The vuvuzelas should be banned from the FIFA World Cup.
Debate Rounds (3)
Anyone watching a World Cup match could easily be mistaken for thinking that the crowd was made up of a swarm of bees, not humans. For people watching the game at home, this underlying buzz is simply annoying and distracting. For people watching the game in the stadium, it drowns out most of the variety of the chants, cheers and boos that make a football game entertaining.
But for the players themselves, it is even worse. Not only is it distracting for them when playing the game, it also makes it extraordinarily difficult for them to hear each other out on the pitch - the goalkeeper can't communicate with his defenders, and strikers and midfielders can't communicate with each other, both of which are necessary for a team to co-ordinate well in a game - and also, there are reports of the vuvuzela sound starting early in the day, meaning that players can't get enough sleep before they play, which would make them restless and not able to play as well as they otherwise could do. 
If this only affects one team, then the other team get an unfair advantage. But even if it affects both teams, then it lowers the quality of the game nonetheless, meaning that the World Cup has been lessened in quality overall by the choice of South Africa as a host nation. Banning the vuvuzela would also, in this way, also serve to endear South Africa to the world of sport. Their bad choice of allowing the vuvuzela to be played has lessened their popularity, and makes it far less likely - given the protests by footballers , fans  and broadcasters  alike - that they will ever be approached to host a similar competition again. It is actually, therefore, in their best interests to ban the vuvuzela.
If it is a South African tradition, then that's fine for them. Let them play this ungodly sound at their own national tournaments. If they don't like the sound of the fans chanting and cheering for their team, then they don't have to. But this is an international tournament, with the matches being televised across the world. For the World Cup at least, it should be banned.
I await my opponent's response.
 See the embedded YouTube video. Although this is from when South Africa hosted the Confederations Cup last year, it is the same offending item under discussion, and the same country to blame.
I argue that the vuvuzela should not be banned from the FIFA World Cup.
I will begin by refuting some of my opponets arguments. For the record, I have a habit of reffering to online people as "he." I want to apologize if may opponet is female. I want my opponent and readers to add "or she" wherever I have said "he." It's late and I don't feel like revising it everywhere I put it. Sorry!
First off, he said that the sounds are distracting for people working at home. If the people are doing something important enough that they can't be distracted, then they could simply turn the tv off. He then says it drowns out what makes a football game entertaining. Entertaining is a relative term. What my opponet may find entertaining, others may find annoying. That argument can not stand since the is no universal way to measure entertainment. He then goes on to say that vuvuzelas are distracting for the players. The reasons he gave are not specific to vuvuzelas though. These reasons can also apply to loud screaming and chanting. His sleep argument is the same thing. Vuvuzelas are made to make noise. If they were taken away then these people blowing the vuvuzelas would begin screaming and making noise in other ways. The people are the problem, not the vuvuzelas. He then says it lowers the quality of play, but gives no reasons other than the ones I've taken out. He says that the choice of South Africa made the play bad. First off, I don't agree the play is bad, but even if it was, the burden would then be on FIFA for choosing South Africa as the host nation and not the vuvuzelas. They were fully aware when they made the choice that the vuvuzelas would be present. He admitted that FIFA is the one to blame for the lower quality of play (if there is lower quality). He says the vuvuzelas lessen South Africa's popularity. This is in no way true. How can hosting the Cup and having the eyes of the whole world on you lower your popularity? South Africa is more popular, and in the news more often, than it has ever been. Even if South Africa's popularity decreased, it is not relevant to this debate. This debate is on whether or not the vuvuzelas should be banned, South Africa's popularity has nothing to do with it. It is possible that the vuvuzela should be allowed even if it lowers South Africa's popularity.
His argument about banning a South African tradition, just because it is televised around the world is ridiculous. People sitting on their couch at home have no right to force their beliefs and tell other countries how to play football. Me watching the game at home does not make my opinion on how to celebrate superior to the South Afican's opinion. What they find annoying is different than what I find annoying. Remember, FIFA chose to broadcast this nation's culuture to the whole world. Let it be South Africa's culuture, not Europe's.
Now that I believe I have sufficiently refuted all of his points, let's move on to mine.
