The Instigator
TheRightOpinions
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
EAT_IT_SUKA
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Should rugby and other violent sports, wrestling boxing be compulsory in schools

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 1 vote the winner is...
EAT_IT_SUKA
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,153 times Debate No: 72256
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

TheRightOpinions

Con

No of course it shouldn't, some kids are not up for this and it embarrasses them, we must also take into account physical harm could be caused. It is child abuse and a way of embarrassing kids. I know some dummies will say its about toughening people up but its unlikely it will happen in real life. Also IT IS NOT EXERCISE AT ALL BECAUSE WRESTLING ISN'T RUNNING AROUND, AND RUGBY IS PHYSICAL ABUSE. although its not that serious physical abuse but people could feel uncomfortable doing it so there are some dumb people who think people should have to embarrass themselves for the sake of some dumb pe thing but after what i have said no one could come up with an opposite arguement
EAT_IT_SUKA

Pro

Hello, CON. Your thesis is: 'Rugby and other violent sports, wrestling boxing should not be compulsory in schools.' My thesis is: 'Rugby and other violent sports, wrestling boxing should be compulsory in schools.'

The resolution is 'Should rugby and other violent sports, wrestling boxing be compulsory in schools,' however, rugby, wrestling and boxing are not violent sports. PRO hasn't provided any definitions, so I have the honors now.

DEFINITION OF 'VIOLENT' :
Noun
1: Behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something

REFERENCE:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...


DEFINITION OF 'WRESTLING' :
Noun
The sport or activity of grappling with an opponent and trying to throw or hold them down on the ground, typically according to a code of rules.

REFERENCE:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...


So as you can see, if you wrestle with someone, that person doesn't intend to harm you, all they intend is to hold you to the ground, with means of using force if necessary

The article 'Should Boxing be Banned? Arguments For and Against,' [1] states:

'There is no general intent in boxing to injure the opponent. Rather, the primary aim is to score the most points by hitting strictly defined regions of the body.'

Therefore, boxing is not violent. Rugby is not violent because when tackling in rugby, all you mean to do is bring the opponent down by using force, you don't intend to hurt anybody. This debate should already be over because my opponent's listed sports are not violent but, even if they were violent:

REBUTTALS:
1) 'No of course it shouldn't, some kids are not up for this and it embarrasses them,'

Yeah, and track-and-field in my school is mandatory, I don't feel up to it (I don't like jumping and running around; I like more organized sports) but I still do it anyway. CON also said that it embarrasses kids but why would a kid be embarrassed?

2) 'we must also take into account physical harm could be caused. It is child abuse and a way of embarrassing kids.'

Every physical activity has the potential to end up in harm. Again, track-and-field is mandatory in my school, and it can end up in pain. Again, how does any sport embarrass somebody, let alone a 'violent' sport?

3) 'I know some dummies will say its about toughening people up but its unlikely it will happen in real life'

...What? Sports do toughen you up. The article: 'Should Boxing be Banned? Arguments For and Against,' states:

'Boxing requires a high degree of physical fitness, if you wish to be successful, and so it teaches young people to look after their bodies.'

You have to be fit to play any sport.

4) 'Also IT IS NOT EXERCISE AT ALL BECAUSE WRESTLING ISN'T RUNNING AROUND, AND RUGBY IS PHYSICAL ABUSE'

I want to point out that my opponent just did the Internet equivalent of shouting. Shouting at your opponent in a debate is never acceptable, and there should be no exceptions here. Apparently, the only form of exercise is running around. How about push-ups? Also, rugby does involve running around, and CON claimed it was a violent sport. Rugby is not physical abuse.

DEFINITION OF 'PHYSICAL ABUSE' :
Physical abuse is an act of a person involving contact of another person intended to cause feelings of physical pain, injury, or other physical suffering or bodily harm.

REFERENCES:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

You do not intend to hurt somebody when tackling in rugby, therefore, rugby is not physical abuse.

5) 'although its not that serious physical abuse but people could feel uncomfortable doing it so there are some dumb people who think people should have to embarrass themselves for the sake of some dumb pe thing but after what i have said no one could come up with an opposite arguement.'

My opponent just admitted that violent sports don't have very much physical abuse. How do kids get embarrassed from a sport?

