The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Women should not be able to play in the NFL

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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: 1/11/2014 Category: Sports
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,725 times Debate No: 43754
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (27)
Votes (2)




First round is for acceptance. Good luck.


I'll accept the challenge.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting! Honesty, I thought a girl would accept this, but it makes no difference. This is American football. Not soccer.

Case 1: Women aren't built for football!

As state in my link, a doctor admits females are more likely for injury (1) Many injuries such as knee, shoulder and ACL injuries. They are also more likely to have disorders such as anemia, eating disorders, and lack of bone mass. Also, women should not be able to play football because they would be at much higher risk for breast cancer! When trauma is dealt to the breast, it increases the risk of breast cancer. Here, we have proven that women just aren't built for football the way men are.

My opponent's arguments he might post:

" Men still get hurt!"

Ah, but you forget! They are less likely to get hurt than women. They are built for football.

Other than that, I don't think he could have any rebuttal to it.


Case 2: It is a man thing!

Despite popular belief, no women has ever played in the NFL (1) I would like to keep it that way. Men only have so many things women have not taken over. Even violent video games women are starting to play! When men play with girl things, we are called gay. When woman play with man things, they are just a tom boy. Men only have so many things. One of them is football! I would plead with all the women to keep it that way.

Opponent's possible rebuttals:

"There are women fans!"

Yes, but men were always the first fans and the first players. A woman in the NFL as a starter would mean you would take away one of the few things men hold dear.

I can not think of any possible rebuttals besides that. Thank you for reading.



DudeStop forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent has forfeited the debate. This means he either now agrees with me or thought that he could not win. Thank you for reading.


Actually I forfeited a round, not the debate. I ran out of time, I apologize profusely. I plead the voters to give Pro conduct.


My opponent has not justified a law banning women from playing a popular game. He has given reasons as to why the average woman would be at a higher risk, which is obviously not sufficient enough evidence. Women are at a higher risk of dying or getting injured at many things, but we still do not outlaw them. Drinking for example. Men are generally larger, and could drink a little more without as much of as effect. [1]

We do not make it impossible for women to drink. That would obviously be outrageous.

Now if a woman was just as strong as a man, then why wouldn't we allow her to play if she desired? The *average woman* is obviously not capable of playing football in the pro leagues. Yet the average person in general wouldn't be able to do so to. The above average people are really the ones who are playing.

Why is it justified to not allow a coach to choose his players? When there is a will for a female player to join the team, why is it okay for us to restrict her from doing so? Remember, this is not the supposedly average person. What you need to do now is show why it is justified to have negative rights for one over the age of 18. [2]

This link above shows your chances of dying from various things. I encourage readers to look at it, as it is very entertaining.

Now, again relating to the drinking example, this is yet another showing of many things that women are weaker at doing. And as Pro has said, it is mostly due to their physique. Under the logic Pro has presented, it should be made illegal to allow a woman to do a high amount of these activities. Eventually women would not be allowed to really do much at all.

Under Pro's logic, women would not be allowed to:

1. Swimming: Chances of dying is 1 in a million. It is increased though when you are a woman obviously. [2]

2. By cycling: Chaces of dying, a about 1 in 140,000. Increased risk for women. [2]

3. Skiing. Chances of death is 1 in 1.1 million. Women have weaker physiques, so the chance is of course increased. [2]

4. All mountain climbing would be made illegal for women to attempt. Chances of dying is 1 in 1750. Increased risks applied to women. [2]

5. Canoeing, 1 in a 10,000 chance of dying. Increased risk for women. [2]

These are five popular things that we would be able to take away from women if I put your logic onto it. Otherwise why is it different?

