The Instigator
Flamingo
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

THW replay international sporting events if an extreme umpiring error affects the result.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/29/2009 Category: Sports
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,697 times Debate No: 10267
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

Flamingo

Pro

Good day, everyone. In the light of such incidents as that of Thiery Henry's hand-assistance for the winning goal against Ireland, I as the AFF side, strongly believe that international sporting events in which an extreme error, one that affects the result happens, should be replayed. I am going to show you why through my 4 arguments:

1.Destroying the ethics of sports
2.Effects on the popularity of sports
3.Hatred, and its escalation into Violence
4.Hurting the moral of younger generations

By not reacting to a vital error, we are single-handedly destroying 3 fundamental ethical elements of sports - Fair Play, Sportsmanship, and the concept of a "Level playing field"

1."'Fair play' is usually understood to mean using only tactics that are in accord with the spirit of the sport."-http://www.bbc.co.uk...-

Therefore, any tactic, strategy or a foul-move that is not only contradictory to the ethics of sports, but also shifts the result of the game, must not go unpunished!

There is also a concept of a 'level playing field', underlining the deeper components of fair play:

2."'Level playing field' is a situation in which competitors are required to follow the same rules and are given an equal ability to compete.
This means that no matter what the rules are, as long as they are applied equally and impartially the playing field is still level"-http://www.bbc.co.uk...-

So, obviously, the rules aren't the same for both sides anymore! Because, under the rules, the side that cheated shouldn't be allowed to win!

And lastly, we are destroyng the concept of sportsmanship:

3."Sportsmanship is conformance to the rules, spirit, and etiquette of sport. More grandly, it may be considered the ethos of sport"-http://en.wikipedia.org...-

Cheating team is not conforming to the rules and ethics, and even awarded for it by letting them win.

There are 2 reasons why we must react to the violation of moral of sports:

1. If we let this go unpunished, players will know that such tactics can be used again, with no harm to either a player or their team, therefore motivating him to further break the rules to his benefit.
2. This will lead to further decrease in moral and ethics in sports, as teams will see that being ethical and fair on the field does not guarantee victory any more, where immorality does. So there will be many more attempts of unethical behaviour, with the primary concern just being- staying out of the judges sight while doing it.

Now, let me move on to my second argument.

2. So let's say a team has been training for years, rigorously following their coach's advices and critiques, they worked hard, they were disciplined and didn't let the fans down. So, being loyal and excited, fans followed their every game, came to the home-games, cheered with their mates in a pub for away-games. They lived and breathed every moment with them, know just how many saves the goalie averages, how many yellow card #11 got in the last year and a half. All that cool statistics. Now, as result of their great play- the team qualified for, for example- The World Cup (Sorry, Ireland:) Fans are extatic.
They kept playing well and made it to the quarterfinals. For arguments sake, their opponent in this game is France :) So this team plays great. They score! And in the 95th minute, Henry is in offside, or assists by hand, and it's 1-1. The penalties declare France a winner. Not only will the fans be dissapointed (and enraged, which will be my third argument), they will lose faith and trust in soccer. They paid thousand of dollars to come and cheer for their team and now, due to an UNFAIR play, they lost. Not only will they:

1. Never come to the events of such again, therefore impacting SPORT TOURISM-
2. They will also stop rooting for their team, as they see no point in following sport events due to injustice made. So they turn off their tv's, cancel their plane tickets for the next Cup, and all around, the sport suffers. Popularity of sport will stumble down, not only affecting the fans of the team that lost that way, but also affecting EVERYONE that believed in sportsmanship, fair play, and just all around justice in sports.

Now lets link this with my third argument:
3.Their team lost because of an error. At first, they will be dissapointed. But then, they will be ENRAGED. And when they go out on the streets after the game, and see the opposing team's fans cheering and feeling happy because of the win, this is where the real practical consenquences of unfair-play will occur. At first, they may engage in a verbal argument. But when you have hundreds of drunk and angry fans in one place, wanting justice for their team, they will TAKE JUSTICE IN THEIR HANDS! And since they can't alter the result, they will at least show the opposing fans what they really think about their team's win. This may not only lead to vandalism and material damage, but can also be life threatening! We must not let this happen. If there is a way to SAVE LIVES and stop the city from being torn down, we must act!! And yes, this may even affect the completely innocent, French tourists that may not even be interested in sports- coming to Ireland. I would stay away from the pubs, if i were you.

