THW ban boxing

Terms

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

Structure

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.

Rules

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 STRONGLY CALL UPON VOTERS TO VOTE BY FACT AND POWER OF DEBATE, NOT BY OPINION.

I accept the challenge, and let's begin.

I thank fire_wing for accepting my debate. I know his power in debating, and so I look forward to a great debate.

Arguments:

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.

Sources:
1. Australian Medical Association, “Boxing,” 1997, reaffirmed 2007, accessed July 8, 2011, http://ama.com.au.......

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, http://www.wma.net.......

3. BBC, “Tyson: ‘I’d bite again,’” October 4, 1999, http://news.bbc.co.uk.......

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, http://sociology.berkeley.edu......, 523.

6. John Mehaffey, “Fighter’s death renews abolition call,” The Sun-Herald, September 25, 2005, http://www.smh.com.au..........

7. Svinth, “Death under the Spotlight.”

I thank my opponent for making this debate, and I hope it is a good learning experience for both of us. I will mostly be using the default font and Times New Roman. Unlike my opponent, I will not be making my arguments as a section, just as paragraphs. I assume that my opponent will agree with me that boxing is a violent sport. I will be talking that we should not ban violent sports, and boxing. I will be using the phrase, "My team" some times, as I mostly wrote these arguments in a team debate in another account. Now, let's get started with the debate.

First of all, to my first point, boxing, and other violent sports bring lot's of entertainment. In this source [1], the top ten are the following, football, ice hockey, basketball, soccer, Baseball, gymnastics, tennis, volleyball, lacrosse, and golf. This is just in the U.S., though. It is funny to see that 6-7 of the sports on the list are violent, and dangerous. I will be expanding this point later on in my argument, but this argument was about that violent sports can be entertaining. And, with this source I have shown tha violent sports are more entertaining then other normal sports. Boxing is a violent sport, and is entertaining. We shouldn't ban it. Also, in this source [2], it shows that the 10 greatest sports. Boxing is in number 9. If you look at the comments they say, "Boxing should be on the top..." And in golf, it says, "This is really a sport, but..." Look at the differences of a boring non-violent sport, and boxing, which is a violent sport.

What if we ban boxing? All the fans will be mad, and probably do some stuff. Look at what happened when France lost against Portugal in the UEFA.




This is just when they lost [3]. Imagine what will happen if the whole sport will be gone? All these fans will be bazooked!!! They will throw things like this, and make tons of fire. We can call in World War Boxing. To actually prevent this, we should not ban boxing. More people

As in this argument I have shown that boxing and violent sports are very entertaining to watch, and that we shouldn't ban boxing, and shown what could happen, and probably would happen. Because of entertainment, vote for Con.

My next argument will be that the boxers liberty, and the people who watch's liberty. This will be kinda connected with the first argument. Why do the boxers do boxing. Well, there are lot's of reasons. Yeah, they earn lots of money, get famous, can possibly win, it can be entertaining, and it can entertain the viewers. If the game is boring for the viewers, then it will be infamous, and the sport will not be watched. So we need to entertain the viewers. And as I said in my first argument, boxing is exciting for the viewers. Let's think if we ban this. As I said, there will be rages, as the picture up there, only worse. And all the viewers cannot watch boxing anymore. It is literally banning soccer, just a different sport. Socrates says, "Even a bad law is a law." The same thing with sports. Even a bad sport is a sport. However boxing isn't a bad sport, just less famous then soccer, but still famous. Think about the people's, the watcher's liberty of watching. They want to watch, they should be allowed to watch. Why should thre government even ban boxing when it does no harm for them? Banning it will harm the watcher's liberty. They want to watch these sports, and we should give them the right to, they should watch it, and the government shouldn't make it banned just because of "safety". That is ridiculous.

And also, why do boxers do boxing? Becuase they want to do boxing? Then why do they do boxing? By doing boxing, that means they accept all the risks to actually do boxing. They want to do boxing, that is why they are doing it. They don't really care if they get hurt, because it is part of their job. They know they might get hurt, because they are boxers, and they know their job. They want to be boxers, that is why they are boxers, and we shouldn't really ban boxing because they get hurt. They know they might get hurt, and by playing, they accept all the risks. Therefore, we shouldn't ban boxing because it can hurt them.

My last argument is really a basic question... What is a violent sport? Boxing is a violent sport [4], and my opponent would agree. There are many sources to see that boxing is violent [5].

So, boxing is a violent sport, and it says that violent sports are fun, but what are violent sports. They involve killing, probably.

