrainwave.hubpages.com...

Title: Hockey is better than football Content: Argument #4: Hockey is more difficult to play Hockey is waaaay more challenging to play then football, especially ice hockey. First of all you got to learn how to skate. Then you hare to learn how to pass with a stick and all of that stuff. Then you have to get into even more shape so you don't tire out in the game and then you have to play 3-4 times a week! You also have to travel and practice. Imagine how sore you would be! Football may be tough but hockey is way tougher! And what if you get involved in a hockey fight? You could get beat up a bit adding to your troubles and all of that gear you have to wear! That is 20 pounds extra! All of these factors add up to make Hockey one of the most difficult sports out there. Argument #5: Hockey is much more worldwide "The Arab Cup of Ice Hockey was intended to be an annual international ice hockey competition involving teams from Arab nations. The inaugural tournament took place on the 16th to 20 June 2008 in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. A 2009 competition was planned to be held in Kuwait City, Kuwait but was cancelled." Imagine that. Arabs playing ice hockey in the boiling sun. If you have been to the middle east you would know how freaking hot it is. http://en.wikipedia.org... Check that out. All of those countries play ice hockey. But wait! There are even more forms of hockey then just plain old ice hockey! Even more countries play different forms of hockey! Even more. Hockey is an Olympic sport and football is not, making hockey even more international! Well, I hope you post something. DarthKirones

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

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

Title: This house believes "Video Games Be Considered a Sport" Content: Hi guys! Today we will be debating the topic, should games be considered sports? I am taking the PRO stance in this debate whereas whoever else accepts it takes the CON stance for this. Here is the breakup of how the rounds will work: ROUND ONE : Is simply acceptance, no arguments to be posted ROUND TWO-FOUR : Is arguments/counter arguments ROUND FIVE : Is arguments/counter arguments as well as why you took up this stance in the first place. RULES:- - There will be no swearing - Please answer in all rounds - Cite your sources either gradually or all at the end. - Please use fact rather than opinion in your debate as this a fact based debate. REMINDER: Don't forget to use the six hats!

Title: Hockey is better than soccer Content: Okay first off thanks for debating. Now I'm going to say that hockey can be played year round. Nobody really plays on the ponds anymore. I play all the time in the summer. And ice rinks aren't as cold as you think, they are usually kept at 50degrees and the ice is cooled from below. You where saying that only being able to use your feet makes soccer harder and more unique and I do agree, but hockey is similar. In hockey you can use your hands (but only to bat the puck out of the air) but we also have to control a smaller object far from our body with a stick. We have to be able to know where it is on our stick without even looking at it, and we are doing this while we are on skates. people generally do not realize the amount of coordination you need in hockey. Also the power, agility, and explosivness needed is unbelievable. My last point for my argument is that hockey is faster and more entertaining. Because hockey is being played on skates, it is very fast. Shifts are short so every player comes out fast and powerfull. The ice rink is way smaller than a soccer field. This creates more action near the net and way more shots on goal. The goalies are constantly making huge saves and making big plays. In soccer there are less shots and less action. The physicality of hockey also makes the game more fun. I do think some of those cheap hockey fights are stupid but they are fun to watch some times. So that's all I'm writing for this round thanks again for debating!

Title: is football more dangerous than rugby Content: As a raw game, I would say rugby is more dangerous. If you want more information, I've seen several good articles written about getting rid of hard pads in hockey, which I applied to football here. It might be a good idea to look them over.

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

Title: Hockey is better than football Content: That is a shame. Argument #2: Hockey is better for fans Don't us sports fans want lots of games? In hockey each team plays 82 games. 41 at home, 41 away. There are 30 teams in the NHL so the grand total of season games is 2460! In the NFL there are only 256 games! Like stated before, NFL games are very interrupted and the small number of games is just not worth it! And the playoffs in hockey are also much longer. See? There are many games and because teams usually play 3-4 times a week during the season there will be plenty of games with your favorite team! Argument #3: The variety If you saw my debate with Jacobie1121 about soccer and hockey you would have seen that I used that argument for Hockey before, but that will not stop me from using that argument here. Hockey has many variations. The most common version is ice hockey. However there are many other forms. There is field hockey for those who don't like the ice and cold. There is sledge hockey for the disabled. There is street hockey for those who just want a game, and many more! Hockey can be played by anyone. Don't like ice hockey? Play field hockey! Simple as that. Well, that's all for now. DarthKirones. Thank you.

