The Instigator
Con (against)
10 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
1 Points

This house would ban WWE

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/23/2015 Category: Sports
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 887 times Debate No: 81421
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)




The definition is up for the contender!!!!! Let's start it..............................


At first,I'd like to thank my opposition for challanging me,because it is my first debate as member of ''.But it is a debate,let's get started!

Today,the topic is'THIS H0USE WOULD BAN WWE.'At first,let me define today's motion. After that I'll set yardstick and give a burden to proof for the opposition it will carry the debatet in a good way I belive.

If we see today's topic,we can see 2 keywords.They are 'BAN' &'WWE'

'Ban':here,by using the term 'Ban',I'm meaning that this house will proscribe the ocassion of the will be prohibated from being played.if any one play,and got caught,he'll have to give penalty for it.
'WWE':Here ,by wwe,i'm meaning the sport of wrestling we understand now,not the traditonal one.

FACTS:We see wrestling now as one of the most popular thing to the gents.even they apply this in their real life life as well.this is causing problem to their real life and as well.they r being wounded for this.on the other hand,the wrestlers are being wound,sometime they become crippled even some time they have risk of life as well!

in today's debate,i'll show some yardstick for the debate and it will carry out the debate.


for the opposition,i'll set some burden to proof if he wants to stop today's motion from being passed.They are
1>if he wants to stop today's motion from being passed,he will have to show that it will never cause any liferisk
2>it will never give any chance to harm any one.
3>no one will try this
at home,school or anywhere even it is telecasted normally.
4>it has much good effect on then drawbacks on viewers

I hope i will be able proof today that today's motion has all the capability to be passed.
Now,as the speaker of first round,I will give some discription on the yardsticks.

What we see in a wrestling match? ?we see the wrestler fighting eachother and hurting each other.this causes health problem .some time they become crippled. . Which totally ruins their life.beside this,the wrestlers eat heavy and junk food in order to keep their body strong .but,in long run,they got attcked by harmful diseases like blood pressure, diabatis etc.

It is a proble of spectators.when they see the process of wrestling,they try to own that power and strenght and that causes this problem.the spectators want to be like the wrestlers in the real life. . .they tries own the natures of the wrestlers in their selves.and for this,in the real life,they become hyper in the problems in their context.

this problem is seen in the students and teenagers.probabolly,
this is one of the worst effect of this fact,the teenager tries to be like the wrestlers and they use the special and combo moves when they got attched in any fight.even sometime they use these moves just in order to get fun ,but,that causes a great vex.

Human is the greatest creature on earth. . .so,for that,human should be good behaving and moral.but wwe has great impact in this.because the spactators lose their morality in life because they learn vex and vengence through this and for this they can't control their temper in bad situation.they use the ways,they hurt others,they rush on others in order to claim victory.

I hope that these yardsticks will set a good show. . . . . . . . .I'm waiting for the oppositions arguments!
Debate Round No. 1



Thank you, my dear opponent, for accepting this debate challenge. Well, first of all, I am going to present some words, to make the insubstantiality of your definition. Then, with your proposed yardstick and an alternative burden of proof, let me start the debate.

Definition/Burden of Proof

Well, the definition which you have provided was literally good. But, my objection is with the burden of proof set by you. All those burdens of proof are not something to debate against. They have been given from an absolutely different and conservative viewpoint. In addition to that, it is a part of your definition. So, I am challenging your definition on truism ground. At first, you need to understand when or why a thing should be banned. We can urge upon to ban a thing only then when it imposes an extreme threat to our personal, social or cultural life, I repeat, extreme threat. So, in order to prove WWE to be something to be banned, you have to construct the case that it does impose such kind of threat to us. And on that motion, the burden of proof for me will be to show that WWE is not seriously harmful enough that it has to be banned.