This is the problem. Think about every sport which is not dangerous. There is only few which one is golf. Baseball is dangerous because you can get hit by the ball or get tripped and fall or bump to each other. Soccer is dangerous because the ball can hit you and you might foul and the others might get hurt. Basketball is dangerous too. This is like almost everything is dangerous. Then this means we cannot play those sports million of people around the world like. My source [6]. My source gives a big list of kills, you can click into each one.

Like, most violent sports are fun. Boxing is a violent sport. It is fun. Most other violent sports are fun and famous too. But almost every sport is violent. Then if we ban boxing, people will argue that there will many other violent sports which we won't ban, and ban them too. Then baseball, soccer, etc. Will be banned to. So we have two choices. a) ban all violent sports, which is on my 5th source list, and other sports not on the list, like broken fingers when volleyball, etc. Then all these fans, on every single sport will be mad. There will be a war, only worse, much worser then the picture above. Or b) we can not ban all sports, and make the fans in peace. Obviously peace is better than a fight, so we have to follow b), and not ban any of these violent sports.

I have shown that boxing is violent, and that we shouldn't ban these sports. Therefore, vote Con. Thank you.

My sources

[1] http://www.thetoptens.com...

[2] http://www.thetoptens.com...

[3] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

[4] http://www.bcmj.org...

[5] https://www.google.fr...

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org...

Thank you.

Worthy opponent, we are going to have a slight change in the strategy. In this round, please rebut my arguments mentioned in the second round. In the fourth round, please have defense and conclusions. Thank you again.

I don't know why my arguments in the second round are written as a whole argument in one line. Please copy it, paste it in MS Word, and then read it.

Some of my rebuttals will be very short, but if I explained every one, we could make an essay out of it. I'll do that as I have more than 3 debates going on, all with arguments due. I ask my opponent to forgive me for that. I also ask voters, if my opponent does not mind that, to do the same.


My strategy in rebuttal: ("Argument" -Rebuttal)

Rebuttal:

1. "First of all, to my first point, boxing, and other violent sports bring lot's of entertainment." -CON.
-Legalize duels then!

2. "In this source, the top ten are the following, football, ice hockey, basketball, soccer, Baseball, gymnastics, tennis, volleyball, lacrosse, and golf. This is just in the U.S., though. It is funny to see that 6-7 of the sports on the list are violent, and dangerous. I will be expanding this point later on in my argument, but this argument was about that violent sports can be entertaining. And, with this source I have shown tha violent sports are more entertaining then other normal sports." -CON.
- NONE of them are violent. I will be expanding this point later on in my rebuttal.

3. " Also, in this source, it shows that the 10 greatest sports. Boxing is in number 9. If you look at the comments they say, "Boxing should be on the top..." And in golf, it says, "This is really a sport, but..." Look at the differences of a boring non-violent sport, and boxing, which is a violent sport. "-CON.
- Two things. Firstly, I agree boxing is entertaining. Very entertaining. But at the same time, very dangerous, too. You will be at fault if you ban any sport just because it is not entertaining. Ban boxing because it's DANGEROUS.

4. "What if we ban boxing? All the fans will be mad, and probably do some stuff. Look at what happened when France lost against Portugal in the UEFA. This is just when they lost. Imagine what will happen if the whole sport will be gone? All these fans will be bazooked!!! They will throw things like this, and make tons of fire. We can call in World War Boxing. To actually prevent this, we should not ban boxing."-CON.
- What if fans suddenly began loving duels, armed duels, leave them? Just because if you ban duels they'll become violent? So you musn't see what the public wants in everything. Public wants to legalize terrorism, suicide, etc. leave them? So democracy is in matters you can actually change or keep as it is, without danger. Not in dangerous SPORTS like boxing.

5. "My next argument will be that the boxers liberty, and the people who watch's liberty. This will be kinda connected with the first argument. Why do the boxers do boxing. Well, there are lot's of reasons. Yeah, they earn lots of money, get famous, can possibly win, it can be entertaining, and it can entertain the viewers. If the game is boring for the viewers, then it will be infamous, and the sport will not be watched. So we need to entertain the viewers. And as I said in my first argument, boxing is exciting for the viewers. Let's think if we ban this. As I said, there will be rages, as the picture up there, only worse. And all the viewers cannot watch boxing anymore. It is literally banning soccer, just a different sport. Socrates says, "Even a bad law is a law." The same thing with sports. Even a bad sport is a sport. However boxing isn't a bad sport, just less famous then soccer, but still famous. Think about the people's, the watcher's liberty of watching. They want to watch, they should be allowed to watch. Why should thre government even ban boxing when it does no harm for them? Banning it will harm the watcher's liberty. They want to watch these sports, and we should give them the right to, they should watch it, and the government shouldn't make it banned just because of "safety". That is ridiculous. "-CON.
- I don't know why my opponent is just debating about whether boxing is good or not. His arguments are full of red herrings[1]. WORTHY OPPONENT, THIS DEBATE IS NOT ABOUT WHETHER BOXING IS GOOD OR NOT. FAMOUS OR NOT. ENTERTAINING OR NOT. If a sort is good, famous, and entertaining, and at the same time DANGEROUS, BAN IT! Boxing is EXACTLY like duels in this debate. As for the liberty thing, then legalize suicide. Legalize duels. LIBERTY!

