The Instigator
Corgi32
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Awesome111111
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Football should be made safer, but kept as a professional sport.

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...
Corgi32
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/1/2016 Category: Sports
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 395 times Debate No: 87446
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Corgi32

Pro

Football is too dangerous but people love it, and it provides jobs.
We should keep it, but make it safer.
Awesome111111

Con

Football should not be safer because The equipment would be to heavy and they would not run fast
Debate Round No. 1
Corgi32

Pro

I understand that, but we could also change rules to make it safer.
96% of former NFL players show signs of CTE, or permanent brain damage!
We can't just leave it alone. Professional football players can take as many as 1,500 blows to the head in a SINGLE season!
http://www.popsci.com...

http://www.theatlantic.com...
Awesome111111

Con

IF we make football safer you would not see the big hits and Hurdles. Also it would take a big amount of time to make new equipment and the refs would have to learn all the new rules
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
Corgi32Awesome111111Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro points out the high population of football players with CTE and cites web articles to support his statistics. Con simply states that safer equipment would be too heavy and would result in refs learning new rules - which is, what? I've never heard that before and where he did get that information from? Stronger argument from Pro in large part due to the cited stats.
Vote Placed by diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid 1 year ago
diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid
Corgi32Awesome111111Tied
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:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Yikes. Sources: Thank you pro for using a source to support an argument related to CTE. That's pretty much the only thing I can hang a vote on. No sources from con.