The Instigator
kasmic
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
LatinaGirl8894
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Basketball vs Football

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
kasmic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/28/2014 Category: Sports
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,392 times Debate No: 64079
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

kasmic

Pro

Basketball vs Football

Pro is for Basketball
Con is for Football

Round one is acceptance
Round 2-3 arguments and rebuttals
Round 4 rebuttals and closing statements (No new arguments)
Debate Round No. 1
kasmic

Pro

Thanks for accepting this debate and Good luck!

I intend to convincingly show that Basketball is a better sport than Football.

Basketball: “26 million Americans play basketball” (1)
Football: “3.5 million people play football.” (2)

It is not even close. More people play basketball.

Basketball: Teams can have anywhere from 12-15 players per team. This means in a league of 30 teams the max number of players is 450, while the min is 360

Football: Max for football teams is 53 and there are 32 teams. This means the NFL can have 1696 players.

From the numbers it is a simple conclusion that it is a much harder achievement to go pro in basketball then football.

Basketball: The following source rates basketball 10th most dangerous sport. (3)
Football: Same source ranks football as the third most dangerous sport. (4)

Football is more dangerous than basketball.

Basketball is more convenient than football. You can play basketball one on one. Try that with football….
Basketball can be played in your front yard. Try that with football…..
Basketball can have completive matches of 3 on 3. Try that with football….

The most widely recognized greatest athlete in the world is LeBron James, a basketball player. (5) Number two on the list is also a basketball player.

Conclusion:

Basketball is more convenient to play. You can play with fewer people, and there is less space required to play. Basketball is safer than football. Due to the large number of basketball payers compared to football players, as well as fewer pro positions possible, it is much harder to become a pro basketball player vs pro football player. This makes being a pro basketball player more impressive. The current greatest athlete in the world is a basketball player.

Basketball is a better sport than Football.

(1) https://www.sfia.org...
(2)
http://www.answers.com...
(3)
http://bleacherreport.com...
(4) http://bleacherreport.com...
(5)
http://bleacherreport.com...
LatinaGirl8894

Con

Football is played outdoors, in any weather short of lightning, in any temperatures above -40" F (except Green Bay where -60" is allowed) and below 140". Basketball is played indoors, in climate controlled conditions around 68". (1)

Basketball players get to cozy up in a nice warm building where as Football player play outdoors rain or shine. I doubt basketball players would play outside the same was football players do.
In basketball almost any physical contact with the ball carrier could become a foul, especially if you knock him on his backside.

In football the latter is called a tackle and is both expected and required to end the play. (1)

Football players are required to tackle down another player in order to stop the play. Basketball player gets touched by another player and it"s considered a foul? What wimps. Nobody wants to sit and watch a game where the players dance around watch other so they don"t get hurt. I mean oh please, where the fun in that?

In football the most common reason players leave the game - injury. In basketball - fouls. (1)

Football players leave the game when they get hurt, they don't leave the game due to touching another player.

Not sure what playing one on one has to do with basketball being convenient? Football is also a convenient game, which can also be played in your front/backyard.

Based on the numbers that my opponent posted, it seems like to me that Football is a more impressive sport to achieve. If 26 million people play basketball then who is going to even remember who you are out of all those people? I would rather shine out of only 3.5 million; you have a much better chance of getting noticed and going on to bigger and better things in the sport.

NBA teams have several games per week. Unless they play Sunday and then Thursday night, NFL teams have one. You know when it is months in advance. You know who the opponent will be. It's an event. Once it's done you can return to the rest of your life, not getting interrupted again until next week. It appears to be the perfect mix of convenience and anticipation. (2)

Who has time to sit around and watch every single NBA game on TV that week? NFL has fewer games so it is easier to take the time to sit and watch the game without having to worry that life will keep you from watching your favorite team.

That source may say that Football is a dangerous sport, but the sport being dangerous has nothing to do with how people react to this sport. People look forward to the players getting knocked down because it is exciting.

Conclusion
Better schedule, having to play is real world conditions and physical aspects of the game make Football better than basketball.

(1)http://www.aseaofblue.com...
(2) http://www.blazersedge.com...
Debate Round No. 2
kasmic

Pro

Rebuttals:

Con says “Football is played outdoors,.. Basketball is played indoors.”

Basketball is played outdoors, though not professionally. As well there do exists pro football stadiums that are indoors. (1) Not to mention some NFL games are so affected by the weather it ruins the game. Last year’s super bowl is a great example. Two great teams, but due to weather one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time was unable to pass effectively. Leading to a lack luster super bowl that was not very close.

Con says “In basketball almost any physical contact with the ball carrier could become a foul, especially if you knock him on his backside. In football the latter is called a tackle and is both expected and required to end the play.”

Basketball is a very physical sport, though you are right, it is less contact than football. Contact does not constitute better in anyway. If it did Wrestling would be much bigger.

By the way, NBA players run further per game than NFL players. (2) It is much more non stop, where in football you can catch your breath after every play…

cons says “Nobody wants to sit and watch a game where the players dance around watch other so they don’t get hurt. I mean oh please, where the fun in that?