Part of the reason countries want to host the World Cup is that it is a way to show their culture to the world. Taking away South Africa's vuvuzelas is like them taking away America's hotdogs. It's just not right. It's a part of who they are. Taking away from South Africa's culture, makes the European culture seem supperior. Just because Europeans do not like what they are doing, the Europeans have no right to force their beliefs on another nation. FIFA chose South Africa to as the host the tournament, so let South Africa HOST the tournament. They are doing it the way they know how and are doing it to the best of their abilities. There is no right or wrong way to celebrate the game. FIFA banning the vuvuzelas is like telling the South Africans that they are not celebrating correctly. Let the people celebrate! There is no right or wrong way to celebrate (as long as nobody gets hurt) so FIFA has absolutely no right to tell the people how to celebrate.
Also from a gameplay standpoint, my opponet brought this up and I think that it is worth highlighting for my side. It effects both teams the same. There are no unfair advantages and the integrity of the game is not compromised. The winner of the game is still the better team. Noise is just another factor of the game itself. If teams can't deal with the noise than they have no business winning. Noise is a part of the game. I argue that vuvuzelas add to the atmosphere of the game. Any football fan will tell you that noise is a major factor in the game. It is the way fans can be a part of the game without physically participating in it.
I now turn the time over to my opponet and I look forward to reading his rebuttal.
Before I get onto my main counter-rebuttals, there's just a minor point - at one point, my opponent says: "If the people are doing something important enough that they can't be distracted, then they could simply turn the tv off." This misunderstands the point I was making there. The "important thing" I was referring to, was them being entertained by the football match. If this enjoyment is curtailed by the incessant bee-hive that are vuvuzelas, then that is something that cannot be avoided by the person wanting to watch the match.
--- Going beyond the subjectivity of "entertaining" ---
I agree, to a point, with my opponent when he says that what constitutes "entertaining" is subjective. This does not, however, demolish my point, which is that the widespread use of the vuvuzela is directly detrimental to any attempt of variety in entertainment. The monotonal sound, louder than many others (see below), serves to drown out other chants, cheers and crowd entertainment.
If the disruptive event were physical - draping a banner that blocked the crowd's view of the stadium, or physically attacking people who are perceived as being a nuisance, for instance - then there'd be no debate: the action would be banned. But how is this psychological / tonal disruption different in any relevant sense? It isn't, and so the vuvuzelas should be banned.
--- Vuvuzelas result in unique harms that are not also applicable to mere chanting and cheering ---
My opponent argued that: "[I] say that vuvuzelas are distracting for the players. The reasons [I] gave are not specific to vuvuzelas though. These reasons can also apply to loud screaming and chanting....The people are the problem, not the vuvuzelas." To this, I say two things.
1) Footballers and broadcasters - as shown in my first round - have complained about vuvuzelas being distracting both on and off the field, when they have never said such things about mere chanting and cheering. Even when complaints about specific instances are made, they never result in calls for chanting in matches to be banned altogether. They clearly, therefore perceive there to be a massive difference between mere chanting and vuvuzelas. My opponent, to be successful in his argumentation here, would have to show how people so close to the noise could be so drastically wrong. He would also need to refute the following, related, point:
2) There is a big difference in loudness between chanting and the vuvuzelas. Chanting comes in at 75-110 decibels, depending on the ferocity of the chants.  Vuvuzelas, on the other hand, come in quite easily at 127 decibels.  Notice that the Guinness World Record for the loudest scream by a crowd (when deliberately trying to break the record - also when indoors, which echoes the sound in a way that outdoor football pitches don't) - which can therefore be taken as the very peak of a crowd's vocal chords - is only a few decibels higher than this latter figure, at 131.6 decibels . The fact that vuvuzelas reach this high decibel-level without a problem indicates just how different the two phenomena are. They are not comparable, meaning that - contrary to my opponent's assertion - people alone aren't the problem, the vuvuzelas are.
--- When we can ban "items of tradition" ---
My opponent makes the claim that: "[My] argument about banning a South African tradition, just because it is televised around the world is ridiculous." He also says that: "There is no right or wrong way to celebrate (as long as nobody gets hurt)..."
