The Instigator
gyaniwasp
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zarroette
Con (against)
Winning
2 Points

Defenders are highly underrated in Soccer

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...
Zarroette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/13/2015 Category: Sports
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 534 times Debate No: 73375
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

gyaniwasp

Pro

People watch football because they want to see goals scored and excellent passes. Yet we are missing the point. 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. They are the back bone of the team. 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.
Zarroette

Con

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.


Counter-arguments


"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."

I.

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 [1], which is a logical fallacy.

II.

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 [3]. 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 [2], 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 [1].


"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 [4]. 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.


Conclusion

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.


References

[1] http://fallacies.findthedata.com...
[2] http://www.statista.com...
[3] http://news.bbc.co.uk...
[4] https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com...
Debate Round No. 1
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
gyaniwaspZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was the only one to use sources