Question: Is Golf Considered a True Sport?

Table Tennis is a Sport that Requires More Skill than Golf

I appreciate your prompt response and acknowledge that this is my first debate on Debate.org. My opponent agrees that both golf and table tennis are sports, but neither can be considered "more of a sport" than the other. This invalidates the resolution, as both activities are equal in terms of being sports. I will address the arguments made against my second contention, specifically subpoint c).

Firstly, my opponent argues that golf tournaments often have as many opponents as table tennis tournaments. I concede that the number of competitors can be equal, but it is important to note that in golf, each player must complete 18 holes, resulting in a total of 450 holes for a tournament with 25 competitors. Each hole is a critical competition that can significantly impact the outcome of the tournament. Golf is also more affected by external variables, making it more challenging to consistently win.

My opponent correctly points out that golf is typically played on nice days with little wind, but this does not rule out the possibility of playing under less favorable conditions. Table tennis, on the other hand, is played indoors or under controlled conditions, eliminating environmental variables. I would like to emphasize that my opponent did not address my first contention or subpoints a) and b).

Regarding skill, my opponent defines it as "competent excellence in performance; expertness; dexterity," which I accept. However, golf requires more accuracy than table tennis due to the larger area and the multitude of variables affecting the ball's trajectory. The longer the ball stays in the air, the more variables come into play, leading to potential inaccuracy. Golfers must compensate for these variables, demonstrating greater accuracy.

My opponent's argument that table tennis requires more skill because of the precise placement of the ball is flawed. Golfers aim for specific targets, as demonstrated in the video provided. The force required to hit a golf ball over a significant distance is greater than that required for a table tennis ball, even considering the error in my opponent's calculations. This highlights the greater physical effort required in golf.

Finally, my opponent claims that hitting a moving object is more difficult. However, the direction of movement is crucial. If a table tennis ball is sent directly toward the opponent's paddle, it requires minimal effort to return. Golf, on the other hand, requires effort to hit a stationary ball over a considerable distance, especially considering the variables that can affect the ball's trajectory.

In conclusion, while both golf and table tennis are sports

The definition of sport from Merriam Webster's dictionary is to play in a happy and lively way. Well you play video games, and you are playing sometimes intense depending on the game, and gamers are always happy when they play unless it is a game they do not like.

Again, I fail to see the connection in the definition of the word "Gambling" and how it relates to poker. It says in the definition itself that it is, "the wagering of money or something of material value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods. " (. http://en.wikipedia.org......) Again, when poker is played, the skilled aficionados are usually the victors of said sport. Therefore, the literal meaning that it is a game or event with an uncertain outcome does not allow for poker to fall into the category. My opponent seems to be suggesting that luck is a major contributing factor when the references he gave, (I. E. -Hellmuth and Ungar) would have had to have been extremely LUCKY, (Astronomically in fact. ) to amass the accomplishments that they have acquired. His second definition given, which I will accept, is that it is "An activity characterized by a balance between winning and losing that is governed by a mixture of skill and chance". -en. wiktionary. org/wiki/gambling. I don't see a balance of skill and chance presented in poker as it is mainly a game of SKILL with SOME chance involved just like any other sport. I find irony in the fact that my opponent would quote two of the best at the game who also happen to be two of the most eccentric. Phil Hellmuth is a legend in the sport of poker and is also known as "The Poker Brat". A moniker that he has earned and accepts whole heartedly. Mr. Hellmuth is renowned for saying things that are presented just to get under the skin of his opponents whether he's playing in the game or not. The quote that my opponent has used was obviously after Hellmuth had been beaten by someone, a reality that he never seems to accept and usually blames on the luck of his opponents as opposed to the skill he shows when he wins. "No matter how much you may want to think of Hold'em as a card game played by people, in many respects it is even more valid to think of it as a game about people that happens to be played with cards. " - Phil Hellmuth (. http://www.viewonpoker.com...) Stu Ungar was also one of the best poker players in the world amassing a total of $1,945,000 between 1980 and 1997. Unfortunately, Stu Ungar was also addicted to cocaine which eventually led to his death in November of 1998. Can I refute the fact that he used the word "gambling" in one quote? No. .. . However, I'm willing to assess that people on said narcotic will say lots of things that they don't mean and again the quotation was probably taken after one of his losses. In poker you have much control over the action through hand selection, bet sizing, the choice to call or fold. Just about the only thing you have no control over? The deal of the cards. In most casino games, you have very little control over anything except the size of the wager (and increasing this wager does nothing to affect your winning chances, unlike in poker you can bet big to deny proper odds, or to bluff out an opponent). An expert on casino gambling once said the house never offers you a bet it doesn't have and edge on. In Poker, the house is almost completely uninvolved, and is essentially renting you its tables and dealers for your personal use. In poker, your making decisions in a skill game against others who may be more or less skilled than you. The luck factor does nothing to change this in the long term. So, In poker, if you are a winning player, the long term is your friend in that you will profit in the long run despite short-term swings. (As proven time and time again by top superstar players. ) In gambling, should you make a large score, you should probably quit and never play again, because if you keep playing, you will lose it all back. You can't beat the math, essentially, in both cases. In conclusion, I fail to see the connection, as most fail to do also, with gambling and poker. As I said in round two, seven states have already decided by their courts that poker is a game based more on skill than luck with more states lining up to follow suit. I will leave my opponent and voters with one more quote from renowned author and poker player, Anthony Holden. "Poker may be a branch of psychological warfare, an art form or indeed a way of life – but it is also merely a game, in which money is simply the means of keeping score. " . http://en.wikipedia.org...

While I do agree that there are emotionally and physically demanding aspects to both dance and sports, there are too many differences between them to call dance a sport itself. For example, the "judgements" in dance are subjective, and up to each individual to decide. There is basic technique, but there is also room for artistic interpretation. The main difference however, is the storytelling aspect of dance. Dance exists to tell a story through movement and music. That is something sports simply do not do. Yes, they are both physically demanding, but dance requires an acting ability and a storytelling aspect that is simply not present in sports.