I just refuted everything my opponent said, and demonstrated that rugby, boxing and wrestling are not violent sports. Therefore, I urge the audience to vote for PRO.

[1]-http://superbrainwave.hubpages.com...







Debate Round No. 1
TheRightOpinions

Con

Ok, i never said i wanted it banned or anything but people that dont want to do it shouldnt have to, forcing physical activity is abuse. if its not forced then it isnt.
EAT_IT_SUKA

Pro

CON has lost. CON's last statement was the following:

'Ok, i never said i wanted it banned or anything but people that dont want to do it shouldnt have to, forcing physical activity is abuse. if its not forced then it isnt.'

That entire statement is irrelevant. (S)He hasn't responded to the fact that no sports are violent, and the resolution is: 'Should rugby and other violent sports, wrestling boxing be compulsory in schools.' Therefore, the statement 'but people that dont want to do it shouldnt have to, forcing physical activity is abuse. if its not forced then it isnt,' does not have anything to do with the resolution.

Vote PRO.


Debate Round No. 2
TheRightOpinions

Con

what people dont really want to do it, they dont need to or they dont care.

ever thought of that, it isnt violent but it is very rough and i remember getting hurt and wet and everything and people laughed at me so you havnt even said

so there is a club for it if people want to play it

you havnt said a thing about why it is compulsory you should of just said why it should be compulsory, my idea of violent meant rough so i got the words wrong.

so yes answer why every kid in the entire country(s) should have to do it when it doesnt help them

but why is it in the curriculum. answer that
EAT_IT_SUKA

Pro

'what people dont really want to do it, they dont need to or they dont care. ever thought of that, it isnt violent but it is very rough and i remember getting hurt and wet and everything and people laughed at me so you havnt even said so there is a club for it if people want to play it you havnt said a thing about why it is compulsory you should of just said why it should be compulsory, my idea of violent meant rough so i got the words wrong. so yes answer why every kid in the entire country(s) should have to do it when it doesnt help them but why is it in the curriculum. answer that'

CON states: 'what people dont really want to do it, they dont need to or they dont care. ever thought of that, it isnt violent but it is very rough,' so CON just admitted there is no violent sport, therefore, violent sports shouldn't be banned.

CON states: 'you havnt said a thing about why it is compulsory you should of just said why it should be compulsory, my idea of violent meant rough so i got the words wrong. so yes answer why every kid in the entire country(s) should have to do it when it doesnt help them but why is it in the curriculum. answer that.' All I have to say is, are you kidding me? I don't have to answer squat, wise guy. You say: 'answer why every kid in the entire country(s) should have to do it when it doesnt help them but why is it in the curriculum. answer that,' and since the resolution is 'Should rugby and other violent sports, wrestling boxing be compulsory in schools,' you are really asking me: 'answer why every kid in the entire country(s) should have to do *play violent sports* when it doesnt help them but why is *violent sports* in the curriculum. answer that.' Nobody should have to play violent sports because they cannot--violent sports do not exist--and violent sports are not in the curriculum because violent sports don't exist.

But I want to point the audience's attention to CON's statement 'you havnt said a thing about why it is compulsory you should of just said why it should be compulsory, my idea of violent meant rough so i got the words wrong.' That was the stupidest thing I have heard all month. I don't need to say anything about why it should be compulsory because it cannot be compulsory--violent sports do not exist--and then CON said 'my idea of violent meant rough so i got the words wrong.' Lord help humanity. What was your thought process behind that statement. Oops, I got the words wrong, but its no big deal, just because nobody knows my definition of violent doesn't mean the debate can't continue. If you wanted violent to mean 'rough,' then you should have put your definition in the first round. But, since you didn't, I had every right to make my own.

Because CON admitted that violent sports don't exist, vote PRO.


Debate Round No. 3
TheRightOpinions

Con

TheRightOpinions forfeited this round.
EAT_IT_SUKA

Pro

Extend.

Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 4
TheRightOpinions

Con

TheRightOpinions forfeited this round.
EAT_IT_SUKA

Pro

CON has forfeited yet another round. I extend all arguments.

Because CON admitted that there is no such thing as a violent sport, vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
TheRightOpinionsEAT_IT_SUKATied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: fffff