1. It would seem as if my opponent is focusing on physical harm. What about the psychological harm caused to the players who have to listen to the deafening noise for 90 minutes? The tactical harm caused to players who can't communicate with each other? My opponent shrugs this off as something that affects everyone, and that those who can't get past it "don't deserve to win". But such a new, deafening and unusual experience is bound to be off-putting to many of the international players: only those who also happened to be present at the Confederations Cup, or are African nations, will likely have heard the sound before. This is not fair on those players. Furthermore, if players are unable to communicate effectively on the pitch due to the noise, they are left at a tactical disadvantage and are forced to rely more on luck than they would otherwise have to. Even if both sides of the field are equally affected, football is not meant to be a game of luck; it is a game of skill. This is why their basic inability to hear each other on the pitch is detrimental to a good game.
2. There are physical harms with the vuvuzelas, the most obvious being noise pollution and hearing damage. The arguments I made earlier, about the comparative loudness of the vuvuzelas, apply here also.
--- Why countries host the World Cup ---
My opponent claims, in his main substantive argument, that countries host the World Cup to showcase their culture - and therefore they should be allowed to keep their vuvuzelas. I challenge my opponent to provide examples of this. Surely the real reason why countries bid for the World Cup is in an attempt to boost the national economy through an influx of tourism, including maybe bolstering their standing on the world stage
This latter reason - which can be exampled by China/Beijing with the 2008 Olympics, for instance - is perhaps closest to the purported reason being examined. Given their apartheid past, this might also apply to South Africa. But there is a big difference between bolstering the nation on the world stage, and facilitation of individual "football culture". The former involves a political decision to boost international opinion through the medium of sport, whilst the latter is a quirk of certain footballing fans within Africa. The two are certainly not the same, nor even comparable.
Also, notice that this is not the African World Cup. This is the World Cup, which just so happens this year to be held in Africa. So even if we were to believe the idea that the fans' activities somehow constitutes "African culture", the fans have no right to force this culture onto a worldwide tournament. This is not non-Africans trying to "Europeanise" the tournament, nor anyone trying to say that "European culture is better", for this is not even a question of individual culture. Also, remember that Europe is not the only continent in the world apart from Africa, and not even the only continent complaining about the vuvuzelas - to mention only one example, the ESPN commentators I linked to in my first round, after all, are Americans.
Basically, if the vuvuzela were not so disruptive, there wouldn't be any problem with it. But it is, so there is a problem. It should therefore be banned.
--- Conclusion ---
Vuvuzelas are disruptive to fans, players and broadcasters. It dampens the otherwise rich variety of entertainment available to fans at the stadium, and audible to fans watching at home, and is directly detrimental to the players' ability to play the game well. Furthermore, World Cups are not meant to showcase an individual country's culture, nor are they taken by the host country as doing so. As such, vuvuzelas being as disruptive as they are, they should be banned from the World Cup.
I will go in the order that my opponet presented.
My opponet begins by stating that the enjoyment of the games for people watching at home is curtailed by the vuvuzelas. I say that taking away the vuvuzelas curtails the enjoyment for the fans at the game. Vuvuzelas are part of the game atmosphere in South Africa. Fans at the games are the ones that make football what it is. These are the fans that FIFA want to enjoy the game the most. These are the fans who paid to be in that stadium, and they are the ones boosting the local economy which my opponet later states is the number one reason for a country to host the world cup. If they dish out the big money to go to the game, than they ought to be able to experience it the way they want to (within the legal limits of course).
My opponet than goes onto make the point that the vuvuzelas are detrimental to any attempt of variety in entertainment. I will admit that I don't understand 100% of where he is going with this, but I will do my best to refute it. First off, I don't like the word "any". I'd rather see it "most" due to my point of subjectivity. You can still hear many chants during the game, though I can't find a video (I will keep looking and may post in round 3) I distinctly heard "God save the queen" chants in the England vs. Algeria game. There have been many other examples of chants in other games as well that can be made out, even while watching a television broadcast. Not only that, I consider the vuvuzelas as a part of the chants and gameday atmosphere in general. I continue to argue that it adds to the atmosphere. Fans of England express themselves with "God save the queen" chants, while South African fans express them selves with the sound of the vuvuzelas.
