The Instigator
Chrysippus
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
brian_eggleston
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The game of G--f ought to be eliminated.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/1/2011 Category: Sports
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,711 times Debate No: 15741
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

Chrysippus

Pro

It is no lighthearted topic I bring before you today, gentle voters; no laughing matter that one could smile over at breakfast. No, this is a horrible problem, a chilling reminder of the evils that lurk in the dark corners of our civilization. It is an issue that has been centuries in the making, but has reached its greatest peak of wickedness and debauchery (a word which here means "causes small children to hide behind the couch in fear") in our generation; and one that I fear, if not stopped soon, will traumatize our children and grandchildren.

I am speaking of course of the unpleasant and unfortunate game of G--f.

{This subject necessarily requires me to use several expletives, purely in a descriptive sense; the very name of the game itself is a four-letter word. I ask the kind voter's indulgence in this matter.)

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

A few definitions, just to start things out right:

G--f: the game of chance wherein players hack at small white balls with sticks and attempt to get the balls to progress into a series of holes by means of carefully chosen expletives. [1]

Eliminated: To be gotten rid of entirely, expunged, deleted, removed from circulation, and otherwise taken care of.

Ought-to-be: In a better world, this would have already been taken care of. The fact that has not yet been in ours is prima facie proof that there are better possible worlds.

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

Now, to be quite frank, there are many unfortunate implications of this unspeakable "game;" far too many to cover in this debate. We will not, therefore, be covering the enormous wasteage of water yearly by the vast lawns of the "g--fcourses," nor will we mention the irresponsible use of prime housing land by those same facilities. We do not have time to touch on the corruption of our youth by the hard liquor often available for sale in the clubhouses. We will not mention the waste of precious natural resources poured into producing balls, clubs, tees, carts, trolleys, caddies, proshops, clubhouses, trainers, flamingoes, groundskeepers, sandtraps, waterhazards, and Tiger Woods. We cannot devote enough space to do justice to the evils of the greens fee system.

Thus, I will not even mention any of these unfortunate aspects of this shudderingly appalling "game," and instead will address myself this round to only two points out of the many, many that could be made had we the time, patience, or endurance to hear them all.

1. G--f is hazardous to public health.
G--f is a very dangerous sport. It takes healthy people from all walks of life out of their safe, airconditioned, hypoallergenic homes and places them in the middle of what essentially is a large firing range. They are then subjected to every extreme of heat and cold[2], tiny white missiles falling out of the sky without notice, every allergen known to man[3], carcinogenic amounts of sunshine[4], traps, hazards, and surly groundskeepers. Their brains are addled by the curse words that fill the air, and their livers are ruined by the overpriced vodka in the clubhouse.

In short, it turns bright, promising young people into that dull, ruined, subhuman species known as "G--fers."

The worst part about it is that these horrible side effects are not limited to the g--fcourse. These playing fields are often situated by major roads, where the missiles can reach out and break car windows[5] or bean people on the head[6,7, 8]. As you can see by my sources, people have died or suffered severe brain damage from being hit by g--f balls, sometimes even when they weren't playing. Housing developments, horribly overpriced, are even built right by these hazardous places; those that live there have a higher-than-average probability of being sucked into becoming a "g--fer."

Clearly, G--f is hazardous to public health.

2. G--f clothes are criminally hideous.

This is self-evident; however, in case my opponent has never wandered near a g--fcourse, I will provide some examples.

[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]

These should prove my point.

I thank my brave opponent in advance, whomever he might be, and turn this debate over to him.

C.

[1] http://golfpedia.com...
[2] http://www.lyngsfjord.com...
[3] http://www.mrtlabs.com...
[4] http://cancer.about.com...
[5] http://www.carinsurance.com...
[6] http://www.ocregister.com...
[7] http://www.monstersandcritics.com...
[8] http://www.jvra.com...

Warning: The following links may contain objectionable content; like g--f clothes.
[9] http://us.loudmouthgolf.com...
[10] http://www.chiff.com...
[11] http://bleacherreport.com...
[12] http://www.blog.ispygolf.com...
[13] http://www.hazardgolfclothing.com...
brian_eggleston

Con

With many thanks to Chrysippus for this posing this most interesting challenge, I should like to begin by reminding the voters of the huge benefit golf clubs provide to (upper class) members of (high) society.

