The Instigator
Gibby97
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MagicAintReal
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

More Teams Should Consider the Steinbrenner Hair and Beard Rules

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...
MagicAintReal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/11/2015 Category: Sports
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 425 times Debate No: 78583
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Gibby97

Pro

This first round is for acceptance. I support that teams should follow the Yankees example and ban players from having long hair and beards. Good luck to my opponent.
MagicAintReal

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Gibby97

Pro

Gibby97 forfeited this round.
MagicAintReal

Con

Pro did not provide any reasons for why teams other than the Yankees should ban players from having long hair/beards.

I reject the resolution, because reaching the ultimate goal of more wins is irrelevant to how long player's follicle expressions are.

They ban players from abusing drugs and alcohol, because drugs and alcohol can negatively affect win potential.
Subjectively, longer hair can negatively affect a player's appearance, but if there were a long-haired pitcher who always throws 100 mph and strikes everyone out, trying to remedy their appearance would not increase win potential.

If teams are about winning, appearance by way of long hair or beards is not relevant.

This ban would be unreasonable to the players, because it would value an irrelevant characteristic like appearance, which is unrelated to the player's ability to contribute to win potential.
Debate Round No. 2
Gibby97

Pro

First I would like to apologize to my opponent for not arguing the second round, as I was focused on studies. The ban is used to unite players. For example when the Cincinnati Reds instituted their own facial hair ban in 2014, the goal was to "construct a team first atmosphere". The Yankees goal on facial hair was to make a professional more classy look. The idea behind the hair ban is for the athletes and the team to look professional. Although the ban had nothing to do with wins and loses, the ban creates unity and a professional look to an organization.

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com...
MagicAintReal

Con

The idea of a ban uniting people is somewhat funny...but if the whole point of the ban is to unite players, then couldn't the players be united by their unified ability to control their follicle projections?

Couldn't we foster unity through liberty?
Furthermore, aesthetics and professionalism are loosely related. Yes to look professional, you cannot look like some shlub on the street, but someone's physical appearance is subjective, and follicle expressions are perceived differently.
http://www.sciencedirect.com...

Someone could have short hair/facial hair and look unprofessional, conversely, someone could have well-maintained, long hair/facial hair and look completely professional.

So to achieve unity and professionalism, one does not need to limit the privileges of elite professional athletes. In fact, I argue, that by allowing these elite athletes to reasonably express themselves via their hair length, one can unify them through this communal freedom, and encourage professionalism within these liberties.

I also argue that claiming all teams should follow this ban is ignoring that each team has different levels of professionalism, and different levels of unity. For those teams who are really unified without the ban, to enact a ban may reduce unification.

1. Short hair does not = professionalism.
2. Short hair does not = unity
3. Short hair is irrelevant to the SHARED goal between all teams to increase win potential.

Randy Johnson was one of the least aesthetic players of all time, but check his stats...his long hair and ugly face were irrelevant, and his ability to increase win potential fostered unity by success on his teams.
Debate Round No. 3
Gibby97

Pro

When Randy Johnson joined the Yankess in 2005, he did become clean shaved and followed the Yankee code and tradition. As I explained before, the Hair and Beard Rules have been used throughout the history of sports. Also as I wrap up I'd like to quote an article from Jim McCarter when he discussed the John Wooden Hair Rule: "Its not about the dress code, it's about being disciplined to do what we are suppose to do. If you can't follow a simple rule, how can you do the tough jobs?"* Thank you for participating in this debate and best of luck in the future.

http://www.baseball-reference.com...
http://www.jimmccarter.com...*
MagicAintReal

Con

Pro supports the resolution that teams should enact a ban on long hair because:
"The Hair and Beard Rules have been used throughout the history of sports."

My response:
This is an appeal to tradition; it's a logical fallacy, and therefore I reject the conclusion based on this invalid reasoning.
Just because something has been done throughout history doesn't make it true, moral, or a good idea.
The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way."
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Pro brings up a quote from Jim McCarter about the hair rule:
"It's about being disciplined to do what we are supposed to do."

My response:
Silly me...all this time I thought baseball players were supposed to play baseball and win games for their team, which I wrongly assumed. Now I know that what baseball players are supposed to do is have short hair and follow antequated subjective ideas of professionalism and discipline.

You know what makes baseball so awesome?
Hair length.

I reject the resolution, because irrelevantly banning long hair is antithetical to individual freedoms on which this country, and its national pastime, baseball, are cherished.
I'd rather watch hairy men crush homeruns than watch well groomed puppets play like crap.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
Gibby97MagicAintRealTied
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: ff
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
Gibby97MagicAintRealTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I just don't see much in the way of reason to side with Pro. He argues that professionalism and unity result from these hair and beard rules, but doesn't argue why either of those are beneficial. Meanwhile, Con shows that both are possible, and perhaps even more likely in a broad set of teams, through allowing the players more liberty to express follicularly. Pro appeals to tradition in an attempt to explain and points to the Yankees as a sign that it's working, but never places in the necessary links to explain how this policy's tradition is well-warranted, nor why the Yankees owe much of their success to these rules. Con really didn't have much in the way of offense, but he didn't need it, mainly because Pro isn't meeting his basic BoP - to show that these rules would benefit sports teams. Conduct to Con for the forfeit.