My opponet then states that the vuvuzelas are a psychological and tonal disruption. I will respond by asking, "What chant isn't a psychological disruption?" Chants are designed to pscychologically disrupt the game either by harassing an opponet or lifting up the favorite team. I assume by "tonal disruption" he is referring to the disruptiing of chants and cheers. As I've already pointed out, I consider the vuvuzelas to be a chant and cheer of itself.
My opponet says footballers and broadcasters have complained the vuvuzelas are distracting. I believe that to be non-unique as some cheers are also distracting. His statement that players have never complained about chanting is absurd. I found an article real quickly that supports my opinion. A coach in this article said that chants are so distracting to his team that they played a big role in leading him to quit his job. While this is not specifically football, the same logic can be applied.  This coach's opinion must be weighed above my opponet's since this coach has experinced chanting at a professional level. The chants that drove him to quitting were from fans of his own team. Imagine what a more hostile environment in a crucial world cup match would do. My opponent says that chants have never been called to be banned from games. I think the coach that got fired would want to put an end to the hostile chants althogether. I'm sure broadcasters complain when inappropiate chants are leaked out into their viewing audience. Footballers are constantly complaining about every little thing, therefore I can not put any stock into complaining about the vuvuzelas. Even if footballers complaining did mean something, if you look at all of the other ridiculous things thy complain about, I'm sure they complain about chanting as well.
My opponet presented evidence stating that vuvuzelas reach a decibel level of 127 decibels. I wouldn't put too much stock in this test since it was not done in a world cup atmosphere. I would rather see a test comparing world cup crowd noises with no vuvuzelas to crowd noises with vuvuzelas. I bet then that the the numbers would not be as widespread than the numbers each of the two alone that my opponet reported. Since it would be hard to find such study, I will do my best to refute the facts he gave. Let's assume they are 100% accurate to a world cup atmosphere. I have a fact that states people would walk away with their hearing impaired if exposed to 100 decibels for two hours (about the length of a football game) . My opponet said that chanting would be between 75-110 decibels. Since this is the world cup, we can assume that chanting is at the top of that range. This is still enough to do damage anyway, yet we don't hear about FIFA trying to ban loud cheering, even though it causes hearing damage as well. If they don't ban cheering, then they shouldn't ban vuvuzelas. Both will result in some type of hearing loss. This brings me to the point of personal responsibility. Sometimes, you just need to leave it to the fans if they want to attend. If damaging their hearing is important enough for them, then they should not attend the game. Adults can't be babysat all the time. People should be responsible for their own actions. If going to a soccer game will cause damage to their ears, than they are responsible for their damaged ears, not FIFA. The fans made their own choice to attend the game.
I have already taken out my oppponets next argument by pointing out that chanting at the world cup level is also deafening. Therefore, my original point still stands. I also don't think that it matters if players have heard the sound before or not. It's still loud no matter how many times you hear it, therefore it does not give the players that have already heard it an unfair advantage. If players can find ways to communicate with the also deafening noise of a crowd screaming at the top of their lungs, than they can also find a way to communicate with vuvuzela noise. Even if teams that played in the confederations cup do have an advantage, I think that my opponet overstates it a bit. It is not nearly as big as what he makes it out to be. Also, if a team is good enough to qualify for the cup (I believe only 8 teams make it), than those eight teams deserve to have a very slight tatical advantage. They earned the small advantage, but I want to re-iterate that I don't think it makes that much of a difference if at all.
I definitely agree with my opponet that hosting the tournament to boost a nation's economy is probably the main reason that countries host the cup, but showcasing their culture is also a more-minor reason. You could say that they showcase their culture to promote tourism to their country. They want people at home thinking, "Wow, what a cool place. I want to go there." It's only logical, but since my opponet wanted me to provide a source, here it is . It talks about Brazil's objectives to hosting the 2014 World Cup and there are a few nuggets in there about promoting the culture.
