Question: Is Golf Considered a True Sport?

Shouldn't Color Guard be classified as a sport? Let me ask you: Have you ever witnessed a guard competition? Do you know someone who has participated in guard? According to the definition, a sport is an individual or group activity that involves physical effort or skill, is governed by rules, and can be pursued professionally (often used in the plural). Is Color Guard a competitive physical activity? Indeed, it is, with numerous competitions held. Although there might not always be a clear loser due to the large number of participating groups, the winner certainly receives prestige similar to winning a Super Bowl. Color Guard is a physically demanding group activity that showcases remarkable athleticism. My opponent argued that Color Guard only requires a certain level of athletic ability, which is incorrect. In Color Guard, skill and athleticism are essential; without them, one cannot succeed or become a winner. Due to its lack of recognition as a sport, it does not receive the respect and admiration it deserves, which it rightfully should.

Thanks for the definitions, I'm new to debating and just working out how all of this works! "People participate to have fun and to exercise." This is wrong, it is made compulsory by the school. Also you say that "not every kid enjoys competitive sports" I'd just like to say that not every kid enjoys maths or science yet they spend a lot longer than one afternoon a year doing that! Also everyone has different levels of academic abilities. I agree that "You cannot compare what a school does to promote exercise to what professional athletes do at one of the most important sporting events." however the "professional athletes" have to start somewhere. They need to start as early as possible to get their 10,000 hours practice in their sport before they can get to the top of it. (4) Some children wont get any chance to experience competitiveness in sport before its too late. So what I am really saying is that if there are no competitive sports days then the children who don't get taken off after school for other competitive activities wont experience it and are potentially losing out on a huge opportunity. This means that only children with pushy parents will get the chance to go to things like major sporting events in their field, bar the odd anomaly. The problem with people with the push from their parents rather then themselves is that they do feel anxiety because if they fail they will be failing their parents. If they are motivated by their own competitiveness then they will have self belief and are less likely to fail. "Many noncompetitive sports do not require lots of dedication and skills can be improved without anyone else." If you are dedicated and then improve your skills and you are denied the opportunity to show them off are you going to bother to train again? What is wrong with people training after school to improve themselves but then being being told it does not matter to win, the thing that is wrong here is that next time they just wont bother to do the exercise to improve their skills, which is totally against what you said. You said that they should teach "healthy life style habits" and training is one of these. If they aren't allowed/given the opportunity to show how their training has paid off they will become demotivated and stop, therefore living a less healthy life than before. Also all sorts of people can enjoy sports such as rounders, netball, squash.(the list goes on and on) People can enjoy these sports whatever physical level they are at. They can have fair and fun competitive games against people who have a similar amount of skill. I ask you, how many times do you come across competitive situations in a day? An example of how sports days are setting a child up to fail is if "there are no winners or losers" then when they get to the job market which is highly competitive (1) and see that there are clear winners and losers here what will they think? They will have to deal with anxiety here. Anxiety can be managed and its best to start learning how to do this at a young age. (2) An example is any of the Olympic athletes or even most other good athletes. An example was a good golfer who suddenly improved and was winning his tournament by a long way and nobody thought that he could lose, he did. However before the next tournament he worked hard on controlling his anxiety and he won it. The only reason he worked on it is because he is competitive, if you teach children not to be competitive then it will affect them in all walks of life for example in their job. So you say "children of all abilities can exercise" Please let me bring your attention to the Paralympics. I see people with all abilities competing there. Well they do have wiis and not any other videogames so you do agree that that is not teaching them how to have a healthy lifestyle as you said earlier. I really do have to question that if schools are treating this as sport then pupils will see it as sport and play on a wii and think that they are doing a good thing. If this is what non competitive sports days bring then are they really good? What better opportunity can you ask for to teach children about competitiveness? If they have competitiveness in other lessons where some children are less able than others why shouldn't they have it in sports? "By schools having noncompetitive sports days they can offer a larger variety of activities and can teach kids healthy life style habits." Could this not be taught to students in PE lessons? Also if "there are no winners or losers" then it is shown that children try less hard and don't do as well. (3) This leads to them being less healthy as there is no motivation for them to say run the 800m if they walk it it would be easier and if there are no winners or losers then they are just as good as the person who ran it. That is a very bad value to be teaching children! Competitive sports days provide a better environment for exercise as people will work harder and push further, therefore improving their fitness more quickly than in a non competitive sports day. (please see the 800m example) This contradicts your main argument. Sorry about the sloppy structure! (1)http://www.bbc.co.uk... (2)http://www.anxietyguru.net... (3)http://gigaom.com... (4)http://en.wikipedia.org...(book)

I believe and will argue that crack baby basketball, as detailed in the South Park episode titled 'Crack Baby Athletic Association' ( . http://en.wikipedia.org... ), should become an actual televised sport in the United States. For those of you plebeians who dont know what crack baby basketball is. .. .. The game works by putting numerous babies born with a cocaine addiction into a crib/arena, placing a ball filled with crack cocaine in the middle of the arena, and then watching the babies fight for it. Its quite hilarious and entertaining to watch Anyways, I am arguing that this sport should become a real thing, con will argue that it shouldnt become a real thing.

'what people dont really want to do it, they dont need to or they dont care. ever thought of that, it isnt violent but it is very rough and i remember getting hurt and wet and everything and people laughed at me so you havnt even said so there is a club for it if people want to play it you havnt said a thing about why it is compulsory you should of just said why it should be compulsory, my idea of violent meant rough so i got the words wrong. so yes answer why every kid in the entire country(s) should have to do it when it doesnt help them but why is it in the curriculum. answer that'CON states: 'what people dont really want to do it, they dont need to or they dont care. ever thought of that, it isnt violent but it is very rough,' so CON just admitted there is no violent sport, therefore, violent sports shouldn't be banned. CON states: 'you havnt said a thing about why it is compulsory you should of just said why it should be compulsory, my idea of violent meant rough so i got the words wrong. so yes answer why every kid in the entire country(s) should have to do it when it doesnt help them but why is it in the curriculum. answer that. ' All I have to say is, are you kidding me? I don't have to answer squat, wise guy. You say: 'answer why every kid in the entire country(s) should have to do it when it doesnt help them but why is it in the curriculum. answer that,' and since the resolution is 'Should rugby and other violent sports, wrestling boxing be compulsory in schools,' you are really asking me: 'answer why every kid in the entire country(s) should have to do *play violent sports* when it doesnt help them but why is *violent sports* in the curriculum. answer that. ' Nobody should have to play violent sports because they cannot--violent sports do not exist--and violent sports are not in the curriculum because violent sports don't exist. But I want to point the audience's attention to CON's statement 'you havnt said a thing about why it is compulsory you should of just said why it should be compulsory, my idea of violent meant rough so i got the words wrong. ' That was the stupidest thing I have heard all month. I don't need to say anything about why it should be compulsory because it cannot be compulsory--violent sports do not exist--and then CON said 'my idea of violent meant rough so i got the words wrong. ' Lord help humanity. What was your thought process behind that statement. Oops, I got the words wrong, but its no big deal, just because nobody knows my definition of violent doesn't mean the debate can't continue. If you wanted violent to mean 'rough,' then you should have put your definition in the first round. But, since you didn't, I had every right to make my own.

If cheer/tumbling is not a sport then why is it in the Olympics? If you ever played football you can relate: We don't throw a 2 lb. ball through the air. We throw a 100 lb. girl in the air. We catch our flyer it is not like we can miss the object/person and let them fall 10 feet and hit the ground. We also don't run down the field at 5mph we tumble down it at 10mph. now... does it sound easy to you? No, it does not. Why don't you get out there and try some of it on your own. Oh.. Wait, you can't. if you have a problem with cheerleaders then why don't you go talk to a coach. Oh.. Wait again, you are scared so you can't. Cheer has been proven the most dangerous sport and you would never get out on a field in front of 500 people and do cheers and dances would you? No, you wouldn't.

Sport- an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. Cheerleading involves physical exertion Teams compete against one another for cheerleading. A sport would have to require athletic skills.(gymnastics, strength, coordination) It takes cardiovascular effort , endurance, and skill. These are all athletic skills. http://www.youtube.com... This is a link to a video of the varsity cheerleaders from my school doing a competition. Notice the strength and coordination. If something had gone wrong, the flyer in the stint could have been hurt severely and they would have lost. It requires a lot of concentration. "Just because you can compare cheerleading to sports that are accepted a sports doesn't mean it's accepted as a sport." Well just so you know, comparing it to oil rigs doesn't help you either.

