The Instigator
spencertanti
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
po.osullivan
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

is football more dangerous than rugby

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...
po.osullivan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/10/2013 Category: Sports
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,739 times Debate No: 32312
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

spencertanti

Pro

well if you look at the injuries report for the nfl and nrl( national rugby league ) in the nfl their is atleast 30 players per team injured throughout the season
po.osullivan

Con

I accept this debate.

I would like to define the resolution as "Is the sport of football inherently more dangerous than the sport of rugby.

To that, I say no, football is not more dangerous, however "improvements" to the sport have caused it to be.

It is common for those unfamiliar with the sport of football to refer to the pads covering the players as "body armor." They are not wrong, as the players' helmets and the pads under their uniforms are firm, rigid, and designed to protect the players from their opponents. In contrast, rugby padding consists of very little padding below the neck, and even then, they do not wear the hard plastic helmets required in professional and youth football leagues.

I would like to put forth that football by itself is not more dangerous than rugby, but the hard pads turn human bodies into dangerous weapons, as players protected by pads do not have to worry about self-injury when they are blocking or tackling, which leads to more reckless behavior, and consequently, more injuries.
Debate Round No. 1
spencertanti

Pro

true but i have look over the injury report for football and rugby football has more injures by over 100 players
po.osullivan

Con

I recognize that football has more injuries, and provided a possible justification for that in my opening argument. I, however, am stating that the game of football is no more dangerous than the game of rugby.
Debate Round No. 2
spencertanti

Pro

by the way i always thought that rugby is more dangerous i was trying to get mabye more info cause im writing a essai/ thesis on this topic
po.osullivan

Con

As a raw game, I would say rugby is more dangerous. If you want more information, I've seen several good articles written about getting rid of hard pads in hockey, which I applied to football here. It might be a good idea to look them over.

As I am the only one who advanced an argument, vote pro.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by The_argueonator 3 years ago
The_argueonator
one
Posted by The_argueonator 3 years ago
The_argueonator
in rugby on of my team mates went down but the game didn't stop yet so he was laying there but after a minute he got back up and ran back in so it didn't count as injury
Posted by The_argueonator 3 years ago
The_argueonator
there are more injuries in the nfl then the nrl because there are more nfl players the nrl also because football players are pu$$y$
Posted by LexiNovak 3 years ago
LexiNovak
I think football would be more dangerous if they didn't have as many pads as they did. But they do so I think rugby is more dangerous.
Posted by LexiNovak 3 years ago
LexiNovak
I think football would be more dangerous if they didn't have as many pads as they did. But they do so I think rugby is more dangerous.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by TheSupremeDebater 3 years ago
TheSupremeDebater
spencertantipo.osullivanTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro said no really important information in his statements through out his rounds. Con obviously wins.
Vote Placed by effimero89 3 years ago
effimero89
spencertantipo.osullivanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Gave conduct to Pro cause he admitted that it was for an essay haha... I would always go with rudby being more dangerous and I would say NFL reporting more injuirys is because there is a lot more NFL players than rugby but honestly I do not know. To help you out with your essay use what con said in saying "body armor" on Football players makes then running weapons. Also use that NFL players are paid much more than rugby and have more incentive to be aggressive to win