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

THW ban boxing

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/12/2016 Category: Sports
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 235 times Debate No: 92644
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)





1. THW: This House Would

2. Ban: To forbid (someone) from doing or being part of something.

3. Boxing:The art of attack and defense with the fists practiced as a sport


1. Rules for Pro, Acceptance.

2. Arguments.

3. Rebuttals+ defence.

4. Conclusion/ Why I won this debate.

We cannot have arguments in the first round. We cannot have new arguments in the final round.


1. No forfeiting unless there are a same number of forfeits

2. No trolling

3. No plagiarism, or you have to quote it.

4. Cite sources in 'Sources' Category

5. No new arguments in final and beginning round.

8. BoP is shared in this debate.

9. Not following rules is an automatic loss.

I thank my opponent. Let's have a wonderful debate!



I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for accepting my debate.


My arguments will be the following:

1. Boxing is a barbaric sport, and it should not be a part of any 21st century society.

2. The celebrity status that societies award to boxers glamorizes and legitimizes violence in society.

3. Boxing causes many deaths, and medical officials have continually called for it to be banned.

4. Boxing is famously exploitative, but a ban could prevent youth from falling into the sport’s economic trap.

Now please let me explain my points.

1. Boxing is a barbaric sport, and it should not be a part of any 21st century society.

Unlike in any other sport, boxers intend to physically injure their opponents by knockout. Allowing people to intentionally inflict injuries upon others for public entertainment and private profit is barbaric. Children especially are trained in these ways. When boxers turn professional, they have often already fought in at least 50 fights in their youth, which does not include the countless rounds of sparring during training sessions. Boxers are essentially being trained in violent ways, often at a young age. The Australian Medical Association actively opposes boxing for this reason, calling it, “a public demonstration of interpersonal violence which is unique among sporting activities.” While there are other rough sports, boxing is different because its intent is harmful. The World Medical Association, which also opposes the sport, justifies this position by noting, “its basic intent is to produce bodily harm in the opponent.” Boxing is a violent sport, in which youth are taught to try to hurt their peers. It has no place in modern society.

2. The celebrity status that societies award to boxers glamorizes and legitimizes violence in society.

Boxers are presented as beacons of success for young people, but they are not good role models. Children should not idolize people who make a living by injuring other people. In addition to the violence in the ring, brawls often break out at press conferences and even inside boxing venues. The marketing of boxing exalts this mindless violence and those who perpetrate it. Mike Tyson is a particularly harmful example. Tyson was one of the most popular and successful boxers in history, when he faced Evander Holyfield in the most hyped fight of the year. Tyson cruelly bit off a portion of Holyfield’s ear in the fight, on live television. These are not role models of which we should be proud.

3. Boxing causes many deaths, and medical officials have continually called for it to be banned.

The British Medical Association has repeatedly called for a ban on boxing or a removal of the head from the permitted target areas. The body of medical evidence is growing that suggests even if a boxer survives individual bouts relatively unmarked, the cumulative effect of a career in boxing can lead to a greater susceptibility to chronic neurological injury. A doctor who has studied the effect of boxing on Parkinson’s specifically says that boxing causes unnecessary harm. He writes, “Unlike most degenerative neurologic diseases, this disorder can be prevented.”Although the incidence of injury is much higher in sports such as basketball, rugby or riding, the risk of serious injury in boxing is far greater. That risk is so great that boxing should be banned. A ban, quite simply, would mean fewer people dead, injured or permanently brain damaged.

4. Boxing is famously exploitative, but a ban could prevent youth from falling into the sport’s economic trap.

To be successful, boxers have to train for 8 hours a day 6 days a week, spending the best years of their lives in the gym. Because most boxers lack a formal education and spend all their time in the gym they employ managers to handle their business affairs; very often the boxer’s entourage control the fighter’s destiny. This relationship can be exploitative given the inequality of bargaining power and the fact that most boxers need to make as much money as they can before they are worn out. An average boxer will have about 30-40 top-level professional bouts in them before their health and skills will dramatically deteriorate. Whilst it may well be in the fighter’s interest to hang-up his gloves, those around him have a financial incentive to push fighters into more and more title defences or comebacks. The decisions that older boxers make provide further proof that they feel they have been exploited: over 80% of older boxers surveyed in Chicago said that they did not want their children to be boxers.