And, #4- This will affect the moral and ethics of a whole generation. Media has a powerfull efect on children. Just imagine a 12 year old watching his favourite team losing because the opposing team disobeyed the rules. Even worse-their team won by cheating! This will send the message to the children that all those rules, laws, and the morale we try to implement in them don't really matter much in life. It shows that you can actually get ahead if you don't obey them. Even get awarded for it. Children repeat what they see. So they will cheat on exams and lie to their parents, because that's how France got into World Cup.

That would be all for the first round. I look forward to hearing the other side and engaging in a great debate.
Danielle

Con

Thanks, Pro, for starting this debate.

1. Destroying the Ethics of Sports

Pro contends that allowing a bad umpiring call is unacceptable and demands that a rematch be played, or else it will destroy the ethics of sports. That's absurd. Bad calls are a part of almost every single game or match ever played at both the professional and minor levels. Referees are only human, have limited awareness, and do their best to make the proper call. Just because an umpire called a foul ball fair or vice versa doesn't mean that any ethics are being violated. It's tough luck. Instead, a situation I can think of where ethics and sports are involved are when referees do things like bet on the games that they're reffing. It's sad and unethical, and those people should be punished and fired, but I don't think there should be a re-match because of it.

Further, I don't think it's true that athletes are going to play any more unethically because a ref makes a bad call. In most cases, they're penalized for it. Refs are typically unbiased and have no incentive to blow calls. In fact, quite the opposite: bad umpires won't have jobs. We saw how in the 2009 World Series, they amended the rules so that only experienced umpires got to work the big games. If a ref consistently makes bad or missed calls, they will be unemployed. So, it's in their best interest to keep a good eye on the game, and though players screw up in almost every game, most of the time it is rectified and addressed.

1a. CON: Sports = Business

Despite all the glamor, professional sports are just GAMES. The reason they're in business and so popular are because of the market demand; in other words, professional sports is a business. I'm sure there's a lot of heart and passion amongst some of the players and coaches, but at the end of the day, it's about a pay check. Case in point: Brett Favre. Just kidding. But anyway, let's take a game like the Super Bowl. A 30-second slot for a commercial being played during the Super Bowl costs 2.6 million dollars [1]. If a bad call was made (and for whatever reason not reviewed until after the game) that changed the outcome of the Super Bowl, it's ridiculous to think that a game of that caliber would be replayed.

Advertising companies specifically pay to have their commercials aired during certain key times and directed at a specific demographic. To replay the game would mean to interfere with other elements than just the game; for instance advertising, marketing, etc. The reason a Super Bowl commercial goes for 2.6 million is because of its annual prestige. To simply have another Super Bowl would be nonsensical. And, if your argument is that this practice should only be done for smaller games, I can prove how THAT is unethical. In other words, this resolution must apply to games across the board.

1b. CON: Part of the Game

Mistakes and bad calls are a part of every game. Whether it's intentional or not, breaking the rules is something that happens frequently and that's just the nature of sports in general. Players and coaches have to accommodate for those discrepancies. In every game, the athlete plays hard and often violates the rules, which result in penalties (free throws, a loss of yards, etc.). When they violate the rules, they're doing it either (a) on accident, (b) strategically - as in intentional fouls in basketball to help you beat the clock, or (c) taking a chance and hoping that the ref will miss it. When I played basketball, girls constantly would tug at my jersey to hinder my playing in the games, and the refs never noticed. So, I had to accommodate for that by avoiding a situation where that could happen, playing even harder, or not letting it affect me. Part of what distinguishes good players and coaches from bad ones are the ones that can play through adversity and adjust to game situations.

1c. CON: Preventative Measures

Over the years we've come up with ways to avoid bad calls ruining games, such as having more refs, utilizing replays via video footage, allowing challenges of certain calls, etc. So, obviously everyone would agree that breaking the rules is bad and upholding the rules is good. We should continue to utilize and implement measures that will prevent bad calls from disastrous conclusions; however, again I don't believe that re-playing a game is most fair option.