He then says that the World Cup belongs to the world, not Africa. Well, FIFA chose africa to host the cup knowing full well about the vuvuzelas. It is impossible to find ways to do things that everybody in the whole world agrees with. Let the Africans host the cup the way they know how. My opponet may think that it would not europe forcing their culture on Africa, but that is how it would be viewed by the majority. FIFA will be saying, "No you can't do that. Do it our way (FIFA is based in europe) ,the way it is supposed to be done." I realize that it is not only Europe that wants it gone, but my point still stands. The world will be telling Africa that they can't do things their way, they must do it the right way. As I said, there is no right or wrong way to celebrate. Thanks.
=== REBUTTAL ===
1) The role of vuvuzelas in 'enjoyment of the game'
The key part of my opponent's argument here comes when he says that: "taking away the vuvuzelas curtails the enjoyment for the fans at the game...they ought to be able to experience it the way they want to (within the legal limits of course)"
Why must legal limits be the ultimate decider? Should not moral limits also play a part? How else are we to decide if a law is just, and abolish it if necessary, unless we are able to have social or moral guidelines outside of the law to decide what we should or should not do? I have already shown, and will continue to show, how vuvuzelas are distracting, damaging and unpleasant - given that FIFA is allowed to make rules on the World Cup in addition to the law (take the yellow/red card booking system for example), this should be all that is required in order to ban the vuvuzelas.
My opponent also said that: "You can still hear many chants during the game...I distinctly heard "God save the queen" chants in the England vs. Algeria game."
I heard those chants too. The reason we heard them was that all the English fans stopped blowing the vuvuzelas and started singing. If a large proportion of the stadium stops blowing the damned things, then of course we'll hear other things over them. The same thing happened when South African fans got shocked by their goalkeeper being given a red card against Uruguay with the subsequent penalty, and when France scored the goal against them today meaning they were far less likely to qualify to the next stages.
But this is never a consistent break. For example: I'm now watching Nigeria vs. South Korea, and the vuvuzelas are drowning every other crowd sound out. The same is true of Greece vs. Argentina, and has been true for the vast majority of every other match thus far. The few welcome reliefs from the bee-hive does not mitigate the damage and annoyance caused by the vuvuzelas elsewhere.
My opponent continues by arguing that: "Not only that, I consider the vuvuzelas as a part of the chants and gameday atmosphere in general. I continue to argue that it adds to the atmosphere." This seems to be simply unbelievable. My opponent can 'continue to argue' that a sound which dampens every other sound in the vicinity somehow "adds" to the atmosphere, but the truth is that it simply does not. As a noise louder than standard chanting (as defended in the next section), it ensures that every other sound in the arena - including, if loud enough, the referee's whistle - is drowned out. That cannot add to the atmosphere; it ruins it.
2) Taking players' complaints seriously
My opponent referred to Glen Sather quitting his job due to chants, and pointed to a New York Times article about this.  However, looking at the article itself, it is immediately clear that it was not the simple fact of the chants that caused the problem - it was the hostility of them, the fact that the chants were "Fire Sather!" My opponent actually implied this when he said that it was the "hostile chants" that Sather would probably want banned, not the existence of chants themselves.
Of course certain chants will be annoying. I accepted this in the previous round when I said that: "Even when complaints about specific instances are made, they never result in calls for chanting in matches to be banned altogether." That point still stands, and my opponent has not yet come close to refuting it.
He also argued that: "Footballers are constantly complaining about every little thing, therefore I can not put any stock into complaining about the vuvuzelas. Even if footballers complaining did mean something, if you look at all of the other ridiculous things thy complain about, I'm sure they complain about chanting as well."
I am not sure whether this counts more as paranoia or unwarranted cynicism on my opponent's part. "All the other ridiculous things"; "constantly complaining about every little thing". Where is the evidence for this? Even if individual players are like this, of course this is not indicative of any widespread trend. We SHOULD put stock in complaints when they are shared by a clear and overwhelming majority of commenting footballers, coaches and broadcasters. Of course we should, especially as they are the ones on the frontline of the action and most affected by the vuvuzelas in the crowd. Why shouldn't we?