First of all, as this is an international site and foxhunting is not common outside the British Isles, please allow me to enlighten those voters who may be unfamiliar with it. To start off with, my opponent, and other advocates of foxhunting, describe foxhunting as a sport, but we have to ask ourselves if this is really an appropriate term. Consider, if you will, the following sporting contest: Commentator: "Hello rugby fans and welcome to what promises to be a thrilling afternoon of sport. Playing left to right, with an average weight of 266lbs and an average height of 6'3" are fifteen of the most formidable rugby players in the world. They are, of course, the World Cup winning New Zealand All Blacks. . http://www.youtube.com... And their opposition today, representing South Chelmsford Under-12's reserve team, is young Cedric Taylor who is 4'1" tall and weighs in at 77lbs and who is all on his own. Ah, bless him. So, we are only minutes away from kick-off now and the crowd are going wild with excitement…but wait, what's this? The All Blacks manager is complaining to the referee. He thinks the match is too one-sided. He's asking for permission for his Maori warriors to take to the field on horseback. And he wants to be allowed to set a pack of braying hounds on the young Chelmsford lad as well. Well, the referee has agreed to the All Blacks' requests and he's blown whistle to start the game. The New Zealander's are now charging down the field, their horses' hooves churning the mud as they gallop at full pelt over the soft turf. Meanwhile, the hounds have been released and are closing in on young Cedric who, with ball in hand, is literally running for his life. And now the dogs are upon him. They are tearing him limb from limb as the All Blacks dismount and celebrate their opponent's agonising death with a victory war dance. Well, viewers, even the most loyal South Chelmsford Under-12's reserve team fans would have to admit the mighty All Blacks thoroughly deserved that emphatic win. More sport follows this programme when we cross to Ireland where some over-privileged toffs hope to set their dogs on a defenceless wild animal and watch them rip it into a thousand pieces. But who knows? Perhaps their quarry will manage to overpower the hounds and kill them all before somehow forcing the upper-class horse riders to dismount so that he can maul them all to death? Who can say, but we shall all find out after these messages…" Really, ladies and gentleman, for a pastime to be called a "sport", both sides have to have a chance of winning. Who has ever heard of a fox wining a foxhunt? No, foxhunting isn't a sport – it's just the cruel and wanton destruction of wildlife for the pleasure of barbaric aristocrats and their snobby chums and we shouldn't dignify this despicable activity by calling it a sport. Now, this is what foxhunting is really about: These are the foxhunters… . http://cache.eb.com... . http://www.realca.co.uk... …and these are the henchmen they employ to keep hunt monitors away: . http://www.realca.co.uk... . http://www.realca.co.uk... …and if you want to see how the fox suffers when he is caught, click on the link below and follow the directions to the foxhunting gallery. However, please be aware that you may find some of the images disturbing. . http://www.banbloodsports.com... Foxhunting is now banned now in England, Scotland and Wales, but remains legal in Ireland; my opponent's home country. Prior to the ban, the foxhunters argued, as my opponent has, that foxhunting is necessary to protect farmers' chickens. Guess what? Since the UK ban came into force in 2004, the foxes have not been slaughtering chickens en masse. Why not? Because some bright spark came across a revolutionary, high-tech solution to keep the foxes from the poultry. And the name of this incredible new discovery? Well, prepare to be amazed - announcing the all-singing, all-dancing: chicken wire fencing… . http://hoaryredpoll.files.wordpress.com... This amazing device has completely alleviated the need to hunt, trap or poison foxes and hopefully it will also be available in Ireland soon! Hare coursing was my opponent's next topic, which she admitted was "cruel" before the dogs had to wear muzzles. I agree. If the purpose is to train greyhounds and no harm comes to the hare, then I don't think many people would object to it. My opponent then turned her attention to "deer poaching". This is illegal in Ireland and is also not a sport. I think she may be confusing it with "deer stalking" which takes place under licence and only at certain times of the year. This is not actually a sport either, rather wildlife management. Furthermore, the carcases are often sold to butchers that specialise in venison and I have no objection to this, and neither would most blood sports opponents. To conclude, my opponent quoted Darwin and implied that we should not ignore our basic human instincts. Apparently, hunting is in our blood. I mean how many of us can honestly put our hands up and say that we've never been tempted to fashion a spear out of a branch and chase a flock of sheep over open countryside? I know shouldn't be sarcastic, but there are lots of activities that are part of human instinct, such as fighting, raping and pillaging, that people living in civilised countries cannot legally pursue and the same principle should apply to cruel "sports" such as foxhunting. Thank you.

While there is a "physical" aspect to chess (even which my opponent agrees "I grant that it would be on the low end for Olympic sports, but it is still present. ") there has been nothing shown that chess would need anything more then a basic stamina. That a player with with excellent stamina would have any advantage over a player with decent stamina. The true game lies within the players mental abilities and in all most every match. While chess is a great game and I am proud to be a co-founder of the chess team at my high school (which became #2 in the state in our 4th year, after I had graduated) and have the utmost respect for it. I must acknowledge that the game is not one for the Olympics, as much Beethoven doesn't belong in the Rock and Roll hall of fame, even though his music was truly great. P. S. My personal favorite is the Deep Blue matches.

Con said no word can be false. If no word is false, they are all true. Checkmate!

Sure thing. Many sports, such as football, baseball, and basketball, do not require a large amount of endurance to excel in. While they do require a higher endurance level than that of the average person, compared to some other sports endurance is not as emphasized. Rhythmic/Artistic Gymnastics, however, is a different story. The amount of continuous, intense power that gymnasts need to continually exert requires not a only a high level of strength and flexibility, but also large amounts of endurance. After all, nearly any athlete could do a small portion of a gymnast's routine with little difficulty depending on their strengths, but to do an entire routine requires more endurance than most other athletes have. The only other mainstream sports that I can think of that also require high endurance levels are soccer, water polo, and certain other types of gymnastics. Hope this helps!

I believe that American Football is the most complex and strategic of all popular sports. There are a few key words I used in this claim. 1. I specifically used the words complex and strategic. This means that football is the most layered and dynamic, and requires the highest levels of strategy and tactical execution to be successful. It does not mean it requires the most stamina or endurance, the toughest players, or the most athletically gifted players. 2. I also stated, "of all popular sports." This means that only popular sports can be used in counter arguments. Popular because I don't want you to bring up some exotic sport that no one has ever heard of or understands. I said sports because it can't be a game (e.g. chess, bar games). I'm not big on debate rules, so use the rounds however you please. Good luck.


Question: Is Golf Considered a True Sport?

Golf is not a sport, just like NASCAR isn't. Who would consider golf a sport? It doesn't require the same level of athleticism as other sports. Being a sport isn't just about strength, but also physical exertion and skill. NASCAR, for instance, doesn't heavily rely on athletic ability. Following this logic, activities like darts and shuffleboard could also be classified as sports. NASCAR is not an athletic endeavor. Coordination is more of a mental skill. There's minimal physical exertion involved, so it can't be considered a sport.

in my personal opinion dance cannot truly be considered a sport. i will be stating why in my following arguments

Good points all. I concede. My laziness of language has undone me.The point I attempted and failed to make was that women are less competitive(they are) than men and sport is not of their nature. ,Going to the Gym is fine , but that's exercise not a Gladiator in sight.

first of all there is a critera to cheerleading and i explained that is my previous argument second swimming is not cheerleading and you cannot dictate what is harder than another without playing both of those aspects.... cheerleaders have to to weight training and they lift girls in extremely hard stunts they have to take gymnastics every week and they have to tumble stunt cheer lift and dance in al one routine within there level... second of all no American idol is not a sport... third of all not all sports are in the olympics ........ like football, baseball, and soccer.... so you are to tell me that sports that are all over espn and talk about on live tv shows are not sports.. cheerleading is also on espn like the big florida competition... a cheerleading national competion is like a superbowl for football and the olympics for ice skating, gymnastics and others.... there are alot of sports that do not participate in the olympics and are consider sports by millions of people. do you consider that everything that is not in the olympics is not a sport.... just because cheerleading is not in the olympics does not mean that it is not a sport as to the other sports that are not there...

We have boxing now that is Inclusive of women. Rugby also promotes womens competitions. Should we continue on this parallel journey of equality? My argument is that no we shouldn't. We are different but equal and Dykes pretending to be men should not be encouraged as being OK. When a Woman can run a 10 second sprint get back to me. Its not that Interesting. If you are not aware , most men don't think womans sport means diddly squat apart from looking at that Russian girls legs at Wimbledon. The politicaly correct continue to force feed the Idea that we are equaly as Interesting on the field of sport , but we are not.

Now that I know which side I'm supposed to be on, here's some arguments for why Rhythmic/Artistic Gymnastics is the best sport: 1. The sport allows more self-expression than other sports do. 2. It is in the Olympics, which indicates its widespread popularity and thus its merit. 3. The amount of physical training required in order to do well in the sport is incredibly high, and develops many athletic skills beyond those achieved in other sports, particularly in regards to the athletes' endurance. 4. The amount of training required by the sport means that the athletes must have started at a very young age in order to excel, unlike other sports, such as swimming, running, football, or tennis, which one can pick up at almost any time during adolescence and young-adulthood and attain a high level of excellence in the sport.

