Soccer is a more demanding exercise than football
Debate Rounds (4)
let's have this debate in a friendly manner
Soccer is definitely a harder sport than football due to the fact that it is more demanding on the fitness level.
Thank you for accepting my debate and goodluck
let's have a friendly debate :)
ps i love both sports (very fun to play)
The first point to be made in a debate is to properly define the question. In this debate it seems fairly obvious to me that the objective of Pro is to prove that soccer is a "more demanding exercise than football, therefore in a lack of conclusion, Pro will have failed. Furthermore, the term "demanding exercise" is deemed to refer to an exercise (clearly referring to a physical activity) "requiring much skill or effort". Clearly, therefore, it is my job to prove that football requires more skill or effort than soccer.
Regarding effort "a vigorous or determined attempt", one must be wary of believing that a larger amount of running or calorie burning equates to effort. Effort is clearly defined as referring to shorter bursts of greater power rather than the other way around. Football is similar in this aspect to effort, as it consists of short violent altercations, while soccer consists of lengthy time periods in which little can occur.
Regarding skill "the ability to do something well", one can not very well make an argument either way because of the fact that the sports are extremely different.
All definitions are found using _______ definition searches on Google.
Sorry for the typo, the debate will be on what it says on the title
Con has stated that effort is "a vigorous or determined attempt" and defined effort as "referring to shorter bursts of greater power rather than the other way around" (which I assume the other way around as a continuous burst of power). He has gotten his definitions from google which really isn't a credible source. According to Oxford, effort is "a vigorous or determined attempt" or "strenuous physical or mental exertion". Therefore, cons assumption that football is "similar in this aspect (the one in which he got after reading his definition from google) to effort" is false. By going with Oxford's definitions of effort, soccer is clearly a sport that requires more effort due to the fact that it is vigorous throughout the whole game with minimal interruptions and with the ongoing requirement of "physical and mental exertion." As con has stated, football is more short and abrupt while soccer is more lengthy at a time which is exactly the reason soccer is more demanding. There is only one break in between the two time periods in soccer while there are countless amounts of whistle-blowing in football. Also, there are only 11 players in a team with only 2 substitutions per game while in football, there is a defensive team and an offensive team. According to livestrong.com, an average soccer player runs 10 km per game and an average football player runs a mere 200-300 yards per game.
Soccer does require more skill and it can be proven. In a game, the players are not allowed to use their hands which is one of the most useful parts of the body. They must do everything without their hands and penalized unless they do otherwise.
Football as everyone knows is made up with a bunch of plays that have been pre-made. The coach yells out which play to execute after every down. However, in the game of soccer, anything can happen and the players must act quickly to the situation no matter how difficult. It just comes to show how much mental along with physical strength it takes.
I have refuted all of con's arguments and stated why I believe soccer is a much more demanding sport with statistics.
I look forward to con's next argument
Pro, I sincerely wonder how the claim can be made that Google definitions in unreliable just before providing a source which gives the same definition
Secondly, in my six years of football experience, I find it hard to beleive that a player runs merely 250 yards in the course of a game. i went to your source and could not find the information. Could you provide a link? Is this describing an average player or starter? In my experience (not to taken as factual, as I have no source but my own), even a lineman will run about ten yards game.
Though I beleive football has equal mental difficulty to soccer, I will not mention proof to counter my opponent in this regard, as the debate is on exercise, clearly implying physical work. Regarding the other part of Pro's second definition, I remain in my previously stated belief that soccer, while it involves more running, still is not "more demanding." You claim that soccer players, on average, run 40 times as far as football players. Remember, however, that football only includes 11 minutes of actual playing*, versus 90 in soccer, equating to 4x the workout. But Wait! A football player may go 1/4 of the speed of a soccer player, but they do this wearing 16* lbs of equipment, and they do this while being relentlessly harassed by other players. in soccer, contact illegal. l would like to ask Pro if he would rather run 26 1/5 miles or 6 3/4 miles wearing a 16 lb weight and having people attempt to tackle him.
I predict Pro will object that be 11 minute point proves him right, so i will negate this argument now. The question which is a more demanding exercise, not which is a more strenuous game to complete. Therefore, because football is far more difficult for the time it is played, it is a more demanding form of exercise.