As a brief road-map First I'm going to go straight down to flow and refute all of the arguments my opponent has made so far. Second I'm going to review the debate thus far, and show how the Con is winning. = Rebuttals = + Physically demanding- In my refutation for this point, there will be some cross-over to the next argument. First, while soccer is in fact physically demanding, this is not a unique benefit to soccer. every sport when done correctly is physically demanding, and the exact same thing is true for football. Different sports work athletes in different ways, and just because soccer players run in an given game more than football players, does not mean that it's more physically demanding. In you certainly don't see to 2 300lb men trying to throw the other down to the turf with all their might in soccer, yet that doesn't mean soccer is any less physically demanding. The fact is, that football players bodies are built differently than soccer players bodies. Soccer focuses nearly solely on endurance, whereas football focuses on multiple physical aspects (Endurance, strength, speed, problem solving, etc. ). Where running the only thing that mattered then marathon runners, with such hefty athletes as middle aged men, housewives, and 400 lb sumo wrestlers[1] would be better athletes than David Beckham. However football is also incredibly physically demanding. Whether the player is [2]tearing apart their body during training with Gut Busters, 50 40's, 2-a-days, and heavy weight lifting; or they're adhering to [3]strict diets and merciless training regimes. Football players push their bodies to the limit, so that they can perform at their absolute best. In fact there are more than three times as many injuries from playing [4]football than there are from playing soccer. because the sport is so incredibly physically demanding. + Practice- First I'm extending the points made prior concerning the exercises that football players have to perform year-round, as well as the argument concerning 2-a-days (for those who don't know 2-a-days are when players of a sport do high intensity workouts twice a day) Most coaches even make their players practice ballet[5], (a difficult and dangerous sport in and of itself) so that they can move more gracefully and fluidly on the field. Other than that I'll be brief here; and I'd just like to point out that not only do football players put in an obscene amount of practice as well. The amount of time football players spend practicing is especially impressive when we also realize that the football season isn't anywhere near as long as the soccer season; which can last all year. Also to directly address my opponent's arguments in a different sense for just a moment, putting time into something you love doing doesn't make it any more remarkable than another sport. Hobbyist will put in hundreds of hours each month doing what they love, and many don't get any kind of recognition for it whatsoever. Joggers who jog for health reasons will put in hundreds of hours because they know how good jogging is for them. This doesn't make jogging a superior sport, it just means that the person is committed to what they're doing. And if we're going to talk commitment then there's absolutely no way to measure which sport takes more commitment. + Amount of stuff you have to pay attention to- My opponent's arguments that football is such a narrow minded game is not only completely unfounded, but also completely untrue. Football is a team sport, and consequently deals with massive amounts of teamwork; so while it's true that each player has a specific job (unlike with soccer where you have runners and goalies and that's it) each player also has to watch their teammates and know exactly what's going on around them at all times. Next can we talk about the point of play books? Football coaches and teams will spend hours upon hours calculating, and learning complex strategies and maneuvers to deploy. Also in in any successful football team the layers absolutely have to rely on each other. The end result is a mind-bendingly complex game of wit, skill, and strength. = Conclusion = The point I want to drive home is this; my opponent has not given us any reason whatsoever to believe that soccer is better, harder, or even that it takes more commitment. Just that it's another sport who my opponent happens to like more than football. Whereas football is not only incredibly physically demanding, but requires tons of thought and strategy. Ultimately, my opponent never gives you a reason to vote for him; he simply discredits a sport he doesn't like, and brags on one he do like. For all of these reasons I urge you to vote Con in this debate. = Sources = [1] . http://goo.gl... [2] . http://goo.gl... [3] . http://goo.gl... [4] . http://goo.gl... [5] . http://goo.gl...

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

first of all thank you for debating with me . yes there are a set of rules you have to follow for all star cheerleading format. you have to follow the rules by your level and if you break a rule, step off the mat, drop a cheerleader out of the air, and if you bobble in a stunt you will loose points in your total score. if you break a rule of difficulty you will automatically get a 15 point deduction and have the chance of being disqualified. If your routine is not within your level you will be disqualified. There is also a difference between all star cheerleading and high school cheerleading...... for all star you practice one routine and perfect it and you compete. in high school cheerleading you have games you have to cheer at and that is not a sport you are just cheering on your school like the croud tring to pump them on.... for all star you have to execute your routine and land it perfectly... or you will loose to your competion. and your argument about swimming has nothing to do with cheerleading in any aspect ...... "here is why Cheerleading is not a sport." "Swimming is not a sport. Swimming is a way to keep from drowning. That's just common sense!" swimming is not cheerleading and its totally different so i dont see how that pertains to this in anyway shape or form.

Well said. I will finish my with three stages. Rebuttal, Any further arguments, Closing Statement.Rebuttal:Con makes two arguments. Self identification and Game usage. "Jimmy Graham was classified and drafted as a TE when he came into the league [1]. On his own Twitter profile, he identifies himself as a TE [2]."Being drafted to a certain position does not force you to stay in that position. Players may change to a different position based on team need. While I believe his Twitter Bio wasn't changed since he was drafted, he could have called himself the "King of Prussia" and it would be true. I am also sure before the season he assumed he would be considered a tight end, but his on field play showed otherwise.Graham is 6-7 265lbs. This is out of the ordinary for a WR, yes. However, Matt Ware, cornerback of the Arizona Cardinals, is 6-2 215lbs. The average cornerback is 5-11 195lbs. It is not uncommon, and would actually be odd, if there were no outliers in anatomical averages at a certain position.The second argument: Game usage. 'Close' is an ambiguous term, and all of offensive players could be considered 'close'. Tight ends are considered to line up just off the offence tackles, on the line of scrimmage to assist with blocking, as part of there duty as a tight end.Graham was taken off the field on many defensive plays because he is a poor blocker diminishing one of his obligations as a TE, making him more as of WR.The argument has been made that he will line up in such a position and motion out to the Slot thus thickening the plot. Offensive schemes are becoming increasingly complex. They require a lot of motion to keep the defense unaware of routes, blocking schemes, etc. Wide receivers occasionally start in the backfield (normally held by a Running Back) and then motion out wide. Quarterbacks have been known to motion out wide in the commonly known "Wildcat" scheme. Motioning on plays is typical among any eligible receiver on offense and has little bearing on ones position. A defense has the right to assign any defenders to any player it deems fit. A typical WR (for example Wes Welker) could line up in the backfield, or next to the offensive line similar to a TE. However, the defense will still put a cornerback on him because of his speed. Defenses choose to put a linebacker or safety on Graham because of his size. The typical cornerback is not strong enough to battle Graham, so they choose bigger defenders to handle his bulk. Defenses do not dictate an offensive players position, they merely adapt to the circumstances. The Collective Bargaining Agreement describes "at which the Franchise player participated in the most plays during the prior League Year" not 'which defender typically covers a certain position'.Which leads me into my Final Argument...Where Graham may start a a snap in the tight end position, but he motions to the Slot position(normally held by a WR). Therefore, he is beginning that play as a WR. Regardless of where he started Pre-Snap, He ends up as a WR based on the CBA. Which should require him to be paid as such.I believe we will now see changes, regardless of the outcome for Jimmy Graham's Franchise Tag Salary, in how we determine position for players. Whether they be agreed upon before the season, or if there is a better definition given to "where they play". The reason for this debate is because the NFL has left so many terms loosely defined, making it difficult to discern how we are supposed to handle situation like these. This has been a wonderful debate, I commend my opponent for accepting and readily responding today. I look forward to your closing arguments.

I'll be honest, I thought you were referring to older children (teenagers basically) as you didn't specify the age. It is impossible for me to argue against younger children engaging in sports unless I invoke a ridiculous argument like physical or mental handicap. I propose that this debate be called a draw as neither of us clarified our positions clearly enough, but I can forfeit if required.

