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

Football is harder than Rugby in a high school game

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/28/2013 Category: Sports
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 877 times Debate No: 33030
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)




i personally have played both sports. i have played and been around football my whole 15 years of life, but i have been around rugby for only a couple of months.

My point is that during a game football harder than rugby. it is harder hitting and requires much endurance.

my opponent is to argue that rugby has a more tough game setting than football.

1) Voting is to be determined by who presented the better argument
2)keep it clean( no swearing)
3) whoever wins, wins no complaining

i hope to have a great debate and good luck to my challenger


I won't profess to have played either game, or to have any extensive knowledge abut either game. That said, I'm take a shot at trying to debate this resolution anyway.

I look forward to a debate!
Debate Round No. 1


i thank you for taking this debate

i am going by Minnesota youth rugby rules

i believe that football is harder than rugby in a game setting.

all though rugby goes on for 35 min. halves with basically no stops, you still have plenty of times where you are walking, or just standing on the field. Plus at every point scored water comes out to you. in rugby you wear no pads but maybe a scrum cap and a mouth guard. because of his many just automatically assume that it is more hardcore, but in rugby in the high school setting you have to wrap up during a tackle or it is a penalty. in which case you have to slow down and try to get your arms around the person.

in football you have short plays where you exert most to all of your physical strength and o half of the plays you sprint as fast as you can, then after 30 seconds do it again. In football you wear pads, now because of this they would assume that you don't get hurt a much because their is something protecting you, but the fact is that the pads are more of weapons used for more damage. and in football you don't have to wrap up. so that means when it s a kick off and i am running at another person as fast as i can with armor on, i will mindlessly hit them as hard can with a goal of making them cry in pain.

this is my first points to why football is harder then rugby in a high school game setting.


Thanks to my opponent for such a concise argument!

Before I get into the nitty-gritty of rebuttal, there are a couple of general over-view arguments that need to be made.

Overview Framework
First; Personal experiences unto themselves are illegitimate in an academic debate. Or really any debate for that matter. Personal examples, stories and shared experiences lack a crucial element otherwise known as 'falsifiability'. Because these stories are personal experiences, I'm not able to review any kind provided evidence to determine the empirical soundness of said argument.

For that reason these kinds of arguments need to be rejected a priori. If we give personal examples even the benefit of the doubt when uncoupled with empirical evidence, no real clash can happen.

Second; The resolution leaves tons of room for interpretation. This includes regions of practice, a determinant for 'hard' and even a discussion of what qualifies as a game of rugby. The problem here, is that with all of these determining factors, my opponent limits the resolution unfairly to 'Minnesota youth rugby' rules in a speech following the acceptance round.

This is hardly a definitive definition as it outright ignores other rugby leagues.

Third; there is no real impact calculus in play to compare and contrast these two sports. My opponent states outright that the BOP is shared, but he doesn't provide any means to actually weigh the clash in this round.

The impact, is that there is no impact. My opponent's arguments end up being a collection of claims with no real purpose. They end up being meaningless.

On-Case Framework
a. Presumption of belief- If at the end of this debate you as the voter find neither argument for difficulty compelling, you default negative in argumentation. Let's that my opponent and I live in the same house, and ever since we've lived in that house we've eaten dinner in the kitchen. If my opponent decides we should start eating in the bathroom instead, he'll make an argument as to why we should do that; however if his argument is not compelling enough to have me change where I eat, I'm going to continue eating in the kitchen.

Presumption works the same way. My opponent is arguing for a change in how we interpret the difficulty of these two sports, and unless is argument is more compelling than mine, you default Con. Even if my argument is equally lame.

My opponent's cited number for how long a rugby game lasts are... well wrong. A typical rugby game lasts 80 minutes[1], high school or otherwise. And even you're not going full force the entire hour and 20 minutes, it's still more of a work-out than foot ball is. The obvious cardio impact is there, Pro would be hard-pressed to refute that, but there's also the issue of in-field clash and lactic acid build-up in the muscles.

