High School football should be banned
Debate Rounds (3)
In 2014 a football player named Kostageorge, who played for Ohio state university, was found dead in an apparent suicide on November 30th. Concerns about the long term affects of head injuries sustained by footballers, continue to mount. A day after Karageorges death, a study had been released that suggested sports related head impacts can cause changes in the brain even when there are no outward signs of concussions.
2. Banning is useless
1. Football is a major part of American history (considering you used examples within the United States. It has been around forever both on the high school, college, and professional level. Considering this ban, you might as well ban ALL football. Also, many people are extremely passionate about football and consider it even a family tradition to play. This leads me into my next point:
P.s - if it was considered bad it probably should've been banned a while ago.
2. Banning is useless. Football is inevitable. It will still be played in college and professionally. Meaning injuries will still happen and this is useless. Actually, playing during high-school will teach the correct way to play and avoid serious injures when the students are younger, rather than beginning in college where injuries are much more severe. Even if football was banned on all schools (including educational and professional) - people will play WITHOUT PADS individually in their off time. This will at least double the risk of danger. Also banning will not include other sports, people who deeply love sports will switch to still intense sports, like Hockey or Boxing - both of which have devastating potential.
3. Freedom. Banning football would make it illegal. This is not a good idea. This is because laws are meant to prevent harm from one to another. Key phrase there: Laws are to prevent harm to others. This topic is an example of one joining football knowing it can cause harm. They are essentially risking their own body. This means that they have put them self in danger. This ban makes no sense - if i want to risk myself i should be able to do it. I have some examples:
A - Military
I know I am putting my life at danger if I join the military. I know I have an external cause to motivate me to do this task. (Soldiers protect the lives of their citizen, I want to deeply thank all of you who may be reading for that) Does this mean it should be banned to join the military? Under the same logic that PRO illustrates, it should be.
I am proud to say High School football should not be banned.
A lot of people are seriously thinking about their future with football. For example, recently after watching the movie Concussion, a Pennsylvania football star, turned down scholarship offers over concerns about his long-term health. John Castello rejected offers from more than a dozen football championship subdivision schools. Castello arrived at his decision upon seeing the story of Dr.Bennet whose 2002 discovery of a degenerative brain disease caused by the sort of repetitive head trauma that is common in football was portrayed by Will Smith in a film released this past December.
Another thing is, for every one NFL player, there are 2,000 YOUTH players. That's close to four million youth players and the vast majority of research on impact-related brain injuries has been on the college and professional level.
1. Extend and explain my original three points.
2. Respond in detail to PRO's arguments.
To be clear, all PRO has done is provide 3 examples of people who have either learned or experienced the injuries of football players and replied to my military example. These are the three points of #2 i will respond to.
1. Extend and Explain
PRO has seriously messed up this debate. Completely disregarding all the thesis claims of my points which i will reiterate here:
Culture - Having this not being responded to means you can vote CON now. People consider is culturally significant and would cause public uproar if banned. It also begs to inevitability of football - the PRO has not answered that if it was so bad and has been around so long, then why hasn't it been banned.
Banning is useless - Biggest independent voter if you want to vote. Football is inevitable and the injuries will still happen either later in life or in another sport. Considering PRO dropped my argument that playing in high-school teaches players ho to avoid serious injury by teaching the right way to play, in a world without high-school football but still college football, many people will go in much stronger in college without knowing the correct form, or how to avoid injuries, however many will be much stronger than in high-school. Therefore in the interest of heath conditions, you must vote CON on this argument.
Freedom - Another voter, all that was replied to was the example, but PRO neglected the thesis claim of this argument. They risk their own body and they know the risk that they could cause harm to them self. If we don't have freedom to do what we want with ourselves, then what does life even become at that point? I'll tell you, objects of the state. We can be counted and used by the government and that would be our purpose without freedom. I recommend looking to the book Homo Sacer, by Agamben, its very interesting and I'm currently reading another one of his works, The State of Exception (this doesn't relate as much).
The PRO's examples help CON more than PRO. They show examples of the devastating and heart-breaking injuries that people face and makes me very sad, but the last example shows (The Movies Concussion) shows people who exercise their freedom and simply reject doing football because of the physical damage possible. This shows that banning is useless when people can simply not do it.