Prior to all these things, the burdens of proof you have set are inapplicable in terms of almost everything in this world. Your burdens of proof were such like these:
1. If I want to stop today's motion from being passed, I will have to show that it will never cause any life risk.
2. It will never give any chance to harm anyone.
3. No one will try this at home, school or anywhere.
4. It has more good effects than drawbacks on the viewers.

Now, let me be straightforward in this aspect.
1. How many things will be remaining there if you filtrate with these criteria? Even, the thing which you are typing with right now is also causing some serious long-lasting life risks for you. Now for that, will you ban it? You may do, for you have attempted to do that with WWE.
2. Which thing is 100% free from harms? Now, if I ban all those things considering from this aspect, there will, most probably, be no one remaining except you!!!
3. Have you ever watched those spectacular and breathtaking Hollywood action movies? In those movies, some scenes are often shown which may be detrimental for people’s physique or something else. For that, are you going to ban Hollywood? Maybe, yes!!!
4. Why is the question of good effects and drawbacks coming here? WWE stands for World Wrestling Entertainment, you may know or not. Now since this is mere an entertainment medium, there may not be many good effects of it, just like your so called Facebook or Clash Of Clans. Ban those at first, and then do it in case of WWE!!!

These are the reasons for which I had no other option but to challenge your arrogant and hilarious stance.


You have already shown the yardsticks, so no more necessity with that. Now, let me enter the rebuttal section.


. Health:
Well, the wrestlers do not possess so little energy like you or I, do they? You may check out this link some greater knowledge about that. They don't often fall in health problems like 10-20 other people. You have to keep it in your mind that they are someone exceptional. And as you saaid, there is no example yet of being crippled, as far as I know. I don't know if this is going to happen in the future or not. Why do the spectators want to be like them? They have already been given proper caution, haven't they? Check out see! Even after them, if somebody like us do it, WWE should not be responsible, should it? The wrestlers eat heavy junk food, so what? Are you trying to mark a full stop in their eating by banning WWE? How hilarious!! And the wrestlers have never been attacked with diseases like those you had said. We have many to learn, one more video, you can check it out;.

2. Hyperness:
Now in this section, we have almost the similar words we had in the previous one. Well, if we you or I can learn something to defense ourselves by watching WWE, then what should be the problem? Suppose, today you have fallen in an assault, on that case, this lesson may save you well and fine. You may see it;.

3. Clashing:
This may answer your question;, in lieu of me.

4. Morality:
Seems that WWE itself is responsible for all the crimes and mischiefs occuring in the world. If that was the ultimate fact, banning WWE would be a good decisioon. But since the fact is not really like this, you cannot really say this. Morality is also there, if you have any confusion, go to;.

That's all from here now on.

  • Now, if you are a WWE wrestler, you are getting your health in such a position that it cannot but get fit. So, it is doing that automatically. And more to that, those wrestlers have found their earnings in agreat extent in WWE. You may go to;.
  • WWE often teach you the lesson of protecting yourself from others. And in this world, this is very important,isn't it?;, there is it.
  • Every year, people after people are spending thier money for watching WWE. Go;. Watch this.................. number of wwe network subscribers এর চিত্র ফলাফলnumber of wwe network subscribers এর চিত্র ফলাফল
  • All them are spending money worthlessly? How is it possible? You can also go to;.
Hopefully, that's all for today. See you in the next round.................................................
The resolution is negated!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Well,at the very first I'd like to say that my BTP wasn't that much hilarious as you are saying.Because there were some sections with which you would have been abled to continue the debate like 'It will never cause any liferisk','it will never give any chance to harm any one' and 'no one would try this at home ,school or any where'.
After that ,you noted that we will ban things than when it will be extreme threat.Well,I'd like to say no in this fact.Because,there are a lot of example where many bollywood,hollywood,dhallywood films were banned .they were n0t 'extreme threat'.they were just threat and their bad effects were m0re than good.

I would like request you to clear your concept m0re.Because,at first you challanged,which means those BTP were correct,and ,then you started to talk in your own,please,make it clear.D0N'T MAKE THE SITUATI0N MISTY!
Debate Round No. 2


Sadat_Hossain forfeited this round.


