we should ban boxing as a sport professionally
Debate Rounds (3)
The props can start
1.Boxing causes many deaths, and medical
officials have continually called for it to be
banned.The British Medical Association has
repeatedly called for a ban on boxing or
a removal of the head from the
permitted target areas. The body of
medical evidence is growing that
suggests even if a boxer survives
individual bouts relatively unmarked, the
cumulative effect of a career in boxing
can lead to a greater susceptibility to
chronic neurological injury
2.We are promoting violence. Boxers are presented as beacons of
success for young people, but they are
not good role models. Children should not
idolize people who make a living by
injuring other people. In addition to the
violence in the ring, brawls often break
out at press conferences and even inside
boxing venues. The marketing of boxing
exalts this mindless violence and those
who perpetrate it. Mike Tyson is a
particularly harmful example. Tyson was
one of the most popular and successful
boxers in history, when he faced
Evander Holyfield in the most hyped
fight of the year. Tyson cruelly bit off a
portion of Holyfield"s ear in the fight, on
live television. These are not role
models of which we should be proud.
2) You don't, "promote," violence. Violence is inherited as we are hunters and gatherers. It is within our genes to be violent. It is not something that is, "learned."
2.Boxing is a combat sport in which two people engage in a contest of strength, speed, reflexes, endurance, and will by throwing punches with gloved hands against each other. This simply means we are advancing our natural violence level which we already have. Even if wear gloves they work at all because people get cuts when fight. So said we were born violent but don't tell me a baby can do boxing according to how your saying it .So in conclusion am still standing that boxing should be banned
SOURCE FOR RULES & REGULATIONS: http://boxing.isport.com...
2) There are other sports that can cause the same injuries. One sport that is close to, if not greater than, the amount of injuries a player sustains is AMERICAN FOOTBALL. Should we ban AMERICAN FOOTBALL too? If we banned every sport that has the possibility to cause injury, then there wouldn't be any sports to enjoy. Is it, necessarily, our job to put a roadblock on every sport that causes injury? Not only would it get in the way for a person to do what they enjoy, but it would violate the three most salient unalienable rights that are given to every human being at birth. Let's not do that. Instead, just let them enjoy what they love. It isn't our duty to stop them. That is illegal and morally unjust.
That is where I end my argument.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Phoenix61397 2 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||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Although I felt con had a stronger opening round, pro concluded the debate with a better argument. Con didn't stick with his original argument. Pro is also the only one who actually had physical evidence of a source, so sources have to go to him.
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.