Contention 1: Is a grade ever irrelevant? Just because a grade is removed from a transcript does not absolve the fact that I aced a class that Rob failed. Contention 2: Rob did not introduce me to tennis and running. I had been doing both for years on a regular basis. And to what statistics is Rob referring to? I agree, Rob has a good overhand and slice, but my serve is clearly superior. This is why I have challenged Rob to a game for all the marbles, only then can this contention be settled. Contention 3: Robs response in round 3 still does not make sense to anyone except Rob. True, Rob is better with a guitar than I am. The difference is due to experience rather than skill. Rob has been playing guitar for over a decade whereas I have only recently picked up the instrument as a hobby. Allow me ten years Rob, then we will see who is better with their fingers! Contention 4: Reiterating my previous argument, the intention of the voice mail posted of my singing was meant as a joke and nothing more. My hilarious singing is far more interesting than Rob's blase, lukewarm version of a weak song. Did anyone happen to notice I was singing John Frusciante? At least I have better taste in music... Contention 5: This profile is still fairly new. Instead of blowing my load in 2 minutes like Rob, I prefer to take my time and carefully consider the information I put on public display. In due time, many interesting talking points as well as personal information will surface. Patience my man...lets enjoy it one day at a time. Contention 6: I love wearing headbands, bandannas, and crazy outfits. It is part of my punky and outgoing attitude. It's an easy icebreaker with the ladies and makes me more approachable to the world. If we can't play with our image, what can we play with? Hey Rob, since when is embarrassment part of the equation. 90% of the time Rob looks as goofy as I do, who is he to judge? Contention 7: Horrible story told in horrible fashion. Any shred of truth to this story is lost in all the wild exaggerations and horrible sentence structure. If a story is to be told Rob, at least make it believable and somewhat entertaining. This story cannot come close to the hilarity of the rabies story that I suddenly feel compelled to tell. This story is based on first hand accounts as told to me by Rob's roommate (Jason), live-in girlfriend (Tiffany), and girlfriends live-in little sister(Francis). The giddiness with which this story was told to me was palpable. I knew from the beginning this was going to be a source of laughter for weeks, and it surely did not disappoint. "Oh my God! Ahhhhhh! Get it out! Get it out!" Wham! Splat! The bat that flew in the house never knew what hit it. Jason put the tennis racket down and proceeded to toss the bat outside. Here Rob comes to save the day! Feelings of remorse shook Rob's entire body from the top of his head to the bottom of his hippy hair. How could Jason abuse one of nature's creatures in such an inhumane fashion? Surely the bat might still be okay, if swift action is taken. So Rob proceeded to retrieve the stunned bat and lay it out on the kitchen table. How he thought he was helpiing the poor animal we will never know. But in typical Rob fashion, his feelings of compassion quickly turned into a means of entertainment. Pulling his camera out, Rob decided to make a home video starring himself and this stunned bat. The video is complete with shots of Rob's face literally millimeters from the bat's own, scrunching and making faces that were surely meant to mimic the pug-nosed member sprawled out on the table. (I never did ask what he ended up doing with the bat.) What if the bat has rabies? Apparently, Rob thought he was safe since the bat never actually made contact with an open wound or broken skin. Boy was he wrong! After many conversations, Rob began researching rabies online and discovered that rabies could be aspirated. The seed of doubt had been planted. For the next week, all I heard about were pleas for advice. Could Rob have rabies? What should Rob do? Indecision, nervousness, and anxiety became a daily part of Rob's life as he wrestled with his inner demons. Was he in danger of death and paralysis. Could he take the chance and wait? Uninsured and in the dumps, Rob looked to me for reinforcement. Thousands of dollars were hanging in the balance. Let us keep in mind that Rob is not exactly rolling in the dough. A few thousand dollars of debt is enough to make life that much more difficult for our struggling musician. Was he willing to accept the consequences of his boneheaded mockery of a poor wounded animal? After a series of three belly shots, two thousand dollars of debt, and a testament to Rob's own ability to give the world yet another laugh, Rob is happily rabies free. For now... Contention 8: Back to tennis eh? It is true, I love rallying back from near defeat to total victory. My tenacity and trademark call "Fight to deuce!" is yet another example of my competitiveness. Rob's assertion of my continual defeat is drastically overemphasized. I lose no more in doubles tennis than anyone else. I am a great doubles tennis player. As the con, I have surely enjoyed this debate. Rob's delusional assertion of my inferiority is clearly undeserved and I am confident that the votes will back this up. I will save everyone from rehashing the ridiculous contentions hurled at my character throughout this debate and close with a smile and a handshake. I appreciate everybody paying attention to my first debate and I guarantee there will be many more to come.


Question: Is Golf Considered a True Sport?

Golf is a sport that demands the highest level of mental acuity, innovation, and technical prowess. I understand how my previous statements might be interpreted as minimizing the mental aspect of boxing, but that is not my stance. While the presence of a crowd can significantly impact an athlete's mental state, as you've pointed out, it can be argued that no audience can induce the same level of mental strain as that experienced in golf. Unlike in boxing, where being knocked out ends the fight, in golf, there is no such escape from mental pressure. If a golfer hits a ball into the water, they must continue playing, analyzing and reflecting on their mistakes. The mental challenges are not limited to the crowd; external factors like weather conditions also play a crucial role in golf, something not encountered in boxing. Navigating strong crosswinds, for instance, can be incredibly taxing, particularly when competing in a major tournament. The objective is to guide a small ball into a slightly larger hole, often from distances up to 600 yards, with countless potential pitfalls along the way. I challenge your understanding of the sport of golf by asking if you have ever played a full round, let alone four consecutive rounds. If you had, you would comprehend the relentless mental strain that characterizes the game. Therefore, it is you, dear opponent, who lacks the necessary knowledge about the intricacies of golf as a sport.

The game of chess, with a few additional tournament rules, should be an Olympic sport. Introduction: Chess is unlike many games played. The element of chance does not exist. No dice rolls, no hidden cards, just the pieces in the same starting position every time. Any lost position is the fault of the player, not a lucky dice roll, or malfunctioning equipment. In addition, no absolute win has been found. The starting player does not have a set of moves that guarantee victory. Concessions: 1. I fully agree the Olympic committee has rejected "mind games" from contention for Olympic sports. They are mistaken, but I know this has come up in the past. http://www.time.com... 2. I am fully aware that a Chess Olympiad takes place outside of the official Olympic Games. This resolution deals with the official Olympics Games, not the separate Olympiad. Additional Rules: 1.Once the first piece is moved, neither player may leave the board except for two 15 minute time outs. Leaving your area is a forfeit. 2.The lighting, boards, pieces, clocks must be identical and no player input will be accepted concerning these areas. 3.Players must be able to move their own pieces without the aide of others or mechanical devices. 4.Computer programs cannot compete. 5.No eating, smoking, or drinking at the board. All outside activities must occur in the 15 minute break periods. 6.The time limit will be universal (40 moves in 100 minutes, 20 moves in 50 minutes, 10 minutes for the remainder of the game with an increment of 30 seconds.) 7.Players must play two games in one day. One as black and one a white in a round robin style tournament. Each player plays as white and black against each opponent and draws as black will be awarded more points in the case of a tie. 8.Other rules will be governed by the Olympic Committee, but for this debate the FIDE rules, except when different from the above rules, will be used. http://www.fide.com... Sport: a. Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. b. A particular form of this activity. 2. An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively. 3. An active pastime; recreation. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Argument: Chess is governed by a set of rules or customs and is often engaged in competitively. With the additional rules provided, chess can fall within a physical activity. Endurance is a physical trait. Currently, Grand Master games can be postponed and sealed moves kept so players can leave the board and sleep, eat, etc. Under the rules I listed such activities at the board would be eliminated. Players would have to train to maintain mental awareness with physical stamina while at the board and must be able to write down their moves and move their own pieces. The coordination between thinking about a move and moving the correct piece legally after several hours of play will require endurance and stamina. Chess, under these rules, is a sport. Differentiating other games: Bridge – This game has also made a bid for inclusion, but chance plays a role as cards are hidden and shuffled. Chess has no element of chance. Checkers – This game has been solved. http://spectrum.ieee.org... Chess, despite countless computer programs has not been solved and humans can beat computers. Why the Olympics: The Olympics could help settle controversies surrounding multiple chess champions from competing organizations and the political pull of the Olympics could bring chess to countries that refuse to fund the sport. Also, the level of publicity concerning the Olympics would help bring recognition to the champions of this ancient sport. The mind game Olympics, although a great concept, cannot boast the history and prestige of the Official Olympic Games. Current trends make getting Grand Masters to compete can be washed away with a standardized set of rules in one of the biggest sports extravaganza in the world. Chess should be an Olympic sport.