Title: Hockey is the most skilled sport in North America Content: Well this will be tough because we have different definition of sport. I don't believe that chess is a sport. Now i'm not saying that the world's great chess minds don't deserve major props but it is a skill. It is something that you can be good at. it takes no athletic ability just brain power. A sport takes both. A sport takes athletic skill, good decision making, and creativity. I think that there is a ton of things people don't consider about hockey. It's not just ten guys beating on each other and skating up and down a rink. There are tactics and situations and plans A-D to go through in your head while your on the ice. You need to read the other team while they attack. Plan the best way to kill a penalty. Choose he personnel that best matches the style of play or the tempo or the situation your in. Having to depend on team-mates, not just yourself. All sports are like this but i just think hockey takes more skill on more levels.

Title: Informal: Hockey is "better" than baseball. Content: The clash of the titans: A United States past time versus a Canadian made sport. This is my first debate, to please bear with me if it is not professional or in proper format. I will be learning a I go. I intend on defending the primarily North American sport of hockey in saying that it is a "better" sport than baseball. It has been a long winded argument amongst my friends and I wish to see how the internet feels about it. I know better is a subjective term, but I wish to break down the argument into a few major points that are both important to the players and the viewers of the sport. These points are: Average televised game length, average time of action, games per season, importance of each game per season, skills required to play, difficulty scoring, and type of team play. Knowing that calling a sport "better" is changed constantly by context but in general, I feel these are important characteristics that are contained in each sport and I would like to defend that hockey stands to be a better spectator sport and requires more skills (both mentally and physically) for the athletes. Thank you in advance to my debater and I wish to keep this as mature and information based as possible.

Title: Curling is a sport Content: To me and probably is not a sport. I rather have regular hockey.

Title: Playing a Catcher in Baseball is Harder than Playing Goalie in Hockey Content: This is also my first argument and good luck to my opponent. I think that be a goalie is tougher because of all the shots you have to take, and how crowded the area in front of the net can get, especially on an empty net. Hockey is also a physical sport and the goalie needs to help defend and stick up for his teammates. Goalies are also most of the time captain of the team.

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

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

Title: Esports should be officially considered as a sport Content: Okay, I will rebut what my opponent has said in Round 2. My main problem with my opponent is that he seemed to not have read what I wrote. On multiple occasions, I find myself having to think for a long time what he means before concluding that he must have not read properly. I urge voters to take note of this. Anyhow, allow me to explain. My opponent starts off with questioning is chess a sport? Dude. I just said in Round 1 that chess for the most part, is not considered a sport. Did he not read this? Perhaps he just skimmed through... Then he says that hockey does not require you to go out. Yeah, but you definitely sweat right? I never said that it is a requirement of a sport that you must be outdoors. I said that sports have to fit our traditional views and a big part of these views are almost always that you have to go out and/or sweat. I never said that it was a strict REQUIREMENT. Then he said "video games represent things we do every day? No way! In your everyday lived, very few jobs require mouse control etc". Okay firstly, even if I did say that, what would be the significance of that? So what? I never said anything about how a video game should or should not represent something you do every day. The most I said was that any game teaches you important skills you can implement every day like perseverance, strategic thinking etc. And then yet again, my opponent accused me of saying that since esports does not have mental exertion it is disqualified as a sport. I am TOTALLY SPEECHLESS. WHEN DID I SAY THAT? I said that esports do not contain PHYSICAL exertion. Things like this make me feel extremely discouraged of debating with my opponent who doesn't seem to be able to read very well. I am sorry I am being somewhat rude but you can imagine how I feel when it seems my opponent doesnt even bother to read what I said and quoted stuff which I did not say and in some cases exactly opposite to what I said!

