The Instigator
acidic-blitz
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Hemanth_Nambiar
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Was transfer of Robin Van Persie to Manchester United really that necessary?

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 3 votes the winner is...
Hemanth_Nambiar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/14/2012 Category: Sports
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,482 times Debate No: 25607
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

acidic-blitz

Pro

It was necessary considering Manchester United's attack which has no depth. Ferguson made a great desicion buying Van Persie considering his form last season.
Hemanth_Nambiar

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for allowing me to participate in this debate. I intend to prove that Van Persie's transfer to Manchester United from Arsenal was unnecessary. I eagerly await Pro's argument.
Debate Round No. 1
acidic-blitz

Pro

Last season, United didnt have that Finisher(except for Rooney) to score quality goals. Rooney needed someone to support him in attack and I think Van persie was the perfect choice.
Hemanth_Nambiar

Con

Point conceded, my dear friend, spoken like a true Manchester united fan. However, I'd I'd like to point out that you are thinking with your heart instead of your head. Apparently, you have not been reading the newspaper these days. Manchester United are in a mire of financial woes and desperately require assistance. They are currently hoping that somebody bails them out of this financial crisis. In this sort of a situation, swooping in and buying a player of the caliber of Van Persie, however talented he may be for 25 million $ with a weekly wage of 250,000$ was completely unnecessary, to say the least. Besides, they have a star studded line up which ensured that they finished second in the EPL. So the addition of Robin Van Persie was a foolhardy move.
For further references on Manchester United's financial condition, go to:

http://www.sabotagetimes.com...
Debate Round No. 2
acidic-blitz

Pro

Last season, United didnt have that Finisher(except for Rooney) to score quality goals. Rooney needed someone to support him in attack and I think Van persie was the perfect choice.
Hemanth_Nambiar

Con

I am surprised that you have posted the same argument that you did in Round 2, however, I'd like to counter it anyway with a different argument. Robin Van Persie shattered the hearts of more than a million arsenal fans with his transfer to Manchester United. Thus, he has to incur their ire for his folly and it makes him quite unpopular as well. My second question to you is: why Van Persie, when you could have managed to buy a more talented forward, somebody to assist Rooney and to complement his efforts for a lower price than the one doled out to secure Van Persie.

I hope that the above paragraph clearly negetates my opponent's argument.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Davewerty 5 years ago
Davewerty
acidic-blitzHemanth_NambiarTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I suppose con brought much more to the table than pro did. For this, con wins.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
acidic-blitzHemanth_NambiarTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow that was bad on the pro half of things. Con clearly won.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
acidic-blitzHemanth_NambiarTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: clear con win based on financial impact