1d. CON: Unfair Advantage

A rematch would carry with it a lot of differences that could potentially negatively impact a team. For instance, during the first game, the other team's coach may have picked up on certain plays or play calls which would give them an unfair advantage in the next game. Another example are player's statuses; for instance, if they had incurred any injuries during the first game or rather just beat themselves up physically or emotionally which could greatly hinder their second performance. Yet another issue is the immense pressure that both players and refs would be under and a certain expected outcome. For instance, if the France/Ireland game were replayed, people would expect Ireland to win based on what happened last game. The refs would be aware of this and perhaps make calls leaning in their favor to rectify the past injustice. Either way, it wouldn't result in a fair game.

1e. CON: Impracticality

If we were to replay every game with a bad ref call, we'd never get through a game let alone a season. As I said, since it's the little games that build character, talent and take you to the big games, it's silly to suggest that this only be considered for "important" games. It would have to apply universally, which is unfeasible.

2. Effects on the Popularity of Sports

I disagree entirely that sports will be given up as a favorite hobby, past time or thing to follow because of a few bad calls. For instance, in the 1982 World Cup Semi Final, German goal keeper Schumacher committed a horrible and obvious foul, but it wasn't called and Germany went on to win the game. Or what about the infamous Diego Maradona's "hand of God" goal being allowed to stand in the the 1986 World Cup quarter-final? [2] There's even entire books dedicated to blown calls [3] ... So the point is, it's unrealistic to think that fans will stop appreciating the athletes and loving the games based on bad calls. Will they be pissed? Sure. Rightfully so? Maybe. But the fact remains that this contention is one without any merit or proof, whereas history shows us that I'm right: fans will not stop being fans or get discouraged because of bad calls; there's a high market demand for sports.

3. Enraged Fans

I don't care how big of a fan you are - to engage in violent behavior because your team lost is unethical, immature and deserving of punishment. You can't just go around vandalizing things and assaulting people because your favorite sports team was jipped. As I said, these kind of mistakes happen all the time; you can't go around being abusive and destructive every time, and for the most part, fans don't. As I said - it's just a game. If fans are going to act like savages on behalf of their favorite team, then clearly they don't respect themselves, the players or even the "ethics of sports" enough.

4. The Morality of a Generation

It's really ridiculous to say that a bad umpiring call will destroy the ethical foundation of entire generations.Sports games are hardly the #1 place parents and children look as a foundation for morality. Further, while Pro suggests that kids will learn that cheating = good, I think the opposite will happen: Kids will see how cheaters are exposed, condemned and crucified in the media (i.e. Thierry Henry) and as such will choose not to go that route.

That's all I've got for now - back to ye.

Sources:
[1] http://money.cnn.com...
[2] YouTube: Maradona hand of God
[3] http://www.amazon.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Flamingo

Pro

Without further delay, the rebuttal:

"Bad calls are a part of almost every single game or match ever played at both the professional and minor levels."-yes. However, what we are talking about here is such an extreme error that actually affects the result of the game. This only happens in rare situations.

"Referees are only human, have limited awareness, and do their best to make the proper call. Just because an umpire called a foul ball fair or vice versa doesn't mean that any ethics are being violated."-the fact that we later see that an error occurred and do nothing to penalize it is the moment ethics get crashed over! Sure, a referee can't see everything that goes on, but if he, along with the highest officials of the sport later witness such an unethical play and turn the other cheek on it, this is where we violate the fair-play and sportsmanship, demonstrating that it doesn't matter whether you play fair or not, AS LONG AS you do not get caught. Hence, ethics are violated.

"a situation I can think of where ethics and sports are involved are when referees do things like bet on the games that they're reffing. It's sad and unethical, and those people should be punished and fired..."-ah. What my opponent has obviously shown here is her approval of punishment when unethical behaviour and sports are linked! She even suggests more fierce punishment - firing. So what I need to do is only to prove that not reacting to an extreme error is unethical (see arguments 1-3), and we should be on the same page. In all fairness, the end of this sentence goes -"but I don't think there should be a re-match because of it." By firing the people responsible in a situation you presented, the consequences would still remain. The morality would still be destroyed. By having a rematch, we are allowing both sides to face off EQUALLY, and preserve the moral.