Well,looks like dear con is just lost in the mist,that's why he didn't have replied.
But now it's my turn. . . .let's get started.
First,I'd like to note that first you challanged my defination,so,there should be no rebutul except the rebutul about challange,so,I must say ,Y0U ARE CLASHING IN THE GR0UND OF A CHALLANGE DEBATE!
So,it is pretty much P0O.
Well,you said that you are challanging from the ground of truism. . . . .And I've done truism.But I'd like to say that the BTP was uncounterable. . .so,in this fact if I can show you that the BTPs were counterable,the debate is over. Now I'm showing those countering points.

1;IT WILL NEVER CAUSE LIFE RISK>well,most of us know that the show of wwe is totally makey,the wrestlers are given scripts and technique sequence 2 days before.So,because it's totally makey,no chance of liferisk.
2;IT'LL NEVER GIVE ANY CHANCE TO HARM ANY0NE.>well,.here,it's noted that never give any chance. . .with these term,I'm saying about the fight between the wrestlers.But,because it's makey,no chance to harm any one and the conditions are kept under controll.S0 no chance to harm any one.
3;N0 ONE WILL TRY THIS AT HOME,0R SCH0OL OR ANY WHERE:>just as your rebut,it's a problem of spectator.If the house can make them awared,the problem could be eradicated.
4;IT HAS MUCH G0OD EFFECTS THAN DRAWBACKS ON SPECTAT0RS>well,in this regard,here is a term,'on spectators'.
The main problems which we see are the physical problems of wrestlers.those are n0t facting here.the fact is the spectators. . . . . . .and also,just as you rebut,this teaches us the way of selfdefence.and selfdefence is one of the most important thing in ones,it has more merits than demerits on spectators.

Debate Round No. 3


Hello, there!!! Welcome once again, thanks for not following my path, that is the forfeiture. I am extremely sorry to all of the voters because I was busy in exam and so, I could not post. However, with no other words to spare, let's get started in the usual shape.

BOP/Yardstick Clarification
It is really very nice to see that you think I could go on with those hilarious ones. If you really think so, then according to the rules and regulations of a challenge debate, please show something exemplified on the Con, having gone on with those BOPs. You have shown some cross-arguments, but do the following. I am going to come on with the cross-fires later on. Now, my question to you is to show a thing which simultaneously:
  • Will never cause any life risk,
  • Will never give any chance to harm anyone &
  • Will never be tried by anyone in schools, colleges or anyone else.
Show only one thing which meets all these criteria, and then make tall talks.
Now come to another point, that is posing extreme threat. Of course, a thing will be banned then when it poses extreme threat to either one of these three institutions:
  • Personal or
  • Social or
  • Cultural life.

Now, what was the ultimate fact about those movies that you movies? Watch out these movies.......
These movies surely imposed some serious threats to those people's morality, that's why they were banned, the equation was easy and simple! The threats may not be extreme to you, but were something extreme to those!!

Challenge Clarification
What does a challenge on "Truism" actually mean? It means your definition/BOP was in such an extreme position that one could not debate against. That's why I proposed some alternative BOPs for my side. And in addition to all these, after all, yardsticks are not a part of definition, that's why I went on with those yardsticks, hope you understand. I am not making it mysterious whatsoever!!! At the same time, it also looks like that you are running out of arguments, because you are doing the same ones again and again!!

Why should not there be any rebuttal? Am I arising POOs? If I did that, that would be illegal, but POOs and rebuttals are not all the same, come on!