6. "And also, why do boxers do boxing? Becuase they want to do boxing? Then why do they do boxing? By doing boxing, that means they accept all the risks to actually do boxing. They want to do boxing, that is why they are doing it. They don't really care if they get hurt, because it is part of their job. They know they might get hurt, because they are boxers, and they know their job. They want to be boxers, that is why they are boxers, and we shouldn't really ban boxing because they get hurt. They know they might get hurt, and by playing, they accept all the risks. Therefore, we shouldn't ban boxing because it can hurt them. "-CON.
- Legalize suicide.

7. "This is the problem. Think about every sport which is not dangerous. There is only few which one is golf. Baseball is dangerous because you can get hit by the ball or get tripped and fall or bump to each other. Soccer is dangerous because the ball can hit you and you might foul and the others might get hurt. Basketball is dangerous too. This is like almost everything is dangerous. Then this means we cannot play those sports million of people around the world like. My source . My source gives a big list of kills, you can click into each one. " -CON.
- 1. Ban walking in the street and eating sugar. 2. Violent doesn't mean everything that hurts or kills. Violent means sports that actually goal to killing or hurting. A boxer's goal is to knock out his opponent. Violent. Whatever happens including injuries or deaths in other sports isn't intended. In boxing, it is.

8. " a) ban all violent sports, which is on my 5th source list, and other sports not on the list, like broken fingers when volleyball, etc. Then all these fans, on every single sport will be mad. There will be a war, only worse, much worser then the picture above. Or b) we can not ban all sports, and make the fans in peace. Obviously peace is better than a fight, so we have to follow b), and not ban any of these violent sports."-CON.
- I've already showed that other sports like volleyball and basketball aren't violenrt as injuries and deaths aren't intended. On the other hand, injuring is intended in boxing. By this, I've already cancelled the two choices, as only boxing from these sports is violent.



In conclusion, I've rebutted all of my opponent's arguments. NO DEFENCE IN THIS ROUND PLEASE.

I know my language is very bad in this debate. I'm not getting right words. Sorry. Please don't mind that, as I have many debates.

Adil,
Qatar.


Sources:

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...

My strategy in defense: ("Rebuttal" -Defense)

Defense:

1. " My opponent doesn't say how this is barbaric." -CON.
- I said in round 1 : "they intentionally inflict injuries upon others for public entertainment" Not barbaric? So I do say it is barbaric, and yet my opponent says I didn't say how it is!

2. "People enjoy it, and they want to do boxing, and they know it is barbaric. Did anyone "force" them? No." -CON.
- People are drinking drugs. Did anybody force them. No. Then leave them? People are killing others. Did anyone force them? No. Leave them? Don't they too have their liberty? You would say, but they are harming others. What about the drugs? If somebody drinks drugs IN HIS HOME, why is it illegal?

3. "My opponent provides no source that it is barbaric at all." -CON.
- I don't to give a link for everything I write. If you mean how or why it is barbaric, refer defense argument 1. ^

4. "My opponent doesn't say why boxing should be banned from the 21st century" -CON.
- Simple. Because it is barbaric. I already said that.

5. "Then do all violent things need to be banned? No!!! Then everything which involved violence needs to be banned. Almost all sports need to be banned, some talking needs to be banned, cars need to be banned, and every single thing that occurs violence needs to be banned" -CON
- Seems like my opponent doesn't know the meaning of violence. Violence IS always intended. When it's not intended, it's NOT violence. So, yes, all forms of violence should be banned. Refer source [3].

6. "My opponent says that children should not get these boxers as role models and not idolize people who injure others. This argument has zero connection to the debate, as yeah, they are not role models, but just because they are not role models, should boxing be banned? Then you should be banned, as there aren't any role models of you. Same logic, so boxing should be banned just because these people aren't role models. This arugment has no connection to the debate, therefore it is automatically refuted." -CON.
- I never said that boxers aren't role models. Everybody is a role models. I said boxers aren't good role models, as the main thing making them a role model is their dangerous and barbaric job, boxing. I f you're job is bad too, you too aren't a good role model. Same for me! The sentence "Then you should be banned, as there aren't any role models of you" would not be understood even by Shakespeare. It's not English.

