The Instigator
Rated
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
smlburridge
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

At which age should young adults be to play violent sports

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
smlburridge
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/19/2014 Category: Sports
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 492 times Debate No: 65447
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

Rated

Pro

I think you should at least be 12-14 to start plsying violent sports so your bones are strong enough and so you dont get injured as easy
smlburridge

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 1
Rated

Pro

It is true that they wear a lot of gear but that does not stop injuries from happening and even good health care it's still gonna hurt the kids
smlburridge

Con

However, even if they are injured, it will not effect the rest of their lives. Bones heal remarkably quick, and the entire episode should only last a month or two at most. I personally have broken my feet, toes, and fingers (mind you, never while playing any sports, including ice hockey), and it only hurt the most the day and the day after I broke it, as long as I didn't walk on it or use the bone. Of course, pain is totally subjective and varies with each person but it will not seriously effect these children for long periods of time.
Debate Round No. 2
Rated

Pro

We'll you never know because some one could get hit in one area and since they are not fully grown it could effect the rest of their live
smlburridge

Con

Could you provide the evidence for that claim? A fracture that seriously affect the rest of the patient's life received during a youth sports game? Otherwise, I consider this a moot point.
Debate Round No. 3
Rated

Pro

A hit in the right area could paralyze someone and even kill them.Say someone got hit in the nose and pushed it up that's a way to kill some one
smlburridge

Con

Theoretically, sure. But I'm asking you if you can find any real-world examples of this. The nose argument is fallacious because in both football and ice hockey players wear helmets with metal face guards.
Debate Round No. 4
Rated

Pro

You want a real world example if some one gets hits it could their neck if they fall wrong or get hit wrong it could break there is that real enough
smlburridge

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Rated 2 years ago
Rated
Football wrestling hockey and even soccer under some circumstances
Posted by Worthington 2 years ago
Worthington
What do you define as violent sports? Please give some examples.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
RatedsmlburridgeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both had proper conduct throughout the debate. S&G - Con. Pro had a few spelling and grammatical errors in this debate whereas Con had none of the sort. Arguments - Con. Con was able to effectively point out the flaws in Pro's arguments, which were really just assumptions with no supporting evidence given. What Pro needed to do was provide articles or studies showing the permanent effects injuries could have. By not doing so, it left Con open to challenge these assumptions and he did so. Due to Con showing the flaws in Pro's arguments, and Pro never really overcoming those challenges, Con wins arguments. Sources - Tie. Neither utilized sources in this debate.