However, there are something's that men suffer a higher risk to as well. Smoking for example. Men are ten times more likely to die of smoking than women are. Therefore all men should be banned from smoking apparently. [2]

I'm not sure if "It's a man thing" is a really sufficient enough argument to justify negative rights. You said that because men are the "first fans" ( not proven) if a woman started to play football it would take away the entire point of watching it(Not proven). I'd like to ask my opponent what exactly sexuality has to do with watching a game, and how It would take away the entire point of the game. Until then, it goes completely unproven.


Thanks Pro.
Debate Round No. 3


Rebuttal 1:

The opponent concedes to my point. He does not deny women would be more likely to get hurt, but instead gives other activities that women would most likely be hurt in. he also mentions about the risk of drinking with women. I call this irrelevant because that is a substance that you take into your body. That is totally different!

Rebuttal 2:

Where are your facts? Come back when you have some facts. I have a link that proves men have 50% more brute strength than women. In football, you need strength. This means the average man is physically stronger than the average women. Thanks for conceding your point their. Average women are not capable of playing in the pro's as stated by con. My link states that men are stronger, and overall more likely to make it into the pro's

Rebuttal 3:

Because the coach has a choice to choose his players. He denys men that are not as capable of playing football as his players. He has every right to deny a women. You are basically saying that everyone who wants to play should join the team. The coach has a right to deny anyone!

Rebuttal 4:

Women have been doing that sport for many years. Football has been played by men only. There are also more risks when playing football than swimming. Your logic is irrelevant!

Cycling? Is that really what we are resorting to? Men and women have been cycling even in their neighborhood. There is more risks in football.

Skiing? Really? Men and women have been doing this for many years! Women players are the more popular than men! Again, injury is different in football.

Canoeing is a recreational activity too! Your argument is irrelevant!

Again, a substance you put into your body! Not an activity! Smoking is a habit that your body becomes near dependant. Are people near dependant on football?

Rebuttal 5:

Football started in the 1892 (1) Times were different back then. Men go to the games A LOT! Where are your links proving it is not a man's sport? Again, you can not disprove it.


I have proved:

1. Women are more likely to get hurt in football than men
2. Men are more likely than women to succeed in the NFL
3. It is a man's sport

Remember, the BOP is on me. If my opponent can not disprove my points, then convincing arguments goes to me. Good luck con!


Pro has not met the burden of proof. Gender does not has any influence on rights. Pro has not justified his negative rights philosophy

I have shown how women could get hurt in many other sports, yet still have the right to do those things. If we apply pro's logic to anything else, it doesn't work. Pro has not given proper refutations, and did not meet the BOP...

He did not mert bop,
Debate Round No. 4
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
You can't have specific laws regarding how a different sex shall be deprived of rights due to a man deciding to "Give" woman make up. What exactly are the things you give women? There are male designers for items that you may deem as a woman's thing.
Posted by Cooldudebro 2 years ago
no he isn't. He just wants this to be a man thing. We give ladies women things. Why can't we have our things?
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
marviniscool--clearly sexist.
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
It's more like negative rights mate..
Posted by marviniscool 2 years ago
it's pretty funny because a girl actually tried out for football during this past off season. she was trying out for kicker and got hurt after her first kick lol. please, leave football for men only, ladies.
Posted by Cooldudebro 2 years ago
Trust me. I would love to start a comment debate about you, but I have better things to do. So please, stop commenting. I get enough haters as it is.
Posted by Cooldudebro 2 years ago
Yup. You were acting mental when we last spoke. Please. I want to stop this in a civil manner before this gets out if hand.
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
Oh, haha I guessed it was blood from non-human animals as they were slaughtered. I suppose I just saw what I wanted to see, haha!
Posted by Caploxion 2 years ago
Yes, it's one of my favourite pictures. She doesn't look too sane, so you could be right about that.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by NateTheFirst 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 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: Pro did not meet BoP. Pro, as Con pointed out, never really gave any convincing or solid argument in order to enforce this law. He also made a high amount of insults that were very unneeded. .
Vote Placed by STALIN 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: ff. I also found Pro much more convincing. He presented more arguments and refuted all of Con's points.