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: Ice Hockey Hardest Sport to Play at the Professional Level. Content: Thanks to Pro for instigating this debate. Okay, it is my belief that all sports are equally difficult to play at a professional level, and that's what I will be proving to you. I know that Pro asked me to choose a sport, but as all sports are equally difficult, there is really no point in choosing any single sport. First, let's take a look at the definition of hardest, or difficult. According to Merriam Webster, difficult is defined as: hard to do, make, or carry out. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...;The main point of all of Pro's arguments is that Hockey is a very dangerous sport. The more dangerous a sport is, does not mean that the sport is much more difficult to play. I agree that some sports are much more dangerous than others, but I disagree with Pro when he uses danger as a basis of how difficult a sport is. Okay, I will get into a rebuttal of Pro's arguments. Refutation 1:Pro states that "Unlike most sports we enjoy today, a person can not simply put on his/her shoes and just go play ice hockey; he/she must learn to ice skate before hand". First, I would assume that if you do not know how to skate, you would not be a professional hockey player. I must remind everyone that the topic that we are debating today is the Ice Hockey is the Hardest Sport to Play at the Professional Level. This means that all players will already know how to skate. And what about water sports like swimming, or water polo? These sports you need to know how to swim in order to play. I would say that swimming is much harder to learn than skating, as skating is pretty much just running on ice. Hockey could potentially be the hardest sport to learn but not the hardest sport to play at the professional level. Refutation 2:This is an argument about the danger of Hockey. But if a sport is much more dangerous, does it mean that it is much more difficult to play? Let's take a look at some other dangerous sports. Skydiving. Skydiving is an extremely dangerous sport. By Pro's logic, this means that this sport is also very difficult to play. However, it is not. All you have to do is to pull your ripcord while you're in the air to deploy your parachute. It is very easy to do. UFC Fighting. Also an extremely dangerous sport. But all you do is punch the other person and avoid getting punched. Also not a very difficult sport to play. Okay I have shown you 2 other dangerous sports. What you're essentially saying in this argument is that Hockey is a difficult sport to play, simply because it is dangerous. No. Just because a sport is dangerous, it doesn't mean that that sport is difficult to play. Refutation 3: Pro says that "Because simple fundamentals of ice hockey require a lot of skill. Take passing, again. A player must have good hand eye coordination in order to keep the puck on his stick and under control, but then he must use that hand eye coordination in order to push the puck toward his teammate, most of the time while skating. "Once again, these are pro players, so they already know how to do these skills. However, other sports require focus and hand-eye coordination as well. Hockey is not the only sport that requires this focus. In basketball, for example, you need good hand-eye coordination to score 3-pointers, to pass to your teammates. You need focus in order to score that layup, or that free throw. In football, you need good hand-eye coordination to throw those long passes, to score that field goal. You need focus in order to run as far as you can to get a touchdown. In badminton or tennis, you need good hand-eye coordination in order to even hit the birdie or ball. You need focus in order to predict where your opponent will hit the ball to. 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. Arguments:Okay, let's get into some arguments.1. SkillsAll sports require some skill in order to play them at the professional level. Hockey is not the only sport. It really differs from person to person. Some people may find skating easy to pick up, while others may find swimming much easier to learn. You cannot generalize all people under one category and just say that hockey is the most difficult sport to play. All sports have their advantages and disadvantages and the difficulty of each sport will vary from person to person. For example, let's use math. Okay, so I'm asian, and you're probably european, I would assume. I find math easy to learn and do. You would probably find math difficult, and you can't understand certain concepts. However, when we learn about european history, it would be much easier for you, than for me. What I'm saying here is that some people find certain things easier than other people. I can't just say that math is the easiet subject, because what about you then? Since you find math difficult, my statement would then be false. It is the same with this resolution. You're categorizing all professional players and saying that hockey is the hardest sport to play. What if someone finds hockey easy? Like Wayne Gretzky for example. Then you're statement would be false. Conclusion:The only way you're statement can be true is if you can prove that all professional hockey players find hockey the most difficult sport to play at a professional level. Then, you would also have to make sure that these pro hockey players also have to play other sports at a professional level, otherwise their opinion would be biased. There is no possible way you can do that. Therefore you have lost this debate.

Title: we should ban boxing as a sport professionally Content: 1) My opponent believes that we should ban a sport (that sport being Boxing) because it would cause side effects. First, I would like to mention that Con didn't list or state any of the side effects in his argument. Then, Con goes on to call Boxing a combat sport, which it is. I would like list a few other combat sports. They are as follows: kickboxing, MMA and Judo. These sports, including boxing, have regulations, (RULES & REGULATIONS state that a boxer must wear gloves, a mouthpiece, headgear for amateurs, loose-fitted shorts and soft-soled shoes), put into place that would prevent a player from further being injured (Let's not forget how these, 'contenders,' (as they are called) play the sport because they not only signed a contract to play it but they enjoy it as well). SOURCE FOR RULES & REGULATIONS: http://boxing.isport.com... 2) There are other sports that can cause the same injuries. One sport that is close to, if not greater than, the amount of injuries a player sustains is AMERICAN FOOTBALL. Should we ban AMERICAN FOOTBALL too? If we banned every sport that has the possibility to cause injury, then there wouldn't be any sports to enjoy. Is it, necessarily, our job to put a roadblock on every sport that causes injury? Not only would it get in the way for a person to do what they enjoy, but it would violate the three most salient unalienable rights that are given to every human being at birth. Let's not do that. Instead, just let them enjoy what they love. It isn't our duty to stop them. That is illegal and morally unjust. That is where I end my argument.

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

Title: Informal: Hockey is "better" than baseball. Content: This is one of my first debates, too, so we have the great fortune of being able to explore this debating medium together, without worry of using a "professional or proper format. " Although the terms you have proffered are vague and ambiguous, I accept them given that my understanding of what I must do to win is correct, as I outline it below To win this debate, I will have to show that hockey is not a "better" sport than baseball. For one sport to be considered "better" than the other, you have stipulated two points that must be met: hockey must be "better" as a "spectator sport," and better in the sense that hockey "requires more skills (both mentally and physically) for the athletes. " Because these two points do not correspond to each other in any way that we can measure, I will take it for granted that I will only have to show that one of these claims is false. If I prove that baseball requires as much or more skill than hockey, then I will have won. And if I prove that baseball is as good or better a spectator sport, then I will have won.

