The Instigator
godgirl04
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
funnycn
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Football is to dangerous to be allowed at high schools and colleges.

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 3 votes the winner is...
funnycn
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/9/2014 Category: Sports
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,019 times Debate No: 62973
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

godgirl04

Pro

According to CBS news, Tipton football player Chad Stover died after receiving a major brain injury to the head during the football game, on a Friday night. There was not an ambulance or even a sports trainer at the field when this game was occurring in 2013 at Smith-Cotton High School. This news story spilt quickly and spread everywhere, it went onto national TV, news channels, and ESPN.
Football is the most known sport when it comes to the athletes receiving concussions. The entire point of this game is to tackle the other team, and stop them from scoring touchdowns. That just sounds dangerous in itself.
We should not encourage students to play a sport that leads to so much injury and death and play it off as a form of entertainment!
funnycn

Con

I hold the stance it isn't too dangerous. I will now present my argument

"According to CBS news, Tipton football player Chad Stover died after receiving a major brain injury to the head during the football game, on a Friday night. There was not an ambulance or even a sports trainer at the field when this game was occurring in 2013 at Smith-Cotton High School"

I looked all over the Internet, and there is NO claim there wasn't an ambulance or sports trainer. That argument is false unless you can prove otherwise.

"Football is the most known sport when it comes to the athletes receiving concussions"

While it is notorious for having high concussions, it's not the highest. Believe it or not...Women's Ice Hockey has the MOST concussions. The claim "football has the most concussions" is false. [1]

"The entire point of this game is to tackle the other team, and stop them from scoring touchdowns. That just sounds dangerous in itself."

While it is dangerous, it is required the players are protected. There are more dangerous sports than American football.I'll present my argument now

i. Scholarships for college while playing in high school

College is VERY expensive. $29,400 was given to 7/10 college Seniors at one time for student loans and through 2008 and 2012 it increased [2]. Scholarships are important and football is one easy way to get extra money for college. It also looks great when applying to college for extra curricular activities and if you want to play college football.

ii. Skills you developLeadership is one big benefit. It's important to be a good leader in society, often you'll be better with people. You'll also have some rivalry, which is also good. You have to be competitive in this big world.

iii.Health

People who play sports have better health. It's true! Older people who played sports had less brain shrinkage [3]
It also develops healthier relationships. It allows you to be with people who share a common interest in athletics and you can make a lot of friends.
There's a myth about being a jock makes you "stupid". This is also very false. Being sports forces you to balance time between homework and sports. Organization is important.
[4]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://projectonstudentdebt.org...
[3] http://www.livestrong.com...
[4] http://www.pamf.org...

Debate Round No. 1
godgirl04

Pro

First I would like to rebuttal my opponents arguments and then I will come back and build my case. I think that it is great that students are able to get scholarships for sports that they play in high school, but there are also more ways to get scholarships such as academics. If we look at the article posted below on hooprecruiter.com more often academic scholarships offer more money that that of athletic scholarships. So you don't have to be on a sports team to get scholarships. Also a lot of other things look good on scholarships like volunteering, and being a good students (ACT/SAT score, and your GPA).
Wouldn't you agree that their are other ways to be in a leadership position without being an athlete. Their are so many leadership training and activities. And really unless you are the quarterback, or the coach, are you really in a leadership role being the kicker. Think about, your coach says, "Okay, I want you to go out and kick a 40-yard field goal." How are you in a leadership position there. You are being lead, not being a leader. Therefore your argument is false.
So you are telling me that football players have better health then those that don't play sports. Obviously in the case of Chad Stover, Jevon Belcher, those are just two examples where your third argument is not true. Therefore that argument is irrelevant.
I think your last point about "being a jock makes you stupid" is an irrelevant argument. Because you are trying to fall into stereotypes and there are no facts behind that argument.