Thanks to Pro for his...rather short...argument. I will point out that Pro has not addressed his BoP, so everything he has claimed is invalid. That being said, this argument will hardly need much content to win. What Exactly is the "Best Sport?" Here is the definition of best: Best: of the highest quality, excellence, or standing[1] Here is the definition of sport: Sport: an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.[2] From these definitions, it can be concluded that the "best sport" is the one that requires more skill and physical prowess than the others. However, it is virtually impossible to compare different sports due to their diverse gameplay, equipment, and setting for playing. Therefore, there is no "best sport," and people who do claim that it is are prejudiced since they don't have evidence that their sport (or hockey in this case) has the highest requirement of skill or physical prowess. Pro has failed to provide evidence for this, and his entire argument is heavily opinionated. In addition, he failed to accept full BoP. The outcome of this debate favors Con. Sources [1]http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]http://dictionary.reference.com...

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.

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

Ability to play the game, have a good work ethic. This is really about work ethic, not just a paycheck. How would you feel if you busted your bottom to earn that money and position, and some lazy do not as much got equal pay?

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.

Sports will not help obesity because people want to be fat and eat food. This debate is just stupid. Vote for me or you"re a Jew.

Baseball is a Stupid sport play table tennis instead a safe eco friendly alternative 1.Babe Ruth is dead therefore anybody alive today is better than him at everything! 2.I could beat Babe Ruth in table tennis (well maybe not ) 3.Sports are stupid play table tennis its eco friendly so to speak 4.Babe Ruth's name backwards is Htur Ebab

Basketball is the more popular sport world-wide in comparison to baseball, with basketball being ranked as the 2nd most popular with 400+ million participants, and baseball being ranked 7th with 60+ million participants. Because both sports are played in the Olympics, countries all over the world have had exposure to both games, and by the amount of participants that engage in each we can assume that more people are fans of basketball as opposed to baseball. However I will not assume that more participants worldwide = a better sport. Well, maybe. But not necessarily. Thus I will continue on to state that a lot of basketball's assets, in my opinion, you recognized as flaws. For instance I feel that the fast pace of basketball in opposition with baseball is one of the many things that make it a more exciting game to both watch and play. Each 'play' in baseball can be dragged out and even seem monotonous after awhile (foul ball after foul ball after pitch after pitch after pitch with many seconds and pointless minutes in between). However basketball keeps both the athletes and viewers on their toes, and more plays mean more opportunities for the tone and pace of the game to shift. This gives the opposing team a better chance of coming back to regain the lead, thus making it a more exciting and fun game to engage in or spectate. Plus, having a time limit for a game increases the intensity and adrenaline much more than the rush you speak of in your argument for baseball giving you that same feeling. Another aspect of your argument that I disagree with is when you claim that individual responsibility is *benefit* of baseball. Instead I argue that mistakes are more forgivable in basketball, and thus more emphasis is placed on cooperation and teamwork rather than showing off or stressing over the fact that your performance can either make or break the team's record. How often does a baseball player get blamed when he strikes out in the bottom of the 9th and therefore ends his team's chance of winning the game? However in a game of basketball, even if someone misses the winning shot in the 4th quarter, there were many more shots taken in the game of basketball than at-bats in a game of baseball, making it more apparent that a team's win or loss is not thanks in particular to one individual, but rather the team as a collective unit working together effectively and scoring points. I would also like to take this opportunity to disagree that baseball is a cheaper and easier alternative to basketball. This is because kids can make "baskets" out of anything just as you can turn any instrument into a "bat" of sorts. For instance, you can use a trash can, basket or even drawn-on square box to serve as a "hoop" and just about any ball that bounces as a ball. You can even play by yourself if you had to... Furthermore, I would like to elaborate and correct you on your argument that baseball is a safer game than basketball to play. While it's true that you will probably sustain more injuries in a game of basketball than a game of baseball, I would like to point out that basketball is in fact a more physical game, and with that intense level of athleticism being demonstrated you are bound to come across both pros and cons in terms of rewards and potential risks. For example, you may be more likely to strain a muscle while playing basketball; however, basketball is a sport that requires more physical activity and stamina. Thus the benefit to this "risk" is the fact that basketball keeps you in much better shape than baseball does. This becomes apparent when you take a look at the physical fitness of basketball players vs. the physical health of baseball players. Basketball players have to spend long periods of time running back and forth, and constantly moving various parts of their body at the same time. It provides a great cardio work out, and keeps the muscles flexible, loose and strong. Due to the easy-going and less strenuous nature of the game, baseball players can get away with being less agile and less healthy individuals than basketball players. Thanks to an organization like the WNBA, basketball has become a more popular sport due to its mass appeal geared for and towards women. Instead of creating an "inferior" sport like softball (many people feel like it's a sissy version of baseball), women are actually encouraged to participate in a sport like basketball, and can now even go Pro. Additionally, college basketball programs are FAR more successful than their baseball and softball programs (times ten). In response to a ball park being an ideal place to hold a sporting event, I disagree based on the reasoning that you can play basketball in any type of weather condition during any particular season. Whereas a baseball game can be rained out, or ended early on account of drizzle or snow fall, basketball is played indoors and is therefore more convenient/consistent. You mentioned that baseball was relatively easy to learn; I'll argue that basketball has rules and goals that are just as simple. At the same time, a certain amount of planning and strategy (not to mention practice, training, strengthening and conditioning) goes into basketball While you contend that baseball has the most compelling trade aspects in any realm of professional sports, I'd like to point out, "The Larry Bird rule that gives NBA teams the right to match deals in order to keep their stars gives basketball the advantage" -- Baseball America. With that, I think I'll go to bed for now. I feel like I have sufficiently responded to each and every one of your points, and in turn made some arguments of equivocal or greater value to prove that basketball is in fact the superior of the two sports. I now leave it up to you to respond, and in my next argument I will be glad to refute any of your additional points as well as provide some more of my own for a final rebuttal in the third round. Thank you and good night :)

"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.


Question: Is Golf Considered a True Sport?

Golf is the epitome of a mentally demanding sport, requiring a unique blend of creativity and skill. Let's tackle the argument of whether golf qualifies as a sport. The primary contention often revolves around the physical intensity, but what is often overlooked is that the exertion of energy is not the sole criterion for an activity to be classified as a sport. Your argument that golf lacks the physicality to be considered a sport is undermined by the very definitions that you cite. While golf may not be as physically grueling as other sports, it still involves physical activity, and dismissing it as not a sport due to its less intense nature is a flawed argument. Consider the mental aspect of golf compared to boxing. In boxing, there is little time for strategic thought; it's mostly about reaction. In contrast, golf allows time for deep contemplation, especially when faced with a challenging shot. For instance, if you've just hit your ball into the trees, you have the entire walk to ruminate on the potential consequences of your mistake, such as losing the tournament or berating yourself for a poor decision. This mental strain is unparalleled in any other sport, where a psychological collapse can utterly derail your performance. Unlike other sports where you can substitute players or take a break, in golf, you're entirely on your own, forced to persevere through your round. Your mental fortitude is your greatest asset, and it's continuously tested by the various obstacles on the course.

While I do agree that there are emotionally and physically demanding aspects to both dance and sports, there are too many differences between them to call dance a sport itself. For example, the "judgements" in dance are subjective, and up to each individual to decide. There is basic technique, but there is also room for artistic interpretation. The main difference however, is the storytelling aspect of dance. Dance exists to tell a story through movement and music. That is something sports simply do not do. Yes, they are both physically demanding, but dance requires an acting ability and a storytelling aspect that is simply not present in sports.

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

You didn't really argue at all. You copied my whole argument and said how "wrong" I was and said I should "accept the truth". Not only that but you had no sources whatsoever to provee I was "wrong". I will make one final statement. Don't let this person take away the fun you're allowed to have by playing games.