So you're going to need more endurance to play rugby. There's no way around that, and that's an unmovable point in favor of rugby.

However the issue of clash is also one that needs to be covered. According to the guardian, the risks of football are all present in rubgy, but the added risk of spinal injuries which can cause crippling injuries and handicaps[2].

Point? Rugby.

You're going to reject these arguments outright because they're entirely personal examples and unwarranted conjecture. If my opponent warrants these claims and provides appropriate evidence in the next round then we'll talk.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 2


I see your argument that personal experiences shouldn't count, so as i could not find the rules to the Minnesota youth rugby i could still tell you that as where in the typical game it is 80 minutes with forty minute halves,but i was going off high school rugby in Minnesota where it does last 70 minutes with 35 minute halves.

for your evidence to the harder impacts ,here it is:

and keep in mind that in the video it is one person hitting for each subject so there is the possibility of higher or lower impacts.

for your evidence about the spinal injuries here is my counter evidence
SECOND MOST DANGEROUS SPORT: Men's Football - 19 casualties in a million
Participants since '82: 36,762,903
Casualties since '82:
111 fatalities
308 permanent disabilities
280 non-permanent brain/spinal cord injuries

this evidence is based on high school not any other grade or level.


House Keeping
a. My opponent's arguments are just cherry-picked refutations. He doesn't respond to the entirety of my arguments, just the ones he wants to. This has two big impacts, first: the arguments he doesn't respond to are drops and automatically flow Con. Second; his responses don't actually hold water. But we'll get to that in a moment.

b. My opponent drops his entire on-case. He openly admits that he couldn't find the evidence to support his own argument, and instead just says the equivalent of 'trust me on this guys'. That is still a personal argument, and doesn't need to be accepted in an empirical debate.

The impact here is big, and even is I make no other clashing arguments in this debate is should warrant a vote Con -- it completely wipes all unique impact from the Pro's ground and doesn't give him any fodder to urge a Pro vote. To explain, let's pretend for a moment that arguments were rocks, and we were stacking up said rocks to see who's were the heaviest. If said that my opponent couldn't use his rocks because they were actually pieces of steel, and he accepts that, there are no rocks on the Pro's scale. So even if only a pebble remains on my scale, I win because a pebble is heavier than nothing at all.

My opponent drops my endurance argument, as well as my uniqueness argument. These where the two things I really focused on in my prior speech, so it needs to extend across with some pretty big impacts.

See, this is where I argue that my opponent's arguments are cherry-picked. He doesn't actually respond to the clash already present on the flow, he just kind of responds to whatever he wants to. Not cool, and kind of a fallacy.

This means that it's not just little pebbles I have on the scale, but still some big 'ol boulders.

When I say refutation, I'm really just responding to my opponent's arguments here.

On the youtube video, there are a couple of problems here;
a. My opponent just links an 8 minute video and claims it as evidence. There's no analysis, not impacts, and for all my opponent knows I can't view videos on my internet (I can, but just barely). I really could just say that and move on, but there are other problems as well.

b. This video deals with professional players -- grown men. Not high school students with rules and regulations in place concerning player safety. My opponent makes it pretty clear in the constructive that we're talking about high school specifically, and much high school football doesn't allow for tackles.

c. The experiment to test the impacts of this video are pretty unscientific. First, the football player doesn't tackle another person, but a dummy. Second, the video admits that the force is ultimately the same either way. Finally the video shows that rugby players actually take more hits than football players.

So the video doesn't prove anything.

On the Business insider article, this is really irrelevant because the source evidence doesn't have any numbers of rugby. It's not a comparison, it's stand-alone data with no impacts.
Here's the first source for the business insider article [ ], as you can see they don't keep the numbers on rubgy injuries. There's no comparison here. This is also another example of my opponent cherry-picking the arguments he wants to respond to, and ignoring what he doesn't care to speak on.