Given the fact that hockey and football are two different sports, there are still core factors involved in being an "athletic" sports player in order to before at the highest level of any given sport. So, to stay that these are two have nothing to do with each other is correct in one sense, but also incorrect in the other. Such skills such as stamina, endurance, and strength are all key factors to athleticism that all sports players need, regardless of which sports they play. In both hockey and football, endurance and stamina are two very important skills, however, I believe that there is more endurance and stamina needed in hockey then there is in football. For example, in football there is a stoppage of play almost every few seconds after the ball is hiked. During this stoppage of play, players have more time to rest and regain their strength. In hockey, play is constant (unless stopped by the whistle, which indubitably never happens unless a penalty is called). Being that play is constant in hockey, I therefore believe that you need to have better endurance in hockey then you do in football. Also, with the more endurance needed for hockey, stamina is also needed. Stamina is the energy that you have over the entire course of the game which allows you to keep playing. You need a lot of stamina in order to keep playing at a constant rate. You do not need as much stamina for football because play is stopped almost constantly.

We are debating whether Chess is a game of skill or a game of luck. I'm not sure why you have made additional definitions when I have made perfectly good definitions, but to remind voters, a game of luck is a game which may have SOME SKILL ELEMENT to it, however, CHANCE plays a GREATER role in determining the OUTCOME than skill. If chess were a game of luck it would not necessarily be like a game of snakes and ladders or any similar game where an equal ratio of win to loss can occur. In Chess the probability of winning cannot be measured because the outcome is not determined by luck alone. A person's skill can affect the outcome, this is why I have said "skill is no doubt involved in chess". Every time I say chess is a game of luck people automatically assume I think it's a game of pure luck, when this is not the case. Luck just plays a greater role in determining the outcome! Since I have had nothing to debate so far, I will just try to cover any holes in my debate Chess is not simply an idle amusement, it does teach people to be cautious (not make moves too quickly), teaches foresight (consider consequences), and can help people to see how pieces can work together etc. The game can help develop mental ability. The extent to which you can use it to change an outcome in chess however is limited. In case Con mentions Martial Arts, or any similar interactive sport where more skill than luck is required, I will say that Chess is completely different to those because everyone who plays chess should read about the game to be somewhat equally familiar before playing. Nobody can expect to perfect their skill in karate by reading books about it, but reading books about chess can make you a good chess player, and will allow the forces of luck to play a greater role in determine the outcome. Chess Masters follow chess theory in the opening stage, and wild positions can result causing them to need to make positional considerations above other considerations. They are free from errors (on their own) only in the middle game where they will be in a position they have not freely chosen and may be in a situation where tactical (when a piece threatens one of yours) tactics take precedence over strategy. Players can't wisely ignore the tactical side and carry on with their strategy, they will choose to lose mobility to save pieces which can win or cost them the game. Often, masters will have a "feeling" about a position and follow this. When chances remain equal, the game often ends in a draw [1]. I've already said how chance enters Chess in ties and how this affects the outcome. Sources: [1] https://books.google.co.uk...

Thanks to Pro for instigating this debate. Okay, it is my belief that all sports are equally difficult to play at a professional level, and that's what I will be proving to you. I know that Pro asked me to choose a sport, but as all sports are equally difficult, there is really no point in choosing any single sport. First, let's take a look at the definition of hardest, or difficult. According to Merriam Webster, difficult is defined as: hard to do, make, or carry out. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...;The main point of all of Pro's arguments is that Hockey is a very dangerous sport. The more dangerous a sport is, does not mean that the sport is much more difficult to play. I agree that some sports are much more dangerous than others, but I disagree with Pro when he uses danger as a basis of how difficult a sport is. Okay, I will get into a rebuttal of Pro's arguments. Refutation 1:Pro states that "Unlike most sports we enjoy today, a person can not simply put on his/her shoes and just go play ice hockey; he/she must learn to ice skate before hand". First, I would assume that if you do not know how to skate, you would not be a professional hockey player. I must remind everyone that the topic that we are debating today is the Ice Hockey is the Hardest Sport to Play at the Professional Level. This means that all players will already know how to skate. And what about water sports like swimming, or water polo? These sports you need to know how to swim in order to play. I would say that swimming is much harder to learn than skating, as skating is pretty much just running on ice. Hockey could potentially be the hardest sport to learn but not the hardest sport to play at the professional level. Refutation 2:This is an argument about the danger of Hockey. But if a sport is much more dangerous, does it mean that it is much more difficult to play? Let's take a look at some other dangerous sports. Skydiving. Skydiving is an extremely dangerous sport. By Pro's logic, this means that this sport is also very difficult to play. However, it is not. All you have to do is to pull your ripcord while you're in the air to deploy your parachute. It is very easy to do. UFC Fighting. Also an extremely dangerous sport. But all you do is punch the other person and avoid getting punched. Also not a very difficult sport to play. Okay I have shown you 2 other dangerous sports. What you're essentially saying in this argument is that Hockey is a difficult sport to play, simply because it is dangerous. No. Just because a sport is dangerous, it doesn't mean that that sport is difficult to play. Refutation 3: Pro says that "Because simple fundamentals of ice hockey require a lot of skill. Take passing, again. A player must have good hand eye coordination in order to keep the puck on his stick and under control, but then he must use that hand eye coordination in order to push the puck toward his teammate, most of the time while skating. "Once again, these are pro players, so they already know how to do these skills. However, other sports require focus and hand-eye coordination as well. Hockey is not the only sport that requires this focus. In basketball, for example, you need good hand-eye coordination to score 3-pointers, to pass to your teammates. You need focus in order to score that layup, or that free throw. In football, you need good hand-eye coordination to throw those long passes, to score that field goal. You need focus in order to run as far as you can to get a touchdown. In badminton or tennis, you need good hand-eye coordination in order to even hit the birdie or ball. You need focus in order to predict where your opponent will hit the ball to. As you see, hockey is not the only sport that requires hand-eye coordination and focus. I have shown you many other sports that require the same skills. And just in case Pro says that skating is difficult to learn, I would say swimming is much harder to learn, as there are several different strokes that you need to learn. Therefore, hockey is not the hardest sport to play on the professional level, all sports are equally difficult. Arguments:Okay, let's get into some arguments.1. SkillsAll sports require some skill in order to play them at the professional level. Hockey is not the only sport. It really differs from person to person. Some people may find skating easy to pick up, while others may find swimming much easier to learn. You cannot generalize all people under one category and just say that hockey is the most difficult sport to play. All sports have their advantages and disadvantages and the difficulty of each sport will vary from person to person. For example, let's use math. Okay, so I'm asian, and you're probably european, I would assume. I find math easy to learn and do. You would probably find math difficult, and you can't understand certain concepts. However, when we learn about european history, it would be much easier for you, than for me. What I'm saying here is that some people find certain things easier than other people. I can't just say that math is the easiet subject, because what about you then? Since you find math difficult, my statement would then be false. It is the same with this resolution. You're categorizing all professional players and saying that hockey is the hardest sport to play. What if someone finds hockey easy? Like Wayne Gretzky for example. Then you're statement would be false. Conclusion:The only way you're statement can be true is if you can prove that all professional hockey players find hockey the most difficult sport to play at a professional level. Then, you would also have to make sure that these pro hockey players also have to play other sports at a professional level, otherwise their opinion would be biased. There is no possible way you can do that. Therefore you have lost this debate.