Now I would like to go back and build my own case.
First when it comes to the Chad Stover story, if you go and subscribe to the full Time Magazine article, it says specifically in there that there was not an athletic trainer nor ambulance present when this occurred. (1)
Now I would like you to provide you with an exact quote from the official Concussion Treatment Website : "Football is the most common sport with concussion risk for males (75% chance for concussion)" (2)
Lastly I would like to argument your comment: "While it is dangerous, it is required the players are protected. There are more dangerous sports than American football." According to "Total Pro- Sports Website" football is number one in most dangerous sports. (3) Therefore that argument is also false, therefore can not be taken into consideration in today's debate.
1)http://time.com...
2) http://www.concussiontreatment.com...
3)http://www.totalprosports.com...
funnycn

Con

"Wouldn't you agree that their are other ways to be in a leadership position without being an athlete. Their are so many leadership training and activities. And really unless you are the quarterback, or the coach, are you really in a leadership role being the kicker. Think about, your coach says, "Okay, I want you to go out and kick a 40-yard field goal." How are you in a leadership position there. You are being lead, not being a leader. Therefore your argument is false."

Actually, no it is not false just because you feel like it's false and you can't prove it's false. All you did was state a scenario without stating what leadership is. That is a logical fallacy. Or, faulty logic.

Leadership, according to this dictionary is "the position or function of a leader, a person who guides or directs agroup"
[http://dictionary.reference.com...]

"So you are telling me that football players have better health then those that don't play sports."

Also false? Where in my argument did I say football players have better health?

""being a jock makes you stupid" is an irrelevant argument"
If you read my argument, you would know it was related to academics and the benefits of high school football. So no, it was not irrelevant.

"First when it comes to the Chad Stover story, if you go and subscribe to the full Time Magazine article, it says specifically in there that there was not an athletic trainer nor ambulance present when this occurred."

I went to the link, and yet again no evidence there wasn't an ambulance. I searched and I read it over but there was nothing.

"Now I would like you to provide you with an exact quote from the official Concussion Treatment Website : "Football is the most common sport with concussion risk for males"

For MALES maybe. But abroad? Women's ice hockey. Very selective sources. Oh and it says a RISK. So yet again, no plausible proof that football is so dangerous it should be done away with. Also, the source claims that 30% experience concussions in College. While the number seems high, when it comes to the the THOUSANDS of people that go to colleges across the USA the numbers really start to shrink.

" football is number one in most dangerous sports. (3) Therefore that argument is also false, therefore can not be taken into consideration in today's debate."

Oh yes ONE of the most dangerous. It's the most dangerous, it's just ONE. So no, it's not false. Not to also mention, it's an opinion. It's not a fact, that would make your statement false due to lack of facts.

My opponent also made multiple grammatical errors and spelling errors in his argument.

Now my opponent multiple times claims that concussions in football should make it a reason for it to be banned. However, building off of the women's ice hockey I can list more sports that have more concussion rates than football. One, women's ice hockey.
Men's Ice hockey and Men's soccer both have more concussion rates than football.
[http://en.wikipedia.org...]

Professional Rugby can have up tp 3 concussions per 1000 hours. So why isn't that banned? [http://www.rfu.com...]


Debate Round No. 2
godgirl04

Pro

It's obvious that you did not subscribe to the full addition of Time Magazine. Please read the following article where it states specifically says "Coaches and players had to wait several minutes for an ambulance to arrive. No one is sure if Stover's condition would be any better if medics were on scene when the teen collapsed. The Tipton R-VI Schools superintendent, Scott Jarvis, said the wait was excruciating. "When you're in a situation like that, it feels like hours but it had only been a couple of minutes," he said. An ambulance was not required to be present at the game, according to Missouri State High School Activities Association (MSHSAA). "Ambulances, trainers, and medical personnel are recommendations to have on site, but the only requirement is that schools have an emergency policy put in place," MSHSAA communications director Jason West said."(1) Therefore my point is proved that there was not an ambulance present at the time of Chad Stover's death.
Quoting your exact words you said, "People who play sports have better health." So before you try to say you didn't include something in your argument you may want to go back, and actually read your argument.
Now I would like to leave you with a final question. Although you may gain much popularity from being a football player, are the friends worth walking in with a high potential to get a concussion, and or a brain injury every game?
In my argument I said exactly, "football is number one in must dangerous sports." So I don't know how you got the idea that it is one of the most dangerous, because it exactly says "football is number one in most dangerous sports.(2)
My opponent did not rebuttal my argument against his first argument, so therefore my argument stands against his, and his first argument falls.
Here my opponent had incorrect grammar/spelling
-""the position or function of a leader, a person who guides or directs agroup""
Resources:
1) http://www.abc17news.com...
2) http://www.concussiontreatment.com......
funnycn

Con

" Therefore my point is proved that there was not an ambulance present at the time of Chad Stover's death."

