The Instigator
aajayunlimited
Pro (for)
The Contender
Jac925
Con (against)

Boxing

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
aajayunlimited has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2016 Category: Sports
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 410 times Debate No: 98342
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

aajayunlimited

Pro

In a prime matchup, Ali beats Holmes? I say yes. Both had chins that matched up with each other's punching power. Younger Ali could be had with a great left hook or with a Shaver or Marciano HOF right hand(that's a guess, since old and better-chinned Ali was hurt badly more than once with Shaver's right hand). Both would be the fastest that either had ever fought. Ali was by far faster than Holmes: displaying multiple punch combination ability seamlessly. Holmes was only a 1-2-3 fighter, but had great speed with those punches--only he could not compete with Ali there. Ali was better defensively, too, than Holmes even when he was playing with opponents. Holmes could be hit by much slower opponents without reason. With Ali, it's not entirely certain that you could hit Ali--if he's serious--although, fighters like Frazier or Norton might could have even in his prime(styles lined up well with Ali). Still, that's a big difference over Holmes' defense. You might say that Holmes is a better version of Norton, but Norton applied style; whereas, Holmes would come straight in(as a boxer does) against a fighter that was more accurate and faster/more dynamic. I say Ali wins 10 - 5 at worst and may even win by KO or TKO Holmes if an Holmes' could not take the kind of attack that Ali hit Frazier with(1st or 3rd fights). Who do you say wins?
Jac925

Con

I am going to be arguing that boxing is a dangerous sport which not only causes severe injury but also encourages violence among youth. I will post each premise of the argument below and a defence underneath.

1) Boxing causes severe damage Andy often deaths to those who participate in it.
I think this premise is quite obvious. But just many deaths are there in boxing each year? The website www.livestrong.com had this to say: "In the journal article entitled "Boxing -- Acute Complications and Late Sequalae," Hans Forstl, M.D. and his team of researchers in Germany reported that there have been an average of 10 boxing deaths per year since 1900. Of these deaths, over 80 percent were due to head and neck injuries suffered in the ring". One might be tempted to say that the above figure if ten deaths per year is quite small in conparasent to other sports. Even if that were true the amount of people who die is irrelevant. All that matters is that there is one death(which shows the sport is too very violent).
2) Boxing encourages violence among youth.
This premise is also relatively obvious. If kids see their favourite boxer on Tv beating the other boxer to a pulp and being celebrated for it they will want to aspire tonne like their hero.
3) Therefore boxing should not be played.
Debate Round No. 1
aajayunlimited

Pro

PLEASE CHANGE YOUR WAY OF THINKING, BECAUSE IT HAS NO MERIT! You can be killed by eating candy, eating dessert, and/or drinking soda over the years in much the same way a boxer dies from post fight dementia, too: decades after starting the practice. Should that be outlawed?! What about pretzels?! I'm sure that if you ate a "Big Grab" bag(old name for the 50" bag) a day for decade that there'll be some who have a heart attack, stroke, and some who die from the condition. Should pretzels be outlawed, too?! People have actually died having sex the first time. Should that be outlawed, too?! What about pork, eggs, and steak? Should they be outlawed, too?! What about most fast food chains?! Anything packaged can be tampered with before you get it and kill you instantly or over time(made a poison, cancerous, etc.). We know that's a potential of anything packaged just as we know the potential dangers of boxing. Should they be outlawed?! Some people are athletes that are boxing, football, mma, specialists. People have to work to live and minimum wage isn't going to support a family. Not all can obtain degrees or perform a trade at a pro level! Many are descendants of slaves that have been advantaged by the hard lives of their ancestors in a way that is lucrative; how racist is it to know a slave's past(that the slave lived a way that he/she was forced to be an utter mainstay for whites in every way at any time) and try to deny them their inheritance when whites claim they deserve nothing(benefited somehow off the centuries' headstart and steal now)?! What about the financial gap created between many whites and blacks due to that huge headstart?! What about the black person that has the God given ability to lift his family out of poverty? Some whites and other races are poor, too! That's what outlawing boxing would do! Besides, all that other stuff can kill you instantly or over time, too! You seem a lot like those animal lovers who say that they don't believe in eating meat, because they don't want to kill animals: they bully others who eat animals, but they wear animals in their clothing, hair, accessories, footwear, etc. If you were really so sincere about what you say, then you'd be against anything else that kills you in the same way boxing does! And to be honest, that's just about anything!