Hockey is no doubt the better sport. 1. It is full of fast paced action, as well as exciting hits and goals. 2. No one makes dumb comments about hockey, like "ball is life" for basketball. 3. Hockey players don't yell stupid taunts at each other like "brick city" or "biscuits"

Rebuttals "I have already explained that the roles in football are not dynamic at all. " I should have clarified. I meant that your argument was that the roles themselves were more dynamic in other sports, whereas I was stating the variety of roles in football is what makes it dynamic. Furthermore, regarding complex roles, it could be easily argued that the single most complex and dynamic role in all of sports is the quarterback. "I am not psychoanalyzing the player. " I wasn't referring to the player, I was referring to the role. I claimed that the sport of football is more complex, whereas you seem to be claiming that the roles in other sports are more complex. "This is like saying that quantity is always better than quality. " Regarding complexity, quantity is absolutely one of the defining characteristics. The more variables the more complex. A complex mechanism is one that has many different moving parts, regardless of how simple each part (role) may be. Even you stated that the specific roles in other sports are more complex because they require the player to take on more responsibilities. More being the operative word. "You can't have a complex sport without complex roles. " Of course you can. That's like saying you can't have a complex watch without complex gears. Let's say that hockey has 3 roles, A, B, C, and football has 11 roles, D - N. Even if roles A, B, C are more complex than D-N, the fact that 11 different roles in football have to execute in concert with one another makes it a more complex entity as a whole. At the very least it makes them equally complex, just in different ways. It's like comparing doing one hard thing versus doing many different easy things at the same time. "I also argued that individually these plays are not that unique and not very difficult to execute. " You could not be more wrong in this regard. The plays are incredibly unique, many showing no resemblance to the others at all. There is far, FAR more variety of plays in football than in any other sport. And because of the amount of moving parts in every play (all the different roles) many plays are very difficult to execute properly. This is why 5 year old's play soccer and baseball, but they don't even start incorporating passing plays into football games until high school. Strategy This will have to be much briefer than I hoped. In short, because of the complexity in football (amount of roles, plays, rules, scoring), we see the highest levels of strategy in football. In no other sport are the coaches more involved with every play than in football. You have the head coach, O-coordinator, D-coordinator, and they are all responsible for choosing every play in the game. The play depends entirely on the situation (score, field position, time, down and distance). In any other sport plays are only drawn up during time outs, and they are very basic in nature (pass to this guy, pick 'n roll, and shoot), then the rest of the game is mostly improvisation, not strategy. In football, the set plays allow the game to proceed like a chess match. Each team has a chance to stop and think about the situation, pick the best play out of hundreds, line up and see who made the better call. Think about how much talk there was about Pete Carrol's passing call in the Super Bowl. I can't think of any other sport in which the coaches decision regarding a specific play is so impactful and scrutinized. In summary, football is the most complex sport because no other sport has as much variety in roles, plays, rules, and scoring. Even if you agree with Con regarding the roles, that's still 3 of 4 in favor of football. Football is the most strategic of sports for two primary reasons: 1. A large variety of roles and plays allows for a larger variety of strategies, which puts a higher emphasis on strategy. 2. The set plays allow the teams to contemplate and execute their strategy more clearly and effectively.


Question: Is Golf Considered a Sport?

Golf should be reconsidered as a legitimate sport. The assertion that gaming should be taken more seriously and considered a real sport is a valid one, but it doesn't detract from the fact that golf is a sport as well. The argument that Battlefront is a casual game and therefore lacks skill is flawed, as it fails to recognize that golf, like Battlefront, can be played casually or competitively. Both require different skills to master, with golf needing an understanding of wind patterns, pitch, and other factors, while gaming requires quick reflexes, accuracy, and strategic thinking. The comparison between golf and football (soccer) is apt, as both are non-contact sports that can be enjoyed casually or played at a competitive level. The idea that button mashing is all it takes to play a video game is a misconception, as pressing the right buttons at the right time is crucial for success, much like how hitting a ball with a stick requires more than just the physical action. The skill required to play games like CS:GO is often underestimated, as professional players have a deep understanding of the game mechanics and can execute strategies to near perfection. Similarly, the skill required to play golf is often overlooked, as it requires a high level of precision and strategy to succeed. The argument that gaming is not a sport because it doesn't require physical exertion is flawed, as many sports require mental acuity and strategy as well. The comparison to rugby is also relevant, as a rugby game designed for hardcore gamers would require more than just button mashing, just as real rugby requires skill and strategy. The complexity of games like CS:GO and sports like golf is often underestimated, as they require a deep understanding of strategy and mechanics to master. The argument that gaming is not a sport because it can be learned quickly is also flawed, as learning the basics does not equate to being able to compete at a professional level. Similarly, learning the basics of golf does not equate to being able to compete at a professional level. The complexity of games like CS:GO and sports like golf is often overlooked, as they require a high level of skill and strategy to master. The comparison to sports like snooker is relevant, as they require a similar level of precision and strategy to succeed. The idea that there is no strategy in CS:GO is a misconception, as good players communicate and form plans to outmaneuver their opponents. Similarly, golf requires a strategic approach to succeed, as players must consider factors like wind patterns and pitch to

Now that I know which side I'm supposed to be on, here's some arguments for why Rhythmic/Artistic Gymnastics is the best sport: 1. The sport allows more self-expression than other sports do. 2. It is in the Olympics, which indicates its widespread popularity and thus its merit. 3. The amount of physical training required in order to do well in the sport is incredibly high, and develops many athletic skills beyond those achieved in other sports, particularly in regards to the athletes' endurance. 4. The amount of training required by the sport means that the athletes must have started at a very young age in order to excel, unlike other sports, such as swimming, running, football, or tennis, which one can pick up at almost any time during adolescence and young-adulthood and attain a high level of excellence in the sport.

Here is how hockey is mentally challenging, first of all hand to eye coordination , knowing were to pass to plus a lot of criticism. Also when you get checked , slashed ,ect in hockey you not only need physical strength you need mental strength. Finally you need mental strength to keep playing well, even if your team is losing badly.

Even though basketball was created for "the goal of fitness", it doesn't mean it takes more physical ability. Goalies may not be that active during the game, but they must endure long training sessions of building leg and strength especially arm strength for the reason of what I said before, they may be needing to block up 125 mph shots. Your argument about them not doing anything most of the time is invalid. All 10 field players are ALWAYS moving whether it be jogging or sprinting. ( with exception of taking 5 seconds to take catch their breath.) if a player were to stand around a coach would not be happy and likely take them out at an approprite time. "The forward player often is just waiting in the near the opponents penalty area until someone gives him the ball." This argument is completely false and almost offensive. I personally play striker and I never sit around waiting for the ball. I'm always jogging and I sprint more than any other position on the field. Sprinting for at least 45 minutes straight of the 90 minute game, the rest jogging. Soccer is very healthy sport with a bad injury rarely happening maybe in 1 of 3 of a players game. Basketball is just as dangerous with many common injuries including "jumpers knee", muscle strains, ankle sprains, broken fingers, knee injuries, need I go on? Soccer has many health benefits including: Increases aerobic capacity and cardiovascular health Lowers body fat and improves muscle tone Builds strength, flexibility and endurance Increases muscle and bone strength Improved health due to shifts between walking, running and sprinting. Promotes teamwork and sharing Teaches you to think on-the-go Helps to increase skills in concentration, persistence and self-discipline Is a great way to meet people and exercise with friends Can provide an opportunity to increase your confidence and self-esteem, and help to reduce anxiety Requires very little equipment so can be played in the backyard or park (Credit to http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au...) Soccer is more of a contact sport but many people including myself prefer this. I gave played both sports and love the fact that I can nudge, bump, and knock into other people, while in basketball you said it yourself, the slightest push is punishable which much more frustrating than "safe". You say soccer players hurt their opponent intentionally, this is true yet it is true for all sports, including basketball, therefore making that argument invalid. Very few tricks in soccer? Please. Watch this. http://m.youtube.com... And #4 is not putting in the basket with his feet. He's simply passing it to his hands. You say soccer players are amateurs and have a huge goal to score on. This Is true but think about about it. You must get through 11 players including the goalie all of which are trained to play defense. And after this you have literally a window lasting seconds to get a shot off, all while using your mind and coordination to tell your feet, which are harder to use than hands, to place the ball perfectly, once again using your mind to think of where the ball can be placed in coordination of the goalkeeper, and which part of the net has the biggest opening. Here's another video showing how skillful shots can be. Enjoy. http://m.youtube.com... Let me make another point about this. Basketball players can rarely score from anywhere less than 22 feet out (the 3 point shot) which even then shooting a 3 is a gamble with half the players. Soccer players range of scoring is anywhere within their opponents half usually out of the goal box, making the goal appear smaller and requiring even more precision. Here's another video of precise aim. http://m.youtube.com... A goalless match is very rare and usually won't happen. Yes they go back and forth but fans who actually know about soccer enjoy the build up of a play, the great pass, the awesome goalkeeper save, the beautiful shot. The has had plenty of time to accept basketball which it has been in many countries, but soccer is still world dominate and always will be, people are too passionate about the game and could never let it go. It is religion for some cultures. Basketball isn't even the most popular sport in America, it isn't really in any country. American football is America's sport. Soccer will soon be more popular than both. I work at a soccer store and the growth it has made since it started is incredible. More and more new customers are coming by the month and more and more people are beginning to enjoy MLS each year.

I do not think football should be banned, it is a sport and anyone who plays football or does any type of physical activity knows that you can get injured.

I do not believe chess to be a worthy Olympic sport. I will post my reasons in the debate. I will withhold my bias against chess as I was never any good at it. I thank whoever debates me on this topic.