"Refs are typically unbiased and have no incentive to blow calls. In fact, quite the opposite: bad umpires won't have jobs... If a ref consistently makes bad or missed calls, they will be unemployed. So, it's in their best interest to keep a good eye on the game..."-I don't see how this has anything to do with this debate. We are not talking about whether a referee is making intentional unethical decisions, or simply whether a ref is a good one or not- we are talking about the situation in which an "error" happens. Deffiniton of "error":-a wrong action attributable to bad judgment or ignorance or inattention- So sure, bad umpires won't have jobs, good ones will. But errors CAN STILL HAPPEN. This is what we are debating about, not the competence of a ref.

"and though players screw up in almost every game, most of the time it is rectified and addressed."-thank you for proving my point. Yes, MOST OF THE TIME screw-ups are addressed. These are the times they ARE NOT! So, my opponent obviously agrees screw-ups should be penalized. So far, I do not see many distinctions between the two of us :)

"Despite all the glamour, professional sports are just GAMES. The reason they're in business and so popular are because of the market demand; in other words, professional sports is a business. I'm sure there's a lot of heart and passion amongst some of the players and coaches, but at the end of the day, it's about a pay check."-couldn't disagree more. So what you are saying is that nobody really cares whether (or better yet-how) they win or lose, as long as they get paid. Not true. Professionals also want to see their efforts and hard work be rewarded. They want to have a fulfilling career and a sense of accomplishment as much as the next guy. Not penalizing these errors would mean taking away that opportunity from them. Sports are business, yes. But sports are also about ambition. Heart and sacrifices of every player. Not to get too pathetic here, my point is you can't just generalize sports as emotionless, numb ball-passing. If it was like that, nobody would come to the games. Soccer players wouldn't take their clothes off after scoring even though they know they are going to be penalized for it.

"A 30-second slot for a commercial being played during the Super Bowl costs 2.6 million dollars [1]. If a bad call was made (and for whatever reason not reviewed until after the game) that changed the outcome of the Super Bowl, it's ridiculous to think that a game of that caliber would be replayed."-these types of games are EXACTLY the ones that should be replayed! If someone wins the Super Bowl due to foul play, it needs to be replayed! Because they are not the best team in the League! They don't deserve the bragging rights for the whole year. FORGET the commercials (that's right, I said it). Some money might be lost due to replaying of the game. But, first of all, we are talking about a higher value than money here. Ethics and moral outweigh the material costs. And second, same commercials can be replayed once more, so what? That does not matter as much. Fairness>money.

"Mistakes and bad calls are a part of every game. Whether it's intentional or not, breaking the rules is something that happens frequently and that's just the nature of sports in general"-breaking the rules is in the nature of sports? How so? And mistakes and bad calls are a part of every game, yes. And they need to be addressed. You said it yourself.

"Part of what distinguishes good players and coaches from bad ones are the ones that can play through adversity and adjust to game situations"-what you did here is accepted my argument that if one team plays unethically, the other one will "ADJUST TO GAME SITUATION"- and play like that themselves-therefore, ethics of sports will be more harmed.

"Over the years we've come up with ways to avoid bad calls ruining games, such as having more refs, utilizing replays via video footage, allowing challenges of certain calls, etc"-all true. Still, again, we are talking about the times these tools did not help. I am proposing the one that would.

The argument of "1d. CON: Unfair Advantage" is completely to my benefit. See, we are letting one team have the unfair advantage by NOT replaying the game, not by replaying it. The team that's NOT penalized for their misbehaviour is in "1d. CON: Unfair Advantage"

"If we were to replay every game with a bad ref call, we'd never get through a game let alone a season"-again, only the EXTREME UMPIRING ERRORS are discussed here. They are hardly a part of every game. Therefore, the plan is completely practical.

2."in the 1982 World Cup Semi Final, German goal keeper Schumacher committed a horrible and obvious foul...what about the infamous Diego Maradona's "hand of God"...There's even entire books dedicated to blown calls"-EXACTLY. These statements explicitly show these kind of errors negatively impact the vision of sports, and its popularity, despite the decade in which they happened! So 30 years later, we still remember the foul plays, the mistakes that weren't addressed, and we condemn them. There would be much less regrets if the match was simply replayed.