The only other point my opponent made was that:
"Soccer does require more skill and it can be proven. In a game, the players are not allowed to use their hands which is one of the most useful parts of the body. They must do everything without their hands and penalized unless they do otherwise."
restrictions do not define skill level,the opposite point could be made that soccer players have the advantage of facing opponents who cannot use their hands, while football players have to play fully capable opponents.
In the ever eloquent words of pro,
I have refuted all of Pro's arguments and stated why I believe football is a much more demanding sport with statistics.
I look forward to Pro's next argument
I have and after playing each game, I was totally exhausted after the game of soccer more than football.
Also, I have been injured more times in soccer than I have in football. You stated that contact in soccer is illegal. However, that is not true whatsoever. In an 11 minute game of soccer vs an 11 minute game of football, soccer would have almost as much contact as football. You also stated that there is only 11 minutes of intense and continuous playing in football...that is 5.5 minutes for offense and 5.5 minutes for the defense. That is almost nothing. I too cannot find where you got the idea that a football player runs 6 3/4 mile each game. Never have I felt that I have ran 6 3/4 miles or even close to it after a football game.
Con stated that football is "far more difficult for the time it is played, it is a more demanding form of exercise" in his previous statement he stated "the question which is a more demanding exercise , not which is a more strenuous game to complete. He has gotten the definitions all mixed up. According to oxford, demanding means "requiring much skill or effort" while strenuous means "requiring or using great exertion". Soccer is therefore demanding because it skill and especially effort while football is more strenuous because it requires bursts of energy due to the fact that there are rests almost every 5 seconds of the game.
Con tried to refute my argument by saying that "restrictions do not define skill level". Yes it does. If you take that sentence and think about it...logically, it does. Con's statement can be easily refuted by a simple logos.
During my turn, I would simply like to point out that Con has just made a huge mistake because he has gotten the terminology mixed up and basically hurt himself badly
1. You asked why I claimed that a football player runs 6 3/4 miles in a game.
I did not. I said,
"l would like to ask Pro if he would rather run 26 1/5 miles or 6 3/4 miles wearing a 16 lb weight and having people attempt to tackle him."
This was an example to express that while soccer runs more, the running in football is done with far more difficulty. I would also like to point out that the only form of football which regularly includes two full teams is high level in America. Only until recently, even Arena football players usually played both sides of the field.
2. This is were Pro was very deceitful to voters, he, while trying to semantically disprove the definitions i merely based my argument off of, he put out only one of two Oxford dictionary definitions*, the second being essentially equivalent to the one I received from Google definitions. If Pro had properly set meaning constraints this would not be a problem, and, as I specifically used a source and linked to it in round one for, it should be differed to.
3. Pro said that I incorrectly stated that contact was illegal in soccer. is is true, however, I meant this only as an exaggeration of the very strict contact rules in soccer, just a Pro said, "due to the fact that there are rests almost every 5 seconds of the game." In fact, Pro's infraction was greater than mine as explicitly said he was stating a fact.
4."Con tried to refute my argument by saying that 'restrictions do not define skill level'. Yes it does. If you take that sentence and think about it...logically, it does. Con's statement can be easily refuted by a simple logos."
I cannot even decipher this cryptography. Pro says logos can refute my statement, but does not provide a logos argument. Instead, he tells readers to reread the sentence, as this will cause the logic he mentions to appear. One cannot simply say a statement is incorrect and then tell people to figure it out themselves, that is illogical. Furthermore, even if he were correct in the idea that restrictions define skill level, are constant attackers a restriction to the runner? Are blockers a restriction to tacklers? Are the 16 lb pads a restriction to everyone? Football certainly requires as much skill as soccer.
Your move, Pro
I would like to conclude my argument and clarify any confusions throughout the debate
Soccer is indeed a much more demanding sport than football because the energy required to play a full game, whether or not you are young or old, in an advanced "world cup" level game or a mere amateur game, is far more than the energy to play a full football game. This is because, as con stated above, an average football player plays 11 minutes total. That is...11 minutes of intense gaming and the rest of the time in between the 11 minutes to rest. Isn't that right?