Because membership of golf clubs is usually very expensive, it precludes any proles, riff-raff, oiks, chavs, skulking loafers, people that might appear as guests on The Jerry Springer Show and other frightfully common people from joining, and thus, spoiling the sport for the toffs, snobs, aristocrats and the other particularly posh people who are rich enough to become members.

Thus, golf provides an oasis of wealth and prosperity where investment bankers can get inside information on forthcoming mergers and acquisitions; where property developers can ‘discuss the merits' of their planning applications with influential politicians and ‘buy them a drink' in acknowledgment of their ‘kind understanding' and where other discussions of a delicate nature can take place: a golf course provides a discrete environment away from any envious peasants, prying left-wing journalists and nosey tax inspectors.

Where else would this be possible? Maybe an exclusive yacht club, but what about oil barons, property tycoons, steel magnates and media moguls who don't live by the sea? Where would they do their under-the-counter deals if golf clubs were banned?

Now, to address my opponent's points in turn:

1 – Health and Safety.
-------------------------
Golf is not a sport for poor people. For example: Yellowstone Club World Membership costs $4-10 million and this is in addition to green fees, annual dues and minimum dining fees that run into hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. [1]

This means that golfers can generally afford to spend money on employing fawning lackeys (which they call "caddies") to carry their gear, drive their golf karts and protect them from rain or sun with an umbrella.

And there is little danger to golfers from stray golf balls, by the way. Indeed, in recent years, only one professional has been badly injured in connection with golf: that was Tiger Woods in 2009 and it wasn't a golf ball that injured him, it was a 9-iron golf club that his wife wrapped round his head after she found out he'd been getting his end away with some cheap floozy on the sly. [2]

It is true that golf balls and roads don't mix, however, but that's why golf clubs use their super-rich members' influence and power to ensure they don't. For example, when a new dual-carriageway (highway) was proposed to link London with Ramsgate in Kent, the route took it straight across Chesterfield Golf Club. Incensed, the club's members used their political connections to force the Highways Agency to route the new road, at huge extra expense to the taxpayer, through a tunnel beneath the golf course. Still, there were concerns that stray golf balls may hit vehicles as they entered the tunnels so every time a player tees off on the fairway above the road, the traffic is forced to stop and wait at automated traffic signals while the player takes his shot. [3,4]

2 – Clothing
--------------
It is also true that golfers' clothes are pretty atrocious, there's no denying that: and clearly most golfers have more money than taste; but still they are confined to their golf clubs where few people can be offended by their garish attire. Not like chavs, who hang around the streets in hideously ugly clothes in full sight of small children and nervous old ladies. [5,6,7,8,9,10]

In conclusion, the mega-rich are human beings and they have human rights just like anyone else and, therefore, they should not be denied the freedom to go to golf clubs to show off how wealthy they are or to do dodgy business deals or, occasionally, play a round or two of golf.

Thank you.

[1] http://www.forbes.com...
[2] http://www.thesun.co.uk...
[3] http://www.geograph.org.uk...
[4] http://maps.google.com...
[5] http://www.motifake.com...
[6] http://www.cslacker.com...
[7] http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk...
[8] http://i.telegraph.co.uk...
[9] http://www.millwall.vitalfootball.co.uk...
[10] http://richandcreamy.typepad.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Chrysippus

Pro

I thank my worthy opponent for making my case stronger. It seems we are in agreement on many things about this accursed "game," not the least of which is the danger that it poses to all law-abiding citizens everywhere. My redoubtable opponent not only agreed with my points, but he added two more reasons why he felt g--f ought to vanquished. I will deal with them first, and then touch briefly on my previous points.


1B. Corruption

Brian is right. The g--fcourses are hotbeds of incipient political corruption, trysting places for the wolves of our time. They provide a unique haven for the arms dealers and government bosses to go to ground unsuspected, a paradise for the government good ol' boys to grow fatter in while plotting our despoliation. All the more reason to remove these utopias for the morally deficient; and I thank my keen-sighted opponent for pointing out this important point.


2B. Humans like ourselves?
"the mega-rich are human beings and they have human rights just like anyone else" my opponent states, in a rare misprint, as it is clear from the rest of his posting that he really meant "the mega-rich are not human beings and they don't have human rights like anyone else." I'm not always a grammar nazi, but I felt this little slip ought to be rectified lest some voter miss the obvious and think he was arguing for the humanity of the über-rich.

Of course the hyper-wealthy are not human. No-one in their right mind would believe they were, nor that they have rights of any kind whatever. It goes without saying (though I do say it, in consideration for the weaker-minded among the voters) that g--f should not be preserved out of any misplaced sense of sympathy for these invertebrates.