"Many people argue that one of the main features of a sport IS teamwork, and learning to work together to achieve a goal." There are many more individual sports than there are team sports, so those people would be wrong. Look at the olympics. Wrestling, javelin, shot put, gymnastics, discus, not many team sports. Because the purest test of an athlete is one on one against another athlete. Team sports take away from an athlete. There is no "I" in team, because everyone is dependent on each other to win. In football there are 11 men on the field for each team, it doesn't matter if one or two give 110%, if the other 9 guys slack off you lose, and your labeled a loser by association. Don't get me wrong, I love football, but the quality of athlete you have to be in MMA is much higher. You have to be fast, strong, smart, an expert in kickboxing, wrestling, Jui-jitsu, and have miles of heart. You have so much more you have to use to compete with cause there is nobody there to pick up the slack for you, it is just you and your opponent. "Say, if your theoretical wife had a theoretical baby, which took out of your training time because you're a good theoretical father, you could place blame on others. You could also be injured by another, hampering your display of "extreme athleticism" while competing." Injuries happen all the time, no fighter fights at 100%, if they do they aren't training hard enough. That is the difference between normal athletes and fighters, a fighter would never blame anyone else for their loss. You have to have a certain spirit to get into the ring, or octagon, or cage. A warrior spirit won't blame their wife, baby, or injury. That is just ridiculous. I challenge you to name a contact sport that requires more athleticism.

Debate is now just 2 rounds long so that it actually stays as the 400th debateNow then, I believe that the glorious act of sex, in which a man sticks his hoo-ha into a woman's flingy-dingy, should be an olympic sport where nations send their best sex makers to compete for the Gold. Should sex be a sport, the final score for participants shall be determined based on the following on a scale of 1 to 10:Endurance: How long the sex lasts before the male climax's (If we waited until the women climaxed then the next Olympics would have started already)Creativity: New moves are always a bonus and nobody wants to see the same move over and over for 4 minutes. Audience Interest: If theyre cheering then you must be doing something rightPower: The couple would have sex on top of a richter scale to measure how powerful the sex is, It would technically be called the a 'sexter' scale in this case but it would still measure the level of thrusting going on. Size of goods: Nothing leads to good sex quite like a nice pair of cans and a hefty sized rod, so these shall be taken into account when calculating the final score. Theme: Like Ice skating, couples participating in sex are free to choose a theme for which they do it to, could be leather black, naughty hospital, naughty school teacher, etc etc============================================================================Now then, Arguments for why Sex should be an Olympic Sport:1) TV ratings of the Olympics would skyrocket! When you watch the Olympics, chances are youre only ever watching the 100 meter dash, a swimming event, gymnastics, or something else relatively short in length. However, the Olympics are FILLED with events nobody gives two sh*ts about like rifling, rowing, or soccer. Watching SEX on the other hand is something that EVERYONE would be interested in! (Just look at how much porn there is on the internet) If Sex was an Olympic Sport, it would be the most popular sport to watch in the Olympics which could mean more money for advertising which could mean funny commercials being aired like during the Superbowl. The sex event though could probably draw a bigger audience. 2) If its in the Olympics it could end up in College or High SchoolIf sex is in the Olympics, then why not make it a sport in college or high school? The US is a sports crazy nation and if Sex becomes a sport, then America will strive to be number 1 at it, which means that a good ole fashioned 'Sex team' could appear in your high school or college to help ordinary people just like you get REALLY REALLY GOOD AT SEX. Sex as a sport in high school and college could do wonders for obesity numbers in this country and if guys participate then they might get a f*cking clue about what to do AND WHAT NOT TO DO when having sex in the future (which im sure ladies will appreciate)Sure it could be awkward if you get cut from the Sex team at school and then everyone will know that you are terrible at it, but that just makes it more dramatic which leads me to my next argument:3) Sex, the movie! Youve seen movies where kids from terrible neighborhoods find their way out of poverty by being really good at a sport and getting a scholarship to a major university, youve seen it all the time. The same thing will happen if Sex were a sport! I can see the trailer now. .. . "Tyrone grew up in the worst part of Compton, but then one fateful day, Tyrone discovered he had a talent that could help him get out of poverty and earn him the respect he has always wanted. .. . He found out that he was really, really good at f*cking b*tches. .. . This is the story of how one teenager drove his way to the top by literally f*cking everyone in his path". .. .. I smell an Oscar! The point is, sports helps disadvantaged people rise out of poverty and some make a career out of it which they otherwise couldnt have done without sports, so if Sex was an olympic sport, it would eventually become a high school and college sport, and then young Tyrone here could have a chance to get out of poverty and be the first in his family to go to college. .. .. .. While also getting some mad p*ssy. 4) Sex, the other movieApart from those heart warming nothing-to-riches stories such as the Blind Side, you also have the classic boy-likes-girl movies that come out almost twice a year. If sex was a sport in high school, young Timmy who likes Jessica could theoretically join the sex team to get good at sex then woo Jessica, only to find out that Jessica is also on the sex team and then yatta yatta yatta, instant classic. There are so many inspirational and heart warming movies that could happen if sex became a high school sport after being an Olympic sport that it would be immoral NOT to let it happen! There may be people reading this right now who could be sex GODS and not know about it too!5) Guys will get a clue. For those of you who arent virgins (0.01% of the site) remember the first time you did it? God it was awkward right? You felt like a new born baby deer just stumbling around everywhere with no clue what the f*ck you were doing. .. .. Imagine if you could study how to be good at sex by literally watching the best in the world compete at it, my God youd become a God! (in the sack at least)Guys usually suck at sex, but if the Olympics were a sport, guys could watch it and get a clue and figure out how to actually have some good sex with a woman. If guys will watch Megan Fox doing anything then im sure they will watch the Sex event at the Olympics and learn a thing or two6) Nobody knows who could winI know youre thinking "Oh, size of private parts are taken into account in calculating the score, why dont you just GIVE the gold medal to Jamaica already? " But look, just because blacks have monsterously larger shlongs then white people, it doesnt mean that black nations will always win the Sex event in the Olympics (which im half tempted to call the Sexlympics at this point)Think about it, China and India have over a BILLION people, surely they know a thing or two about sex that make them good competition. The french are also known for their nudity so they could very well have a shot. Mexicans reproduce like rabbits so maybe they could put up a fight as well. If youre racist though then once you realize that all black people good at sex are usually in jail for rape, you realize that any country could win the Sex event at the Olympics! If youre that racist then you must conclude that Its a win win for all of us since we get the gold and the blacks go to jail :D7) ESPN classicsThe Miracle on Ice is one of the greatest sports stories to ever happen. A young inexperienced team goes up against a legendary team and then against all odds beats them to go on and get the Gold thanks to hard work, a great coach, and all that crap. If sex were an olympic sport though, then those same kind of Underdog stories could take place, and everyone loves a good underdog! (not to be confused with the sex move 'The Underdog', In which a man limbos under an unsuspecting woman wearing a skirt and then tunnels his way up into the bullseye like a Praire Dog)===================================================================And that is why I feel that Sex should be an Olympic Sport

One of the main criteria for an Olympic sport is whether it would be viable for broadcast. In the case of the game of chess, the answer would be an emphatic no. Who would they get to call a chess match? How would you explain to viewers at home who do not play chess or watch it regularly? Where would the excitement come from for people?

To recap this debate: Sports are for men and women equally, due to both equality between the sexes and the very definition of sports itself. Furthermore, neither the "nurturing" argument nor "evolution" argument holds any water, both from a logical and scientific perspective. I proved my position through logical, ethical, and factual means while simultaneously proving my opponent's arguments wrong. Clearly, women have not only the fundamental right to play sports (whether it be purely recreational or competitive) but are also meant to play sports as the equals of men.

I don't know of a single sport whose athletes would not be able to effectively argue points as to why their particular sport is "better." However, given your supporting argument, I'm personally having a hard time even understanding which side of this argument you're on, given that the title says that Rhythmic/Artistic gymnastics are "better than any other sport," but your argument seems to be against that claim. Perhaps you should clarify your actual stance in the next round so we can have a more legitimate debate.


Question: Is Golf Considered a True Sport?

Golf is indeed a sport.
"However, golf is often compared to other individualized sports such as swimming, track, and field events like discus or shot put." Just as these activities are considered sports, so is golf. "Some argue that golf lacks the physicality of other sports, but this is not the case. Golf requires a significant amount of physical skill, including hand-eye coordination, strength, and endurance. Professional golfers often have low body fat percentages and maintain rigorous training regimens." Furthermore, golf involves strategy and mental acuity, much like chess or poker. "In fact, golf is often referred to as a 'mental game' due to the importance of focus and decision-making in each shot. Golfers must consider factors such as wind, terrain, and distance when planning their shots, making it a highly strategic activity." Moreover, golf is highly competitive, with professional tournaments offering large cash prizes and prestige. "The Masters, U.S. Open, British Open, and PGA Championship are among the most prestigious events in golf, drawing millions of viewers and participants worldwide. Golfers compete against each other directly, with the winner determined by the lowest score over four rounds." Finally, golf meets all the requirements of a sport, including physical and mental skill, athleticism, competition, and strategy. "All the other activities mentioned, such as swimming, track, and field events, also meet these requirements and are considered sports. Therefore, it is clear that golf is also a sport, and should be recognized as such." In conclusion, golf is a sport that requires physical skill, mental acuity, strategy, and competition. It is similar to other individualized sports and meets all the requirements of a sport. Therefore, it should be recognized as a sport and given the respect and recognition it deserves.