I am sorry that I have only put 1 of 2 definitions. That is because the source that I found my definition from was different from yours ( http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... ). I felt that the second definition in my website was unnecessary. Also, the two definitions that you have obtained from your website are not, as you say, "essentially equivalent" to the one you obtained from Google definitions. Using both of the definitions that you have provided, "needing a lot of skill, patience, effort, etc" or "expecting a lot of work or attention from others; not easily satisfied", soccer is more of both than football is for one. Soccer does require more patience and effort due to the fact that it is longer.
You keep mentioning that we have to cut the amount of time played in an actual soccer game and make it equivalent to the amount of time played in a football game so that we can compare them equally (round 2 when con puts out a counterargument). However, you cannot do that. We are comparing the game of soccer vs the game of football. Therefore, the total amount of time played in an actual soccer game should be counted for.
I was not stating a fact when I said that football players rest every 5 seconds of the game. I was exaggerating but not too much. A whole football game is consisted of 4 15-minute quarters with a 12 minute intermission between the 2nd and 3rd. (http://en.wikipedia.org...). That is 72 minutes total but only 11 minutes are played during that amount of time. That's only 15.27% of the game.
I apologize for the lack of a statement to go along with my logos argument. Ask yourself, which is harder, water polo or treading water? Definitely water polo because you cannot use your hands to tread water. That is an example of how restrictions define skill level. You are restricted from using your hands so it requires more skill. Same with soccer. You are restricted from using your hands and can only use your feet. Other than that and the intense tackling in football, the two games are almost identical.
And con, let's say I accept your exaggeration for a football player to run 6 3/4 miles with 16lbs of weight. But let me also take your exaggeration on the 26 1/5 mile part. Ask yourself which one you would rather run because I would rather run 6.75 miles with 16 lbs. To the audience who is reading this as well, ask yourself which one.
Thank you for the debate, I admit it was the best one I have had so far in this website.
When I said the part about 26 /5 miles and 6 3/4 miles I was not exaggerating, I purposely exaggerated when I mentioned soccer's lack of physical contact. 26 1/5 is the length of a marathon, which was my benchmark for this EXAMPLE, 6 3/4 is an extremely close approximation to one quarter of that. As I explained earlier, according to the statistics on running distance your gave (which are yet to be confirmed) in combination with other statistics which I provided with links, football payers experience 1/4 the running in equal playing time to soccer players. However, this is done with both 16 lbs of pads, as you mentioned, but also with incredibly large men all around trying to knock each other to the ground. While running a marathon is difficult, running a quarter marathon while carrying a 16 pound backpack and being tackled by 300 pound men only to stand up and be tackled again, would be far more difficult.
Voters, please forgive me for the following semantic argument, but I feel I must give in to the temptation in order to respond to Pro's fourth round argument.
You say that "We are comparing the game of soccer vs the game of football. Therefore, the total amount of time played in an actual soccer game should be counted for."
I am afraid this is incorrect, unfortunately you yourself admitted that,
" Sorry for the typo, the debate will be on what it says on the title"
The title asks for the more demanding EXERCISE I have pointed out previously, that this means are not to ind which is more difficult to finish a game of, but which is more difficult do in general, for a period of time.
I am afraid also, that you misunderstood the definitions in the Oxford dictionary, the first points to football, as it requires more effort, and the second I do no think you interpreted correctly.
"Making others work hard or meet high standards. "
this can be easily seen as pertaining to hard work
Finally, in conclusion of my semantics, I must point out hat a casual observer of your question would interpret mere work, not skill, and, as you did not specify, my definition from Google should be deferred to
Speaking of skill, i must challenge your assumption that the lack of hands is me sort of formula that equates to more skillful. While I do admit water polo requires more skill than treading water, That is because treading water is a monotonous task,while water polo takes in a number of different situations and the4 ability to meet them all is necessary.
While soccer does, use hands, it does not require an ability to take in as many possible situations as football. Passing, running, punting, a kicking are all options for the offense, while the defense can blitz, stay deep back, use man coverage, or any combination of these and more strategies.
Soccer has strategies as well, but all soccer strategies refer to position and number, but cannot include actual differences in play. The ability to keep up with all of these possibilities makes football players need MORE skill, and the inclusion of this aspect to the debate actually hurts your case.
Thank you for the opportunity to debate Pro, and I wish you good luck.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Both were all over the place, but con dropped a lot of arguments and then tried to steam in closing
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.