is hockey better than american football
Debate Rounds (3)
Hockey only risks teeth and shins being knocked while in American football anything is being involved in the sport.
Definitely hockey. In football, you fall on soft ground. In hockey, you slam into hard boards and solid ice. There are no weapons in football. In hockey, every player carries a stick that can do serious damage. If a football hits you in the face, your faceguard will protect you. If a hockey puck is slapped into your face, your facial bones will be broken and teeth lost; if it strikes you hard enough and in just the right spot, you will die. Football cleats might give you a tiny puncture wound. A hockey skate blade is razor sharp and at least two players in recent memory came close to bleeding to death after having major arteries sliced by them. I could go on but there really is no contest here. Hockey is infinitely more dangerous to play than football.
Inquisitive forfeited this round.
amey forfeited this round.
I request that voters appreciate that due to the very short round timings of instigator we both have unfortunately forfeited one round each and that neither my opponent nor myself should receive penalty for this since our acts cancel each other out.
I shall like to point out that my opponent chose to defend ice hockey as opposed to field hockey (which is definitely what one would assume hockey on its own meant since hockey was originally field only).
Nonetheless I shall rebut her points and hope to conclude in a very formal and appropriate manner.
My opponent seems to begin justifying hockey's supposed superiority over football by stating that " In football, you fall on soft ground. In hockey, you slam into hard boards and solid ice." This is as if to say that running into a slab of ice is a superior activity than running into a wall of muddy grass. I can assure that the bloodshed and overall damage of the ice is far more gruesome and malignant than the latter unless of course by chance the field happened to have very infested mud (which the well-cleaned professional fields of football do not). Thus this is a rather futile point to raise in favour of hockey as it merely proves the stupidity of ice hockey over football.
"There are no weapons in football." This is exactly why it's a safer and superior sport. It is a sport that turns the body into the weapon, one need only master his or her body and then train with it to master football. To master hockey is a far more dangerous and risky ordeal make it far more of a 'who is lucky enough not to get hit?' ordeal than a 'who is the best player?' ordeal.
"In hockey, every player carries a stick that can do serious damage." Yes and in the ghetto everyone carries a gun. Does this make the ghetto better than the uptown city?
"If a football hits you in the face, your face guard will protect you. If a hockey puck is slapped into your face, your facial bones will be broken and teeth lost." This is because American football is a far safer sport played by very risk-averse individuals usually who will go far in life. In hockey there is a huge element of risk that you could literally get your head cracked open or jaw smashed in, in the blink of an eye due to bad luck. Thus it is a far more barbaric and inferior sport in terms of its system of regulations and safety measures.
"if it[the hockey stick] strikes you hard enough and in just the right spot, you will die." Yes exactly, this is why it is a far more dangerous and less pleasant sport to play, referee and watch.
" Football cleats might give you a tiny puncture wound." That's because American football players want to be safe while training and competing in their sport, not sorry for ever taking it up.
"A hockey skate blade is razor sharp and at least two players in recent memory came close to bleeding to death after having major arteries sliced by them." Because that's exactly what we wants to happen in a sport... Not.
"I could go on but there really is no contest here." Then why offer a debate if there's no contest?
"Hockey is infinitely more dangerous to play than football." And this is exactly why football is the better sport.
Do we think that slitting arteries of people open is a better option than not doing so? The law would suggest we do not.
Do we think that smashing someone in the 'right spot' therefore, in essence, committing murder is a better option than not doing so? The law would suggest we do not.
So then tell me why is it that a sport that incorporates both of those risks is deemed the better one? The simple fact is you can't tell me why because there is no reason why.
As I said in round one, "in American football anything is being involved in the sport." The brutality in American Football isn't one f danger, it is one represented through the fact that one must wear severely heavy padding in order to avoid the possible injury that could occur. Hockey endorses only shin pads and gum shields. This will not stop the hockey stick hitting you in the 'right spot' to cause a fatal blow and thus is a far inferior and barbaric sport in comparison with the civilised and rational sport of American football.
I have refuted all points raised by pro (in fact favouring con's side throughout) and re-iterated my own.
I leave it to the voters.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by UltimateSkeptic 3 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: Danger does not make a sport better than another one, Con used more logic than pro.
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.