Now, quickly, to clear up a few issues concerning my original points:

1. Public Health

My point here on the health dangers of g--f to the average player, the passer-by, and the ordinary citizen was not questioned; indeed, was re-enforced by my opponent. He pointed out the curious fact that the g--f elite suffer few if any injuries from this sadistic "sport", while as I established it poses quite real hazards to those of us not cursed with millions of the spendable. As an underscore to this point, note that many of the feature of the g--fcourses are even named appropriately: water hazards, sand traps, bunkers, and the like. Clearly, these are places to stay away from if one values his life.

He also mentions the roadway diverted underneath the fairway; note that the British government pays special homage to the dangers of this pastime by halting an entire highway every time a g--fer takes a shot! Need I say more?


2. Clothing

My kindly opponent concedes the eyesoreosity of g--f clothing, but tries to make some excuse for the g--fers criminal lack of taste by comparing them to the typical Londoner and claiming that they will keep their indiscretions on the course. The affliction of g--f is spreading,though; dare we take the awful chance that this may be the generation when the fuchsia shorts and chartreuse shirts invade our streets?

I put it to the timid voters: Can you see your grandchildren-to-be hiding in fear from the paisley pants and checkered tanktops; or worse, wearing them? This abomination must be stopped now, before worse things than Chavs come to be.

C.

brian_eggleston

Con

I apologise to my esteemed opponent for the brevity of this response but I'm flat to the boards with work at the moment and, unfortunately, I do not have the time to devote to this debate that it deserves.

Nevertheless, in response to my opponent's arguments that golfers are both inhuman and inherently corrupt, I should argue that surely society would be a better place without them?

With this being the case, the water hazards, sand traps and bunkers that he cites as proof of the dangers golf poses to its participants should mean that we should actively encourage these dirty, cheating, money-grabbing, parasitic, upper-class swindlers to play as much golf as possible in order to maximise their chances of meeting with an ‘unfortunate' accident.

Now, moving on to the subject of fashion; whether it be for golfers or chavs. I happen to agree with my opponent's comments on the subject, but the voters should dismiss both our opinions because fashion is for young people and we are both old - I am old enough to remember the First Gulf War and the Falklands War and my opponent, at the ripe old age of 101, is old enough to remember those wars plus the Vietnam, Korean and Second World Wars: indeed, he may even have a dim recollection of the First World War which ended when he was 8 years old.

In conclusion; my opponent has not supplied sufficient evidence that golf should be banned and you should, therefore, vote for me.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Chrysippus

Pro

Chrysippus forfeited this round.
brian_eggleston

Con

Please count this round as forfeited by me because, unlike my opponent, I didn't run out of time, I ran out of ideas!
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Chrysippus 6 years ago
Chrysippus
Conduct goes to Con, as well as my thanks for a fun debate. I tried to vote him the point, but apparently we cannot vote on our own debates anymore.
Posted by Chrysippus 6 years ago
Chrysippus
Humph. I thought I had ten more hours for this round, and I had some good ideas for the closing round, too.

Sorry about the forfeit, Brian; was a fun debate. I'll vote for you.
Posted by Chrysippus 6 years ago
Chrysippus
@ Brian: You'd be surprised. We may be few, but those of us that survived this long are onery scoundrels.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
SO LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS!!!
nac
Posted by brian_eggleston 6 years ago
brian_eggleston
Thanks!

Bit confused though...you wrote "I'm a coward when it comes to dealing with most of my generation."

You are 101 (that's even older than me) so I don't suppose there are many people of your generation left to interact with!
Posted by Chrysippus 6 years ago
Chrysippus
No problem. I'll leave it open for you; I'm afraid if I open it up for everyone that someone without a sense of humour will take it.

That, or a junior-high student whose idea of debating is "lolwut you mean golf rite??? why wold you say that everyon nows that golf is da bom and thers nothin wrong with playing otside you just dont now nothin GTFO."

I'm a coward when it comes to dealing with most of my generation. I'm afraid prolonged contact with them is deleterious to my mental health.
Posted by brian_eggleston 6 years ago
brian_eggleston
I totally agree with your sentiments: this feckless activity should be banned without any further delay!

However, for the sake of a debate, I would like to accept….the only trouble is I will be away until Tuesday and will only have intermittent Internet access.

If you like, please offer it to someone else, otherwise I'll pick it up next week.
No votes have been placed for this debate.