The fact that some males take steroids is not a factor the adjustment of which will have consequences for our argument. After all, some females take steroids too (see Marion Jones), and the documented differences predate the steroid era. I don't know who gets "humongous muscles" in "two days," so you have an anecdote without even anecdotal evidence, double fallacy :D. Tennis: The last time top pros in tennis for each gender squared off, the male was really really old. Bring whoever ya want for a few matches against Roger Federer, I dare ya :D. swimming: I'm not familiar with the sport, any evidence that males and females of comparable tiers within their respective leagues have swam against one another with the females consistently coming out on top? Ice skating: Now I know that at least in the olympics, those are entirely separate events, so they haven't been compared. And unless you are talking about speed skating or hockey, the sport (figure skating) is entirely subjective in rating players (it relies upon judge's aesthetic opinions rather than achievement of a predetermined objective). "Grace" is not meaningful to me. If you think females are better at x sport in its totality, prove it. I don't know about badminton, but show me one woman who can beat one professional male fighter in any of the martial arts you mention. Just one. Pretty please. And then try and find the averages. All one has to do is watch the quality of play in NBA vs. WNBA to laugh at your basketball claims. Soccer I'm sure is more even, but there is still no evidence that girls would be "much better" than guys at it on the average. There is a trick in debating that I'm sure you'd find useful. It's called providing evidence. If you cannot deduce x from accepted premises, and you cannot get it by induction from evidence, you need not be making an argument about it.

Ice Hockey is by far the most difficult sport to master and to play at the professional level. Unlike most sports we enjoy today, a person can not simply put on his/her shoes and just go play ice hockey; he/she must learn to ice skate before hand. Ice skating is often the most overlooked facet of the game. So before you even decide, "Hey, I wanna play ice hockey!" You must learn to ice skate, and be very good at it because ice hockey can be a very dangerous game if you do not know how to skate. This brings me into my next point, the physical aspect of the game. Just as in football, ice hockey players are constantly placing their bodies on the line. Whether a defender is taking a blistering 90mph slap shot to the face (warning videos include blood and are gruesome) (http://www.youtube.com...) or you are on the wrong end of a skate blade (http://www.youtube.com...) you and your body are constantly being beaten and tested. Just imagine being on the ice, along the side boards, you are about to receive a pass, but you have 6'9 Zdeno Chara bearing down on you, possibly about to kill you. It's this aspect of the game that gets my most attention and makes me respect ice hockey players more. Going back to our passing situation. Having that huge defenseman on you would probably break your focus right? Well that isn't the case for NHL'rs. Because they get paid such large amounts of money they are expected to get that pass and still make a scoring chance out of it. There is a reason a hawk's wide open eyes are plastered onto most goalie masks around the league and that is because the goalie, and all other players on the ice, must be the epitamy of focus while on the ice. Because simple fundamentals of ice hockey require a lot of skill. Take passing, again. A player must have good hand eye coordination in order to keep the puck on his stick and under control, but then he must use that hand eye coordination in order to push the puck toward his teammate, most of the time while skating (remember skating isn't easy either). I can elaborate on more instances of hockey skills if you would like but I want to get into the debate before needing to elaborate if necessary. I am excited to see your response because this has always been a hot debate in the sports world and would like to see what sport you choose, and your respective points. Thanks!

Thanks to Pro for instigating this debate. Okay, it is my belief that all sports are equally difficult to play at a professional level, and that's what I will be proving to you. I know that Pro asked me to choose a sport, but as all sports are equally difficult, there is really no point in choosing any single sport. First, let's take a look at the definition of hardest, or difficult. According to Merriam Webster, difficult is defined as: hard to do, make, or carry out. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...;The main point of all of Pro's arguments is that Hockey is a very dangerous sport. The more dangerous a sport is, does not mean that the sport is much more difficult to play. I agree that some sports are much more dangerous than others, but I disagree with Pro when he uses danger as a basis of how difficult a sport is. Okay, I will get into a rebuttal of Pro's arguments. Refutation 1:Pro states that "Unlike most sports we enjoy today, a person can not simply put on his/her shoes and just go play ice hockey; he/she must learn to ice skate before hand". First, I would assume that if you do not know how to skate, you would not be a professional hockey player. I must remind everyone that the topic that we are debating today is the Ice Hockey is the Hardest Sport to Play at the Professional Level. This means that all players will already know how to skate. And what about water sports like swimming, or water polo? These sports you need to know how to swim in order to play. I would say that swimming is much harder to learn than skating, as skating is pretty much just running on ice. Hockey could potentially be the hardest sport to learn but not the hardest sport to play at the professional level. Refutation 2:This is an argument about the danger of Hockey. But if a sport is much more dangerous, does it mean that it is much more difficult to play? Let's take a look at some other dangerous sports. Skydiving. Skydiving is an extremely dangerous sport. By Pro's logic, this means that this sport is also very difficult to play. However, it is not. All you have to do is to pull your ripcord while you're in the air to deploy your parachute. It is very easy to do. UFC Fighting. Also an extremely dangerous sport. But all you do is punch the other person and avoid getting punched. Also not a very difficult sport to play. Okay I have shown you 2 other dangerous sports. What you're essentially saying in this argument is that Hockey is a difficult sport to play, simply because it is dangerous. No. Just because a sport is dangerous, it doesn't mean that that sport is difficult to play. Refutation 3: Pro says that "Because simple fundamentals of ice hockey require a lot of skill. Take passing, again. A player must have good hand eye coordination in order to keep the puck on his stick and under control, but then he must use that hand eye coordination in order to push the puck toward his teammate, most of the time while skating. "Once again, these are pro players, so they already know how to do these skills. However, other sports require focus and hand-eye coordination as well. Hockey is not the only sport that requires this focus. In basketball, for example, you need good hand-eye coordination to score 3-pointers, to pass to your teammates. You need focus in order to score that layup, or that free throw. In football, you need good hand-eye coordination to throw those long passes, to score that field goal. You need focus in order to run as far as you can to get a touchdown. In badminton or tennis, you need good hand-eye coordination in order to even hit the birdie or ball. You need focus in order to predict where your opponent will hit the ball to. As you see, hockey is not the only sport that requires hand-eye coordination and focus. I have shown you many other sports that require the same skills. And just in case Pro says that skating is difficult to learn, I would say swimming is much harder to learn, as there are several different strokes that you need to learn. Therefore, hockey is not the hardest sport to play on the professional level, all sports are equally difficult. Arguments:Okay, let's get into some arguments.1. SkillsAll sports require some skill in order to play them at the professional level. Hockey is not the only sport. It really differs from person to person. Some people may find skating easy to pick up, while others may find swimming much easier to learn. You cannot generalize all people under one category and just say that hockey is the most difficult sport to play. All sports have their advantages and disadvantages and the difficulty of each sport will vary from person to person. For example, let's use math. Okay, so I'm asian, and you're probably european, I would assume. I find math easy to learn and do. You would probably find math difficult, and you can't understand certain concepts. However, when we learn about european history, it would be much easier for you, than for me. What I'm saying here is that some people find certain things easier than other people. I can't just say that math is the easiet subject, because what about you then? Since you find math difficult, my statement would then be false. It is the same with this resolution. You're categorizing all professional players and saying that hockey is the hardest sport to play. What if someone finds hockey easy? Like Wayne Gretzky for example. Then you're statement would be false. Conclusion:The only way you're statement can be true is if you can prove that all professional hockey players find hockey the most difficult sport to play at a professional level. Then, you would also have to make sure that these pro hockey players also have to play other sports at a professional level, otherwise their opinion would be biased. There is no possible way you can do that. Therefore you have lost this debate.

Again, given they are different, Hockey is still at a more constant rate where that if your constantly sprinting on the ice for minutes at a time, you are clearly more tired as if you were consistently stopping and going on a 5-7 long drive down the the field. There is more stoppage time in a football drive, which usually is just a "3 and done" drive most of the time as opposed to hockey where your sprinting non stop until a goal is scored. As far as fundamentals are concerned, Hockey is more based on fundamentals then football is. For example, hockey involves skating. Skating is something not everyone can do, especially backwards. Being able to skate, skate well, and backwards are a huge part of hockey which separates a player from being good, and great. Stick and handling skills are also a lot more fundamentally harder then holding a football. Stick skills involve handling the puck well, passing the puck with accuracy, and being able to skate and shift the puck up the ice at the exact same time. Not to mention that while that puck is traveling on the ice, it does not come at you in a fluid, smooth motion. The ice is choppy due to the indentations of the skates from the players over a periods worth of time. The puck begins to bounce, jitter, and jump at you while it is either passed or deflected toward you. Being able to judge and catch that puck on your stick is much harder then catching a football which is thrown at you in a fluid, straight line pass.

