The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
liberty
Con (against)
Losing
19 Points

International soccer matches should be settled by fights, not penalties.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/3/2008 Category: Sports
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,302 times Debate No: 5251
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (7)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

In the last World Cup, England's match with Portugal ended 0-0 after Portugal's Christiano Ronaldo got England's star player, Wayne Rooney, sent off.

http://www.thesun.co.uk...
http://www.thesun.co.uk...

England subsequently lost the match on penalties, which was a cruel way to exit the tournament because penalties are such lotteries – the goalie can only just guess which side of the net the striker is aiming for, he might be lucky, he might not.

However, the stalemate had to be broken one way or another but I contend that a fairer and more entertaining method of deciding the winning team would have been for the players to have a massive great brawl in the middle of the pitch.

On that occasion, all the England players would have been queuing up to give Portugal's dirty, cheating, pretty-boy midfielder Christiano Ronaldo a proper kicking and I suspect I wouldn't be the only England fan to say that that spectacle alone would have been worth the price of the ticket.

Furthermore, even with ten men against their eleven, I bet our boys would have given those Iberian tricksters a right pasting and could then have gone on to win the World Cup.
liberty

Con

I negate: International soccer matches should NOT be settled by fights, rather than penalties.



"England subsequently lost the match on penalties, which was a cruel way to exit the tournament"

- I agree that England should have won that match and probably would if not for Rooney's red card, but that's soccer. Despite that, the match was won on penalties were numbers don't count, which one the basic reasons that they exist. England had a chance to beat the 11 Portuguese players with 10 of their own, but they missed it.
"Penalties are such lotteries – the goalie can only just guess which side of the net the striker is aiming for, he might be lucky, he might not."

"Penalties are such lotteries – the goalie can only just guess which side of the net the striker is aiming for, he might be lucky, he might not."

-This is false. Most of the time goalkeepers DO choose the right side, although they don't block the ball from going in most of the time, is just coincidence? – No its skill. You have to both anticipate were the kicker will shoot and be good enough to block the ball. Reflexes play a huge role in the above and many times a bigger one than luck. If you try to score a penalty on a professional goalkeeper, believe me, you would have a hard time (I've tried it). So penalties are not lotteries, you have to be a good goalkeeper to block even if you do guess right. Also you have to be a very good kicker, to place the ball hard enough and accurately enough in the corner in order to score. The Portuguese were better at doing so. Also, Ricardo (their goalkeeper) was better at blocking than the England goalkeeper, therefore they won the match.

"On that occasion, all the England players would have been queuing up to give Portugal's dirty, cheating, pretty-boy midfielder Christiano Ronaldo a proper kicking and I suspect I wouldn't be the only England fan to say that that spectacle alone would have been worth the price of the ticket."

- I suggest that my opponent attends a kick boxing match rather than a soccer one, if he wants to see a fight rather than soccer.



Contention 1: Public Opinion
Common logic tells us that if you ask soccer fans, if they believe that international soccer matches should be settled by fights, not penalties, the vast majority of them would either laugh or simply say no.

Contention 2: Violence
Soccer has been used over the years to pass messages to the public due to that it has many supporters and has been very successful in doing so. Some of these are "no to racism" (we remember this from the 2006 world cup) and "no to violence". If soccer were to promote violence, imagine what influence it would have on the public and especially children who usually imitate their heroes, the soccer players.

Contention 3: Red Cards
Red cards are usually given to players that do hard tackles or play violently. For example, if you punch your opponent, you are very likely to get a red card. It would be both confusing and hypocritical if on the one hand, you send him off for being violent and on the other declare the better puncher the winner.

Contention 4: Grudges
Many players would object to the system (certainly not Rooney), because in most matches, they would not be motivated to hit their opponents. Also, take into consideration that most soccer player are constantly on the move and who knows, the day after the fight they may find themselves on the same team as the person they knocked out the previous day. This would develop hatred and personal grudges between players and we certainly do not want that to happen as soccer fans.

Contention 5: Penalties are thrilling, anyway
Personally, I believe that penalties are absolutely thrilling (and many people share this belief). I don't think that even my opponent, being an England fan, can deny being glued to the screen, with his heart pounding, to see if England will win or lose the shout-out.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

With many thanks to my esteemed opponent for his considered response, I should like to rebut his rebuttals as follows:

1 - Public opinion

Au contraire, my friend. People love violence. People used to pack the Coliseum and other amphitheatres during the Roman Empire to watch gladiators kick each other's heads in. Has public opinion really changed that much in a mere 2,000 years? Or is it just that political correctness has meant that extreme violence is perceived to be in some way undesirable in today's society? After all, when it all kicks off outside a nightclub at closing time and a couple of blokes who have failed to pull in the dash-for-gash start knocking seven shades of **** out of each other to relieve their frustration, do you tut disapprovingly and walk on by, muttering things like "I say, what disgraceful spectacle" and "utterly shocking behaviour, how perfectly ghastly" or do you stop and egg them on by shouting "aggro, aggro!" and maybe sticking your own boot in every now and again?

