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

Should there be an age limit over 5 for dabgerous sports?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/18/2016 Category: Sports
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 601 times Debate No: 89830
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




The National Institutes of Health"funded study, published online in the journal Neurology, finds that former National Football League players who participated in tackle football before the age of 12 are more likely to have memory and thinking problems as adults.
Also "Kids that are younger than 8 years old are less coordinated and have slower reaction times than adults because they are still growing and developing" Acording to that"s why you shouldnt let your kids play when they are younger then 5 becaue they have a lot of risks.


First, I assume that by "dabgerous" my opponent means dangerous, as dabgerous is to the best of my knowledge not a word.

Moving on.

Now, by the resolution's specific mention of the age 5, I can argue as con that the age limit should be higher than 5. I find that the age limit should be the age of 12. According to an NIH study that was referenced by my opponent, children under the age of 12 who engage in tackle football are more likely to have memory and thinking problems as adults. To impose an age limit of 5 would destroy the values my opponent pretends to support.

I ask my judges to adhere to the rules and judge only using information provided in the debate and not project their own opinions into their decision.
Debate Round No. 1
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ballpit 2 years ago
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: Arguments to condue to the fact that pro effectively disagreed with their own argument in the argument they provided. Cons argument also uses pro's source against him. Neither side provided a link to the source that was used so no points on sources.