3."I don't care how big of a fan you are - to engage in violent behavior because your team lost is unethical, immature and deserving of punishment... If fans are going to act like savages on behalf of their favorite team, then clearly they don't respect themselves, the players or even the "ethics of sports" enough."- SURE. Still, none of this shows they will NOT engage in violent behaviour. Therefore, the argument stands.

4.Con thinks kids will see how cheaters are exposed in the media, so it won't affect them negatively. Quite the contrary-the media will only publicize the fact players got away with cheating, therefore encouraging them to do the same. "Television is one of the most prevalent media influences in kids' lives"-http://www.media-awareness.ca...

Looking forward to hearing the rebuttal soon.
Danielle

Con

Danielle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Flamingo

Pro

Since my opponent had chosen not to respond to this round's rebuttal, all of my arguments extend to the next round.
Thank you, and looking forward to hearing the rebuttal.
Danielle

Con

Sorry for missing the last round -- I got really busy. I'll forfeit a conduct point, but the rest of the debate is up for grabs! :)

1. Pro's first point was that miscalls destroy the ethics of sports. I explained how that's not true; just because a bad call is issued by mistake doesn't mean that any ethics have been violated. Further, I pointed out that just because accidents happen doesn't mean that athletes or umpires will behave more unethically. Since most abuse of rules is observed and penalized, they have no incentive to do so. Pro's response was that it's unethical to not rectify bad calls if you notice any foul play later on when watching the game. However, because of all of the discrepancies that come with a rematch as well as the other points I made (about sports being a business, etc.) come into play, then it's easy to see why it's not unethical to avoid a re-match.

Also, you'll notice that Pro COMPLETELY straw manned my argument. When I said that most bad calls were rectified and addressed, he said that I was "agreeing" with him that screw-ups should be penalized. Okay, I never said that they shouldn't be penalized... insofar as within the parameters of THAT game. This isn't about fixing bad calls during a match, i.e. them reviewing a football play and changing the ruling on the field. This debate has to do with entire new rematches, so, Pro not only didn't prove that not having re-matches was unethical but also acted unethically himself in manipulating my argument.

1a. I made the argument that professional sports was first and foremost a business. Pro gave a nice sappy response about being in it for the right reasons, etc. However, at the end of the day, it comes down to money. Like I said - there are certainly some players and coaches who have their whole heart into the sport. However, without the BUSINESS side of professional sports, there ARE NO professional sports. Commercials, advertising and marketing are a huge aspect of pro sports. If the players really didn't care about their salary, then why do they demand MILLIONS to play a game? Of course it's about the money. Replaying games would become too confusing and costly for the business side of sports.

1b. I said that bad calls were unfortunately part of the game. Pro challenges me on that and asks me how so. First of all, they've been a part of every athlete's life since the beginning of sports, because they happen all the time. Second, the reason they happen - as I already pointed out - is because sometimes players either do things like foul on accident, or on purpose. They do it on purpose for game strategy i.e. to stop the clock. In that case, if the ref doesn't see it, it's actually bad for both parties (as the team doesn't get to stop the clock if the ref doesn't call the foul, i.e. in a close game of basketball).

1c. I said that we should increase opportunities to avoid bad calls via having more umpires, issuing re-plays in sports like baseball and soccer the same way they use them in sports like football, etc. Pro says this is not enough. I think it is.

1d. Pro says my example of unfair advantages is not legit. You'll notice that he never actually addressed my argument. I said: A rematch would carry with it a lot of differences that could negatively impact a team. For instance, during the first game, the other team's coach may have picked up on certain plays or play calls which would give them an unfair advantage in the next game... If they had incurred any injuries during the first game it could hinder their second performance... The players and refs would be under pressure and a certain expected outcome. For instance, if the France/Ireland game were replayed, people would expect Ireland to win based on what happened last game, etc. Either way, it wouldn't result in a completely "fair" game.

