The Instigator
judopop1
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
JavaDeano
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

Should the sport of competitive eating be banned?

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/8/2011 Category: Sports
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,637 times Debate No: 15856
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

judopop1

Con

It has been an all time controversy that competitive eating should be banned, I am here to defend it.
JavaDeano

Pro

I accept this debate and wish my competitor the best of luck and hope for a heated intellectual argument.
I will allow my opponent to open up with his argument and then i will give my rebuttal.

good luck
Debate Round No. 1
judopop1

Con

1. This resolution is extreme. There are other solutions to solving the harm competitive eating causes. First, the competitions must post the nutritional value of the food they give out so the population will be educated about the food given. Additionally, eaters should be licensed; people over the weight of 250 pounds will not be able to have this license because they are overweight. This should be the resolution to be passed, not this extreme statement that has no good reason to be passed. It is important that the stem of a problem be dealt with.
JavaDeano

Pro

In Response to my competitors argument.
Competitive eating, The sport where participants must eat either the largest amount of food within a time limit or in variation be the fastest to eat a portion of food, ( most likely still an excessive amount).

Therefore a 'sport' where the only goal is to gorge the body needlessly.
with many tactics including guzzling needless amount of liquid to 'stretch' the stomach.

In response to my opponents argument that the nutritional value of the food must be posted, In a competition where the biggest portion of food is eaten, nutritional value has no meaning. In Competition competitors will continue to ingest harmful amounts of food regardless of the nutritional value involved.

As for 'the population will be educated about the food given' I fail to see where this applies in the argument,

Too much of anything is bad, lets not forget the tragic case of Jennifer Strange of Sacramento who tragically passed away after a water drinking contest. Being it that Water is calorie- free and still impacts your health severely when over-indulged for 'sport' One can only assume the impact of copious amounts of Pizza, Pies and other Full of fat foods.

As for the exemption of overweight people from the sport.
Again, merely excluding overweight people will not help the problem at all,
Anyone who eats a dangerous level of food whether 50 pounds or 500 puts there bodies at great risk.

As well the aforementioned tragic case of water intoxication, There is also the case of competitive eater Mort Hurst who suffered a serious stroke during a contest.
It is well Known the long term health risks associated with this 'sport' Diabetes, obesity, strokes, heart failure,
But also the chance of injuries involved such as Gastric Rupture, which is effectivly a burst stomach and in most cases is fatal. and Severe esophagus damage.

Dear Voters, This is not a sport where physically and mentally trained athletes compete for glory or respect, this is merely self mutilation on the human body and therefore must be stopped.

References:
http://www.slate.com...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
Debate Round No. 2
judopop1

Con

All of my opponents arguments are of the sport being a mutilation and goes off on the bad effects of competitive eating. However my opponent has failed to realize that it is a CHOICE to join competitive eating.

He also failed to realize what I was trying to suggest in my post above. I am simply stating a better way to solve the problem. This resolution is unfair to those who know the effects and still want to compete. Most competitive eaters are not obese according to (http://familydoctormag.com...).

Voters I should win this debate because my one offensive argument stands and his arguments are all about the sport being unhealthy however it is clear that the participant has a choice if they want to join the competition.

Good Debate!
JavaDeano

Pro

In Response to my opponents comment.
I am very aware it is a choice to compete, it seems my opponent is opting for the arrogant route in his rebuttal and the desperate ploy of ' we all have right to eat ludicrous amounts of food for sport'
that is if dear voters you agree to call this a sport.

Although i am fully against the nanny state policy and am a supporter and practitioner of many controversial sports,
for example, Boxing, Rugby, Bare Knuckle Contests.
These sports are governed safely and professionally by responsible governing bodies.

Competitive eating on the other hand is not, with competitors mainly touring to find contests and records to beat.

Voters in my true opinion i do not class this past-time as a true sport,
There is no skill involved, merely the motivation to be a glutton is needed.

As for the 'Right' to compete,
sadly a desperate ploy by my opponent, i had hoped for a heated debate without resorting to the rights card.

If People wish to eat unhealthy and dangerous levels of food and damaged the bodies then of course they have the right to do so.
But should we really reward such behaviour?

People also have the right to self harm, shall we have skin carving contests for those who enjoy such a thing?
No, Of course not. Just because we have right to do something does not mean we must be rewarded for it.

Dear Voters this is not a sport, just cheap entertainment for people who wish to watch people gorge on food and vomit afterwords.

I Thank my opponent for this my very first debate on the site.
And may the best man win.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
Really Kohai? That is horrible.
Posted by judopop1 6 years ago
judopop1
I debate with one contention that if passed, I win.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
judopop1JavaDeanoTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: : The debate seemed to be going backwards. It seemed like Con was arguing "competative eating should remain legal," while Pro was really only shooting down Con's points. He only made one point at the end of his round. However, Pro did not really address that point. He only made a short 2 paragraph arguement and didn't really touch on it. I would like to see this redone, but as 4 rounds, where Pro starts by giving reasons why Cometative Eating should be banned.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
judopop1JavaDeanoTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate seemed to be going backwards. It seemed like Con was arguing "competative eating should remain legal," while Pro was really only shooting down Con's points. He only made one point at the end of his round. However, Pro did not really address that point. He only made a short 2 paragraph arguement and didn't really touch on it. I would like to see this redone, but as 4 rounds, where Pro starts by giving reasons why Cometative Eating should be banned.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
judopop1JavaDeanoTied
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: "No, Of course not. Just because we have right to do something does not mean we must be rewarded for it." - true, but that does not mean it should be banned, in order to support that you have to remove the right to participate
Vote Placed by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
judopop1JavaDeanoTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: A Easily Won Debate.
Vote Placed by boredinclass 6 years ago
boredinclass
judopop1JavaDeanoTied
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: pro had many more reasons unanswered