That UfC should be banned.
Debate Rounds (3)
Life's tough, get a helmet.
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.
caleb.ziegler forfeited this round.
Rwicks forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate