The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
10 Points

Should Schools Ban Sports?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/3/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,334 times Debate No: 45152
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




Schools should get rid of sports. Here are some reasons why:

1. Distraction
2. Lower grades
3. Big Costs

It's 9:00 PM. You tap your finger nervously on the table looking outside the window. It's the night before the big test, and you still have 4 more chapters to study. The problem is, you can't concentrate. You're thankful for the track tomorrow morning. Before you know it, you drift off.

Next morning, after track, it's the big test. You look at the questions flummoxed. Over the next 30 minutes, you guess the questions as well as you can. The teacher hands back your paper. A C-! You know you're parents aren't going to be happy. Around the world, school sports create a distraction for kids. We need to stop this from happening. After all, schools are made for learning not for sports.


Sports should not be banned in school.

Student athletes have been found to have higher GPA's on average than those of non-student athletes[1].

Sports encourage hard work and persistence, things necessary for not only school, but for life. As a student athlete I can tell you that testing and homework is easier during the season for this reason:

I'm on a structure. A structure of hard work. So when I leave Cross Country practice, I don't keel over and sleep on top of my homework, simply because I'm tired. No! At that point I'm so desensitized to 'tired' and so used to working hard, that I just do my homework.

Scholarships are a great way to help pay for college, and many scholarships are athletic scholarships. Take away sports, and suddenly college gets much more expensive.

If you get rid of sports in schools, you are outright asking for the obesity rate to go up. The concept is simple. Exercise, and you burn calories. Sit around in your desk, then go home and sit around, you keep calories. Perhaps some of you are saying, "Hey I don't play sports, and I'm not fat!" Good for you, but for some peoples' genetics and body shape, it's easier for them to put on weight, so they need sports.

Sports give people something to do, a common purpose with others, and can provide themselves with a sense of worth. Participation in sports is known to reduce levels of depression[2]. This goes along with obesity. If someone is fat, or perhaps just isn't happy with their out-of shape body, sports can be a great remedy to that.

Thanks for reading.

Debate Round No. 1


Good Stating.

As you know, athletic activities are a huge burden on cash-strapped schools. For example, Premont Independent School District in Premont, Texas, was in trouble. The state had threatened to shut it down because for their financial problems and academic failures. The school hadn't had a music teacher in years, and the high had sealed the science labs, which were infested with mold. Yet, they still had football, basketball, volleyball, track, tennis, cheer-leading, and baseball teams.

One day, the Superintendent Ernest Singleton made a bold decision: He canceled sports. All of them. By suspending sports, he realized the district could save $150,000 a year! That first semester, 80% of students passed their classes compared to the 50% the previous fall.

In many schools, sports are so entrenched that no one realizes their actual cost. New bleachers can cost half a million dollars, and maintaining a grass field can cost more than $20,000 per year! When teacher-coaches travel for games, schools have to hire substitutes. They also need to pay for buses, the team, the band, and the cheerleaders. Not to mention the meals and hotels on the road too. For home games, schools often pay for security, painting the lines on the field, and cleaning up. Concessions can rarely can cover these costs.

The district has a lot of work to do before its students can feel the kind of pride in their sports teams. But students have proved their ability to adapt. Will more schools follow Premont's lead? They should.


My opponent uses an example of a Texas school that banned sports and benefited from it. Voters should not be convinced by this example for two reasons.

The first reason is that Texas is notorious for inadequately funding their schools[1]. So this story is less about how bad sports are for schools, and more about how terribly funded Texas public schools are. The school my opponent references is in an unusual situation, one that most aren't in. For this school, it clearly was the right choice to ban sports, seeing as their funding was crap.

Secondly, I'd like to talk about some of the prices my opponent is mentioning. For instance, half a million for bleachers. If the only price for bleachers was half a million, then sports would be a problem, but there are many price options[2], ranging from a mere $900 to $56,000. If a school can't bear the price of their sports program, it's because they are A) Inadequately funded, or B) Poorly handling their funds. You would only buy half a million dollar bleachers if it was proportionally appropriate to your funding. Schools do need to be smart with their money, and I'm not against taking some money out of sports programs in certain scenarios, but the last thing we should do is completely ban them, and thus ban the benefits that come along with them.

Debate Round No. 2


BlueDestroyer434 forfeited this round.


End debate.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 2 years ago
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: Conduct to con due to the forfeit done by pro. Con has refuted pro's lower grades argument (the only argument with A REASON provided in the first round by pro) with GPA's, and has presented several new ones, but pro has not touched on con's arguments. Pro later gives the big costs arguments, which con successfully addressed, in the last round, but pro ignores con's arguments in the first round.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments are far better supported and warranted. They're more rational, they include more examples, and frankly, most of Pro's arguments are simply assertions and single instances, which are all well-rebutted by Con. Con also has the more reliable sources, and, due to the forfeit, the better conduct.