2 – It is true that soccer players are role models for school kids and that fighting on the pitch might encourage boys to imitate them in the playground. This is a good thing, however. Much better than bringing knives or guns to school, surely?

3 - Red Cards.

Soccer as a sport should be allowed to evolve. In 1823, a pupil at Rugby school picked up the ball during a soccer match and ran off with it and the opposing team chased after him, caught him and kicked his head in and this is how the sport of rugby football started.

http://www.rugbyfootballhistory.com...

Similarly, when future international soccer matches end in a stalemate, wouldn't it be fun to see the game decided by means of a massive great punch up?

4 – Grudges

You'd think that a huge scrap between players from the same club opposing each other in an international match would breed resentment between them, wouldn't you? I thought that Rooney would have kept his promise to split his Manchester United teammate Ronaldo in two when they returned to the club after the summer, but he didn't. He should have, but he didn't.

5 – Penalties are thrilling

True, they are thrilling, but also nerve-wracking because of the uncertainty, which can be dangerous for fans with high blood pressure. Settling the matter by means of unmitigated violence would also mean that professional footballers such as Newcastle United's Joey Barton might get a place in the England squad.

http://news.bbc.co.uk...

http://uk.youtube.com...

Soccer has a proud heritage of violence – football and hooliganism go together like salt and pepper – it's an integral part of the game and people that don't want to see violence can always watch cricket instead.
liberty

Con

Contention 1: Public opinion
I agree with my opponent that people usually tend to enjoy violence. Despite this, he ignores that 70% of soccer fans are happy with the way the sport is played, 15% disagree with the referee system and 5% disagree with other issues (1.000 people of different nationalities were questioned for this poll), this proves that very few fans support the resolution and therefore the negative is the one that has public opinion on it's side. I will repeat that if people want to see violence they can go to a wrestling match and if they want to see soccer they can go to a soccer match.

Contention 2: Violence
My opponent agrees with my point. He also states that children would in fact be encouraged to have fights in the playground I also agree. Finally he says that this is better than knifes and guns (???); this is irrelevant because soccer as we know it today does not promote gun usage etc, neither will gun usage nor knifes be limited because violence will be promoted, although the opposite is possible.

Contention 3: Red Cards.
My opponent says that we should let the sport evolve. His point is completely irrelevant to my contention that in a nutshell states that it would be hypocritical to ban players (red cards) who are violent and on the other hand give the win to the most violent team. Despite this, I will answer to his supposed counter argument.
- I agree we should let the sport evolve, but we should let it evolve positively and promoting violence, going against public opinion and creating grudges between players is NOT positive.

Contention 4: Grudges
My opponent gives an example in failed attempt to counter my contention. I think we all remember what huge trouble the word cup incident caused to Manchester United, Ronaldo came close to leaving the club! All this turbulance occurred without there being an actual fight, we can imagine what would have happened to United and any other club in a similar position, if there was a fight.

Contention 5: Penalties are thrilling
My opponent starts by saying that penalties, effect fans with high blood pressure. In addition to this being a weak counter argument, I believe that a fight wouldn't really change the situation. He continues by saying that players like Joey Barton would be on the England squad. This is definitely not a good thing, one of the latest comments on the YouTube link my opponent provides is that Joey Barton is a bad example, I agree to this. Remember that the England national team is a SOCCER team and should have players who play SOCCER not people who fight, this is yet another problem of the affirmative, soccer would lose meaning, since clubs would hire fighters rather than football players.

"Soccer has a proud heritage of violence – football and hooliganism go together like salt and pepper – it's an integral part of the game and people that don't want to see violence can always watch cricket instead."

- False, violence is NOT part of the game itself, because violent players and teams whose fans are violent are punished by the rules. As for hooliganism, it is definitely a bad thing and serious measures to stop it have been made. Those responsible for the game (FIFA) and tournaments, as well as the game itself object to violence. Therefore violence is not part of the game, to the contrary it something the game objects to.
Debate Round No. 2
brian_eggleston

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for continuing with this debate and for putting forward such seemingly plausible arguments in favour of penalties over punch-ups.