3) Loud vuvuzelas vs. loud cheering
My opponent said that: "My opponet presented evidence stating that vuvuzelas reach a decibel level of 127 decibels. I wouldn't put too much stock in this test since it was not done in a world cup atmosphere..." I don't understand what he is supposed to mean by this. Surely a World Cup atmosphere, with thousands of people blowing at once, would actually make something louder? So maybe it's more than 127 decibels...
"My opponet said that chanting would be between 75-110 decibels. Since this is the world cup, we can assume that chanting is at the top of that range."
Not really. It depends on how loud the people in the crowd are to begin with. What evidence does my opponent have for the higher end of the scale? The study I gave  had the 110-end of the scale on rare moments during certain American football plays. Indeed, even the 110-end of the scale, in the study given, "the visiting team's quarterback is limited to communications ranges of less than 2 feet, even while shouting." So even 110 decibels of cheering can be distracting in the way that vuvuzelas are. So clearly standard cheering - given that they don't face this same problem regularly - must be far quieter than this. And below the 100-decibel level that my opponent gives as damaging.
"If players can find ways to communicate with the also deafening noise of a crowd screaming at the top of their lungs, than they can also find a way to communicate with vuvuzela noise."
Not so. The usual "deafening noise of a crowd screaming", as shown through study shown in , is far less than actually deafening. The problems only really arise at World Cup level with the vuvuzelas.
4) Culture, etc.
My opponent said that: "[I] may think that it would not europe forcing their culture on Africa, but that is how it would be viewed by the majority"
Every poll I have seen (as for example at http://www.banvuvuzela.com...) has shown that a majority of people actually want vuvuzelas banned. And this doesn't even include people who reject the notion that banning a plastic trumpet from football matches is really an affront to African culture. At best, it is rejecting a singular part of FOOTBALL culture, and that is different from African culture as a whole.
It really isn't plausible that people could look objectively on a vuvuzela ban and say: "Well, I was going to go to South Africa and enjoy their culture. But now it turns out that I can't blow a plastic horn at football events, I won't bother going." Even if/where culture is a part of a World Cup bid, something as miniscule as vuvuzelas aren't that. Stuff like reforming the world's opinion post-apartheid would be more of a cultural imperative, if South Africa really were interested in that - not vuvuzelas.
=== SUMMARY ===
Vuvuzelas are not only incredibly annoying, when widely played they serve to drown out other entertainment within the crowd and make it as good as impossible for players and coaches to communicate with each other during the game. This being different from standard chanting, and plastic horns not being a big part of South African culture as a whole, there is no good reason for FIFA to keep the vuvuzelas, and very good reason to ban them. Vote PRO.
I will once again adress the arguments in the order my opponet presented, than I will tell you why you should vote con.
My opponet argues that moral limits should play a part with the legal limits. I agree that moral limits are needed to determine if the legal limits are just, but only for that reason. If you feel that the legal limits are immoral, than you should change the legal limits the right way by going through the courts or in our case, through FIFA. "Moral limits" do not EVER automatically override the current legal limits. Therefore, I say that soccer celebrations only need to follow the set legal limits.
Next, My opponet CONCEDED that chants can still be heard, even with a stadium full of vuvuzelas. The fact that the chants were heard automatically indicates that the vuvuzelas do not interrupt the chants, as the fans chanting would just quit blowing the horns. Anyone judging out there must chalk up that argument to the con side. He says that in a few games he couldn't hear any chants. Is it possible that the fans of these teams do not often chant?, Is it possible that it's not very important to them and they'd rather blow the vuvuzelas? Once again, the fact that chants can be heard shows that the vuvuzelas do not interrupt the chants.
We have already pointed out that it does not drown out all of the cheering and chanting. The vuvuzelas are hardly ever (if at all) blown loud enough to drown out the sounds of the referee's whistle. I want to stress the point that in the many games I've watched, that has never been the case. Even if it did happen, the refs would continue to blow and signal the game to pause. It's not like ithe game would go on for ever, just another second or two. The possible one isolated event in which the sounds have drowned out the referee's whistle is not enough to ban the vuvuzelas all together. We have shown that the vuvuzelas do co-exist with the chanting, cheering, and the referee's whistle. Keep in mind that no matter how my opponet spins it, the vuvuzelas are the way South Africans cheer and chant. My opponet's argument can not stand. You must also chalk this one up to the con side.
