The Instigator
Kc1999
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
bro20
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Soccer is superior to rugby

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/3/2014 Category: Sports
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 678 times Debate No: 51533
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Kc1999

Pro

DEBATE MOTION: Soccer is superior to rugby

1st Round: Acceptance
2nd Round: Argument Presenting
3-4th Round: Rebuttals, Counter-Rebuttals
5th Round: Conclusion


Have Fun and Good Luck!
bro20

Con

i accept good luck :)
Debate Round No. 1
Kc1999

Pro

I would like to thank the opponent for accepting. Before I go on with my arguments, I would like to define several terms:

SUPERIOR-better than

Now onto my arguments:

1. Soccer has more health benefits than rugby

A study done by Dr. Sean Kayes states that in one soccer game, a player could run 8-12km. This is a really far fetched statement, but according to the study that was done, in a soccer game, as much calories were lost during the soccer match as running a track of such magnitude. What does this say? This says that playing soccer demands the increase in pumping blood into the cardiovascular system; this demand decreases the chance of you having heart problems, because the heart isn't working as hard when you are resting. Apart from this, soccer increases the ability of eye to foot coordination; this is because the better a soccer player is at coordinating his eyes, the direction of his kick, and his decision ability, the better soccer player he would be. Several soccer coordination will increase your coordination and your motor skills.

(http://www.besthealthmag.ca...)

2. The Bloody Nature of Rugby is harmful

There has been 71 recorded deaths of rugby players. Feao Latu, a rugby player, was critically injured and was rushed to the hospital. He was pronounced dead only 15 minutes after his admission. Some doctors have stated that the contact element of rugby makes the sport itself unsafe for children; there were 6 children under the age 18 who have been paralyzed. Clearly, rugby is an unsafe sport, because it involves contact in such a way that children may get injured. This contact is dangerous for the health of children, and renders soccer superior.

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk...)


It is because of these contentions, I believe, that rugby is a inferior sport to soccer.

bro20

Con

I belive that rugby more interseting than soccer. it is also been by scientists that rugby is one of the safest games if plyed correctly. With rugby , its not just people running around with a ball and shoot at a goal hopin to get it in, there is more action and more suspense.
Debate Round No. 2
Kc1999

Pro

I would like to firstly rebute some of the opponent's arguments:

1. Scientific Proof has suggested the contrary

Scientific proof has suggested that rugby is harmful; per 1,000 hours, football has 35 injuries. As compared to rugby, where many factors, like the absence of active substitution and the contact element, has given rugby 76 injuries per 1,000 hours. Rugby is one of the world's most dangerous sport, along with American Football; both sports have identical elements in terms of contact. Rugby has 1.4 serious injuries per game, and the psychological affects of rugby include more violence in daily day-to-day life, and the encouragement of shouting. Rugby, and American Football, has harsh affects on your brain; it can lead to dementia. The brain, so "well" protect inside the helmet, has to take a huge impact; this leads to the brain damage. 45 out of 46 Ex-NFL players suffer from brain damage. This is because of the contact element, which is both present in rugby and American Football.

2. More Suspense, but less watchers?

The opponent has brought up the point that rugby has more suspense; firstly, the level of suspense is subjective. It cannot be measured, unless we are to make several "well made and educated assumptions", like this one: a show, a sport, that has more suspense would generally have more viewers. If this assumption is not taken, then the measure of suspense would be subjective; therefore, it would be rendered an "opinion". The 2010 World Cup, the first to be held in Africa, attracted 700 million viewers (me being among them). FIFA World Cup has a culmulative viewing, world wide, of 26 billion viewers! Wow, I mean, boy. Compare this with rugby, with 3.6 billion viewers, and we have a clear winner. Therefore, an unsubjective measure of suspense, viewers, has proven quite the contrary to.


Citations:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://sports.yahoo.com...

bro20

Con

bro20 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
bro20

Con

bro20 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Kc1999

Pro

I'm leaving DDo.

Explanations: http://www.debate.org...
bro20

Con

bro20 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.