You're claim about an ambulance not being there was because they're couldn't be one. Not because they didn't want to have one there. You just posted a source that would work against you. Your claim is really irrelevant without a reason to have it.

"So before you try to say you didn't include something in your argument you may want to go back, and actually read your argument."

But your claim was that I was wrong that people who play sports have better health. I never said they had the best health either. They do however, have great health regardless.

"Although you may gain much popularity from being a football player, are the friends worth walking in with a high potential to get a concussion, and or a brain injury every game?"

Let me answer that with another question. Why have a nice car when you have a high potential to get in an automobile accident?

"My opponent did not rebuttal my argument against his first argument, so therefore my argument stands against his, and his first argument falls."

This made me laugh. Do you know what a rebuttal is? I just refuted your last argument, and actually wether you know it or not, I am refuting your argument RIGHT NOW. So your claim "My argument falls" is not true, but instead a fallacy.

"Here my opponent had incorrect grammar/spelling
-""the position or function of a leader, a person who guides or directs agroup""

How so?

To state right now, my opponent is making many fallacies. I have pointed out many of them in my previous and current rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 3
godgirl04

Pro

I think it is important to get this debate on track instead of arguing about whether or not the Chad Stover story is a legitimate argument or not in the debate. So I would like to bring the argument back to the fact that football is dangerous. I have provided many statistics. Now I am not saying that other sports are dangerous also, because that is not part of the debate. The topic is "Football is to dangerous to be allowed at high schools and colleges." It is very true obviously. You have not denied that football is dangerous, you have agreed you just believe that other sports are more dangerous. And I am not disagreeing with the fact that their are other dangerous sports, but football is also very dangerous.
I mean we can even look away from the idea of concussions, what about broken bones, sprangs, spine injurys, or even just being bruised up, that is still dangerous to a certain extent.
Now I would like to present a few statistics:
- This is a direct quote, that I will cite at the end of this argument. "As many as 1.5 million young men participate in American football in the United States. An estimated 1.2 million football-related injuries are sustained annually. Since the 1970s epidemiological studies have shown that the risk of injury is higher in older athletes and lower in teams with more experienced coaches and more assistant coaches. 51% of injuries occurred at training; contact sessions were 4.7 times more likely to produce injuries than controlled sessions. Injury rates were reduced by wearing shorter cleats and preseason conditioning. Overall, lower extremity injuries accounted for 50% of all injuries (with knee injuries accounting for up to 36%). Upper extremity injuries accounted for 30%. In general, sprains and strains account for 40% of injuries, contusions 25%, fractures 10%, concussions 5% and dislocations 15%. Cervical spine injuries have the potential to be catastrophic, but they declined dramatically in the decade 1975 to 1984, due to the impact of rule changes modifying tackling and blocking techniques and improved fitness, equipment and coaching. Appropriate diagnostic evaluation of cervical injuries is mandatory. The evidence supporting prophylactic knee bracing is not compelling and does not mandate compulsory or routine use. Return to play criteria include: full range of motion; normal strength; normal neurological evaluation; no joint swelling or instability; ability to run and sustain contact without pain; no intake of pain medication; player education about preventive measures and future risks. These criteria should be strictly observed. In addition to ankle and knee rehabilitation, lumbar spine injuries present a challenge for the physician. Repetitive flexion, extension and torsional stresses predispose the lumbar spine to injury. Rehabilitation consists of pain control and training. The training phase aims to eliminate repetitive injuries by minimising stress at the intervertebral joint. Football is a high risk sport. Coaches, players, trainers and physicians must all become aware of the proper means to prevent injuries." (1)
Here is some major proof that football is very dangerous.

Resources
1)http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Notes for Opponent
1) You really shouldn't use Wikipedia as a source.
2) Look at your spacing here.... "Leadership, according to this dictionary is "the position or function of a leader, a person who guides or directs agroup" I'm pretty sure agroup isn't a word.
funnycn

Con

"You have not denied that football is dangerous, you have agreed you just believe that other sports are more dangerous"
I'm guessing you don't understand my argument. I can't simply deny football is dangerous because I'd be lying. So instead I proved it's not as dangerous as other sports.

And while you did present the source, all of that was copied and pasted. You could have at least elaborated. Instead, you just copied and pasted the argument.

"1) You really shouldn't use Wikipedia as a source."
It's more reliable than you think. It's constantly monitored.