7. "My opponent says that boxing causes many deaths. First of all, there are deaths of almost anything. Trees should be banned, as trees might fall and kill us. Cars should be banned as there are many deaths from car accidents. Lightning should be banned because it kills some people. Knifes should be banned. Almost anything involves killing. Banana peels should be banned, as you can slip and fall, and break your head, and die. Just because there are deaths, that doesn't mean we should ban it. We need to ban the whole world, and almost everything then. My opponent doesn't show how many deaths there are in boxing, but it can't be as much as guns or smoking. Ban them first. They have more deaths. Boxing has less deaths. Why ban boxing and not guns? There is absolutely no reason." -CON.
- Now I'm sure you don't know what violence means, and can't differenciate between intended killed and not intended killing, or between something which GOAL is killing or injuring and something in which it happens occasionally. Knifes have benefits and dangers. Same for guns. As for banana peals, pranks with it SHOULD be banned. Throwing it in streets should be banned. Similarly, knifes and guns in the street should be banned.

8. "Next, my opponent says that boxers are money-making devices for their promoters. My opponent provides a quote, but no source. If you click a source, only the main page comes out. I can't see how that is a proper source. And, still this doesn't make us ban boxing. People want to do it." -CON.
- SOURCES DON'T MEAN INTERNET LINKS ONLY. Sources are sources. Refer source [4].

9. "His sources were all books, which I don't even think will be in the book" . -CON.
- Predictions with evidence can be wrong. Predications WITHOUT evidence are mostly wrong. You're predicting makes no difference in this debate. Just a red herring.

In conclusion, I have given strong arguments, had strong rebuttal, and defended against all of my opponent's vague rebuttal.
I thank my opponent for this debate.

Adil,
Qatar.

Sources:

[1] https://www.newscientist.com...
[2] http://www.floridatoday.com...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.dictionary.com...

I'll make my defense and my conclusion in this round.

Defense

I thank my opponent for his response, now I will be posting my defense in this round also.

My opponent copies my argument and just states a few sentences, he says, "Legalize duels then!" In Texas, duels are legal [1]. Also, we should legalize duels. My opponent's rebuttal is wrong.

My opponent then says that baseball, and those sports are not violent. He says he will expand the point later on. My opponent says that then we need to ban so many things, and violent does not mean death. My opponent doesn't have any explanation or sources. I explained that violent basically means harmful, and killing is harmful, killing is violent. My opponent gives no source, and my opponent doesn't even rebut why those sports are not violent, when I showed they were. And american football, bump and bash into each other's heads. So not violent.

Well, first of all, that will not happen with duels, as some places it is legal, and it won't be illegal, and some places they banned it, and it already happened. Sure, it might happen, but I don't see the problem with this. I showed the boxing example, but a duel example isn't that good.

My opponent concedes it is entertaining. What? Then you have to vote for me because that was literally one whole argument, and 10 paragraphs of waste!!! Yeah, boxing is dangerous, so? Just because it is dangerous, do we ban it? Do we ban every single thing which is dangerous? That can't happen.

My argument isn't about if it is fun, or good. Yeah, I mentioned that. It all has to do with the topic. The topic is that boxing should be banned. I am Con. Boxing shouldn't be banned. I am saying that boxing shouldn't be banned. Why? Because it is entertaining, fun, that is WHY I ACTUALLY MAKE THESE ARGUMENTS, AND THEY ARE NO RED HERRINGS, THEY ACTUALLY HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC.

My opponent says we should legalize suicide by liberty. Suicide is legal, and yeah, it should be legal, as they want to die, why should we not let them die? And, legalize duels. My opponent uses in the next paragraph, "Legalize duels, and legalize suicide." Yeah, we should legalize them. And boxing too.

My opponent says that boxing is the only violent sport, and he showed proof. This is shocking, as I showed my opponent had no proof, merely a bare assertion. Therefore, this rebuttal is false.

Conclusion

My opponent's rebuttals are all on, "legalize duels then", or about suicide. Yeah, legalize it. My opponent's rebuttals are refuted if I said that. My opponent makes a bare assertion that boxing is the only sport that is violent, and my opponent concedes that it is entertaining. My opponent made no actual rebuttals, as he didn't refute anything. Vote Con. My opponent makes no good arguments, rebuttals, and just quotes to make his arguments look bigger, which sucks, as his whole argument will be smaller than my fr!ckin conclusion. Don't let my opponent steal the win. He can't defend his arguments, as I made them impossible to defend, and they are all weak. Vote Con, as you can't vote Pro in the debate, it is impossible unless it is a vote bomb. The best way for my opponent to get points is to concede. Vote Con.