1) No 2) Yes 3) Yes 4) No 5) No 6) Yes 7) No 8) This is not a yes or no question, therefore you have broken the rules so I get all 7 points. Sorry ;) 9) No 10) Yes

I'll be honest, I thought you were referring to older children (teenagers basically) as you didn't specify the age. It is impossible for me to argue against younger children engaging in sports unless I invoke a ridiculous argument like physical or mental handicap. I propose that this debate be called a draw as neither of us clarified our positions clearly enough, but I can forfeit if required.

I thank CON for his interesting responses. My first response was directed to be an additional argument, but it appears it will be presented as both an argument and a refutation. “Simply participating in an activity is not good enough, but participants must give their activity everything they have.” The underlying problem is that a chess player must give “EVERYTHING” that they have to become a chess player. They must sacrifice a huge amount of time and money before they reach the required level to become a chess player. Chess has become biggest part of their life, their occupation. Their money comes from chess. Most of their workmates will come from chess. Their life has become chess. Also, it is important to understand that we are talking about chess players, not chess coaches, chess critics, chess book authors etc. This means that the majority of their income would come from playing chess. Most chess players who are good enough to make a living out of playing chess are WGM/GM’s and questionably, WIM/IM’s. This may not sound so bad. However, in comparison to someone who is simply there to appreciate the game of chess, they have not bonded their entire life to chess. If they are frustrated about a loss, it will not affect their income rate like it may for a chess player. As these two sources show [1][2], along with most other sources, most pro chess players make close to nothing, and most of the GMs make a decent source of income, not a spectacular income. As well as this, it points out that the Grandmasters (WGM included) make a reasonable income, whilst most IM’s are completely broke and have to result to teaching, writing etc. to make enough money simply to participate in tournaments. The amount of efforts they must put to acheive a reasonable income is completely absurd. It is evident that CON has misunderstood some parts of my arguments and the misdirected implications he has made from my arguments. In my first argument, in which I was referring to Garry Kasparov’s “irreparable psychological damage”, under no circumstances was I implying that all chess players would be exposed to. The ideas that I proposed with that argument were that chess players will be forced to deal with psychological discomfort and stress (it will, no doubt, happen to all chess players), using Garry Kasparov’s defeat as an example. The second misinterpretation from CON: “… it explicitly speaks on how chess players should not allow their losses to frustrate them to such high degree, not that losing could have that the irreparable psychological damage that Pro Posits it would”. Once again, I never proposed the idea that losing a chess game will give you “irreparable psychological damage”. The second refutation is that all chess players are aware that frustration from a loss is harmful to their future play. As pointed out by CON, chess players should not allow themselves to become frustrated to such high degrees; however, losses will always affect a chess player and their future play, either for the worse or for the better. At this point, I would like to point out that Garry Kasparov’s loss to Deep Blue was not because of a downfall of his own pride. The video clearly illustrates all the angles as to why they thought there was human intervention in the moves that was “supposedly” played out by the computer. Garry Kasparov had given up on the entire match altogether after that incident because he had excellent reasons to think that his opposition were cheating (as said, a chess player cooperating with a machine (one that can make 3 million calculations per second), is a Killer Combination, in which nothing could possibly be stronger). It was logical that Kasparov gave up at that point because of his suspicions that they were cheating, NOT because of a downfall of his own pride. My high blood pressure argument, is once again, only meant to be an extreme example of what chess players are prone to. If some/a young grandmaster chess player/s can have a heart attack from high blood pressure, it is a good idea that all chess players will deal with a lot of stress in their lives. I am not saying that stress is a bad thing, but put simply, too much stress on a person's life will become harmful. I’d like to note back to the definition of “Chess player” that we was used from R1. “Chess Player: A person who plays chess tournaments for money, fame, sponsorships etc.” As mentioned before, this definition would only be applicable to WGM/GM’s and possibly WIM/IM’s. Therefore, it makes sense why we are not referring to a “common” chess player. We are referring to the best chess players. Only the ones who make enough money from playing. “they're going to be violent whether their coach teaches them to love the game or play competitively” This judgement is flawed as a person who appreciates the game, as a form of art, science (no matter what their viewpoints on chess are), are under no pressure to play well and therefore won’t be prone to violence (at least nowhere near the degree in which a chess player would). It is highly unreasonable to think someone who is simply appreciating the game, just by spectating a game, a commentary of a game etc. would become violent. Most chess players (following the definition provided) would encounter similar levels of stress experienced by Kasparov and Karpov to note, or at least extreme levels of stress. Once again, I never asserted that stress stands as a reason not to work towards that greatness, but am implying that the levels of stress that WGM/GMs or WIM/IMs are exposed to will be damaging to their health and could also pose as a barrier to success. “It would be really sad if one committed so much time and energy to Chess and didn't appreciate it.” I am not so sure what my opponent is implying here, but nevertheless, I am will make a response. The fact he mentions that someone may end up not appreciating it is double-sided in this debate. If someone does not like chess, it they will not end up appreciating the game, but if they don’t appreciate the game, they have close to no potential in becoming a chess player. I need to repeat that we are arguing that we are focussing on whether a chess coach must be focus on making a chess player out of his/her student or teaching/helping their student appreciate the game. “for a coach not to equip their pupil with the necessary tools to excel at this challenge is for the coach to fail their student.” Most chess students do not end up becoming chess players. Does this mean most chess coaches have failed close to every single student that they have had? If a chess student has grown to love the game after being taught by a good chess coach, and loves looking over brilliantly played-out chess games, does this really mean that the coach has failed their student? I think not. Arguments: Competitive chess is not suited for everyone GM-levelled play doesn’t come to everyone. As shown from three of the best players ever, Garry Kasparov, Bobby Fischer, Judit Polgar, their IQ is catergorised within the genius ranged [3]. Although some may comment that the IQ test is not a reliable way to measure a person’s intelligence level, it is a good outline that some people are highly advantaged compared to others, whilst most people are likely to not achieve such abilities to become a chess player. Therefore, it much more beneficial to simply teach their student to appreciate the game, a part that almost anyone is capable of doing. Furthermore, in response to CON, not everyone has a fighting spirit when it comes to chess, but simply prefer the more relaxed way, to just spectate the fight over the board, look over the analysis etc. For these reasons, it more beneficial to appreciate chess. References: 1. http://www.ask.com... 2. http://www.chessvideos.tv... 3. http://www.businessinsider.com...

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.

My opponent has forfeited the round and has failed to present any arguments. The opposition stands by its argument that swimming is not a sport.

So, I see where you're coming from. ESports is growing at extreme rates, And will only continue to grow as time goes on. But, It doesn't belong in the Olympics. And I know it'll never be added to the Olympics. The points you bring up, Don't help your case what-so-ever. The fact is, The Olympics are for people who dedicated their entire lives to the sport they love. Even though eSports is technically a sport, I guess, That would defeat the whole purpose. There are already major tournaments for the games you listed. This is a tricky topic, Honestly. You can't back this up with facts. Whether you're with or against this. This is purely an opinion-based debate. And honestly, Only time will tell. Please provide some more information on why you believe adding eSports to the Olympics would be a good idea. What are the pros. Because honestly, Both you and I know there would be an extreme outrage and upset Olympic fans. Adding video games to the Olympics is basically like adding baseball to MLG.

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


Question: Is Golf Considered a True Sport?

Is golf considered a legitimate sport? Personally, I don't view golf as a true sport, primarily because it doesn't involve intense physical exertion.

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.

