The Instigator
football_32
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
FuzzyCatPotato
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

should girls play football

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...
FuzzyCatPotato
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/19/2015 Category: Sports
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 530 times Debate No: 73640
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

football_32

Pro

girls should be able to play football, no matter what their size. if a guy is afraid to hit a girl and having the risk of "hurting her" they shoulnt cause a girl would not be afraid to hit the guy
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

REBUTTALS

Pro: "girls should be able to play football, no matter what their size. if a guy is afraid to hit a girl and having the risk of "hurting her" they shoulnt cause a girl would not be afraid to hit the guy"

Hurting people is bad, regardless of gender. See Contention 1. This impact is true regardless of the fear level of anyone involved.

CONTENTION 1


Girls shouldn't play football because nobody should play football.

Football causes brain damage to at least 33% of football players; even the NFL agrees [1]. Brain damage leads to less earning potential, senility, and death, among other impacts. Pro has provided no reason why *anyone* should play football; you must prefer Con's reason.

P1: All humans should not play football.
P2: All girls are humans.
C1: All girls should not play football.

CONTENTION 2

Instead of spending many hours playing and watching and learning football, girls and all people should have longer schooldays. This can have massive impacts. As Reading Rockets states [2]:

Another group of schools we talk about in this book are public charter schools belonging to the well-known Knowledge Is Power Program, or KIPP network: fifty-seven elementary, middle, and high schools serving fourteen thousand overwhelmingly low-income (80 percent) African American and Latino (90 percent) students in seventeen states (and the District of Columbia), with concentrations in Houston, Texas, Newark, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C. KIPP schools all use 60 percent more time than the standard school schedule, going from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and involving some Saturday classes and several weeks during the summer. By every measure — national, statewide, and local — KIPP students not only improve themselves, they also outperform the great majority of their peers. Take KIPP D.C. Key Academy, in which 88 percent of eighth-grade students tested Proficient or above in math in 2006, more than three times the rate of D.C. eighth-graders as a whole (which was 27 percent); and 81 percent scored at least Proficient in reading, two and a half times the district total (32 percent). That same year 90 percent of KIPP Houston High School tenth graders passed the Texas statewide math exam, as compared to 49 percent of other Houston tenth graders. KIPP Ujima Village Academy in Baltimore was the highest-performing public school serving middle grades in the city in 2006; its seventh and eighth graders achieved the highest math scores in the state of Maryland.

P1: Having longer schooldays is a good thing.
P2: Playing football prevents having longer schooldays.
C1: Playing football prevents a good thing.

SUMMARY

Conduct: No vote.
Grammar: Con. Pro misspelled words, failed to capitalize, failed to use punctuation at the end of their statement, etc.
Arguments: Two reasons to vote Con. 1: Football is bad. 2: School is good.
Sources: Con has 2 sources; Pro has 0.

REFERENCES
[1] http://www.nytimes.com...
[2] http://www.readingrockets.org...
Debate Round No. 1
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Beondel 1 year ago
Beondel
football_32FuzzyCatPotatoTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Con made the only argument real argument. Pro did not have a chance to refute due to the nature of a 1-round debate. Arguments to Con. As Con pointed out, Pro misspelled words and did in fact fail to capitalize at the beginning of his sentences. grammer 2 con. Con used sources; Pro did not. Sources to Pro
Vote Placed by Mikal 1 year ago
Mikal
football_32FuzzyCatPotatoTied
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: Con was the only one to make an argument which refuted pros case through syllogisms