The Instigator
sensfan
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
9spaceking
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Should Fighting Stay In Hockey?

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 5 votes the winner is...
sensfan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/8/2014 Category: Sports
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 810 times Debate No: 62904
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

sensfan

Pro

Fighting should stay in hockey cause it gives the fans great excitement. Also the NHL is making fighting safer so that players can't get hurt as easy. Plus fighting allows players to let some of their anger out and makes them feel better the rest of the game.
9spaceking

Con

Why not have fighting be allowed outside of hockey---

And in boxing too? :3
Debate Round No. 1
sensfan

Pro

Do you mean fighting in other sports? If or if not I don't agree that it should be allowed because hurting people on the streets make our world worse than it already is. In other sports it doesn't seem to fit in with the game. Boxing already basically fights but its different fighting than hockey.
9spaceking

Con

Boxing is different fighting, but still fighting. My opponent basically concedes in this point.
Debate Round No. 2
sensfan

Pro

Fighting is necessary in hockey because it will help release their anger. Also what would happen if fighting was banned? There would be more injuries because players would take their anger out in a different way, lets say in checking, tripping, boarding, etc. I think the main issue people have about fighting is that players get injured. The players are putting themselves at risk. They don't have to fight if they don't want to. Its the player's own choice.
9spaceking

Con

Fighting in boxing is same as fighting in hockey as my opponent describes. It helps release anger--just like in hockey. Players make their choice to be injured--just like in hockey. They don't have to fight if they don't want to--just. Like. In. Hockey. There is no reason why fighting should stay in hockey. Let it be released and availible in boxing as well!
Vote me.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by 1harderthanyouthink 2 years ago
1harderthanyouthink
@YYW How am I dim if you said that Con narrowly won? I'm sorry, its just that 1 sentence arguments don't sway me. And he was right. If Colton Orr wasn't allowed to fight 23 times in 2009-10 he'd find a different way to rack up unnecessary PIMs. Boarding has a much higher injury rate than fighting. Collisions cause the most injuries, whereas fighting rarely causes injury [1]. If a bunch of goons are not be allowed to fight, they might slash someone in the head/board people for no reason, etc.

"I've watched enough hockey that I can tell you clearly that if you take the release valve of fighting out of it, you'd have a lot more dirty playing, and probably more injuries would result from players not being able to blow off steam by fighting." - Dr. David Milzman

Pro's not an idiot. Neither am I.

[1] http://health.usnews.com...
Posted by 1harderthanyouthink 2 years ago
1harderthanyouthink
This isn't an argument on whether boxing should be allowed - conduct.
If you spend your whole argument on boxing... - argument
In reply to the S&G point for "lets," I give S&G for "availible" and no punctuation in the first sentence.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 1harderthanyouthink 2 years ago
1harderthanyouthink
sensfan9spacekingTied
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: This debate still confuses me quite a lot and I've reread it over 10 times and I've been reported for vote bombing but I still hold the opinion that pro's arguments are better. Con twisted Pro's argument and tried to pass it as an argument. Doesn't sway me. I do think that what Pro said was true, although it'd be better if either of them cited, and that's why I think Pro won.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
sensfan9spacekingTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: *scratches his head* Really? Alright. Both sides obviously have different interpretations of the resolution. Pro interprets the resolution as "Hockey should continue to include fighting." Con interprets it as "Fighting should only ever occur in sports if it takes place in hockey." I don't much like either outlook, and neither debater makes any efforts to defend their stance, simply pumping out their own arguments and ignoring those of their opponents. Whoever is "right" gets the win. So you're leaving that up to your voters, which is a mistake - you should do all the thinking for us. In any event, that's what's happened. Three reasons I'm siding with Pro - 1) he started the debate and therefore has my presumption, requiring Con to counter it, 2) he contextually defined in R1, which Con ignored, and 3) it better fits the resolution as I see it by adding the fewest words and providing the most intuitive definition by my estimation. A few words may well have changed that.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
sensfan9spacekingTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: While Con's semantic argument was amusing as heck, in terms of scoring, the intent was really clear, and it seems Con conceded the intent--that fighting should be allowed in hockey.
Vote Placed by YYW 2 years ago
YYW
sensfan9spacekingTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Fighting is not necessary in hockey, and PRO didn't make the case that it should stay other than that it "helps release anger." CON explains how "releasing anger" is not part of the sport, implying that it shouldn't be there. CON wins, though narrowly. CON should have made a more persuasive case. PRO should have talked about why fighting is indispensable to hockey, not only that it 'makes players feel better.' That is not a sufficient reason to ground the notion that fighting should stay. The person who vote bombed for PRO is clearly quite dim.
Vote Placed by RevL8ion 2 years ago
RevL8ion
sensfan9spacekingTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 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: S&G to Con since pro said "lets" instead of "let's." Arguments to Con due to Pro's concession.