The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Flairs at Football games, Where do you stand?

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: 10/26/2014 Category: Sports
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 640 times Debate No: 63988
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




My opening argument: As a Melbourne Victory North Terrace member its probably going to come as no surprise to you that i fully condone the use of flairs at football games, both Pre, During and Post match.
Yes, In the past there have been many incidents where the safe use of flairs has had to be brought into question. But i think you will find that in almost every single documented case of someone being injured by a flair it was thru their own actions and stupidity or that of someone else's.

Flairs are almost a quintessential part of western european football culture, Whilst many south american countries chose to embrace the use of flairs as a part of their active support also.

Partizan vs. Red Star Belgrade, Olympiacos vs. Panathinaikos, Boca Juniors vs. River Plate...Try going to any of those matches and telling those supporters they are not allowed to rip flairs.

My closing argument: Flairs are a great addition to any visual display, Some of the greatest Tifo's from around the world have incorporated the use of flairs into them without any incident.
I believe that that the use of flairs at football games (Within active support areas) should not onely be legalised but fully encouraged.
Yes, Boat flairs are used in emergency situations, but some of the greatest inventions in history were made by mistake...peanut butter for example.

Active support is what makes the A-League great, I can't tell you how many times i have had English friends of mine tell me that for a country that doesn't take Football all that seriously we sure do know how to get behind our teams and put on a real show.


First off, I will just clarify the definition of a flare (not flair), based on the use of the term in this debate:

"A device producing a very bright flame, used especially as a signal or marker" [1]

Flares are a dangerous thing to use in a crowded area for multiple reasons:

1) In a survey conducted from EPL fans, 86% fear for their safety when dealing with flares [2]. This is not a scientifically significant statistic, but anything that causes 86% of the fans to be afraid for their safety needs to be questioned and looked into. Of course, not all things that cause people to be afraid need to be banned, because at times, people can be irrational and afraid of things that they have no reason to be; so let's look at a few more of my points that explain why they are justified in feeling this way.

2) Flares burn extremely hot (up to 1600 degrees C) and can cause serious burns, melt some metals and start fires. When many people are a very crowded area, if flares are not handled with extreme caution, can result in injuries and even in death [3][4]. So I must ask, is it worth putting the health and safety (and even lives) of the fans at a game at risk, just for the sake of some pretty lights?

3) On a less serious, more football related note, flares might look neat from a distance, but a fan sitting directly behind others waving around flares would have their view of the game very much obstructed. Seats in most stadiums are not spaced out much, so someone holding a flare above their head would be holding it no more than 2-3 feet in front of the head of the people behind him/her. Just because one person likes the idea of waving an extremely hot, bright light around above his/her head, that doesn't give them the right to infringe on the view of the people behind them who paid money to see that game as well.

My opponent's first main argument is that the majority of cases where a person is injured by a flare was the result of his/her own stupidity or that of someone else.

This argument should be used for my side, not the Pro side, especially the part about the stupidity of another causing injury or death to a person. The fact that a simple act by one stupid fan could injure or kill another, completely innocent, fan should be the biggest argument against the use of flares. This argument is like saying that guns should be allowed in stadiums because the only time anyone gets hurt is when someone shoots themselves or another person.

Flares might be a neat looking effect to add to a stadium, but the dangers FAR outweigh the positives of having them. If people like the look of lights being waved around at a stadium, there are many alternatives to flares that produce bright, sparkly lights that could be used, such as glow stick or any of the many different types of LED sticks that glow and shine. Of course these won't be quite the same as burning hot fires that put everyone in the vicinity at some risk of being injured, but that really sounds like a positive trait rather than a negative.

Should people really entrust their health and safety to football fans? This is not meant to belittle or demean football fans, but there is a long history of violence [5]. People get passionate about sports and when things do not go their way, anger and violence often seem to be a result. I am not moving to outlaw anger or emotion from fans, but given the dangers present when being stuck in a crowded place with many overly emotional (often drunk and/or irrational) people, I would argue that it is a smart policy to restrict the amount of dangerous (potentially deadly) weapons that they are allowed on their person.

Debate Round No. 1


CCLaity33 forfeited this round.


Given that my opponent has forfeited his previous round, I will leave my arguments to stand as they are.
Debate Round No. 2


CCLaity33 forfeited this round.


My arguments still stand.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture