Why soccer is way better than football?
Debate Rounds (3)
1) The motion states that soccer is "way better" than football. Given this, I feel that my opponent's line of reasoning is illogical. His first point states that the high number of soccer fans in Europe show that soccer is better than rugby. However, this is not true as the number of fans a particular object has cannot be an accurate determination of its worth. In this case, as the debate is on the merits of the two sports, his first point is irrelevant.
2) While FIFA does, in fact, claim that soccer is derived from cuju, the sport my opponent references in second point above, this is not confirmed. The history of cuju was long and varied, and very little survived. Though there are some claims of it also banning the use of the hands, these are unfounded. Soccer cannot be traced back to cuju beyond both requiring the use of feet. Almost everything we know about the sport underwent changes, or is very vague. The goalposts went from moon-shaped ones to a net similar to ones used in basketball. Even the number of players is commonly disputed. Soccer made its debut in 1848 with the Cambridge Rules, and so, to address my opponent's point, soccer was not invented by the ancient Chinese. Instead, mob football, cuju, and other early ball games, though possible ancestors, are too different from the official rules and setup of soccer to be considered one and the same.
3)This point my opponent has brought up is entirely subjective. The "most exciting" statement is easily challenged, as it is an opinion. Fans of other sports would be quite inclined to disagree. Nevertheless, the point must be analysed. Most sports, when entering overtime, involve a sudden death overtime round, or a penalty shootout. Both can be seen as equivalent to soccer's overtime period, as sudden death and penalty shootouts encourage close saves and heightened tension for fans and players. Every low scoring sport involves exciting overtime for their fans, and so this point has been refuted.
Now, on to my points.
1) Firstly, I would like to bring up the intelligence involved in the game. While it can be argued that both games involve high amounts of strategy and thinking, I bring up the Wonderlic, a cognitive test used on rugby players to test their intelligence. I confess that I am not clear on whether such a test exists for soccer, and would like my opponent to bring it up, should he be more aware of that than me. Back to my point, these tests ensure that the players on the field are able to play well under pressure, and a multitude of other things, ensuring an entertaining game, and pitting the best players against each other, with a low chance of a weak link. I could wax on about the requirements of each position in the rugby team, but suffice it to say that all players must be smart, giving fans,and the competitive scene, better treatment.
2) Next, I would argue that rugby involves a better representation of the athletes' abilities. This I say, as every sport involves a hefty physical component. Soccer, more often than not, involves at most slides, and very rarely anything more than the slide tackle commonly seen. Ruby, on the other hand, involves the famous dogpile, and is a harder test of the player's ability to maintain possession than the soccer equivalent.
With that, I end my opening argument, and would like to wish my opponent good luck in return.
freak23 forfeited this round.
freak23 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by KingDebater369 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: obviously con deserves a win here, due to pro forfeiting. Plus, Con made the better arguments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.