Now onto his point about the hostile chants. No matter what kind of restrictions you place on hostile chants, they will not stop simply because you can not control what comes out of a persons mouth. Hostile chants happen all the time in football, thus proving that chants can be distracting and have been complained about.
I'm not sure what he wants me to do with his point that chants have never been called to be banned. I have pointed out that chanting has the same effects as vuvuzela noise (both are harmful to ears, distracting, often annoying, and have received complaints). I posted more facts in the coming paragraphs that solidifies this. Since they have the same effects, I am taking his point that "chants have not been called to be banned" and saying that it is the precise reason that vuvuzelas must not be banned. It would be a major double-standard to ban the vuvuzelas and not the chants. This argument must also be awarded to the con side.
My opponet wanted me to provide a source about footballers complaining over every little thing. While I've heard many ridiculous complaints, I could not find many online. I did find one however about a football player that quit his team, because the girls were uglier and drank more than the ones where he came from . This illustrates my point perfectly that footballers complain about every little thing. I will take this one step further though. My opponet says that we should take stock when the complaints are "a clear and overwhelming majority." Before the World Cup started a clear and overwhelming majority of footballers complained about the new ball that would be used during the world cup . As an article from fox sports puts it," It's hard to find a player who is happy with it." FIFA disregarded the widespread complaints about the ball as they made no changes to it. If FIFA didn't put much stock into the widespread complaints about the ball, which is crucial to the actual gameplay of the game, why should they put more stock into the player's complaints about the vuvuzelas? It appears that FIFA agrees with my opinion about footballer's complaints. I don't see how my opponet's arguement can stand, so chalk up yet another argument to the con side.
So on to the vuvuzelas vs. cheering arguement. Since this is such a big issue. I found another article that is much more credible than the previous ones provided in this debate. This article is from the website of a world renowned hearing center. Doctors at the center have concluded that just 15 MINUTES in a cheering stadium can potentially damage your hearing. . This number shocked me, but it is from highly trained doctors that treat hearing problems every day. My numbers are more credible than my opponets, because his comes from an experiment performed by college kids not even at a football/soccer game, or in a World Cup atmosphere, whereas mine comes from highly-trained doctors that deal with these issues every day. The conclusion that I draw for this is that both cheering and vuvuzela noise are harmful to the ears. If FIFA bans the vuvuzelas, than they must ban cheering as well. Banning cheering would be absurd, but according to my opponet's logic, that would also have to be banned as well. It makes no sense. I think that I have won this arguement as well.
On to culture, my opponet gives a study that doesn't refute my point well. My point was that if FIFA would ban the vuvuzela, than FIFA would be viewed as putting down the African culture and telling them to celebrate the European (or rest of the world's) way. The vast majority of these voters are not from South Africa. They don't fully understand the vuvuzelas and what it means to the African people. I posted a second video just to give you an idea. They would force Africans to celebrate "their" way. As I've said, there is no right or wrong way to celebrate. My opponet has not refuted this point well. I think it's a big point, but a simple one. FIFA would force their culture, customs, way of celebrating or whatever you want to call it if you don't like the word "culture" onto the South African people. It's not Football culture as my opponet tried to say. If it was, than it would be universal with football games, instead it is only in South Africa. It must be South Afican culture. His second paragraph isn't relevant. It doesn't totally destroy their culture, it just slightly henders it. Vuvuzleas aren't the culture, but a part of it. I think that this simple arguement still stands and must be awarded to the con side.
Why I won:
I believe that I have refuted every single sentence of his sufficiently and have won all arguements except maybe the first in this round that I did not grasp 100%. There are two points of mine that my opponet did not refute. Remember that silence means consent. The point that vuvuzelas do not give teams an undeserved advantage was not refuted in the final round. Also, my point on personal responsibility was not refuted. I had one more thought on this point, if you don't want to miss the game, than you can just buy earplugs as many fans already have in this World Cup.
So, with me refuting all of my opponets arguements and winning a majority in the round, I can see nothing but a con victory. I would ask the voters that since my opinion is probably not in the majority, that they would judge the round purely on the arguments made. Thanks.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate