The Instigator
bigdaddy2345
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
JustAnotherFloridaGuy
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

should short people be forwards in soccer

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 4 votes the winner is...
JustAnotherFloridaGuy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 322 times Debate No: 87069
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

bigdaddy2345

Pro

they are fast and have great acceleration who wouldn't. tall people can never live up to this they should stick to defending.
JustAnotherFloridaGuy

Con

I accept this debate.

Since Pro has not established any rules, here are a couple guidelines to follow:

1) Be polite and respectful. Avoid the ad hominem logical fallacy.

2) Sources are not necessary, but recommended.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pro's resolution is that people who are short have better acceleration and running speeds than tall people, who do not have good acceleration and are not speedy. Therefore, short people should play left, center, and right striker in the sport soccer, while the tall people should play left, center, and right defense because they lack the aforementioned traits.

As Con, I will argue that speed and acceleration are not mutually exclusive when it comes to tall and short people, but rather that it all varies depending on the physical fitness of the person.

Burden of proof is on Pro to provide evidence and/or sound reasoning to support their resolution.

Definitions

Tall: Greater in height than the average person, building, etc. [1]

Short: Having little height; not tall [2]

Acceleration: The act or process of moving faster or happening more quickly; the act or process of accelerating [3]

Speed: The rate at which someone or something moves or travels [4]

The Simple Logic & Syllogism

It is factual that not all people are the same, both physically and mentally. Pro's fatal flaw is that they fail to consider this. Physical ability in terms of agility is not mutually exclusive to short people. There can be, and there are countless cases where tall people can run and accelerate quicker than short people or even average people. These physical traits vary broadly among the population, and can be attained by most. Pro is arguing by stereotype (to be clear, the stereotype that tall people are clunky and sluggish and short people are quick and agile).

Here's a simple syllogism to demonstrate the reasoning better:

(P1) Tall people may or may not have excellent acceleration and running speeds.
(P2) Short people may or may not have excellent acceleration and running speeds.
(C) Therefore, acceleration and running speeds are traits that vary between people of different heights.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In conclusion, positions for players regarding the sport of soccer should be based individually on each player's demonstrated abilities, not their height. If there is a short player who is sluggish and not in the best physical shape, it is more logical to place them on defense. If a tall player is agile and in great physical shape, it is more logical to place them in a striker or midfielder position.

Vote Con.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[4] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
bigdaddy2345

Pro

bigdaddy2345 forfeited this round.
JustAnotherFloridaGuy

Con

Pro has forfeited.

I extend all my arguments and leave Pro their last round to formulate an argument.

As of now, Pro's resolution has been negated and I maintain my current arguments.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
bigdaddy2345

Pro

bigdaddy2345 forfeited this round.
JustAnotherFloridaGuy

Con

Pro has forfeited the debate.

I extend all my arguments.

Pro's resolution has been negated and they have not upheld their burden of proof.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by JustAnotherFloridaGuy 1 year ago
JustAnotherFloridaGuy
@Bocaj1000 - The only research I did for this debate was gathering the definitions, which took five minutes. The rest was typing out the reasoning, which took like twenty minutes. No huge loss and it lets me practice constructing my debates, so it's beneficial to me.
Posted by Bocaj1000 1 year ago
Bocaj1000
I believe the Con is a fool for wasting his time with this debate. Based on the Pro's grammar and argument, I would say he is in elementary or middle school and is jealous that he's not a forward. Now, Con is wasting his time looking for sources on relative size-to-speed ratios.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
bigdaddy2345JustAnotherFloridaGuyTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
bigdaddy2345JustAnotherFloridaGuyTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times, so conduct to Con.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
bigdaddy2345JustAnotherFloridaGuyTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
bigdaddy2345JustAnotherFloridaGuyTied
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 forfeited two turns; Con participated in all three rounds (conduct to Con). Pro failed to use capital letters; Con had good S&G, I also give credit here for good aesthetic use of bold and italics (S&G to Con). Pro hardly made an argument - related to physical attributes; Con broke down the physical attributes into detail and provided a thoughtful explanation (more convincing argument to Con). Only Con cited a source (most reliable source to Con)