"Look at your spacing here.... "Leadership, according to this dictionary is "the position or function of a leader, a person who guides or directs agroup" I'm pretty sure agroup isn't a word."

I'll just point out every grammatical and spelling error in your argument then.

"fact that their" improper use of there.
" sprangs" Not an injury
"injurys" not a word

If you do not speak English, don't bash me about my "spacing" and English when you make more mistakes.

My opponent has made false claims again.

He just copied and argument from someone else for his argument which is wrong regardless if he posted the source.
Debate Round No. 4
godgirl04

Pro

I feel as if it would be absolutely dumb for us to sit here and point out stupid, pointless errors in the debate, because honestly where does that get us?? Nowhere obviously. So lets actually look at the arguments presented in the debate. First I would like to present my arguments.
1. I presented the information about the death of the Tipton football player Chad Stover. Although we are still in debate on why an ambulance was not present, I don't think that really matters because that is not what we are debating. We are debating that football is dangerous. And obviously if somebody died doing it, then it is pretty dangerous. Now my opponent brought up the question, "Why have a nice car when you have a high potential to get in an automobile accident?" Although this is really not relevant I will elaborate anyways. Driving is extremely dangerous, and ultimately my personal opinion is that God gave us feet for a reason so lets use them. But yes you are taking a risk when you get in your car to drive anywhere, just as you are taking a risk when you go out onto the football field whether for practice, or for a game. So then it becomes a personal decision, do you want to risk your life just to play football?
2. My next point was that of the concssions, and injuries in general that come from football. I presented statistics about the dangers of football. Now my opponent brought up in his last argument how I just copied and pasted an argument, but I didn't comment on it. I did comment on the statistics, it was just very simple, "football is dangerous." I think my opponent does not seem to understand what this debate is about anymore. The entire focus of this debate is, "1. Is football dangerous? 2. Should football be offered to high school/college students"
It's for those contentions I can only see a pro vote in today's debate. Although my opponent has tried to argue that other sports are more dangerous, he has not been able to argue against this point directly, therefore this point stands.
Now I would like to address my opponents arguments. His first argument was that there are "Scholarships for college while playing in high school."Although I do agree that many athletic scholarships are given, those who don't receive athletic scholarships, are shown to have higher test scores. (1) And then here is another question I must ask with this point. What will an athletic scholarship do if you get hurt, and have brain damage from playing the sport? I would much rather work hard to recieve an atletic scholarship that doesn't involve potentially becoming brain dead or paralyzed.
His second argument was that of "Skills you Develop". Now first off the only skill my opponent mentioned was that of leadership, so for him claiming that of "skills" he should have presented more than one. But moving on from that as I have stated in my previous arguments, there are many better, and safer ways to gain leadership skills, without risking your life, and potentially become paralyzed or brain dead. An example of a way to gain leadership is through being involed in Student Council, also in the National Honors Society (NHS).
His third and final argument was that of "Health". Now my opponent basically explained that those who are involved in sports, are healthier when they are older. And yes that may be true, but as a reaccuring theme through all my arguments, they won't be healthier if they are brain dead, or paralyzed, or have had a major brain injury.
Now I would like to provide a basic summary of my arguments, and then hit on some key voting factors. Tests have shown that due to serious head injuries many football players have brain damage from them, in some cases it has cost them their own lives, as well as the lives of innocent people. I would like to quickly touch on the Jovan Belcher case again. He was a Linebacker for the Kansas City Chiefs, and he killed his fiance in their apartment, and then went to the Chiefs parking lot at the practice facility, and shot himself in front of his coach and other bystanders. Many autopsys were performed, and showed that he suffered from CTE. (2)
Now to hit on some key voting issues. Now I want you all to put aside your personal beliefs about football, whether you are a fan or not, and actually analyze both pro, and cons arguments.
Resources
(1): http://www.fastweb.com...
(2): http://www.kansascity.com...

funnycn

Con

"Although this is really not relevant I will elaborate anyways. Driving is extremely dangerous, and ultimately my personal opinion is that God gave us feet for a reason so lets use them. But yes you are taking a risk when you get in your car to drive anywhere, just as you are taking a risk when you go out onto the football field whether for practice, or for a game. So then it becomes a personal decision, do you want to risk your life just to play football?"

It is relevant but I guess you didn't really understand the reason behind why I said it. So then it becomes a personal decision...do you want to risk your life to drive a car? See what I mean?

