The Instigator
ZhannaB
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
Vlada
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

This house would ban boxing

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 4 votes the winner is...
ZhannaB
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/21/2013 Category: Sports
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,620 times Debate No: 40990
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

ZhannaB

Pro

Boxing is a type of sport, which main and basic aim is to bring physical injury to the opponent and to lead him to knockout. The sportsmen are taught from the very childhood to think and follow this way. Boxing is not just about keeping sport lifestyle, getting adrenalin, but about referring to the most violent human essence. Boxers participate in hundreds fights during their career, initially pursuing the target to hurt another person in order to get reward, that is exactly what differs it from other dangerous and severe sports. It is absolutely controversial to the principals of the modern society, which we live in. Moreover, it is barbarism and, no doubt, offense to the human dignity. The Australian Medical Association, which together with the British, American and Canadian colleagues since the 80-s of the previous century, actively conducts the campaign against boxing, identifying it, as "a public demonstration of interpersonal violence which is unique among sporting activities." Boxing teaches children and teenagers to harm the peers. It has no right to occur in the modern society.
Vlada

Con

Well, thank you, Zhanna. I"m really glad that I have an opportunity to speak about this motion. Boxing is a very ancient type of sport. It was appeared in the "3rd millennium BC. And now it is a beloved culture and one of the inspires youth and work around the world. Boxing brings joy and entertainment to so many people. The government has no right to stop this practice from continuing. French sociologist Lo"c Wacquant argues that the boxers themselves are the best evidence in support of the sport. When people talk about banning boxing, he writes that one voice is invariably drowned out and lost: that of the fighters themselves. (Wacquant, n.d.) "So many children dedicate themselves so that one day they might become successful boxers. We cannot take away this dream.
Debate Round No. 1
ZhannaB

Pro

Yes, boxing contributes to the entertainment, teenagers' participation in the activity, but let's now look at its another consequence, which is worth much more attention. Since the goal of this kind of sport is to achieve the opponent's knockout, the boxers' main target is the head of the contestant. Hence, constant blows, directed in this part of our body, cause the brain damage, including in some cases concussion, or to the development of frequently happening Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE), a neurodegenerative disease that can lead to depression, memory loss, and aggression, as well as blood clots and internal bleeding (Rokins, 2013). For example, the best known victims of the negative changes in their brain work are heavyweight world champions Frank Bruno, Bradley Stone, Mike Tyson and Muhammad Ali, whereas the last one even suffered from the neurodegenerative disorder Parkinson's syndrome. According to the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, 15-40 percent of ex-boxers have some form of chronic brain injury and most professional fighters - some degree of brain damage (Mehaffey, 2005 ). Furthermore, there have been 200 occasions of death among the boxers since 1980 due to ring or training injuries (Svinth, 2007 ). That is why, a ban on boxing should be established, as it will prevent a huge amount of the examples of brain disorders and will save lives.
Vlada

Con

Well, I agree that Boxing is a rather harmful. But it should not be banned; some changes in rules can be done. The World Health Organization has called for tighter regulation, including Simple rules, such as requiring medical clearance, national passports to prevent boxers from fighting under more than one name, restricting fights for fixed periods after knockouts, requiring that ringside physicians be paid by the state and not the promoter, and making sure that the boxers are aware of the potential long-term consequence of boxing may help protect boxers to some degree.(Friedman, n.d.) "The Australian Medical Association additionally recommends that media coverage of boxing should be subject to control codes similar to those which apply to television screening of violence. Finally, the World Medical Association suggests that all matches should have a ring physician authorized to stop the fight at any time.
About 80% of deaths are caused by head, brain, and neck injuries, so the removal of the head as a scoring region may make a huge difference to the injury outcomes for this sport. That is why, of course, some reforms will prevent sad consequences.
Debate Round No. 2
ZhannaB

Pro

The last my argument in favor of the banning of boxing is about its exploitation, which is widely-spread in this sphere. Due to the fact that the majority of the boxers, since they begin their careers, leave the education and devote full themselves into the trainings, they employ special managers to deal with all their finances. This eventually often leads to their being exploited with the aim of more income by encouragement and disregard of their possibilities and probable risk for their health. The sportsmen since the very youth are used by their sponsors and promoters just as the tools, bringing money. At the same time, no one does really care about them. Moreover, managers even actively use their clients in rather dangerous ways, exploiting them for criminal purposes. In the investigation of the statistics and causes of boxing deaths throughout the history, Joseph Svinth, an editor of the Electronic Journals of Martial Arts and Science, finds that beside health reasons, many deaths were criminal, with the promoter playing the dual role of "gangster" (Svinth, 2007). So now we have to put an end to this system for no more young sportsmen to be used and treated this absolutely inappropriate way.
Vlada

Con

Let"s imagine that boxing is band. Do not you think that it will lead to a big trouble? I strongly believe that A ban would not remove boxing from society; it would only drive it underground, creating a much more dangerous culture around the sport.
Throughout history we have seen that placing blanket bans on things (alcohol, cigarettes, illicit drugs, cockfighting, etc) do not work. People will still find a way to do what they want and when you remove the ability to regulate something by ignoring its existence, you have the potential to create more problems. There is certainly the potential that such is the popularity of and desire to see boxing that a ban would just drive it underground, where fights would be unregulated and unsupervised by qualified medics. Crowd trouble can also be a problem at boxing venues, and unless the proper security arrangements are made, many people could be hurt. The safety of boxers and fans should be paramount and therefore to minimize the risk of injuries to all it should remain legal but regulated.
One of the reasons for such popularity of the sport in recent years is the increasing use of boxing training as a fitness approach in gyms and other training venues. There is such an acknowledgement of the effectiveness of boxing training as a training approach that banning boxing clubs will make it difficult for people who are doing legitimate training to do so."
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Peacetotheworld 3 years ago
Peacetotheworld
ZhannaBVladaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 think pro did a very nice job in showing the reasons why boxing is a harmful sport both mentally and physically,
Vote Placed by 19debater19 3 years ago
19debater19
ZhannaBVladaTied
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 think pro made some good points and he wins
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 3 years ago
dtaylor971
ZhannaBVladaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: CON wins this round because he/she used superior arguments and used rebuttals. Neither used any links.
Vote Placed by CPUSA99 3 years ago
CPUSA99
ZhannaBVladaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I think he brings up some good points