Granted that we are in the United States and we are talking about American sports, you did not specify whether or not we were talking about national popularity or international popularity. If you were to have specified, which clearly you did not, then i would have not made that argument further. Wouldn't you have to argue on an international level to begin with? Clearly football is an international sport, so you referencing just one country is irrelevant to me because that does not sum up the larger picture of football's popularity worldwide. Popularity is accumulative, therefore you need to argue in the international sense. If football was isolated merely to the United States, then our discussion as far as our borders are concerned would make more sense. Just to add, Hockey is overall a more highly respected sport than football. Hockey is featured in our world's olympic games. I do not see football being mentioned at all in the olympic games conversation. Too me, that shows that football is not only less popular as hockey, but also not as respected. Lastly, talking about NFL football considering it is clear you want to argue about American sports only, with all these new NFL rules and regulations, it seems to me that the game of football is not even fun to watch anymore. With all of those "illegal hit" rules, fines are addressed to players left and right. The game of football was meant to be a physical game, and it seems to me that the NFL wants to take away that aspect. As long as the fines keep coming and these new rules are instituted, NFL football will be reduced to a backyard "two-hand-touch" football game. No one is forced to play NFL football, it is a privilege given to a player from the organization that grants them that time to play. Also, just to argue more point, the Superbowl may be a more televised and watched event then the Stanley Cup, but are you even considering what the viewers of that event are watching the game for? It has been said that people tend to watch the Superbowl more for the half time show and the commercial ads from the many big name producers of our corporate world today. Clearly there are not many true fans to the sport of football if this is the case. http://detroit.cbslocal.com... http://articles.chicagotribune.com...

No, that is not true, and I have claims from others to back my thesis up, as evidence:

The direct comparison of PC to religion is made in an academic studyUsing the agreed-upon definition of "stupid" the resolution becomes:Comparing political correctness to the rules of religion shows a lack of ability to learn and understand things. Early in the debate I quoted Geoffrey Hughes, a professor of English Language History. The Professor authored a book-length academic study entitled Political Correctness: A History of Semantics and Culture ," in which he made the direct comparison:Puritanism . .. has considerable and enduring relevance to political correctness, since it encapsulates strictness in morality with a Pharisaic attitude of being “holier than thou,” combined with an unhealthy curiosity, even an inquisitiveness or inquisitorial attitude concerning the “lapses” and “nonconformity” of others. Not for nothing has political correctness been stigmatized as the New Puritanism. [8]The was published in 2009 by Wiley-Blackwell, a major academic book publisher, in their Language Lbrary series. So Pro is claiming that the professor, among others, is stupid. It's not plausible that the duly-credentialed Professor who studied the subject is unable to learn and understand. It's possible that the professor is wrong on some points because he analyzed or interpreted incorrectly, but it's not plausibe he is wrong because he lacks the intellectual capacity for learning. He presents his analysis coherently in the context of carefully-researched history. Pro presented no contrary expert opinion. I think nothing more is required to conclude that Pro has lost his argument in this debate. PC goes way beyond Pro's claim of it being a minor suggestionPro argues that political correctness goes no further than disapproving of racist and sexist language. He bases his whole case on two dictionary definitions that he timmed to suit his purposes. My two dictionary definitions invoked orthodoxy and behavior as part of political correctness. Looking up Pro's defintions, we find that material he excluded make them much closer to mine. Pro argued that words do not have meanings beyond their dictionary definitions. I gave the extreme counterexample of the word "golf" upon which the dictionary goes no further than it being an outdoor sport played with clubs. I cited a popular book that compares golf fanatics as being comparable to religion. Less extreme, definitions of "Puritan" say they were about simplifying worship and eliminating remnats of Catholicism in Protestant worship. That come no where near even a modest understanding of what the Puritans were. Dictionaries are not the end of understanding a subject, they are barest beginning of understanding. I cited a half dozen books and dozen or so articles and news stories that describe political correctness. Pro used no references other than his two dictionary definitions in the entire debate. The resolution refers to the "rules of religion. " At no time did I claim that political correctness is a religion; it is not. The comparison was limited to mirroring certain aspects of religion. A key point of comparison are restrictions on language designed to reinforce behavior. A religious person avoids language deemed blastphemous and strives to conform to the behavior pattern of his orthodoxy, and he believes that a person who does so is more moral than a person who does not. A political correct person avoids gender-specific and other language and he strives to conform to the behavior pattern of his orthodoxy, and he believes that a person who does so is more moral than a person who does not. Religons demand certain behaviors, so does political correctness. A behavior example is that political correctness demands recycling, and the demand applies in even in cases that make no sense from the viewpoints of ecology or economics. No of this argues which behavirs are good or bad. I think most of us would agree that religious orthodoxy demanding honesty is good and that political correctness orthodoxy prohibiting use of racial slurs is also go. How much of an orthodoxy is not elevant to our debate. The debate is where an orthodoxy of political correctness exists. Pro made specific arguments as to why comparisons were "stupid":Pro argued the rules of PC are not written down and well organizedWe know that in fact complex religious orthodoxies were obeyed in socities that had no writing. I pointed to the complex rules of the ancient Hawaiian religion, obeyed espite there being no writing and hence no scripture. To this day, religious orthodoxies are obeyed by people who have no system writing. But the rules of PC are written down for the purpose of enforcement. There are written in requirements for state school textbooks, in the styleguide for the press, and as campus speech codes. Pro claimed that the average person is completely unaware of the rules of political correctness. I posed a short test as to which of two alternatives was politically correct. Everyone knows. Pro admitted people obey, but they can't list the rules. Sure, that's the whole idea of ingraining an orthodoxy into language, per newspeak. Pro argued that only government can bring about compliance, and PC has no government enforcementSocial pressure alone can bring about compliance. Most of religious orthodoxy is voluntary or is enforced only by social pressure, for example the manner of dress adopted by the Mennonites or the Jewish practice of returning home by sundown on Friday. In the extreme, Muslim practices of honor killing are carried out in non-Muslim countries (google the phrase "Muslim man kills daughter"). Fatwas are carried by Muslim fanatics in non-Muslim countries. Being voluntary does not made a strict orthodoxy any less of strict orthodoxy. PC, however, has specific enforcement mechanisms. States enforce the PC written rules on PC in textbooks. The military reuires sensitivity training of soldiers who fail to obey the PC rules. On campuses, restrictive PC speech codes are enforced on both students and faculty. Fear of enforcement of PC rules enabled the Ford Hood massacre. I think "enabling" is quite enough. PC rules led to the firing of the president of Harvard according to Prof. Dershowitz. Pro claimed other factors in addition to PC, but gave no evidence. Pro argued that religions only have rules about worship and deitiesI cited many counterexamples, e. g. only four of the Ten Commandments deal with worship and deities. However, there are religions like Jainism and Buddhism that have strong orthodoxies governing behavior, but no worship and no deities. it's valid to compare only the behavior and language parts of religious orthodoxy to PC. A children's poem says "the moon is like a silver penny. " The comparison is not stupid, even though major factors of mass and orbital characteristics are overlooked in the comparison. Debate IssuesS&G. Pro doesn't use apostrophes. You're become youre. How annoying is that? Sources. I gave two dozen references showing the meaning of PC and it's role in society. Pro offered only two dictionaries, from which he trimmed the definitions to suit his purposes. I cited everyone from Christopher Hitchens to Alan Dershowitz. Surely if the books an the subject were wrong, there would be sources saying so, but Pro had none. If PC did not enable the Ft. Hood shooter or was not the major factor in dismissing the President of Harvard, some reputable source could be cited. Pro relied entirely on his own authority. Conduct. I made a point in the challenge of getting Pro to "agree not to use personal attacks, insults, or obscenity. " He was dismissive, saying "Roy. .. .. <denial>. .. .. . Try again" and got to "Youre not even making any sense anymore,. ." and ". .. is this all still unsubstantiated babble that isnt worth even correcting? " Arguments. Pro has the burden to prove that a comparison between the rules of religion and politcal correctness is stupid. He did not meet that burden.