The truth is that boxers are only treated as money-making devices by their promoters and the boxing industry. When American boxer Leavander Johnson died after a fight in 2005, his promoter told the press, “I don’t think there’s anyone to blame here other than the circumstances. He’s a victim of his own courage.” This shows promoters’ desire to exploit boxers’ “courage” and willingness to put themselves at risk, without having any regret for such a dangerous system. Oftentimes the promoters actively make it more dangerous, exploiting their clients for criminal ends. In his exploration of boxing deaths throughout history, Joseph Svinth finds that in addition to health reasons, many deaths were criminal, with the promoter playing the dual role of “gangster.” It’s time to break up this industry before any more young athletes get taken advantage of in a bad way.

1. Australian Medical Association, “Boxing,” 1997, reaffirmed 2007, accessed July 8, 2011,

2. World Medical Association, “WMA Statement on Boxing,” (adopted by the 35th World Medical Assembly, Venice, Italy, October 1983 and editorially revised by the 170th WMA Council Session, Divonne-les-Bains, France, May 2005), accessed July 8, 2011,

3. BBC, “Tyson: ‘I’d bite again,’” October 4, 1999,

4. Friedman, “Progressive Parkinsonism,” 545.

5. Loïc Wacquant, “The pugilistic point of view: How boxers think and feel about their trade,” Theory and Society, Vol. 24, No. 4 (August 1995), 489-535,, 523.

6. John Mehaffey, “Fighter’s death renews abolition call,” The Sun-Herald, September 25, 2005,

7. Svinth, “Death under the Spotlight.”



First I'll respond to Pro.

1. Boxing is Barbaric

Boxing is a violent sport, but violence isn't going anywhere. Research shows that people are attracted to violence. The sport has been around since almost 700 years before Christ.

People who get into boxing are typically from hard-knock neighborhoods where they would have to use their fists in the street to protect themselves.

Boxing provides an outlet for people with aggressive feelings. Rather than use their fists against other people when getting upset, boxing allows people to work out their violent energy in a constructive and structured way.

Men in particular are likely to feel aggressive sometimes due to testosterone. It is our natural instinct, and boxing allows for men (and women) to decompress therapeutically through this mental and physical workout.

Another thing is that boxing requires a lot of mental focus and discipline. While some boxers are aggressive outside of the ring, many others have the strict discipline to channel their instincts and wait until they are in the ring.

Nobody calls for horse racing to be banned, even though that sport hurts and kills people every year.

Boxing is not just "barbaric" but strategic. It takes a lot of skill and mental knowledge to succeed.

2. Celebrities Glorifying Violence

Mike Tyson is a questionable character, but a single person does not represent everyone in boxing. Tyson launched the Mike Tyson Cares Foundation, to give children from broken homes like the one he experienced “a fighting chance” by offering them safe places to coalesce. Like most people he can be both good and bad. He also suffers from drugs and has other problems that are separate from boxing, so he is not the best example.

Boxers are celebrated for dominating in their sport, not for injuring others. No boxer promotes random acts of violence. Many boxers are very charitable and do amazing things with their prize money and celebrity status. There are also a lot of boxing fundraisers and charities.

3. Boxing is Dangerous

People who get into boxing know and accept the risks. Obviously getting punched repeatedly can be harmful, but if people accept the possible consequences, it is their decision to put themselves in danger the same way people can choose to smoke cigarettes. Far more people have died from cigarettes and alcohol than boxing but we do not ban those things. We have the freedom to put ourselves in danger.

Boxing also takes measures to protect the athletes. Some call for extra padding in the rings. You could also make sure trainers know how to run a safe gym, and know when to throw in the towel at the right time.

And there are increased regulations to prevent cheating on weight, etc.

Some "rebel neurobiologists" argue that with regulations, boxing can be safe or not as bad as people make it out to be.

4. Boxing is Exploitative

Pro says the people who box are uneducated, but this proves how boxing provides opportunity. Uneducated people from poor neighborhoods don't have a lot of options or feel like they do, but boxing gives them the chance to work hard at something, train and become successful.

Ultimately it is the boxer's choice to fight. They surround themselves with the people they feel give them the best chance to win. Who they surround themselves with is important. It gives them a mental edge if they have a good entourage. Boxers want supporters, promoters, spiritual guidance and practical advice from their posse.

Boxing is a business. People make money off athletes in every sport. Agents, managers, coaches, owners, the press, trainers, colleges, etc. all capitalize off the athletic efforts of other people. It is not limited to boxing.

And now I'll explain why boxing should not be banned.

1. First, people have the freedom to engage in whatever sports they want. Many people are very passionate about the sport. If you don't like boxing you don't have to box or watch boxing.

2. I've already explained that boxing is a physical outlet. Boxing is also a mental outlet that makes people feel better when they are weak or bullied. It gives them mental toughness and confidence.