However, my opponent is clearly an adept debater and is using his formidable powers of persuasion to appeal to your sense of propriety. Don't be fooled, though, he is trying to convince you that post-match violence is actually undesirable in some way, when, in reality it would be fair and fun. Let's be clear, fighting is a far better way to settle a game than penalties and I will rebut his rebuttals to demonstrate this as follows:

1 – Public Opinion
My opponent referred to a survey (though did not name it or provide a link), which suggested that public opinion might be against extra-time tussles. It may be true that my idea is ahead of its time but I believe that if FIFA introduced a pilot scheme to test the fans' reaction to my proposal, the response would be favourable. Why? Because you get to watch a soccer match and, should it end in a stalemate, you get the bonus of a big dust-up between the players afterwards. I also dispute that people that enjoy violence should go to watch wrestling – that's all scripted and choreographed – it's not real fighting. If you want to watch real, hardcore violence, you are better off hanging around outside the pubs in southeast London at closing time on a Friday night (come wearing body armour by the way).

2 – Violence
It is true that soccer players do not directly promote the use of weapons, perhaps in the same way as gangster rappers or the NRA do, but some players such as former Wimbledon hardman, Vinnie Jones, have promoted guns through glamorising them in films such as Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.

http://www.imdb.com...

Nevertheless, I still contend that boys will want to emulate their footballing heroes in the playground by engaging in conventional fights rather than relying on a weapon to do their violent bidding for them.

3 – Red Cards
I disagree that to red card a player for violent conduct during normal and extra time but to allow it in the period immediately following would be in any way contradictory. Take a boxing match. During the round, the opponents are expected to knock seven bells out of each other, but at the end of the round they must stop fighting and return to their respective corners – any boxer that punched his opponent's lights out after the bell had gone would not be awarded points, he would receive a warning.

4 – Grudges
My opponent used Christiano Ronaldo as an example of a player who took a hissy fit like a petulant little girl after his confrontation with Rooney, even though it was him that started it and it was Rooney that got sent off as a result. Fortunately, however, most players are not total, unmitigated scum like Ronaldo and will accept that the post-match fight is just part of the game and shake hands afterwards.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with Ronaldo, by the way, he has a website dedicated to him:

http://www.freewebs.com...

5 – Penalties are thrilling.
I wouldn't suggest starting Barton, rather keep him on the bench and bring him on as a sub if it looks like the game is going to end in a draw. Remember, the fights will only take place on those rare occasions where the match is all-square, even after extra time is played, so the manager will still be inclined to pick players rather than fighters for the starting line-up. My opponent mentioned that soccer violence is currently frowned upon and is punished both on the pitch and in the crowd. True, but what I am saying is that football is a physical game and it arouses a great deal of passion amongst both the players and supporters and violence is in the spirit, heritage, culture and tradition of the sport. I say it's time the rules were revised to accommodate that in a controlled environment.
liberty

Con

Contention 1: Public opinion
My opponent first questions the survey I provide. I assure him and everyone else reading this debate that it exists and I read about it the Greek athletical newspaper "Ομάδα" (=Team) sometime last year in an article about referees some time in April or May. Then, he claims that his idea is ahead of its time. This is false, it was in the past when players would fight over a controversial goal, penalty etc, and that is why we have referees to avoid violence and rules are getting more and more strict against violence. On the contrary, in current days we are making and have made serious successful efforts to stop violence in soccer. Therefore, my opponent is wrong in believing that his idea is ahead of it's time, to the contrary it is behind (!).

Contention 2: Violence
My opponent continues to miss the point of the argument about bad examples and continues his irrelevant argument about violence being better than guns, which is true but COMPLETELY irrelevant. Not only that, his new argument includes the movie business, but this is even more irrelevant because the debate is about soccer and what a movie star that just happened to also have been a soccer player (while playing in a movie you are considered an actor) does, has nothing to do with soccer matches. In conclusion, my opponent once again fails to refute my argument that is therefore extended.

Contention 3: Red Cards
My opponent takes a boxing match as an example in a failed attempt to counter my argument. He fails to notice the reason why what he refers to happens: In boxing, you can't hit your opponent between rounds or after the end of the match (while still in the ring), simply because the game is not underway (paused or ended) and your opponent cannot defend himself. This example can not under any circumstance be compared with what I presented in this (3rd) contention.