Here's a portion of George Carlin's famous skit and he's 100% correct. I can't use all of the skit because there's far too many curse words. When it comes to B.S., big-time, major league B.S., you have to stand in awe, in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest B.S. story ever told. Think about it. religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man... living in the sky... who watches everything you do... every minute of every day... And the invisible man has a special list of TEN things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!.......... But He loves you!!! He loves you, and he needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good B.S. story... Holy BEEP!continuing... And for those of you who look to The bible for moral lessons and literary qualities, I might suggest a couple of other stories for you. You might want to look at the Three Little Pigs, that's a good one. Has a nice happy ending, I'm sure you'll like that. Then there's Little Red Riding Hood, although it does have that X-rated part where the Big Bad Wolf actually eats the grandmother. Which I didn't care for, by the way. And finally, I've always drawn a great deal of moral comfort from Humpty Dumpty. The part I like the best? "All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again." That's because there is no Humpty Dumpty, and there is no god. None, not one, no god, never was." In fact, I'm gonna put it this way. If there is a god, may he strike this audience dead! See? Nothing happened. Nothing happened? Everybody's okay? All right, tell you what, I'll raise the stakes a little bit. If there is a god, may he strike me dead. See? Nothing happened, oh, wait, I've got a little cramp in my leg. And my b---s hurt. Plus, I'm blind. I'm blind, oh, now I'm okay again, must have been Joe Pesci, huh? God Bless Joe Pesci. Thank you all very much. Joe Bless You!So your job as Con is to prove that god is NOT "the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims"

Well Josh, on the argument about all the pads and equipment that football players wear, hockey players wear just about the same amount of padding as football players. And wouldn't you say that hockey players need to be very endured and have to change directions at the blink of an eye as well? For example, the puck consistently is either batted or knocked around on the ice multiple times in the matter of a few seconds. So, wouldn't you say, that as a hockey player you need to be ready to change directions as fast as the puck does? In the argument that football is more popular than hockey, you are right in the sense that hockey stands beneath football in popularity, *in the United States. Football is an American made sport, where as hockey is a Canadian made sport. It is clear that football would be generally more entertaining and popular to the American public then hockey would be. However, internationally, hockey is much more popular then football. So overall, Hockey would win the popularity contest.

You make some very good arguments with many valid points. Yes football is a very complicated sport but I do not think it is the most complicated. I will make an attempt to rebut your statements and use examples of other sports to show that they have more complexity. First off as no clear definition was first described I am assuming that the complexity in the sport, for which we are arguing, can come from many different angles and variables. Those variables include individual player, team work, coaching, and even scouting. As you stated the definition of complexity can include, but is not limited to, a variety of factors. I will explain how just because something has a variety of factors does not make it complex. Although football does have a lot of positions and roles that need to be filled in order for the team to function this does not mean it is complex. I think I can even use your own argument against you in that there many roles. The players each have there own role and they don't even have to switch on defense. A lot of the roles are based on repetition. (wide receiver running a route they have ran hundreds of times or a running back running through a hole.) This makes it easier to play the game in that your role is a lot more simple when all you have to know are a few things and the others are irrelevant. This makes the game easier to play, coach, and manage. Drafting players is not as complicated when there are not as many factors that need to be decided on. Coaching players is also not as difficult as you don't need to teach one person too many things. In rugby most players need to be able to fill certain roles when necessary and make the proper reaction. Every single player in rugby needs to play offense and can immediately need to react to the situation to play defense without stopping to take a drink break. Not only do they need to make a swift reaction but they need to know how to work together as a team on both sides without stopping or slowing down to draw up a play. In soccer, hockey, and basketball the players all need to be able to play both offense and defense while continually playing and working as a team with limited communication. The point guard in basketball must be able to play both defense and run an offense calling plays when needed and reacting quickly to situations. The point guard can't just throw the ball away and try again in another 40 seconds. I would like to use a metaphor that might come across as absurd but I am just trying to get my point across. Now lets say you take 2 average not extremely educated high school kids and give them a team of average people. (Quantity not important) You give student A 20 tasks to complete but they are all things like cleaning, yard work, painting, etc... You give Student B 1 task. His only task that he can use his team in what ever way he wants is to solve a large Rubik's cube. All I intended to do with this example is show you that just because there are more roles and factors involved does not prove that something is more complicated. I'm sure most people would agree that the 1 task of solving a Rubik's cube is more complicated than the 20 tasks for student A. While I can't argue that there is another sport with more plays or rules I can point out the a player only has to remember their job in that specific play and often that job can be repeatable. Very good argument using scoring. I don't think I can name another sport that has as many scoring options as football does and you are right it does add to the complexity of the game but I do not think it is an important deciding factor.

You didn't really argue at all. You copied my whole argument and said how "wrong" I was and said I should "accept the truth". Not only that but you had no sources whatsoever to provee I was "wrong". I will make one final statement. Don't let this person take away the fun you're allowed to have by playing games.

My opponent provided me with two links saying that she"s not going to say which one is more dangerous, and that I get to pick after reading both of the links. So I decide that swimming is more dangerous. And my opponent obviously doesn"t understand anything about health so I will put it simply. If someone is anorexic and plays soccer which burns less calories, this person will die later than if someone was anorexic and swimming. Unless they build muscle, but to build muscle you need to eat. Therefore it depends on the person. It depends on the diet, health issues,... Etc. So my point has not been refuted. Then my opponent points out that most swimmers don"t do it for the money, but pro has conceded that there are some people who do. But how does my opponent know if someone does it for the money or not, pro isn"t a mind reader. Therefore pro has no proof that more people swim because they love it rather than for the money. And even if some people do it for the sport, money is still a benefit. It"s not mutually exclusive. People can still do it because they love the sport and love the money they get as a result of it. "See most swimmers are not big headed like most athletes who play for the money" So basically my opponent is saying that most athletes do their sport for money, but only swimmers do it because of the love of the sport. How can my opponent possibly know that? " I don't know what I would do if I wasn't allowed to swim anymore. I have tried tons of sports but none of them compare to swimming. I believe that's what the other swimmers feel as well." This is basically my opponent saying that because pro feels this way about swimming, that everyone has to as well. There is no valid evidence for pro to assert this about athletes, but not about swimming. Teamwork "While fitness goals are generally very personal, we can all benefit from sharing common goals with others who push us towards them. The lessons that players learn on the field translate to the rest of their lives and the camaraderie teammates share in unparalleled. The ability to work with others to reach a common goal is powerful when related to everyday life- in other words, join a team!" In soccer, people need to learn to work as a team, therefore they learn the important skill of cooperation. Portability "Soccer is not an expensive or prohibitive sport. All that is needed is space and a ball. It is a relatively simple sport to catch onto and is played mostly outdoors, which we already mentioned as being healthy here." In swimming, you realistically need a big pool to swim. But in soccer all you need is a space and a ball. I can play in my room, but it would be hard to swim in it. Source- http://www.healthfitnessrevolution.com...

1) No 2) Yes 3) Yes 4) No 5) No 6) Yes 7) No 8) This is not a yes or no question, therefore you have broken the rules so I get all 7 points. Sorry ;) 9) No 10) Yes


Question: Is Golf Considered a Sport?