On the original argument, there are some major differences between a prime Ali and a prime Holmes. 1. Holmes would be far easier to hit by Ali than Ali would be able to be hit by Holmes. As much as Holmes got hit during his career, it's probably on par with the short arm brawlers. And that group probably gets hit the most of any group. 2. Ali was the fastest in all of history and was a multipunch combination guy. Holmes was like the Ali that was past his prime--minus the the multipunch combos. Holmes was a 1-2-3 guy. Imagine Roy Jones or FMJ. Ali was precise and didn't need body punching. Holmes was very accurate with the fighters that fought, but never fought a Joe Frazier(best gauge to determine a BOXER'S ACCURACY; Norton wasn't nearly as dynamic as Joe; he was much longer, so he didn't have to be. It's easier to hit Norton with clean punches than Joe: both are open to uppercuts). 3. Ali danced in his prime in fights that he took seriously all of them. Holmes used it only to run after being hurt. That edge has to go to Ali in footwork as a skill. 4. People might say that Holmes would be a better version of Norton and would give Ali more trouble. Not against Ali. Holmes would come straight in and Norton was more subtle. Holmes would have to outAli Ali to beat him, but Norton neutralized clear advantages that Ali had over him. 5. The only advantages that Holmes has over Ali is a bigger punch(all could take Holmes' power, because his problem was the left hook or a Shavers or Rocky right) and a prime Holmes had a better chin than a prime Ali(Ali's chin got better later, but still great from 64-67). Considering that all fighters that fought Ali by walking straight in lost badly, I think Holmes would do better than they did. My projection: 10-5.(Ali whipped other such fighters 13-2).
Jac925

Con

My opponent starts off with a sophisticated and admittedly powerful argument i.e There are many things that we use on a regular basis which ought not to be made illegal even though they can cause deaths. While I think this is a strong argument it fails to address my original argument. It does not address the injuries and deaths caused by boxing. Bare buckle boxing was quite popular in England in the 1800s. It was made illegal because people died from it. Do you think it should be made legal again because many other Mondane things( like candy,soda etc. ) kill people too. Just because other everyday innocent things can kill someone once in a blue moon doesn't boxing is an extremely violent sport.

My opponent then moved onto another argument:
"People have to work to live and minimum wage isn't going to support a family. Not all can obtain degrees or perform a trade at a pro level!"
He seems to be suggesting that boxing provides a haven for those unable to get a degree. Well so does bank robbing a bank or working at McDonalds. Just because you can work there if you don't have a degree doesn't add any merit or desirability to it.

My opponent then moves onto an argument which I find to be completely absurd:
"Many are descendants of slaves that have been advantaged by the hard lives of their ancestors in a way that is lucrative; how racist is it to know a slave's past(that the slave lived a way that he/she was forced to be an utter mainstay for whites in every way at any time) and try to deny them their inheritance when whites claim they deserve nothing(benefited somehow off the centuries' headstart and steal now)?!"
Firstly there is absolutely NOTHING advantageous about the way in which black slaves were treated so to say you think this is advantageous for boxing skills is very inappropriate. My opponent then claims it is racist to deny blacks people what he calls their inheritance. He thinks that because black peoples have been treated extremely bad they deserve boxing. I find this to be a silly and borderline offensive argument.

Another race argument follows:
"What about the financial gap created between many whites and blacks due to that huge headstart?! What about the black person that has the God given ability to lift his family out of poverty? Some whites and other races are poor, too! That's what outlawing boxing would do!"
Firstly,to what "huge head" start are you referring too. Blacks are not payed less than whites as that is illegal so clarification is needed. Also being able to beat someone up for money is not a "God given ability to lift his family out of poverty". It could be but it is not neccesaraly. He then seems to be claiming that by outlawing boxing I will make people of all races poor. This is just blatantly false. The only justification for this is given above when he claims that boxing is a job for those who cannot get a degree. Well as I said boxing is only one of thousands of jobs for people who can't get a degree so to say that outlawing boxing will cause economic turmoil for the races is plainly invalid.

My opponent then plays the allegation card:
"You seem a lot like those animal lovers who say that they don't believe in eating meat, because they don't want to kill animals: they bully others who eat animals, but they wear animals in their clothing, hair, accessories, footwear, etc. If you were really so sincere about what you say, then you'd be against anything else that kills you in the same way boxing does! And to be honest, that's just about anything!"
Firstly I would hate to be identified with those animal lovers. I am not like them. He then accused me of hypocrisy by saying that if we're to express complete intellectual honesty then I ought to be against every thing that could potentially kill someone. Well I think this is false as boxing is much more brutal,barbaric and dangerous and unlike candy,soda or any everyday item that could potentially kill someone boxing will DEFINATELY injure someone and is much more likely to kill someone than soda.

I noticed that my opponent did not address my argument that boxing encourages violence in children.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by TheTaxiDriver 1 year ago
TheTaxiDriver
I think Con failed to see what the debate was actually about. I would debate a matchup like this pro.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.