The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Boxing and Football

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/5/2016 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 532 times Debate No: 89225
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Should we ban sports like boxing and football because of the damage they cause to athletes brains?


The affirmative posits themselves as masters of the theatre of policy, able to create a new reality which more closely resembles the ideal form which makes their plan defensible. This drive towards purification and explanation, this will to truth, is an attempt to escape suffering and creative potential which negates life.

Turanli 2k3 [aydan, “nietzsche and the later wittgenstein”, journal of nietzsche studies, issue 26, p. 61-2, muse]

And, the 1ac’s political statements are justification for their pathos of reaction; the aff is a valorization of resistance to capture their boredom. Activism gives them a feeling of revolution while keeping everything the same.

Nietzsche 1887 [Fredrich, “The Gay Science,” pg. 117-8]

And, the alternative is to affirm destiny and chance. You should take the risk of exposing yourself to violent impacts, abandon the desire for mastery, and embrace the unknown and unfamiliar aspects of life by refusing to engage the 1ac. This risks danger but your mortality is something that is certain anyway. The alternative is the only way to live life eventfully and adventurously, through a rolling of the dice.


And, the affirmative attempts to extend this negative concept of mastery to the whole event of existence to eradicate chaos. Against such an ordering, you should affirm the free spirit as a toying with this slavish framework of life. It is the only positive choice.

Nietzsche 1873 [“On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense”, pg 7]

Debate Round No. 1


IT SHOULD BE BANNED. IT should be banned because it causes problems to the brain that impacts the fighters/players for the rest of their lives.


It should not, accept that we will all die someday, why not today?
Debate Round No. 2


Ok! but it causes problems like depression or dementia.


Lexus forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument is that sports such as boxing and football cause severe health harms, e.g. damage to the brain. The impact is a harm that lasts through the lives of players. By a standard impact analysis, this argument usually works. But Con criticizes the mindset behind the impact, and impact turns the argument. Con concedes the link that sports cause suffering and brain damage, and instead contests the idea that what causes suffering should be banned. She then posits that seeking to reduce suffering loses value to human life. She doesn't properly justify her claim that humans do have intrinsic value, but Con shows that living life eventfully and granting it subjective meaning is important under Pro's own standard. Pro's attempt at restricting the liberty of playing certain sports due to suffering it causes devalues life. Conduct to Pro because of the forfeit. Since value to life is a -- somewhat -- justified impact while brain damage is not, I vote Con.