Golf is indeed a sport that demands the highest level of mental fortitude, creativity, and skill. During Pro's time here, he made a compelling case, and if Pro happens to see this, I encourage you to create a new account and reconnect with me for another debate. However, Pro's absence won't deter me from continuing the discussion; I am a competitor driven to win. Consider the mindset of a boxer: they must remain alert and cautious throughout the entire fight, aware that they could be struck or knocked down at any moment. In contrast, a golfer only needs to concentrate for around 30 seconds, assuming that's the average time it takes to execute a swing. A boxer must constantly assess their opponent's moves—will they throw an uppercut to the stomach or a series of jabs to the face? If a boxer is hit hard, it can shatter their confidence, leading them to question their abilities and stamina. For instance, they might wonder, "Are my punches powerful enough? Am I throwing them with enough force?" Such doubts can lead to overexertion and a depletion of their energy reserves. Despite the stark differences in physical demands, golf's mental challenges are no less significant, making it a true sport in its own right.

I am particularly pleased to discuss the sport of curling because I feel very strongly that it should most certainly not be "proclaimed as the international sport for obsessive cleaner's". No, it should be banned altogether because it makes non-curling men who hate cleaning lives a misery. Let me illustrate why with a short tale of misery and woe… In 2002 I watched the Great Britain women's curling team win gold in the Winter Olympics on the telly in my flat in London, which looked like a pigsty, as usual. . http://news.bbc.co.uk... I learned that the entire team came from Scotland, where the sport was invented and is quite popular, and I thought "those Scottish girls look pretty handy with a broom, maybe I'll move up there and find a bonnie wee lassie to move in and clean up after me", and so I did. I went down to the curling rink and found a girlfriend who I carefully selected for her good looks, charming personality and, most importantly, her formidable skills with a brush. I thought my days of living in filth and degradation would soon be over, but I didn't think it through. She spent so much time at the rink that when she came home she was too tired to clean up. Worse still, because she was obsessive about cleanliness, she nagged me to death about how dirty and untidy the place was and demanded that I should get up and brush the floor myself! I did get up, actually, and moved back to England, where there are no curling rinks and girlfriends do not have the opportunity to waste their cleaning skills outside the home. That is why I must certainly challenge my opponent's assertion that obsessive cleaners need an international sport – they don't. Instead, they can all come round to my place where I will time them to see who cleans up the quickest and award a box of chocolates to the winner.

First I'll address Con's points, then I'll add three more in favor of bball, the superior sport. "1. It is full of fast paced action, as well as exciting hits and goals."Basketball is faster. There is nothing more exciting than a cool basket, pass, or other play made, which happens all the time. Yes, this is real life. It may seem to be too cool, but reality is intense. "2. No one makes dumb comments about hockey, like "ball is life" for basketball."In my personal internet travels I have seen many a hockey player say "hockey is life", or "GOOOOOOAAAAAAALLLLL!!!!!!!!11!!!!1!!!1!!!"" Hockey players don't yell stupid taunts at each other like "brick city" or "biscuits""Trash talking is in the nature of basketball, and it is part of honored baller culture to say these things. I belive that this part of the game is extremely influental and hockey players could learn something from it. Also, hockey players fight while ballers use words.My Points1) Basketball players have cool jerseys to wear aroundMany people wear these jerseys and become a part of baller culture2) There's a good basketball animeThis reason alone should be enough to win the debate. Watch Kuroko no Basket and you will become a baller. Note: source of picture is not the same as other real life image3) Shaqtin' a foolI refer you to Javail McGee and Shaqtin' a fool.;

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.

As Con, I encourage Pro to also take all other variables into consideration other than what is being played, as I will as well. 3 Rounds - 72 Hours to argue 5,000 characters Good luck.

I would like to make the assumption that we are taking about making chess an Olympic event in the near future (like for the 2012, 2014, or 2016 games). And so my argument will not be that Chess should never ever ever be an Olympic event, but that chess as it is now should not be part of the current Olympic environment. What should and should not be an Olympic sport? That is a question that the IOC (International Olympic Committee) must ask itself every year. They also have the task of saying which sports make the cut as "Olympic Sports. " [1] Because there are so many sports around the world, the Olympics cannot logistically do them all. So it has to "pick and choose" the ones that will be represented. The Olympic Games do not have a strict set of guidelines (like only the 40 most popular sports in the world, or if the sport has X people), but rather each sport is chosen on case by case basis. This gives the committee the flexibility to add and remove events without having to change their rules. The down side to this is that it means that many decisions may not make total sense. We can see from my opponent's link [2], that the committee does say yes to some and no to others that seem like they are similar sports. So it is far to say that the IOC does not hold "precedence" as justification for any sport (the "you let them in, so you should let me in" argument). The IOC has also stated that "mind games" are not for the Olympics. This basically means that the IOC will not accept anything that is not a physical activity. Even though Kirsan Ilyumzhinov said that curling is chess on ice, however curling does require a physical skill to do (precision and accuracy). My opponent does list a set of rules which makes the game of chess more physically demanding, however those rules don't actually make the game of chess require physical exertion or skill as the ability to sit through a game of chess is hardly a physical task. And adding physical tasks to chess, just to try to get it in, makes the "physical version of chess" a different game then the "standard version" (which I will address as P-chess and S-chess) and not popular enough to qualify, since all the popularity is still with P-chess and will be for a long time. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://www.time.com...

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.

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.

Basketball is healthierBoth soccer and basketball are healthy. Basketball was designed as an alternative for soccer and other sports, and it was designed to be good for physical health. Forbes magazine listed the 10 healthiest sports. Basketball ranked #6, and soccer was not listed at all [1]. In a basketball, the players run back and forth a lot of times, so in the end they cover the same distances as soccer players.Basketball is saferInjuries happen both in soccer and basketball. But because soccer is more of a contact sport, more injuries happen. I have given proof that there are more casualties in soccer compared to basketball [2]. My opponent did not rebut this statistic.AccessibleYou do not need much to play soccer or to play basketball. For soccer, you need a ball and two goals, but you can get away with something that marks a goal. For basketball you also need a ball and two hoops/baskets, but any basket's will do and one could use buckets for example. Originally, basketball was played with a soccer ball, and with peach baskets [3]. But the big difference between soccer and basketball is that soccer needs a lot more space (even if you play it indoors). An NBA basketball court is28.65m x 15.24m [4], a soccer field is 105m x 68m. An indoor soccer "field" is 60.96m x 25.91m (200' x 85') popularitySoccer is indeed more popular over the world. The main reason for this is that it is a much older sport, and the sport has been spread by colonialism. So, soccer is not more popular because it is better, but because it had a better chance of being spread around. My opponent never gave a reason why more popularity means that it is a better sport.archaic soccer rulesIn soccer there is one referee and 2 line referees. Together the must cover the huge field. The main referee has absolute authority. He sometimes goes with the judgment of the line referees, because they are in a better position to see if the play was off-side. But he can always overrule the line referees. Line referees make mistakes. And often, in a quick offensive play, the main referee is not close to the ball to see if the play is offside, so he just goes with whatever the line referee says. The problem is, that if the three referees come to the wrong decision (which is quite often) then this decision cannot be overruled, even if it is clear on camera that it is the wrong decision. Here are some notorious examples: [6].Boring?Some find soccer boring, some find basketball boring. It is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I find soccer boring because there are so few goals and sometimes no goals at all.ConclusionSince Basketball is healthier, less dangerous, and you need less space to do it, it is a better sport.Vote CON!!!!!I thank my opponent for this discussion and for being a good sport.[1] http://www.newsworks.org...[2] http://www.businessinsider.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://bleacherreport.com...

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

no ok they r not a sport!! Moving and jumping and running and throwing and lifting is a sport. sports: softball,basketball,volleyball,football,track and field,cross country,cheer, etc.