There are better sports, for which you need to train harder, and don't hurt your back or overstretch with

So wait....how is this a debate when where proving the same thing...cause Pro Gaming is a sport....that is what i said.. i said i didn't think it was a sport i know it is.....sooo......how does this figure out

Sport- an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. Cheerleading involves physical exertion Teams compete against one another for cheerleading. A sport would have to require athletic skills.(gymnastics, strength, coordination) It takes cardiovascular effort , endurance, and skill. These are all athletic skills. http://www.youtube.com... This is a link to a video of the varsity cheerleaders from my school doing a competition. Notice the strength and coordination. If something had gone wrong, the flyer in the stint could have been hurt severely and they would have lost. It requires a lot of concentration. "Just because you can compare cheerleading to sports that are accepted a sports doesn't mean it's accepted as a sport." Well just so you know, comparing it to oil rigs doesn't help you either.

'what people dont really want to do it, they dont need to or they dont care. ever thought of that, it isnt violent but it is very rough and i remember getting hurt and wet and everything and people laughed at me so you havnt even said so there is a club for it if people want to play it you havnt said a thing about why it is compulsory you should of just said why it should be compulsory, my idea of violent meant rough so i got the words wrong. so yes answer why every kid in the entire country(s) should have to do it when it doesnt help them but why is it in the curriculum. answer that'CON states: 'what people dont really want to do it, they dont need to or they dont care. ever thought of that, it isnt violent but it is very rough,' so CON just admitted there is no violent sport, therefore, violent sports shouldn't be banned. CON states: 'you havnt said a thing about why it is compulsory you should of just said why it should be compulsory, my idea of violent meant rough so i got the words wrong. so yes answer why every kid in the entire country(s) should have to do it when it doesnt help them but why is it in the curriculum. answer that. ' All I have to say is, are you kidding me? I don't have to answer squat, wise guy. You say: 'answer why every kid in the entire country(s) should have to do it when it doesnt help them but why is it in the curriculum. answer that,' and since the resolution is 'Should rugby and other violent sports, wrestling boxing be compulsory in schools,' you are really asking me: 'answer why every kid in the entire country(s) should have to do *play violent sports* when it doesnt help them but why is *violent sports* in the curriculum. answer that. ' Nobody should have to play violent sports because they cannot--violent sports do not exist--and violent sports are not in the curriculum because violent sports don't exist. But I want to point the audience's attention to CON's statement 'you havnt said a thing about why it is compulsory you should of just said why it should be compulsory, my idea of violent meant rough so i got the words wrong. ' That was the stupidest thing I have heard all month. I don't need to say anything about why it should be compulsory because it cannot be compulsory--violent sports do not exist--and then CON said 'my idea of violent meant rough so i got the words wrong. ' Lord help humanity. What was your thought process behind that statement. Oops, I got the words wrong, but its no big deal, just because nobody knows my definition of violent doesn't mean the debate can't continue. If you wanted violent to mean 'rough,' then you should have put your definition in the first round. But, since you didn't, I had every right to make my own.

Before I begin I will refute my opponents arguments "Anyone can learn to wrestle and be semi decent at it" Basketball can be viewed in a similar aspect as to wrestling because majority of first world countries have access to watch Basketball games. This familiarizes the viewer with basic rules such as shooting the ball into the basket. Therefore it is possible to state that anyone who can learn to play basketball can be semi decent at it. "Blind and disabled people can't play basketball too well." Although blind people can't play basketball, their is a basketball event in the handicapped Olympics. (1) This involves using one hand to move their wheelchair and the other hand to shoot (2) (1) http://o.onionstatic.com... (2) http://www.disability.illinois.edu... Basketball is a trending sport that is played in first world countries and unlike traditional wrestling (which involves a 1v1) promotes good sportsmanship through teamwork with other players. These involve practicing defense formations and offensive positions. Basketball is also a more renowned sport publicly because if we compare the salaries of a wrestler. "Triple H topped the list with a salary of over $2 million a year." (see http://voices.yahoo.com...) With the salary of Koby Bryant's salary which consists of $30,453,805. The difference is startling with Koby Bryant earning 15 times more the amount that Triple H is earning (see http://espn.go.com...) Wrestling is also regarded as a contact physical sport where many injuries have incurred from bruises leading up to broken necks and spinal chords (see http://www.complex.com...) These injuries will discourage many parents from allowing their children to participate in wrestling schools and tournaments. What is even more concerning is when children practice wrestling moves they saw on TV unsupervised which will most likely result in serious injury. Whereas basketball condones and penalizes any physical attacks towards players due to basketball regulations and rules. Therefore, basketball is a family friendly sport that everyone can play regardless of athletic ability or age. Wrestling is also considered and condoned as fake by majority of the public. (see http://prowrestling.about.com...) This imply that wrestling is only a mere image of muscled men performing impressive theatrics to please the audience. Basketball is drastically different from wrestling as all the basketball games are live and legitimate as anyone with enough practice can imitate certain manoeuvres if they practice that technique continuously and achieve the same result as the professional basketball players. To sum up my arguments for Round 2, Basketball is better than wrestling because it encourages teamwork, it is more internationally renowned than wrestling, a more family friendly sport and is undeniably legitimate. Wishing all the best for my opponent in Round 3


Question: Is Golf Considered a Sport?

Golf can be classified as a sport. In my argument, I refer to the definition of a sport: An activity that involves physical effort and skill, where an individual or team competes against others for amusement. There are various definitions, but I will use the one from the Google Dictionary. Physical exertion is a key element in sports, but golf does not necessarily require vigorous activity. According to your definition, golf is considered a game rather than a sport. However, based on my definition of a sport, which is equally valid, golf can indeed be categorized as a sport. This perspective is shared by both of us.

Dance is a sport and I will argue with anyone that is against it. I want all of you haters of dance being a sport to learn one of our competition routines, go to our countless practices, perfect it, and perform it. We make it look easy because we are trained to, and yes we do sweat, we sweat because we are working hard and taking no breaks. Also if you say dance is only for girls and guys are weak if they dance, then go on YouTube and look up videos of guy dancers and you try and do the tricks and stunts they do. Finally if you look me straight in he eye and tell me that dance is weak and not a sport, I will kick you in the face no matter how tall you are.

Again it becomes apparent that the differentiation of the two games only lead to a matter of opinion. .. While I think a slower paced game is more enjoyable, you have argued that the opposite can be said of other people. And since more people do enjoy basketball over baseball according to statistics, I suppose you do have a good point. However I ask that voters vote not based on the number of reasons that one challenger provides the other, but rather the validity of our points, and our ability of one opponent to outtalk the other and provide for a more convincing argument. On a final note I would like to state for the record that I do believe my points have more relevance and certainty than my opponents, and I would like to take this final opportunity to argue some of her last points. Here we go. .. A. Basketball does NOT in fact allow for more strategy implementation. There is an equal or more amount of strategy that goes into baseball. This is because a batter can choose a number of routes that he wants to go, for instance, attempting to hit the ball to a particular side of the field, bunting over swinging, intentionally being hit by a pitch, intentionally walking or striking out, etc. A player can also choose to steal bases, go for a double play over a single play, attempt to run home after a catch is made in the outfield, and more. A pitcher has a variety of pitching options to choose from, etc. And managers and coaches alike have to use their smarts to come up with the best route to receive the best result, so don't give me any of that crap that basketball rquires the most strategy or plays because that is simply not true. B. Basketball might be more lucrative than baseball, so what. That doesn't make it better. C. This much is true, basketball players do definitely have a chance to play more defense than baseball players. However baseball players still always have to be on their toes just in case a play comes to them. The suspense is that you never know where the ball is going to be in play.

Football, at least by its definition throughout most of the world, is the most popular sport in the world. Football of the NFL variety is one of the least popular. American football is a slow, complicated, and inaccessible game that is based on brute strength. International football is a fast paced, simple, accessible game that is based on skill. Children in the dirt streets of Africa don't play American football with a balled-up rag, nor would they want to.

