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

The Luis Suarez incident was bad for the game

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/29/2014 Category: Sports
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 520 times Debate No: 58330
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




To begin this I decided to define what bad means. What it said was that bad is not of an adequate standard or unsatisfactory. Although what Luis did was completely breaking the rules it only drew attention to the World Cup even more which can only be good for the game as more spectators/viewers will generate more income which can be spent on the development of football. What Luis did generated emotion from people and that is what sport thrives on. The fact that he broke a rule and sunk his teeth into the Italian defenders arm was unfortunate but all in all I think that he has made the World Cup memorable and gained more viewers. From my point of view how he did it is irrelevant.


I thank Con for instigating this interesting debate, which I'm pretty sure would be extremely fun.

I will be arguing that what Luis Suarez did was bad for the game of football. Let us look at how Con defines teh term 'bad'. According to his definition, anything that 'is not of adequate standard or is unsatisfactory' is bad. The 'adequate standards' can be extremely subjective, but fortunately for us, the game of football does have a common Code of ethics drawn by the Committee of ethics and fair play according to article 7 of the FIFA, which acts as a pretty objective standard for players playing the game. He did breach article 48 and 57 of the FIFA disciplinary code, dealing with 'misconduct against the opponent' and 'fair play and offensive behavior'.

Thus, going by the definition provided by my opponent, Suarez did fall short of the standard expected of the players by FIFA, his behavior was definitely unsatisfactory keeping in mind the expectations bestowed upon the FIFA players by fans and FIFA itself, what he did was DEFINITELY bad.

Responding to the arguments my opponent brings forth, (where he claims that what the biting wasn't bad because it brought in viewers), that is a dubious argument in itself. Even assuming that's true, it is not clear how that relates to whether or not the act itself was bad. A less than honourable action bringing in viewers/ excitement is still a bad action. It would be illuminating if my opponent could explain how the act was not bad, hopefully relating it to the definition he brought forth.
Debate Round No. 1


Nickpowell forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Nickpowell forfeited this round.


Extend all arguments :)
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff