The Instigator
twsurber
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
Nails
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

The Redskins ought to lose games and play for a 1st round draft pick.

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 3 votes the winner is...
twsurber
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/25/2009 Category: Sports
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,039 times Debate No: 9833
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

twsurber

Pro

This season is a wash. Except for NY, all of the Redskins' losses came against lame opponents.

Contention 1:
Jim Zorn and staff will likely be fired at the end of the season.

Contention 2:
This team has no reliable offense, and the defense cannot pitch shutouts.

Contention 3:
If the 'Skins win any more games it will drop them in the draft.

The NFL would go ballistic and the fans would have kittens, but this is clearly the best way to get a better offense.
Nails

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for starting this debate, and I look forward to seeing how this debate unfolds.

======
His Case
======

Contention 1:
Jim Zorn and staff will likely be fired at the end of the season.

----
I would like to contend the contrary.

1. Zorn has continually risen in the ranks. He is likely to continue to rise.

-He started as a professional quarterback for the Seattle Sea hawks, then Green Bay's Packers, and finally the Tampa Buccs, giving him actual experience in what Pro football is like from a player's perspective. (1976-1987)
-He then moved up to multiple different college coaching positions. (1988-1996)
-After that, he became a professional coaching assistant. (1997-2007)
-That leaves him where he is today, coaching Washington.
(http://en.wikipedia.org...)

2. The Washington Redskins' record isn't dreadful.

There are currently multiple teams doing worse than the Red Skins. They've won 33% of their games this year and one half of their games last year. While this isn't great, it is early enough on in the season to pull out of. 1 bad year that isn't even half over isn't enough to condemn this coach to failure.

My opponent is going to need some real evidence to support his claim.

====

Contention 2:
This team has no reliable offense, and the defense cannot pitch shutouts.

----

There is nothing to say that the offense isn't reliable. My opponent will need to prove this.

The same applies to the defense's ability to 'pitch shutouts', though it doesn't really matter anyway:
There have been 79 shutouts in 1,168 regular-season games this decade. That's about one shutout every 15 games.
It's not a common or necessary ability of the defense. After 6 games, we wouldn't know anyway, as it is 15 games on average per shut out.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

====

Contention 3:
If the 'Skins win any more games it will drop them in the draft.

----

Yep. So should all teams do their best to lose? You're not drawing any conclusions here.

====

"The NFL would go ballistic and the fans would have kittens, but this is clearly the best way to get a better offense."

----

My opponent even admits the major negative consequences. Cats are already overpopulated already; we can't handle more kittens. (http://www.hsus.org...)

The question is, where does he get the idea that "this is clearly the best way to get a better offense?"

His contentions certainly don't say that.

===========================================================================

======
My Case
======

Contention One: The Redskins should show good sportsmanship.

It would be unsportsmanlike to be sore losers and just give up halfway through the season as my opponent suggests. One of the key parts of sports is participating even when the chips aren't stacked in your favor. This is made doubly true in Pro football. These athletes are the role models for children all across America. It would be in very poor taste to something as unsportsmanlike as what my opponent suggests.

Contention Two: Losing on purpose will unfairly alter the NFL draft.

There is a reason why the draft gives the worst teams 1st pick. It is to equalize the playing field more the next season. By intentionally altering the scores, my opponent throws off this equilibrium. The Redskins might get better players, but it would be players that they don't deserve. They would also be short changing other teams of the players they need. This deliberate draft altering would throw off the entertainment value of pro football.

Contention Three: This will anger Redskins fans.

My opponent concedes this in the last sentence of his case. The Redskins' goal is to garner attention and attract a crowd to their games. They won't be doing that if they lose on purpose, they will scorn their fans and their ratings will tank. Unfairly getting good players next season, if anything, would add to this resentment.
Debate Round No. 1
twsurber

Pro

Nails, Thank you for accepting this debate and I am certainly impressed with the positive energy you brought.

REBUTTAL:

1. Although I have nothing against Jim Zorn personally, a head coach is responsible for the team's successes and failures. Thus far he has not produced the results expected of the Redskins fans. I agree that Jim Zorn had an admirable career as a player, but it is common knowledge that the best players do not always make the best coaches. Although an article was published by the Washington Post stating that Zorn's job was safe through this season, it implied his tenure was not guaranteed beyond that. Generally, when a head coach is replaced, the new head coach prefers to bring in his own staff.

2. "The Redskins have lost 10 of their last 14 games and have been awful on offense this season. The team is averaging just 13.2 points a game and it has not scored more than 17 in any single contest. In addition, the Redskins rank 23rd in total offense (294.0) and are among the bottom third of the league in rush offense and passing yards (195.3)". (source: www.nfl.com)

My reference to the defense pitching shutouts was an exaggeration due to the low number of points scored by the offense.

3. I will concede and stipulate both your point and source regarding cat overpopulation. :o)

By finishing at bottom, the Redskins are assured of getting young talent that they desperately need. Many of the current players are past their prime and struggle to produce even mediocre results.

Opponent's points:

1. It was inferred, not implied, that the Redskins would be sore losers. By playing, they would still be participating. Since they can't seem to beat the weaker teams in league, losing on purpose may be a moot point.

2. Teams often trade players, cash, and draft picks up and down the draft which also alters the draft. Strategic decisions are made in every business including football.

3. The fans are already mad. If they believe that a strategy is in place to fix the problems and start winning they will be forgiving. An article in Rivals.com stated that financially speaking, the Redskins are second only to Dallas.

SUMMARY: I concur that good sportsmanship demands that every player give 100% on every play and that NFL players are role models whether they like it or not. Unfortunately, in the capitalistic society we live in, it is paramount that teams and coaches be ultimately successful. We all know that not only professional athletes, but even the common laborer do not give 100% every day. Strategic decisions occur daily with the intent of fixing problems. If it takes sacrificing half of one season to obtain better players, wouldn't be worth it in the long run? Thank you.
Nails

Con

We are debating "The Redskins ought to lose games and play for a 1st round draft pick."

My opponent seems to go off-topic frequently into debates of whether the Redskins are good or bad as a team.

=====
His Case
=====

C1: Jim Zorn

A. Jim Zorn hasn't done bad like PRO claims he has.

His 1st season they went 8 and 8 which, statistically is what would be expected from the average coach.
His 2nd season isn't even half over and PRO concedes this is because of the offensive line.
I don't know what he is basing this idea that Zorn should be fired on. Just extend the evidence I gave showing that Jim Zorn looks to be a good coach in the future.

B. It doesn't matter. Jim Zorn getting fired has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

---

C2: Record

His evidence only goes to further my claim that, while they have had a poor season thus far, it isn't abysmal and without hope. They are at the 33rd percentile and 23rd of over 30 teams. This means that while they are below average, that they aren't abysmal and beyond hope.

You can also apply the same argument as on the above contention. Just the fact that their record is bad, even if he won the argument, has no bearing on the case. Every year some teams necessarily do bad. If we believed that this argument is true, then all of the bottom 10 or so teams would be vying for last. There is no reason that having a bad record justifies on its own playing to lose the rest of the games.

---

"By finishing at bottom, the Redskins are assured of getting young talent that they desperately need. Many of the current players are past their prime and struggle to produce even mediocre results."

This is nonresponsive to the multiple arguments I've made that it would be wrong to lose intentionally even if it leads to getting younger talent. You can deconstruct his flawed logic with a simple syllogism.

Getting money benefits us - - - - - - - (Getting better players benefits us)
I can get money by robbing people - -(I can get better players by losing games on purpose)
Robbing people is a good idea - - - - -(Losing games is a good idea)

The first two claims being true do not necessarily make the 3rd true, as is seen with the analogy to robbing. Look at his case, he proves absolutely nothing beyond those 1st two claims, which means he can't conclude the 3rd claim that enacting the resolution would be a good idea.

=====
My Case
=====

C1: Sportsmanship

Every sentence of his attack on this case can easily be proven false.

---

"It was inferred, not implied, that the Redskins would be sore losers."

Regardless of if they have the 'sore loser' mindset, affirming is still a 'sore loser' action, as they simply give up when they are losing rather than trying hard to bounce back.

I am not saying that the Redskins will probably be sore losers if we enact this resolution. I am saying that the resolution is inherently the action of an unsportsmanlike person, or to use his term, a sore loser.

---

"By playing, they would still be participating."

They are not participating in a way that is becoming of a sportsmanlike player. If I were the quarterback and instead of passing the football, I pegged an offensive line man in the back, I couldn't defend my actions by saying "I was still participating."

Participation does not equal sportsmanship.

---

"Since they can't seem to beat the weaker teams in league, losing on purpose may be a moot point."

Where does my opponent get this idea? If the Redskins are at about the 33rd percentile in all stats, as both my opponent and I give evidence to support, then from where do we get "they can't seam to beat the weaker teams in league"? Statistics and all factual evidence say that they can beat about 1/3 of teams. I'd need more than my opponent's gut feeling to prove to me otherwise.

===

C2: Draft

"Teams often TRADE players, cash, and draft picks up and down the draft which also alters the draft."

Correct, they TRADE, meaning the other teams would receive something in return. Trading is, in general, fine. The problem here is that the Redskins aren't trading anything; they are shortchanging the other teams of a draft pick.

"Strategic decisions are made in every business including football."

Just because other "strategic decisions" (in actuality, cheating) may occur does not make them right.

C3: Fans

My opponent assumes that the fans will be happy simply because the team may start winning again next year. I, for one, wouldn't be, knowing my team was cheating, but that isn't what I was talking about.

What about the other teams? The fans of every other team are shortchanged by the Redskins' unfair rise in power. Why should we appease the fans of one team and not the rest?

=================
Summary of Voting Issues
=================

1. My opponent's burden is to prove the resolution true, which he clearly has not. Look to my above analogy for why.

2. My opponent stated, "I concur that good sportsmanship demands that every player give 100% on every play." In so far as this is true, my opponent is negating because he doesn't deny that to vote PRO would be unsportsmanlike.

3. The competitive equity of NFL football will be harmed by draft altering.

4. The fast majority of those who watch the NFL will be angered.
Debate Round No. 2
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
How did Con lose...
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Yea, apparently some voter out there really likes the Redskins.
Posted by twsurber 7 years ago
twsurber
I know how you feel, the voters cost me 3 debates that I clearly won. From a moral standpoint you clearly won this debate. There are some strange squirrels around here :0)
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
How am I losing this debate? Those arguments weren't even on topic...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
twsurberNailsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:70 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
twsurberNailsTied
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 twsurber 7 years ago
twsurber
twsurberNailsTied
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:70