The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
6 Points

we should ban boxing as a sport professionally

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2014 Category: Sports
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 698 times Debate No: 53109
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




First round introduce your points and then second round justify your points and 3rd round conclude your points
The props can start


First of all; give me your reasons as to why we should ban boxing as a sport. I need to know what you are thinking in order for me to argue with you.
Debate Round No. 1


I am saying boxing should be banned for these reasons
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.


1) Plain and simple; people sign up for this. People are KNOWINGLY risking their health for something they enjoy. Banning this sport would be a violation of the three basic unalienable rights for us, "Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS." Banning the sport wouldn't hold up in court. A lawyer can bring this up and win and shut down the case immediately.

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."
Debate Round No. 2


1.You said people sign up for but look at it in all ways you need to care for your citizens health. If they retire they will have a lot of side effects after. So let's not spent money into that when easily avoiding that just banning boxing because your hit intentionally someone to hurt them

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


1) My opponent believes that we should ban a sport (that sport being Boxing) because it would cause side effects. First, I would like to mention that Con didn't list or state any of the side effects in his argument. Then, Con goes on to call Boxing a combat sport, which it is. I would like list a few other combat sports. They are as follows: kickboxing, MMA and Judo. These sports, including boxing, have regulations, (RULES & REGULATIONS state that a boxer must wear gloves, a mouthpiece, headgear for amateurs, loose-fitted shorts and soft-soled shoes), put into place that would prevent a player from further being injured (Let's not forget how these, 'contenders,' (as they are called) play the sport because they not only signed a contract to play it but they enjoy it as well).


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.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Phoenix61397 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: 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.