People do get hurt in the NBA… (3) though again this does not make one sport better than the other. In fact, the safer the sport, the more likely you will get to watch your favorite players rather than have them be injured all the time.

Con says “Not sure what playing one on one has to do with basketball being convenient? Football is also a convenient game, which can also be played in your front/backyard.”

My point being that football one on one would be lame…. You could play football in your backyard but you need a few more people for it to be worth while.

Con says “. If 26 million people play basketball then who is going to even remember who you are out of all those people? I would rather shine out of only 3.5 million; you have a much better chance of getting noticed and going on to bigger and better things in the sport.”

That is my point precisely. It is harder to be one of the 360 NBA players out of 26 million ball players, then to be one of the 1700 NFL players out of 3.5 million. A better chance at becoming pro in the sport just shows it not to be as hardor as impressive.

Con says “NBA teams have several games per week. Unless they play Sunday and then Thursday night, NFL teams have one. You know when it is months in advance. You know who the opponent will be. It's an event. Once it's done you can return to the rest of your life, not getting interrupted again until next week. It appears to be the perfect mix of convenience and anticipation.”

Again I will chalk this up as proof that basketball is better. Any night during the season I can watch a game. I don’t have to wait until Sunday each week to watch the pros.

Con says “That source may say that Football is a dangerous sport, but the sport being dangerous has nothing to do with how people react to this sport. People look forward to the players getting knocked down because it is exciting.”

Again, if pain or injury were what made a sport great, wrestling would be a bigger sport. The absence of injury is much more a benefit to a sport. I would rather play, and watch a sport that I and the others are less likely to get injured.

Conclusion:

The NBA has a better schedule. Weather has ruined some football games. Basketball requires more endurance as players have fewer breaks and run further in a game then football players. Basketball is better than football.

(1) http://www.answers.com...
(2) http://gizmodo.com...
(3)

LatinaGirl8894

Con

Football players have been playing in the same weather for years. Yes last year's Superbowl was not that great, but I don't think that one bad Superbowl can disprove the argument.

Contact for Football is what makes the sport better than Basketball. It's what the fans are looking for when they go to a game, not to look at a bunch of people running back and forth.

You may run further during a Basketball game, but it is a little easier to run around when you are not worried about a bunch of guys tackling you to the ground. Football is much more physically demanding than Basketball is in this aspect. The fact that they can still run as fast as they do with all the protection they wear is very impressive.

I would have to say that playing football one on one would be just as exciting as basketball would. Just because you don't have a whole team does not mean it is not convenient and cannot be done.

Waiting tell Sunday to watch your favorite team play is the best part of football. You know that every Sunday you will get to watch your team play without fail. Yes you could watch more basketball games during the week, but if your team is not playing then why bother?

I am not saying that injury makes a sport better than another, i am simply saying that people love watching a sport that has more contact in it. That would be football over basketball.
Debate Round No. 3
kasmic

Pro

Final Rebuttalls:

Con says “Football players have been playing in the same weather for years, ”and concedes the point “Yes last year's Superbowl was not that great.” She goes on to conclude “I don't think that one bad Superbowl can disprove the argument.”


There have been many games ruined by weather… Last year’s super bowl is just the most recent. This is not a problem for professional basketball!

Con says “Contact for Football is what makes the sport better than Basketball.” I disagree, I invite pro to offer empirical evidence as to why contact makes one sport better than another.

Con says “Football is much more physically demanding than Basketball…”

Though this is a opinion, here is an article that compares the physical demands of different sports. Football is only ever so slightly ranked more physically demanding than Basketball. However, Basketball ranks more physically demanding in agility, endurance, speed, flexibility, Hand eye coordination, and analytical aptitude. That is more demanding than football in six of the ten categories. Basketball requires a more complete physical ability. (1)

Con says “I would have to say that playing football one on one would be just as exciting as basketball would.”

I have never heard of football one on one…

Con says “Waiting tell Sunday to watch your favorite team play is the best part of football. You know that every Sunday you will get to watch your team play without fail. Yes you could watch more basketball games during the week, but if your team is not playing then why bother?

During the course of the NBA season, you can watch your team play 82 times, that is not including playoffs. That is more than 5 times a football team.

Conclusion:

Thank you Con for a fun debate. The truth has become clear. Basketball requires a more physically complete athlete then football. It ranks more physically demanding in 6/10 categories. This is also validated by the fact that the most recognized best athlete in the world is LeBron James, a basketball player. Football is more dangerous. Football is less convenient to watch or play than Basketball. Eight times as many people play basketball then play football.

Basketball is better than football.

(1) http://sports.espn.go.com...
LatinaGirl8894

Con

I will state once again that one bad game does not disprove my argument. Con says that many games have been ruined by weather but only gives the one example.

Con does say that his article stated the Football is rated more demanding the Basketball which proves my point.

Just because you have not heard of Football one on one does not mean that it does not exist or would still be fun to play.

I would simply state that is not the quantity of games that are played but the quality of the games. Playing more games during a season can make the players tired and worn out which leads to the game not being as fun. Only watching a game once week insures that the game will be excited because the players have had more time to rest.

