The Instigator
Benfloorman
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
michaelperry13
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

Should football players have to wear more protective gear

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 4 votes the winner is...
michaelperry13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/10/2014 Category: Sports
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,436 times Debate No: 43700
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

Benfloorman

Con

Football players already wear a ton of pads. What's next you r not allow to touch the players and you have to wear bubble wrap
michaelperry13

Pro

First off, I'd like to say that it is a ridiculous statement for you to say "what's next? Wearing bubble rap and no touching?" What you're basically saying is that adding a few more pads at this time will ultimately lead the end of the integrity of football. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com.... You are shifting the focus off of the claim at hand, (football players shouldn't wear more pads,) and going into hypothetical situations. Focus solely on adding a few more pads, not bubble wrap.
You have to remember that because football is a contact sport and very dangerous, pads are very important. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that many football players, after retiring, suffer lots of brain damage and their lives are impacted a ton. 5 of the players on the chiefs even sued because of the brain injuries they sustained. This is an article explaining that.

"http://www.nytimes.com...;

Because of this, I believe it is important to keep our football players safe.
The only way that we could do this (by your logic, because you said you don't want to modify the rules of the game ("What's next? Wearing bubble rap and no touching?")) is by adding more padding. It would in no way hinder the players' playing, and it would keep everyone safer. Games would run more smoothly on account of not having to stop as much for injuries, teams wouldn't lose their star players because of silly injuries, and players would get the playing time in the sport that they love.
Once again, I remind you that the players on the field ARE people. By not giving them more padding, be it in their helmets or elsewhere, they are paying the price.
Debate Round No. 1
Benfloorman

Con

First off like you said I was trying to say that hypothetically. And second off wearing more pads would restircted you. Also for example their have been claims that helmets haven't stopped some concussion. Also i see what you mean by they are humans but they signed up for this job so they know that it is a risk. And frankly would you really want to see a man walking around in bulletproof vest because didn't you know they could get shot while that they are playing. I mean you did say that you don't want them to get hurt
michaelperry13

Pro

In response to the degree to which this debate is hypothetical, you are taking it too far. You are saying that we can not give football players more pads without compromising the game of football. I'm telling you that giving football players more padding doesn't mean that we are eventually going to wrap them in bubble wrap and modify the rules.

Do you have any evidence that more padding would restrict players that much? The technology of the padding that we currently have is very light and slim enough that it doesn't restrict the players too much... so if we put money and research into it, I'm sure they could be made even better without hindering the players' performance.

I am also aware that sometimes helmets do not stop concussions... that is why I'm proposing we create safer, better padded helmets so they CAN always prevent injury. We are working towards the goal of keeping people safe. I recognize the problem that the helmets are not perfect, so why not make them better?

Yes. Players go into football games knowing that they could get hurt. Even though they know it's a possibility, that doesn't mean they WANT to get injured. They signed up for the job and that they know the risk, but are you saying that means that we shouldn't make it safer for them? They love their jobs and all, but I'm sure if you approached a quarterback or a wide receiver or any other player in the NFL and said to him, "Hey. We want to make the game of football safer for you. Would you be okay with that?" that he would say "I would love that."

I never suggested that the players wear bullet proof vests. The theoretical probability of a football player getting shot during a game is infinitesimally small, whereas you can hardly watch one football game where a player doesn't get injured. So yes, I don't want them to get hurt... but I would never suggest bullet proof vests.
Debate Round No. 2
Benfloorman

Con

Benfloorman forfeited this round.
michaelperry13

Pro

I am disappointed that you did not post your closing statements, because I was looking forward to finishing this debate.

However, seeing as my opponent has forfeited this last round, and I refuted all of their arguments in round 2, I strongly urge a vote for pro.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
Benfloormanmichaelperry13Tied
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 KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
Benfloormanmichaelperry13Tied
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: Naturally, I already agree with pro because I'm all about health & safety. Pro had better arguments, which were backed up by sources, and he didn't forfeit.
Vote Placed by kawaii_crazy 3 years ago
kawaii_crazy
Benfloormanmichaelperry13Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments were not very detailed; Con FF; Pro had sources
Vote Placed by MassiveDump 3 years ago
MassiveDump
Benfloormanmichaelperry13Tied
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: Forfeit