"It's for those contentions I can only see a pro vote in today's debate. Although my opponent has tried to argue that other sports are more dangerous, he has not been able to argue against this point directly, therefore this point stands."

Yet again, my opponent fails to understand the reason why I explained the dangers of other sports. I explained the dangers of other sports you can realize that if football is so dangerous it should be banned, what about other sports? Shouldn't they be banned since football is so "dangerous"?

"Although I do agree that many athletic scholarships are given, those who don't receive athletic scholarships, are shown to have higher test scores. "

But the ones who do receive athletic scholarships still have B to A- averages. The grades are still high according to YOUR source.
http://www.fastweb.com...

"But moving on from that as I have stated in my previous arguments, there are many better, and safer ways to gain leadership skills, without risking your life, and potentially become paralyzed or brain dead. An example of a way to gain leadership is through being involed in Student Council, also in the National Honors Society (NHS)."

Football is not a blood sport where people try to kill each other, so why dwell on the "brain dead" idea when women's ice hockey can kill you. They have a HIGHER concussion rate than football. Football, while dangerous, is not as dangerous as other sports, and this statement is A DIRECT rebuttal against your previous claim.

"Now my opponent basically explained that those who are involved in sports, are healthier when they are older. And yes that may be true, but as a reaccuring theme through all my arguments, they won't be healthier if they are brain dead, or paralyzed, or have had a major brain injury."

I never said the healthiest played football. Sports could be just with a few friends in a backyard. It could be backyard baseball, and baseball has very low concussion rates.


As my opponent has done, I will now conclude my argument on key points.

i. Football, while dangerous, isn't as dangerous as other sports, therefore it shouldn't be banned unless other sports that are MUCH more dangerous than football are banned in high schools, college, and/or abroad.

Evidence it is not as dangerous as other sports, and it is safe

A-Helmets, protective gear, monitoring, and physicals etc.

B-Other sports don't have protective gear, such as Rugby, so the claims you're more likely to become paralyzed, be brain dead, and/or die is pointless without dwelling on the fact that Rugby is as dangerous, if not more dangerous than football.

ii. The skills they develop

A-Leadership and social skills are gained, as the football team is forced to work together to achieve a single goal. These skills will help out the future, as people who play football will be more social and work together.

B-Source(s)
http://www.cnn.com...
HIGH SCHOOL football players help sandy victims.

http://football.about.com...
This website shows the numerous skills one person can gain from playing football.

iii. Scholarships

A-Scholarships are expensive, getting academic scholarships can help. As mentioned before,

"$29,400 was given to 7/10 college Seniors at one time for student loans and through 2008 and 2012 it increased [2]. Scholarships are important and football is one easy way to get extra money for college. It also looks great when applying to college for extra curricular activities and if you want to play college football."

B-Proof it is expensive

http://projectonstudentdebt.org...


Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Oskii 2 years ago
Oskii
How about soccer? How about baseball? How about hockey? Any sport is dangerous. It's not that dangerous where you see 200 people die every game.... If it was "dangerous" then they wouldn't have these type of programs funding for protection and training them. It's not like they are risking their lives to play the game.
Posted by sensfan 2 years ago
sensfan
If it wasn't allowed at colleges, where would NFL players come from?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
godgirl04funnycnTied
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 had bad spelling and grammar throughout the debate, I felt like his rebuttals held no grounds--could opinions be false, really? And con rebutted well, especially in the fact the pro used OVERALL FOOTBALL FACTS while it in reality only extended to high school and colleges (the core of the debate).
Vote Placed by travis18352 2 years ago
travis18352
godgirl04funnycnTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: this was one of hte most entertaining debates ive read on here but i think con easily wins.
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 2 years ago
republicofdhar
godgirl04funnycnTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was poorly organised, and as both Pro and Con realised, went off on a tangent very quickly. I don't think that this topic was explored in the depth that this debate deserves, but both gave some coherent and relevant arguments, so they are tied for arguments. I'm leaving spelling and grammar a tie as well although Pro should know that "rebuttal" is a noun and not a verb. She can "rebut" Pro's arguments, not "rebuttal" them. Pro's attitude became rather petty (you're seriously going to hold "agroup" against him?) and her tone rather condescending at one point, which was in poor taste, so conduct goes to Con. Both used equally reliable sources.