Conclusion:
Football is better than Basketball simply said.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 1/3:

Okay. Sorry again for the delayed RFD.

Anyway:

This was a highly subjective debate, since we're talking about "better".

R1 was acceptance and rules.

In R2, Pro argued that basketball was more popular, but that it was more difficult to become a professional player. Pro argued that football was more dangerous, while basketball was more convenient, particularly considering one-on-one (or 3-on3). He argued that the most widely recognized greatest athelete was Lebron James, a basketball player.

Con argued that football is played outdoors, while basketball (presumably professional versions of both) is played indoors. He also argues that there's more contact in football. While these are both reasons to think that football players might be "tougher" than basketball players, I don't see how that makes the sport better. Pro's case has been on appeal and skill. Con's case seems to be that it must be better because it is (to extend for him) more manly (he calls basketball players wimps). Why does that make football better? At most, he claims that " Nobody wants to sit and watch a game where the players dance around watch other so they don"t get hurt. I mean oh please, where the fun in that?" Yet that doesn't really seem a strong rebuttal to Pro's numbers.

Con argues that yard play is also available for football, a good point to null.

He also argues, somehow, that the fact that fewer people play football means it's a "more impressive sport to achieve". That seems to ignore where Pro pointed out the relative fewer professional positions in basketball. Con's confusing popularity with difficulty. He argues that the smaller group of players, implicitly coupled with the greater number of slots for pro positions, means that "you have a much better chance of getting noticed and going on to bigger and better things in the sport." It's really not a compelling argument for football being "better"--we're talking about miniscule percentages here.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 2/3:

Con argues the fewer games make those games more exciting.

Pro rebuts the outdoors point, pointing out that there are indoor football stadiums and that inclement weather tends to make games less enjoyable. He concedes that basketball is less of a contact sport, but argues that doesn't mean football is "better", or else wrestling would be "best".

Pro argues that NBA players exert themselves more than football players, adn that the action is non<x>stop.

Pro aruges that injuries are not a plus to the sport, and that (again) it's harder to be an NBA player than an NFL player.

Pro argues that he doesnt' have to wait to watch a game if he doesnt' want to, because he can watch a game every night.

Con attempts to argue against inclement weather being a negative, but while he contests one example as holding, he offers no counter-example. I tend to believe Pro on this one.

Con says "Contact for Football is what makes the sport better than Basketball. It's what the fans are looking for when they go to a game, not to look at a bunch of people running back and forth." While that may be true, he's explained fans of the sport--Pro hasn't argued they don't exist How this makes football better doesn't really seem to make sense.

Con argues that one-on-one football is just as exciting. It certaintly isn't common, and he offers nothing to support this.

Pro pounds home the point regarding weather again, and points out it's not an issue for basketball. It seems a compelling point for Pro

Pro argues that the notion that contact is what makes football better is not sufficient to actually show that. I'm inclined to agree that it's not particularly compelling.

Pro argues that basketball requires more complete physical ability. He also notes he's never heard of one-on-one football. Given the nature of the game, I can't see a way it would be played one-on-one either.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 3/3:

Does one side hike it to himself, then block for himself? I don't see how the game could be reasonably played, in contrast to basketball.

Pro argues in response to the "only care about your own team" point by pointing out that there are overall more basketball games for one's own team.

Con's final round is pretty short again. She argues that not many games have been ruined by weather. The thing she seems to be missing is that NO basketball games have been ruined by weather, and AT LEAST ONE football game has. His positive--playing outdoors--seems to be a negative.

Con ignores the "overall physicality" point of Pro, and reasserts that football is rated as more demanding, but doesn't explain why this makes it better.

Con says "Just because you have not heard of Football one on one does not mean that it does not exist or would still be fun to play." But she doesn't explain how it DOES exist or that it IS fun to play. Though I should be approaching the debate as neutrally as possible, at the same time, Pro contested one-on-one football, Con didn't contest one-on-one basketball (because the latter would be absurd) So it really was in Con's best interests to give us an example or show how it would work--as it stands, I don't think it exists.

Con argues that it's "not the quantity of games...but the quality of the games". She now says that "only watching a game once a week insures [sic] that the game will be excited because the players have had more time to rest". I assume he meant "exciting". But I don't see how more rest *ensures* more excitement.

Pro has shown us that basketball has more appeal, is more convenient, can be played with a wider range of players, is more physcially demanding in a variety of ways, and harder to become a professional at. Con's main argument seems to be "contact=better". I didn't find that compelling, so, arguments to Pro.

As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
kasmicLatinaGirl8894Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro wins sources for have a larger amount than Con. Pro wins Spelling and grammar due to Con's grammatical errors.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
kasmicLatinaGirl8894Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I will post my rfd in the morning. I will say it seemed a Peru clear win to me, but both debaters deserve a better explanation than that, and will get one. Just can't type it all our on my phone, and wanted to make sure I got this in because I almost forgot about it.
Vote Placed by carriead20 2 years ago
carriead20
kasmicLatinaGirl8894Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Great debate to both of you! Pro had more/better sources than Con. Pro also had better grammar. However Con took the more convincing arguments, I have played both sports and what Con states is true.