Pro says, "See, we are letting one team have the unfair advantage by NOT replaying the game, not by replaying it. The team that's NOT penalized for their misbehavior has the unfair advantage." The thing is - Pro didn't address any of my points. Yes, bad calls are unfair; however, they are a risk in every sport. As I said, we try to rectify the situation when we notice them DURING THE GAME. Pro had absolutely no response to my points about different conditions and variables impacting the game. The thing is, these variables could inhibit the losing team as well (or the team that was originally victimized by the bad call). For instance, if Ireland replayed France, but Ireland's best player was hurt in the first game and couldn't play, then the outcome might still be the same. Would Pro say it's unfair that Ireland's best player was out? Maybe, but you can't possibly replay the game under the same conditions or circumstances.

1e. Pro says that rematches would only be played in EXTREME cases; however, who gets to decide what is extreme? Ever hear of the domino effect? One thing affects another. So, if one fair ball was called foul in a game of baseball, for example, and the player then struck out after the next pitch - you might not think it was a big deal and therefore the game would not be replayed. However, what if that player got on base, and the next batter got up and hit a home run? That score might drastically impact the outcome of the game. So, again this idea is still impractical considering it would have to apply to almost every bad call.

2. Pro tried to make the argument that people would become so disenchanted with sports that they would no longer be fans, etc. if bad calls were made and rematches not issued. That was the most ridiculous argument ever and I completely proved Pro wrong by providing famous examples of bad calls and pointing out how sports are more popular than ever. So, Pro's point has been completely voided out by my own arguments. His only response is that we still remember bad calls from long ago... yep, and they were all unfortunate, but life goes on. The sport nor the athletes of today have been impacted in any way, except for us being more conscious of bad calls and trying to avoid them.

3. Pro said that after bad calls were made, enraged fans would react incredibly violently and viciously towards one another. You'll notice that Pro did not provide examples of this happening, but I digress. I pointed out that the fans should be punished according to their own actions if they decide to act this way -- it's not the responsibility of league owners to be their mommies and make sure they're on their best behavior. People are liable for their own actions. When a person acts poorly for ANY reason, they are punished plain and simple. Nobody should act like that no matter what - especially over a game, and ESPECIALLY in a game that you're not even playing in (or getting paid for), etc.

4. Again, Pro makes no argument. I said that kids would see how cheaters are exposed, condemned and crucified in the media and as such would choose to avoid cheating so as to avoid being labeled a bad sport. Pro's only response was about how the media influences kids (which proves absolutely nothing) and that he thinks this will encourage them to cheat. Well, we have disagreeing view points - surprise surprise. The fact is, Pro didn't effectively REFUTE or negate mine, so at best, this is just a moot point.

CONCLUSION: Bad calls are unfortunate, but have been a part of sports since the beginning. Good athletes adjust and try to overcome these hurdles. Sometimes bad calls affect the outcome of the game, and because that sucks, we should continue to try and implement things to AVOID these mistakes! I favor more video replays and more refs, for instance. However, because sports is a business and replaying games would severely impact that (not to mention be impossible to replay so often) - AND - there's no way to replay the game under completely fair conditions, the best thing to do is move on.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Flamingo 7 years ago
Flamingo
Ok, so you forfeited this round...? What happens next? :) Do i debate the 3rd round anyway?
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
Flamingo, try to remember to post sources.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
You can introduce new arguments in the 2nd round, as can Con. However, Can absolutely cannot offer new arguments in the 3rd round (since you wouldn't be able to respond to them) and it's discouraged that the Pro does as well, though it's not as bad as if Con does. Welcome to DDO though and good luck! This should be a fun debate.
Posted by Flamingo 7 years ago
Flamingo
Hi guys, since I'm new to this site and debating in here, are there any strict rules i should know of, regarding debates? For example, am i allowed to introduce new arguments in a second round? Stuff like that? Tnx.
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
theLwerd is gonna take it.
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
theLwerd is gonna take it.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
I agree too much with PRO to take this.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
There are plenty of concerns. One of them would be that a rematch will have a different result than the original game. Another would be that the injury status of players would be different. Another would be that refs might intnentionally make bad calls if their team was losing to make the event be repayed.
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
I felt just like this in the Patriots VS Colts game
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
Do it!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by SaintNick 7 years ago
SaintNick
FlamingoDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by LaSalle 7 years ago
LaSalle
FlamingoDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
FlamingoDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05