Defenders are highly underrated in Soccer
Debate Rounds (1)
Stating factually only three in the history of the world of football. Messi has one Four by himself whereas the three won by defenders were won by three different people.
Thank you, gyaniwasp, for instigating this debate.
Seeing that he/she is Pro, my opponent has the burden of proof to affirm the resolution. In the event that I negate or null the resolution, I win this debate. I do not need to provide a negative case of my own and I will not be providing one.
"Defenders are the one who prevent the game from becoming one sided, they are the ones who try to stop the opponent's offense from scoring."
My opponent's assertion is purely theoretical. There is not a study or example provided that shows a game without defenders would become one sided. Thus, this is a bare assertion , which is a logical fallacy.
Furthermore, as counter-evidence, there have been instances wherein games have been one sided *with both* attackers and defenders. For example, in 2009, Tottenham lost to Wigan 9-1, which is a one-sided affair, despite both teams having defenders and attackers . It was a one-sided affair because the amount of goals scored by Wigan is almost *double* the highest ever average of goals scored in a World-Cup of ~5.50 , showing that this is indeed a one-sided affair. Therefore, one-sided affairs can result in games with defenders, thus defenders *are not* necessarily the ones who prevent the game from becoming one-sided, but at best can be theoretically (which does not maintain my opponent's claim of "Defenders are the one who prevent the game from becoming one sided".
Conclusion: The argument posited by my opponent is (1) a purely theoretical, bare assertion, and (2) games can become one-sided with defenders.
"They are the back bone of the team."
My opponent's offers another bare assertion .
"Seriously, how many defenders have won the Balon'Dor. Stating factually only three in the history of the world of football. Messi has one Four by himself whereas the three won by defenders were won by three different people."
My opponent provides another fallacious argument in the form of an argument from final consequence . This occurred by my opponent arguing that:
A: Defenders do not win awards at the rates of other positions
C: Therefore, defenders are underrated
You see, the problem with this is that there might be other reasons as to why defenders are not winning the awards. Other reasons such as the defenders are not as good. However, my opponent assumed via induction that it *had* to be because they are underrated, rather than entertaining the idea of alternate theories. This is how the fallacy was committed.
My opponent's entire argument is plagued with logical fallacies, as I have expanded upon under each of his/her main argument. Therefore, the resolution is not affirmed and I win by default.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||2|
Reasons for voting decision: Con was the only one to use sources
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.