3. Boxing offers a home "to the downtrodden and dejected." It is the sport of the lower and middle class. "In the 20s and 30s, the sport was a haven for tough Jews from the slums of New York... Likewise, the ring has been a home to America’s downtrodden blacks ever since Jack Johnson became the first black heavyweight champion of the world in 1908."

4. You need to be in great physical shape to box, so it encourages fitness.

5. People use boxing to learn confidence, discipline and self-defense.

6. It's better to take out aggression inside the ring than outside the ring.

7. It gives people opportunity and hope, plus keeps them off the street.

8. Boxing is not the only violent or dangerous sport, and the purpose of boxing isn't to injure your opponent but to score points. Injury is part of the game, but efforts are being taken to promote safety.

9. Boxers have used their fame, money and platform for good.

10. Violence and boxing are here to stay regardless of law. At least let boxing be used for good and try to regulate it to promote safety, rather than have a free-for-all "Fight Club" type scene.
Debate Round No. 2


My worthy opponent,

In your future debates, I advise you to read the rules first as you have not followed the rules in this debate.

Rule number 9 states: "Not following rules is an automatic loss."

You have not followed the rules as the structure says: Round 2: Arguments not rebuttal.

Another rule you didn't care to follow was rule 4 which states: "Cite sources in 'Sources' Category" You didn't do that.

You have automatically lost in this debate as you haven't followed the rules.

My condolences... Hope you better debates in your future.



My unworthy opponent, it is a dear, dear shame that you are so afraid to address my arguments that you have decided to cancel the entire debate instead of just responding.

Is it really that big a deal to not follow the structure exactly as written?

I'm sorry for putting my sources in the round (BIG FREAKING DEAL) but if you are that worried about losing you are going to harp on rules, fine, my apologies.

I would like to ask the audience to extend my arguments and only vote automatic conduct points against me. If they feel rule breaking (on accident) is worthy of a complete loss, so be it, but for the record I would like to extend my points since Pro has not responded to any of them. I didn't forfeit but spent a lot of time writing that round and didn't use any abusive standard. I'm sorry my opponent is very sensitive :-)
Debate Round No. 3


My 'still worthy' opponent, it's not about that I'm afraid. Rule 9 already supports your losing. You have gone against the rules. No excuses please.
It is not always a big deal, but when the rules tell you to follow the rules or you'll lose, IT IS A BIG DEAL THEN.
Putting the sources between the arguments is not a big deal. Not following rules IS A BIG FREAKING DEAL.

I too would like to ask the audience to extend my arguments, give us both points in that as per how much convincing arguments they are, but as CON says, please give me the conduct points as my opponent has :
1. Called me 'unworthy' because I called him worthy.
2. Didnt follow the rules.
He too has not responded to my arguments. I extend my points. :(
I think that calling me unworthy IS an abusive standard.
Lastly, I think I'm allowed to be sensitive. Thats not against the rules.


Adil Muhammad,


If my opponent really had a good case to make, he would have posted his argument instead of harping on the rules. The "rules" are frivolous guidelines. They do not protect the integrity of the debate. In this case, cancelling the debate based on silly rules is what is ruining the integrity of the discussion. Pro is not interested in serious discussion but boosting his ELO and winning on semantics/rules instead of actually putting forth a better argument. Once again I would like to apologize for breaking the rules by doing the awful thing of posting my round too early in a way that did not affect the debate whatsoever. Sorry guys!
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by whiteflame 3 months ago
>Reported vote: fire_wings// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments), 1 point to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: The Burden of Proof is shared, as it is in the rules. I will give conduct to Pro because of the rule violation, as Con violated some rules (I doesn't matter!). Pro argues that boxing is barbaric, it is violent, and it causes death. Con rebuts by saying that people are attracted to violence, and not all celebrities are like that, some donate, etc. Con says that they accept the risks of getting hurt, because you can just not play. Con successfully refutes most of Pro's arguments. Con's arguments on freedom, self-defence, physical strength, courage, etc., got uncontested, because it the second round Pro accused of a rule violation, and that was the debate. Pro's arguments got refuted, when Con's didn't, so arguments go to Con, and conduct goes to Pro for the rule violation. The vote is from the Voter's Team.

[*Reason for removal*] The rules of the debate stipulate that, if any of the rules are violated by either side, this results in an automatic loss. That includes forfeiting, which the voter acknowledges as a violation of the rules. The voter is allowed to still assess the debate beyond that and choose whether or not they will award more points to the side that did not violate the rules as a result, but the voter is not allowed to ignore the rule entirely as he has done here.
No votes have been placed for this debate.