Chess does have a physical aspect and I grant that it would be on the low end for Olympic sports, but it is still present. The rules I applied would test competitors in areas of mental fortitude and stamina as the competitors must do more than sit at the board for several hours. The players would have to maintain their chess abilities with the onset of exhaustion bound to occur by playing at the highest levels of competition twice daily. Having been in chess tournaments, I have seen exhaustion destroy players in later rounds. I have shown chess has a physical aspect and showed how the sport fits with all the criteria set by the OIC mission statement. In addition, the sport is easy to accommodate and is in need of a consistent ruling body so as to help promote chess worldwide in a showcase with other sports. For the above mentioned reasons, the OIC should adopt the sport of Chess for the 2012 or 2016 Summer Olympics. Thank you, Sherlockmethod P. S. Just for fun, I mentioned the "Game of the Century" when discussing this topic. Here is the game. . http://en.wikipedia.org...(chess) Fischer was a kid when he played this one and from the start he offered material to Byrne. Several sacrificial offers were rejected by the experienced player, but on move 17, Fischer makes an offer to big to refuse, his queen. Byrne takes the queen but Bobby takes us on one of the most memorable mating sequences in chess. The white king is marched down the board to mate while his queen sits by and watches the story unfold. Great game.

Hello! I've decided to be the con in this debate. ~My Opinion~ I'm personally not a fan of football and quite dislike it, but I also disagree with your opinion, so that's why I'm in this debate. So please be aware my responses are not the bias from a football fan. I hate it as much as you do. I just personally disagree with your reasoning. ~My Response~ You are correct in that it's a dangerous sport, but those that do play in the field are made aware of it as soon as they show any interest in the sport. While I do admit there is no way to truly make this sport safe (the more we cushion the blows of other football players in the field, the harder they hit, according to studies), that's a risk that they are well aware of. Thank you for reading~

Since Pro did not know about the character limit rule; I now believe Pro deserves conduct points for gracefully conceding argument points. Good debate PGA.

After reviewing the contentions, I still support the resolution. My opponent makes the assumption that we are discussing chess as an Olympic sport in the near future and this assumption is correct. I would advocate the sport for the next, or the very latest, two summer Olympics in the future 2012, 2016. Physical Chess vs. Standard Chess My opponent makes a solid argument and one that bears heavily on my Olympic proposal. Am I ruining the game just to get into the Olympics? If I submitted boxing chess then he would be correct, but I am not adding new elements, only exaggerating ones already present and codifying them in the Olympic rules. Currently, Chess tournaments can be grueling for a competitor, but the physical aspect leaves us at the highest level of competition. Top Grand Masters have become the prima donnas of the chess world. Bobby Fischer was one of the worst. Special lighting, time tables, certain types of mineral water, pieces, etc. The physical aspect is lost when all the comforts a player needs are provided. Lower levels of play, such as local and state tournaments, do not succumb to the needs of all involved. The tournaments are usually over shorter time spans so they require one to be physically ready. In addition, physical requirements have hurt prior chess masters. Mikhail Tal was such a person. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Many at the time felt if Tal would have taken better care of his physical body he would have been unstoppable. I agree. Speaking of Tal, he was known for a stare that shook his opponents (so was Lasker). Pal Benko once wore sunglasses to avoid his stare. The physical presence was there and was an advantage. The physical elements are there and under these rules, it will play a factor. The Olympic rules I propose bring the physical element back to the highest levels of play. The goal of the sport is still the same – checkmate. If my opponent can show that my new rules bastardize the sport, then I will respectfully concede. I see no need to call this physical chess, just Olympic chess. Much like we have Olympic boxing and professional boxing – they are not the same and yet both maintain the overall aspects of the sport. Olympic chess will be no different. The IOC My opponent is correct that the IOC does have to cap the number of sports and cannot allow all of them in, but their decisions are not arbitrary. They have a mission statement that guides them, and is listed on the wiki my opponent linked. . http://en.wikipedia.org... I submit that due to its violence, MMA would not make it as an Olympic sport although it is arguably one of the most physical sports in the world. Also, golf does not make it but mainly because of the burden building an 18 hole course. Countries are having trouble accommodating more and more. How does chess fare here? Very well, I think. The tournament could be held in a ball room or could be played in many local arenas; I see no need to build a stadium to house the event. Civic centers will do just fine and can have ample room for geeks like me to watch and listen to the commentators argue over the validity of Evan's Gambit. This sport is easy to accommodate. How well does supporting chess as an Olympic sport fare with the IOC's mission (edited some out due to space, and my opponent need not refute all. Picking three or so will be fine if he wishes to rebut them): 1. Encourage and support the promotion of ethics in sport as well as education of youth through sport and to dedicate its efforts to ensuring that, in sport, the spirit of fair play prevails and violence is banned; Check. No more penny ante nonsense from the grandmasters, all rules stay the same for all players. 2. Encourage and support the organization, development and coordination of sport and sports competitions; Check. The Olympic committee could setup the outlines for Olympic chess and such tournaments could be held worldwide with the new rules. 3. Cooperate with the competent public or private organizations and authorities in the endeavor to place sport at the service of humanity and thereby to promote peace; Olympic chess is a mixture of mental strength, physical stamina, and no one is killed in the process. No submission holds, or bloody faces. 4. Take action in order to strengthen the unity and to protect the independence of the Olympic Movement; No problems here and chess needs such a movement as politics have taken over the highest levels. 5. Act against any form of discrimination affecting the Olympic Movement; With Olympic chess, all countries can be represented, no problems here. 6. Encourage and support the promotion of women in sport at all levels and in all structures with a view to implementing the principle of equality of men and women; I see no need to separate men/women in Olympic chess as the physical aspects can be outweighed with mental fortitude. Men and women could play together and each would bring different mental/physical traits to the game. 7. Lead the fight against doping in sport; The article listed in Time shows a complete agreement from chess organizers to submit to drug testing for players. 8. Encourage and support measures protecting the health of athletes; Athletes will be given breaks, but part of the competition will be physical stamina. The level needed would be much lower than other sports so I see no issues here. 9. Oppose any political or commercial abuse of sport and athletes; 10. Encourage and support the efforts of sports organizations and public authorities to provide for the social and professional future of athletes; 11. Encourage and support the development of sport for all; 9,10,11: Chess is in bad need for all three and the IOC could help provide the tools. Chess is an ancient sport and one that is still viable today. The IOC could bring it back to its prior standing and encourage new players world wide. Basketball is a great example. 12. Encourage and support initiatives blending sport with culture and education; I can think of no sport that would be better suited to blend culture and education. Chess is life for some and the skills needed translate well in the academic world and can help bridge gaps between cultures. All one needs is a board and the pieces to try. Chess speaks across language barriers and its beauty is seen by all that understand the game. For the above mentioned reasons, and in light of my learned opponent's contentions, chess should be chosen as an Olympic sport by the IOC. This is the one "mind game" with the applicable physical aspects to represent the prowess of the human mind in connection with physical stamina. Thank you, Sherlockmethod.

Rather than focusing exclusively on Video gaming, I will broaden this a bit to include none athletic games in general, be them using Analog or Digital technologies. For the purposes of the Argument I am going to ignore "athletic" gaming leagues and instead reference the common understanding of what a none athletic game is exemplified: Connect 4, Chess,Checkers and other games played on a board or other physical media that requires physical manipulation of pieces in some fashion. - The cause for this expansion is to establish consistency in reference for generations which grew up with mostly analog technology in their entertainment. I propose that for any future need to define a term, Merriam Webster Dictionary ( found here: http://www.merriam-webster.com... ) Be the common resource.

Cheerleading is not in the Olympics.[1] The difficulty of an activity has no impact on whether or not it is a sport. For instance, it is much harder to build a scyscraper than play football, but building skyscrapers isn't a sport. Further, cheerleading does not qualify as a sport as there is no competition.[2] Sideline cheerleaders take part in no competition - they are just as much a part of a 'sport' as some guy in the stands eating a hot dog. In numerous court cases, judges have ruled that even 'competitive cheerleading' is not a sport, as it lacks any sort of cohesive rules, organization, or even real championships. It is not considered a sport by the NCAA, nor is any championship offered.[3][4] Unlike real sports, 'competitive cheerleading' factors in unathletic factors such as 'appearance' towards scores[5] 'Competitive cheerleading' may one day reach the status of being a sport, if it develops standarized rules (like real sports) and cohesive organizations (like real sports), but as of today it simply is not a sport.[6]References:1. http://www.slate.com...2. http://www.chrismatyszczyk.com...3. http://msn.foxsports.com...4. espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8245864/appeals-court-affirms-cheerleading-not-sport-title-ix5. http://www.google.com...6. http://nesn.com...

The first reason why chess should not be considered an Olympic sport is it is purely mental. I am saying that the Olympics are all about athleticism. The Olympics according to the Greeks anyway are about athletic perfection or arete. Due to the expanding nature of the mind, one cannot have a perfect chess game. Also where would it be placed in the Olympics? I"m not referring to location. I am talking about whether it would belong in the summer or the winter due to the indoor nature of sanctioned competition. Further, chess is not a team sport neither in the classical or modern Olympics sense. Who would watch over competition? Who will be the governing body in Olympic chess? These are the question and answers s that prevent chess from being an Olympic sport.