Vote Con!
(This 24 hour time limit is killing me)
Debate Round No. 3


first i would like to point out in the video that there is significaant scientific evidence. just because the video has proffesional players it still provides a base point to the amount of the collisions. and to my evidence about casualties since 1982 in high school football, that is countering your information, that said there had been thaat there had been 110 rugby players in britain that had been paraylized. yes, i wont deny that rugby requires more endurance.

for the video you should not be complaining that you could have possibly not have been able to watch it. that is like saying you forgot your folder will all of your evidence in it when going to a real debate.

in point B of your refutation you said that most high school football doesn't allow for tackling. well you would be completely wrong on that point, because if there is no tackling in football it is not then technically football. Most youth football programs start tackling at 3rd grade, and this would be nation wide.

going back to the video for a second, you said that the football player didnt tackle a human, but in a later test he did.

you also said that in the video it admits that force is ultimately the same. well it said that on average you get 16 hits in rugby and 6 in football, and then if you add up the forces of each hit in rugby, it is just about has the same force as all the added up forces from the six football hits.

so the video does prove quite a bit.

i would sure appriciate that in your last round that you just falsify all of my evidence, because alot of your counters in the previous round basically said the opposite of my evidece was saying. that just maid me halve to spell everything out for you.


Outright, let me state that I did indeed falsify my opponent's evidence, on three different fronts for the video and one front for the business insider article. These falsifications are things which Pro seems to assume are invalid for some reason or another I'll go ahead and explain them again, but at this point Pro's lack of refutation should be considered a drop on his part.

When I point out that the video provided by my opponent links to an outside source that I may not have access to, that is an indicator that my opponent is linking evidence without expanding on it or actually making an argument from it. That's like linking a twenty page government report without explaining anything about and then claiming it's reason to support your arguments.

The fact is that one can't simply provide evidence and expect that to be the end-all for their claim -- they have to expanon and warrant it themselves.

Second, the fact that this video focuses on professional players is significant as a professionally trained player is going to it significantly harder than a high schooler. My opponent never meets or responds to this argument, he simply says that he wishes I would respond to it.

Pointing this out is a response. This doesn't apply to high school.

Also, I'd like to point out that I didn't write 'most high school leagues don't allow tackling', I would never make that manner of generalization -- I said that there are leagues who don't allow tackling.

Business Insider
The source evidence for this business insider article doesn't keep injury or death toll number for rugby. It's not comparative evidence and so it doesn't prove that football is harder than rugby; it's comparing apples to blank space.

My opponent doesn't even touch the argument I make in favor rugby. I mean he doesn't even try to respond to these arguments. I mean point that he drop every argument I make, he's basically forfeiting the round.

So the voting here is pretty simply, keep two things in mind-
1. Pro drops his own arguments by claiming I didn't attack them.

2. Pro drops my arguments explicitly.

There are no arguments currently working in Pro's favor. Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Raisor 3 years ago
Clear Con victory:

S&G: I only vote on non-argument issues as a penalty. Pro fails to capitalize properly and spells words incorrectly. Before posting an argument, run spell check.

Arguments: Pro drops a bunch of con's arguments and Pro has pretty straightforward take-outs of Pro's points. Con also wins BOP/presumption pretty clearly.
Posted by DoctorDeku 3 years ago
You're positing a claim in opposition to one I made, you indeed arguing.
Posted by STMAknight92 3 years ago
i am not trying to argue, i am just trying to state that there is no such thing as a high school football league that doesn't allow tackling, which you said there was
Posted by DoctorDeku 3 years ago
'Much' indicates 'not all' thus meaning other leagues.
And why are you arguing in the comments? The debate is over.
Posted by STMAknight92 3 years ago
"much high school football doesn't allow for tackles" this is exactly what you said copied and pasted from your argument. no where in there do mention any thing about different leagues.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Raisor 3 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro dropped a hell of a lot of cons arguments and counter arguments while his spelling was horrendous. Pretty clear win for the con