Crossfire Considerations

(1) It will never cause any life risk:

Really and indeed, the turn does change. Do you know some wrestlers have already died out or seriously injured with WWE? If not, watch these..................
Hopefully, you will get some lessons seeing these. WWE may cause little life risk, but never it causes life risk, that's something indefensible.
(2) It will never give any chance to harm anyone:
Frankly speaking, it is quite similar to the previous one, isn't it? Although they are mostly scripted, some matches just don't remain scripted, they become something more. You may look at..............
If you see these matches, that is well and fine. Now explain it to me how they have shooted this shot of bleeding before millions of spectators? Have you ever heard it from any spectator that, before them, some tricks have been played so that wrestlers bleed? That may happen in a drama, but not in WWE, my dear opponent!!
(3) No one will try this at anywhere:

It is never ever possible to make everybody aware, and so, those who will remain unaware will surely try these at home or school.
Just watch!!!

(4) Having more pros than Cons:
Well, at least this is something that can be debated a bit. But, even after that, in order to win a debate, you have to neutralise all the BOPs simultaneously, so this, being good, does not matter at all. Again the reason, the remaining three were as extreme as they could be.

Hopefully, you have understood why your BOPs were impossible to debate against and that is why the truism challenge should be valid. And another thing is that, you added some extreme words to all those BOPs, like never, no one or much. If these terms were not there, they would be debatable. But, they have made it completely hilarious. And I would rather advise you to learn some debate and definition strategies and the way to deal with the challenged ones.

My all arguments have remained unchallenged as they were. So, nothing more to be added to that. Hope, Pro will do that later.

Debate Dismissal
I have already shown why that definition challenge was valid, and how ridiculous those BOPs were. Thereby, I have added mi initial ones. Therefore, on the rule of challenging, voters should be inclined to do the judgement properly.

THE RESOLUTION MUST BE NEGATED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Thank you dear con for sending your opinion.Well,I was waiting for a good come like that you did.well,you did pinched little,but I'm pretty much done.
The only thing I've remaining is rebuttul and winding up my stand.well,I'M ON IT!

ROUND 2:;:;
1>you asked me if there is any thing which is 100% harmless.well,the ans is no.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .But,wait,I am talking about if it is doing intentionally or not.If the thing is doing it intentionally,than it it's harmful.

Well,I don't think that you know about todays tech too much.because,almost all the actions of todays movies are done with graphics,green studio and other techs like these.
3>QUESTI0N OF MERIT AND DEMERIT:Well,every thing has merits and demerits.And also ,I'm talking about wwe,not traditional wrestlin.but you are just mixing it together.
Well,do you want to say that the entertainment shows has no goodside or only little good side? ?
Well,I'd like to say no.
So ,in this fact,you are just showing that wwe has no good or less good this fact you just pinned your ownself pal! ! ! !
5>FACEB0OK & C0C::
well,in the fact of facebook,I'd like to say that it has more good side than bad sides.But if just want to neglect them,no one help you,but,don't forget,TRUTH IS TRUTH,you admire it or not!
The fact of c0c is little complecated.Because it has neither much good or bad,thing like this shouldn't be whiped here!
well,only caution makes no sense if it is not,that is useless!LIKE,we see caution on packet of ciggarettes.
8>BANNING>well you said about extreme threat,but,what do you want to mean by extreme threat? ? ? When it will start to kill you? ? That 's the thing sounds to me.
If you don't stop it before turning into extreme threat,you'll never get the chance,I repeat,NEVER!
Well,I didn't meeant crime by moral degradation.I meant wrong sort of thinking!
You asked me if I want to put a full stop on the mouth of wrestlers? ?
What sort of quest is that? ? ?do you want to say big showe a fit person?totally rediculous concept.
Well,I've noted that it is totally makey,which means they are good actors.So,they have agood chance to do well in hollywood which was proved by J0HN CENA when he acted in a movie named 12 R0UNDS.

Well,in roumd 4 you showed some cross arguements after challanging in round 2 .well,in round 2 you challanged,but again said in your own side and in r 4 u turned turns,so,you r giving 2 kinds of speech in 2 rounds.WHICH MEANS Y0U ARE CRASHING!
Like:at first,you said don't know about any one who had been crippled.but,then,you gave example of butual fights r4!

