The Instigator
thenorwegian
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
jvava
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Going to the gym ruins your education

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 4 votes the winner is...
jvava
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/13/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 959 times Debate No: 38831
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

thenorwegian

Pro

Going to the gym ruins your education! You will not be successful in life.
jvava

Con

I am glad to be debating with you.

Let me start off by stating that your argument is based on stereotype and assumption.

I am going to use my favorite athlete - Roger Federer - as an example.

He played a wide range of sports as a child, but decided to focus exclusively on tennis at the age of 14. By this time, he was "fully immersed in the game - playing 2-3 tournaments a month, and practicing up to 6 hours a week, along with 3 hours of conditioning."

Remember, he was still enrolled in school at this time. However, two years later, he dropped out of school to pursue his dreams of becoming a tennis pro.

After much hard work and dedication, Roger still manages to keep a high record in his early 30's, and has hit the number one spot several times. He has made nearly $67 million off of prize money and other such rewards.

I would not say that going to the gym made him unsuccessful - it made him quite the opposite. And it is the same for many other athletes as well.
Debate Round No. 1
thenorwegian

Pro

Choosing Gym over School:

So imagine a teenage boy who likes to go to the gym. He dedicates his life to weight lifting and football, and doesn't give a damn about school. What happens if noone notices his talent? When you train too hard, you can risk a injury that can change your whole career. If he had taken the education given to him, he would not have this kind of a problem; Ending his career and life because of an injury. What happens then to him? He will most likely end up in the streets, with no education. No employer wants to employ an utter rubbish boy who has no knowledge. With your arguement, you are basically saying to take a risk, but what happens if you fail?

Choosing School over Gym:

You would be more successful, and you aren't taking a risk. You are studying to become something, for example an MBA. No risks, just reality. You have almost secured a job when you educate to something. Employers would want you, and this is the easiest way to become rich. Riskfree!
jvava

Con

Not true.

Some people prefer physical careers over intellectual ones. Some folks would rather make a living off of manual careers than ones in which you sit at a desk all day.

Your argument about taking a risk-free career path is silly; there is an equal need for physical and intellectual jobs. Society needs both those that are strong enough for manual jobs and those that are smart enough to work in an office.

You take risks in anything. And if people are aware of the risks, they can decide for themselves what they want to do in life. If they are happier doing things that require strength, let them be happy. If they are happier doing things that require intelligence, let them be happy.

And, besides, if going to the gym ruins our chances at succeeding in life, why do schools offer Physical Education as a class?

Your argument doesn't make much sense to me. But, it's all in the hands of the voters now.

Let the best debater win.
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by KroneckerDelta 3 years ago
KroneckerDelta
I don't get the votes. While I whole heartedly agree with the Con position, where did Con actually show that gym doesn't ruin your education? Con gave one example of being "successful" (if you measure by wealth), but at no point addressed the actual resolution which dealt with education not success.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by KroneckerDelta 3 years ago
KroneckerDelta
thenorwegianjvavaTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: At no point was the actual resolution ever addressed by Con and barely by Pro. Pro stated that spending too much time in the gym could interfere with education and Con seemed to accept this point, but merely stated that ruining your education might not be a bad thing. I don't understand Con's example of Federer, is Federer really smart? Con didn't seem to make that argument. Is Federer well educated? Seems not since he's a drop out. How does Federer being successful say anything about his education? Pro stated that students may not succeed in sports or may get injured doing sports and, in the meantime, they neglected their education. Con never showed that you can both excel in sports (or gym) AND in education, otherwise it would have been an easy win for Con.
Vote Placed by blackfirewolf 3 years ago
blackfirewolf
thenorwegianjvavaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Personally, I was with pro until con's last argument. I agree fully.
Vote Placed by sunny.pujari 3 years ago
sunny.pujari
thenorwegianjvavaTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: this sounds like something my parents would say and its just a sterotype
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
thenorwegianjvavaTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gave a counter example, which suffices to defeat "you'll never be a success." Con could have found better examples. Charley Johnson was a quarterback in the NFL who earned a PhD in chemical engineering during his playing career. Bodybuilder Arnold Schwarzenegger became governor of California. Pro might have phrased the resolution so as to be more easily defended, perhaps "Gym classes should be optional for top students." Then he could have argued that for some students devotion to academics would be better.