Contention 4: Grudges
Personally, being a Manchester City fan (fierce rival of Man. United), I despise of both Rooney and Ronaldo, despite accepting their huge soccer talent. In spite of this my opponent basically strengthens my argument by showing exactly the kind of grudges can be devoted between fans and players (that of his own grudge against Ronaldo). Imagine what would English public opinion think about Portuguese if they had gained up on Rooney and injured him. Therefore just because you dislike someone doesn't mean you should hit him

Contention 5: Penalties are thrilling
My opponent says that managers could bring on players like Barton later on in the game when the match is heading towards a draw. He still fails to understand that Barton is a bad example. If Barton makes the team (even as a sub), this will motivate children to learn to be violent in order to play soccer that is currently the most popular sport in the word, therefore
Millions will be motivated to become like Barton in order to play profession or armature and be good at an extra skill (violence). If this was allowed we would have accidents resulting to injuries and hate between players about hitting, while promoting violence in other parts of children's lives.
I have already responded to the claim about this supposed heritage, still my opponent repeats it. If violence was in fact a heritage of soccer it wouldn't be rejected by the sport and banned by the rules! As for my opponent's claim about a supposed controlled situation, I would like to remind him about my example of the children in the schoolyard or in the neighbourhood pitch.

In conclusion, my opponent failed to correctly refute many of my point (I extended my 2nd Contention twice!) and also failed to provide ANY contention or arguments of his own, because he failed to defend his Round 1 argument and only refuted my own points without notable success as I explain above.

Therefore I urge negation.

Thank you very much.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by demosthenes12 8 years ago
demosthenes12
I play rugby and soccer, furthermore I'm a pacifist. Violence on a pitch and violence on the streets are two very different ideas. I respect that in rugby, there is more blood and pain than soccer. I don't see why we need violence in soccer. If you want to see violence, go to war. if not, play soccer. don't mix fighting with soccer. Soccer has its own identity and should maintain that separate from other violent sports.
Posted by sgtsledge 9 years ago
sgtsledge
Hello
I believe that I like the definition that Derek gave for a twonk its very humourous
Posted by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
G'day Brian,
Surely nobody is denied a place at varsity based on accent. How can you be sure?
There is some feeling of homogeneity here. It's often difficult to tell a South Dunedin bogan from a millionaire by the way they dress or even the car they drive, but there are exceptions.
Very similar in most other ways except riparian rights - whereby the public have access rights to any significant stream or body of water.

I think (on closer inspection) that "twonk" is short for "twonker" which = "twit" + "plonker".
Posted by brian_eggleston 9 years ago
brian_eggleston
Hello Derek.

One of the great advantages of living somewhere like NZ is that it is a largely classless society - nobody is pre-judged on their accent, knocked back for a university place or a job because they have a working class backround like people are in the UK.

I don't know what "twonk" is. "Twock" is to take without consent, steal a motor vehicle in other words, but that's probably not approriate to what you are watching!
Posted by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Brian,
NZ is a lot like the UK (particularly in Christchurch) but we don't really have identifiable toffs, nor working class.
Brixton is synonymous with riots, at least in my mind. The great James Lovelock was born there, which doesn't seem consistent at all, but there you go.

We used to play bulldog in Canada back in the 70's. Ended as soon as the last one is off his feet.
Scoutmasters didn't encourage biffo.

Just watching "Ashes to Ashes" which is extremely good. What is a "Twonk"? Anything specific?
Posted by brian_eggleston 9 years ago
brian_eggleston
Hi Derek!

I played rugby at school and enjoyed it. We were not allowed to play soccer at school (or even outside school whilst wearing our school uniforms) because the headmaster was a toff and a snob and considered it a working class game!

Whilst unsupervised, we did play Brixton Cricket (Brixton is a violent inner city suburb of London a bit like the Bronx in NYC) in which extreme violence was an integral part of the sport.

Another great game English kids play is "British Bulldog". You get two equal number of kids lined up opposite each other like two opposing armies - at least ten each side. The object is for one of the players to make it across "no man's land" and through the enemy's lines. If he is successful, he can rejoin his team, if not he stands aside. Each team take it in turns until there are only two boys left standing and the eventual winner is decided by a fight....actually, I might C&P this into my debate!
Posted by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
I've got to say that while soccer was clearly devised to allow sport without violence,
violence is what a lot of fans would like to see.
I'm surprised you're not more into rugby where rucking (straffing someone's back with your sprigs when they're shielding the ball on the ground) is perfectly legal.
When the adrenaline is flowing, there are people who would see even cricket become Bronkian hypercricket (where you hit each other over the head with cricket bats).
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
brian_egglestonlibertyTied
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 
Vote Placed by pbplk58 7 years ago
pbplk58
brian_egglestonlibertyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by demosthenes12 8 years ago
demosthenes12
brian_egglestonlibertyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
brian_egglestonlibertyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Vote Placed by mrbullfrog11 8 years ago
mrbullfrog11
brian_egglestonlibertyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Vote Placed by Jamesothy 9 years ago
Jamesothy
brian_egglestonlibertyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:25 
Vote Placed by Chunshwi 9 years ago
Chunshwi
brian_egglestonlibertyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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