The Instigator
caleb.ziegler
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Rwicks
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

That UfC should be banned.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Rwicks
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/10/2014 Category: Sports
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,330 times Debate No: 66695
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

caleb.ziegler

Pro

UfC should be banned because all it is, is people beating each other up. It is very dangerous and they could get seriously hurt.
Rwicks

Con

So what? Know how many people die every year on the roads? Let's ban driving. How many people die skiing? Let's ban skiing. Two weeks ago an Australian dude was killed playing cricket for gods sake, let's ban cricket.

Life's tough, get a helmet.
Debate Round No. 1
caleb.ziegler

Pro

Ok, but these people are intentionally causing harm to each other. I'm sure they could find another sport.
Rwicks

Con

I think in this statement "but these people are intentionally causing harm to each other. I'm sure they could find another sport" you have clarified your position better. Now we can debate the topic of what I refer to as "blood sports."

In my definition of blood sports, the goal is to do as much damage to your opponent until they are so weak that the winner can claim victory. This can be solo competition, for example UFC, martial arts, or boxing, where the goal is to literally beat your opponent into submission, or team sports like rugby or football, where the goal is to get your ball to the other side, and crowds cheer when you knock down, dominate, and "damage" the other team.

Before we continue, I think it would be best if you agree or disagree with my belief that UFC, boxing, martial arts, rugby, and football, are all examples of sports where "people are intentionally causing harm to each other." If you agree, then we can debate freedom of choice. If you disagree, then this turns into a debate about what "causing harm to each other" means.
Debate Round No. 2
caleb.ziegler

Pro

caleb.ziegler forfeited this round.
Rwicks

Con

Rwicks forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
caleb.zieglerRwicksTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both forfeited the final round which is rarely acceptable behavior in any debate setting. I would highly recommend both debaters try to avoid forfeiting rounds since it is an automatic loss of conduct points. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar. Arguments - Con. Pro failed to really build a compelling case. Instead, he dropped arguments and then failed to present any rebuttals to Con's final challenges. Due to this, Con wins arguments. Sources - Tie. Neither utilized sources in this debate.