Final stand:well,my con is pretty much lost in segment between truism and usual debate.and also,he hasn't shown any proper alternative ways and asked me if I can show any example according to my criterias.well,why only one? ! ?I can show thounsands like MAN VS WILD,MINIUTE TO WIN IT,STUPID OF SCIENCE,Y0U HAVE BEEN WARNED etc. . . . . . . . . .So,I think that I've been abled to prove it that,
'THIS H0USE W0ULD BAN WRESTLING'. . . . . . . . . . .
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sadat_Hossain 2 years ago
Confess that you are losing, that's the fact!!!!!!!
Posted by Bayron 2 years ago
L0oks like I'm losing.
Well,the result won't be same next time.
Posted by Sadat_Hossain 2 years ago
Well, I may know that or not. But at least, I need not be prescribed someone who can't even spell "Google", need I????
Posted by Bayron 2 years ago
Dr c0n,i think u need to knw h0w to win a challange dbt. . . .in this regard,u can give a g0ggle search on the fact of challange dbt.that might help u.
Posted by Sadat_Hossain 2 years ago
It does not really matter if one or two like you watch it or not, does it???
Posted by Bayron 2 years ago
I don't have any wish to see such kind of violence........
Posted by Sadat_Hossain 2 years ago
Who does not like to win?? And more to that, you are not the first person in the world who is debating, are you? Well, I am feeling really great to see such kind of knowledge about WWE in you. First, watch it and then come to debate.....................
Posted by Bayron 2 years ago
Well,I like to win. . . .It is first as member of the org,but n0t the first one as a,I must show what I've learnt till now!
Posted by Narviyo_Aviro 2 years ago
Well done .. pro . You"ve done so much good in your 1st speech . but , after reading your speech , I found so much objections . I"m now talking about them .
"The definition of WWE is not clear .
When I read your post , I"ve got some questions for you . Here are they and hope you will answer them :
"Does all problems are created by WWE in our life ??? ( you"ve said that WWE craetes so many problems in our real life ) .
"Can you give examples of problems created by WWE ???
"You said that for WWE"s harmness , it should be banned . Technology does so many harms for us . So , should technology be banned ??? What"s your opinion ??
"You said that the wrestlers eat heavy junk food . So , what"s your problem if they eat junk food ? Do they advise everybody to eat junk food ????
"You said that some immoral works are created by WWE . people do killing , hijacking and bla bla bla bla bla "". Are all crimes created by WWE ???
Now , I"m showing some logics against your logics .
"The authority always says that : DON"T TRY THIS AT HOME , SCHOOL OR ANYWHERE . So , if the people commit wrestling , IS IT WWE"S FAULT ? OR THE USER"S FAULT??? I think it is the user"s fault .
"It is known to almost everybody that , wwe is a drama . So , it is obvious that people should understand the reality .
"You talk about spectators" committing wrestling . as I"ve said , it is totally spectators" fault.
"Don"t you know ??? WWE teaches us how to survive in case of danger .
" You said human is the best creature . then why people do killing , theft , robbery and so on ??? they"re not created by WWE .
So , I think WWE should not be banned . but , if the pro can give all answers of the questions stated above properly , the result will go on his side without any doubt . But , you have to answer these questions ........ go on
Posted by Sadat_Hossain 2 years ago
Great spirit from the very beginning..........................!!!!!!!!!!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Elizabeth3648 2 years ago
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:61 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with Bayron.
Vote Placed by Philocat 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I judge that Con won this debate. Pro based his whole argument on the grounds that something that may cause harm should be banned. Con is correct in pointing out that this would lead to almost everything being banned! Since Pro's premises are refuted, his conclusion hasn't got a leg to stand on. Con, on the other hand, manages to show that, whilst WWE may cause harm, it doesn't nearly cause enough harm to warrant it being banned. Pro also had terrible spelling which honestly made his arguments hard to read. Con, in contrast, presented his arguments neatly and with good spelling.