The Military Example: So I guess this example isn't the best, yet since i presented it I will stick with it and defend it. Obviously there are different reason for joining the military and playing football - and i am not comparing those AT ALL. I completely respect and gratefully thank soldiers and their duty to our country. I am simply saying under the logic of PRO, any activity that is life-threatening should be banned, even if it is the own individual's choice.
I am proud to stand CON: High-school football should not be banned.
Con also mentioned that banning football would cause an uproar, but think about it, what if one of your family members had recieved to many concussions then died, how would you feel? Although most people would still play, there would be less high schoolers getting concussions and would therefore decide on a carreer in football, in the future and focus more on their studies in high school
I stand by my previous argument by saying that football should be banned. I recently read an article about former football player Randle El. He was an electric athlete versatile enough to run a route on one play and throw a beautiful spiral on the next, as he did in super Bowl XL. He had mentioned that his body has begun to betray him before his 40th birthday, is hard to fathom. Randle didn't hesitate when asked if he regrets playing football, "If I could go back,I wouldn't" he stated. He mentioned that he would continuosly ask his wife things and she would always tell him that she already told him that. By playing football you could seriously mess up your brain or even worse, die.
I think I have proved a serious point and think I deserve the vote
Kid 1 plays football in high-school. They teach him how to tackle correctly, tackle at the knees, avoid tackling with your helmet, etc. --http://kidshealth.org...#-- this website even provides some more tips to be safe. These safety lessons do exist and do reduce the rate of accidents. In this example, the kid moves into college where everyone has been trained in high-school and altogether the amount of accidents is a bit lower than without any previous knowledge of football.
Kid 2 cannot play football in high-school, but wishes he could. He goes into college and gets onto the football team (along with many other people who don't know the rules/safety guides. Accidents are easily prevents. People tackle ramming with their helmets, or stand strong when being tackled (instead of absorbing shock). This causes many more accidents. I world with high-school football will teach us how to prevent accidents later in life.
If a family member died, of course everyone would feel awful. If that happened personally, I might fear the violence in such a sport. This would cause me to do as much as possible to CONVINCE PEOPLE NOT TO JOIN. Many people might play, many people might not. The answer is not banning, its convincing people to not join. Also, there are still people who want to play football who would believe its unbelievable that the government is banning a 'fun' sport.
I do not deny injuries are caused in football. PRO seems to think because they have proven injuries happen, that they should win. This is not how the debate should be handled. Voting CON means injuries would be prevented by teaching, or people choosing (or being convinced) to not do football. In PRO, people still play football out of school (probably without pads) or in college/NFL meaning more serious injuries. You also must consider the argument that PRO has neglected to respond to this entire debate: FREEDOM. Freedom is not just an 'American' trait, we should all have access to it as it is one of the core values and meanings to life itself. WE SHOULD CHOOSE WHAT TO DO WITH OUR BODIES. That's right, why would the government stop there. It is a little thing called, "Government Overreach". Swimming can cause people to drown, maybe the government should ban high-school swimming. Soccer gets injuries all the time maybe it should be banned. You know what? The majority of sports evolve into harm so we might ban all high-school sports to avoid harm. The government does not have this right to intervene in what we do with ourselves. If i know i can get injured by playing football, then if it is a risk I want to take, I should do it. If not, then I won't do it. This avoids literally all the problems PRO talks about. PRO's last line is: "I think I have proved a serious point and think I deserve the vote." Just because injuries exist is no reason to vote PRO, you should vote CON to keep our freedom.
Thanks PRO for the debate!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Leugen9001 12 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: In R1, Pro argued that football should be banned because it causes dangerous injuries. In response, Con argued that banning football is wrong practically and principally. Practically, because people would still play football individually but likely with less protective equipment and training, making things more dangerous. Principally, because laws should prevent people from harming others rather than forbid any act that just might harm oneself. Pro responded to the practical point by stating that accidental injuries can still occur even with training, but didn't address the argument that banning high school football would result in more incompetence-related injuries and wouldn't reduce accidental injuries. The only other thing Pro did was repeat their argument about dangerous injuries. Therefore, since Pro's argument was critically undermined by Con's rebuttals, and Con's unrefuted points made it clear that Pro's world is worse, Con wins.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.