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

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

Title: Ice Hockey Hardest Sport to Play at the Professional Level. Content: Ice Hockey is by far the most difficult sport to master and to play at the professional level. Unlike most sports we enjoy today, a person can not simply put on his/her shoes and just go play ice hockey; he/she must learn to ice skate before hand. Ice skating is often the most overlooked facet of the game. So before you even decide, "Hey, I wanna play ice hockey!" You must learn to ice skate, and be very good at it because ice hockey can be a very dangerous game if you do not know how to skate. This brings me into my next point, the physical aspect of the game. Just as in football, ice hockey players are constantly placing their bodies on the line. Whether a defender is taking a blistering 90mph slap shot to the face (warning videos include blood and are gruesome) (http://www.youtube.com...) or you are on the wrong end of a skate blade (http://www.youtube.com...) you and your body are constantly being beaten and tested. Just imagine being on the ice, along the side boards, you are about to receive a pass, but you have 6'9 Zdeno Chara bearing down on you, possibly about to kill you. It's this aspect of the game that gets my most attention and makes me respect ice hockey players more. Going back to our passing situation. Having that huge defenseman on you would probably break your focus right? Well that isn't the case for NHL'rs. Because they get paid such large amounts of money they are expected to get that pass and still make a scoring chance out of it. There is a reason a hawk's wide open eyes are plastered onto most goalie masks around the league and that is because the goalie, and all other players on the ice, must be the epitamy of focus while on the ice. Because simple fundamentals of ice hockey require a lot of skill. Take passing, again. A player must have good hand eye coordination in order to keep the puck on his stick and under control, but then he must use that hand eye coordination in order to push the puck toward his teammate, most of the time while skating (remember skating isn't easy either). I can elaborate on more instances of hockey skills if you would like but I want to get into the debate before needing to elaborate if necessary. I am excited to see your response because this has always been a hot debate in the sports world and would like to see what sport you choose, and your respective points. Thanks!

Title: Students should be able to defend themselves against bullies Content: I am aware that fighting back against the bully is illegal, and of the zero tolerance policy . But what the debate is about is whether or not they should be able to fight back. I know it's not allowed, but I think it should be.

Title: MMA is Human Cock Fighting Content: It is a disgrace...a blood lust. Anyone who denies it is being less than truthful. The whole point is to submit the opponent in a violent manner..choke, knock out, TKO, etc, and lots of blood is spilled in the process. Boxing is the same really. Sports that display skill and toughness, such as amateur wrestling, would not bring in the big dollars because they don't result in a bloodied and humiliated opponent. Hence, society demands more brutality. C'mon folks...be truthful... MMA is just another reflection of the decline of society.

Title: Lyoto Machida has an advantage over Mauricio "Shogun" Rua Content: I don't know what debaters are into UFC, however i felt a need to bring up this debate topic. If there is anyone who would be willing to accept as the con, please comment first, so i can write up my first argument.

Title: Hockey is a better sport than football. Content: Well Josh, on the argument about all the pads and equipment that football players wear, hockey players wear just about the same amount of padding as football players. And wouldn't you say that hockey players need to be very endured and have to change directions at the blink of an eye as well? For example, the puck consistently is either batted or knocked around on the ice multiple times in the matter of a few seconds. So, wouldn't you say, that as a hockey player you need to be ready to change directions as fast as the puck does? In the argument that football is more popular than hockey, you are right in the sense that hockey stands beneath football in popularity, *in the United States. Football is an American made sport, where as hockey is a Canadian made sport. It is clear that football would be generally more entertaining and popular to the American public then hockey would be. However, internationally, hockey is much more popular then football. So overall, Hockey would win the popularity contest.

Title: Hockey is better than football Content: Let us begin. Argument #1: The speed Both Hockey games and Football last 60 minutes of game time. However Football get's irritating and even boring to watch. Why? Because an actual game will take 3 hours. That's right. There is more time spent with time outs and penalties then actual game play. Hockey is not stopped every 10-20 seconds. Hockey players just play. The speed of the game is not too short that you will disappointed but not so long you will be bored. There is no point in watching a long stretch of stoppages punctured by 10 seconds of game play. Sports fans, you want to watch games and have a few breaks, you don't want to watch breaks with a few seconds of game play, do you? Also, the overall pace of Hockey Games are MUCH faster. The playing fields are smaller which in this case is usually ice, the players go faster and the ball goes faster. Waaaaay faster. Faster players mean more competition to get to the puck. More competition means better games. Better games means happy fans. Thanks for accepting, I would do more points but I am a bit busy. It is mothers day and I have a mother to be with. DarthKirones

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

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