Question: Is Golf Considered a True Sport?

Golf is not the most challenging sport. Contrary to popular belief, golf is not the most difficult sport. For instance, consider wrestling, which demands a greater degree of physical and mental prowess than golf. In wrestling, a momentary lapse in attention can cost you the match. Conversely, in golf, a loss of focus might result in a poor shot, but it doesn't automatically mean you lose the tournament. In wrestling, a split-second lapse can lead to an immediate defeat, unlike golf, where the consequences are less severe. As someone who has wrestled for seven years and played golf for five, I can attest to the fact that wrestling requires a higher level of mental acuity because it necessitates quick reflexes and split-second decision-making.

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

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

My last round arguments was seen mostly jokes, But however in this round I will get more serious. DRUGS IN SPORT The use of performance enhancing drugs in the modern Olympics is on record as early as the games of the third Olympiad, When Thomas Hicks won the marathon after receiving an injection of strychnine in the middle of the race. 1 The first official ban on "stimulating substances" by a sporting organisation was introduced by the International Amateur Athletic Federation in 1928. 2 Using drugs to cheat in sport is not new, But it is becoming more effective. In 1976, The East German swimming team won 11 out of 13 Olympic events, And later sued the government for giving them anabolic steroids. 3 Yet despite the health risks, And despite the regulating bodies" attempts to eliminate drugs from sport, The use of illegal substances is widely known to be rife. It hardly raises an eyebrow now when some famous athlete fails a dope test. In 1992, Vicky Rabinowicz interviewed small groups of athletes. She found that Olympic athletes, In general, Believed that most successful athletes were using banned substances. 4 Much of the writing on the use of drugs in sport is focused on this kind of anecdotal evidence. There is very little rigorous, Objective evidence because the athletes are doing something that is taboo, Illegal, And sometimes highly dangerous. The anecdotal picture tells us that our attempts to eliminate drugs from sport have failed. In the absence of good evidence, We need an analytical argument to determine what we should do. CONDEMNED TO CHEATING? We are far from the days of amateur sporting competition. Elite athletes can earn tens of millions of dollars every year in prize money alone, And millions more in sponsorships and endorsements. The lure of success is great. But the penalties for cheating are small. A six month or one year ban from competition is a small penalty to pay for further years of multimillion dollar success. Drugs are much more effective today than they were in the days of strychnine and sheep"s testicles. Studies involving the anabolic steroid androgen showed that, Even in doses much lower than those used by athletes, Muscular strength could be improved by 5"20%. 5 Most athletes are also relatively unlikely to ever undergo testing. The International Amateur Athletic Federation estimates that only 10"15% of participating athletes are tested in each major competition. 6 The enormous rewards for the winner, The effectiveness of the drugs, And the low rate of testing all combine to create a cheating "game" that is irresistible to athletes. Kjetil Haugen7 investigated the suggestion that athletes face a kind of prisoner"s dilemma regarding drugs. His game theoretic model shows that, Unless the likelihood of athletes being caught doping was raised to unrealistically high levels, Or the payoffs for winning were reduced to unrealistically low levels, Athletes could all be predicted to cheat. The current situation for athletes ensures that this is likely, Even though they are worse off as a whole if everyone takes drugs, Than if nobody takes drugs. Drugs such as erythropoietin (EPO) and growth hormone are natural chemicals in the body. As technology advances, Drugs have become harder to detect because they mimic natural processes. In a few years, There will be many undetectable drugs. Haugen"s analysis predicts the obvious: that when the risk of being caught is zero, Athletes will all choose to cheat. The recent Olympic games in Athens were the first to follow the introduction of a global anti-doping code. From the lead up to the games to the end of competition, 3000 drug tests were carried out: 2600 urine tests and 400 blood tests for the endurance enhancing drug EPO. 8 From these, 23 athletes were found to have taken a banned substance"the most ever in an Olympic games. 9 Ten of the men"s weightlifting competitors were excluded. The goal of "cleaning" up the sport is unattainable. Further down the track the spectre of genetic enhancement looms dark and large. UNFAIR? People do well at sport as a result of the genetic lottery that happened to deal them a winning hand. Genetic tests are available to identify those with the greatest potential. If you have one version of the ACE gene, You will be better at long distance events. If you have another, You will be better at short distance events. Black Africans do better at short distance events because of biologically superior muscle type and bone structure. Sport discriminates against the genetically unfit. Sport is the province of the genetic elite (or freak). The starkest example is the Finnish skier Eero Maentyranta. In 1964, He won three gold medals. Subsequently it was found he had a genetic mutation that meant that he "naturally" had 40"50% more red blood cells than average. 15 Was it fair that he had significant advantage given to him by chance? The ability to perform well in sporting events is determined by the ability to deliver oxygen to muscles. Oxygen is carried by red blood cells. The more red blood cells, The more oxygen you can carry. This in turn controls an athlete"s performance in aerobic exercise. EPO is a natural hormone that stimulates red blood cell production, Raising the packed cell volume (PCV)"the percentage of the blood comprised of red blood cells. EPO is produced in response to anaemia, Haemorrhage, Pregnancy, Or living at altitude. Athletes began injecting recombinant human EPO in the 1970s, And it was officially banned in 1985. 16 At sea level, The average person has a PCV of 0. 4"0. 5. It naturally varies; 5% of people have a packed cell volume above 0. 5, 17 and that of elite athletes is more likely to exceed 0. 5, Either because their high packed cell volume has led them to success in sport or because of their training. 18 Raising the PCV too high can cause health problems. The risk of harm rapidly rises as PCV gets above 50%. One study showed that in men whose PCV was 0. 51 or more, Risk of stroke was significantly raised (relative risk R02;=R02; 2. 5), After adjustment for other causes of stroke. 19 At these levels, Raised PCV combined with hypertension would cause a ninefold increase in stroke risk. In endurance sports, Dehydration causes an athlete"s blood to thicken, Further raising blood viscosity and pressure. 20 What begins as a relatively low risk of stroke or heart attack can rise acutely during exercise. In the early 1990s, After EPO doping gained popularity but before tests for its presence were available, Several Dutch cyclists died in their sleep due to inexplicable cardiac arrest. This has been attributed to high levels of EPO doping. 21 The risks from raising an athlete"s PCV too high are real and serious. Use of EPO is endemic in cycling and many other sports. In 1998, The Festina team was expelled from the Tour de France after trainer Willy Voet was caught with 400 vials of performance enhancing drugs. 22 The following year, The World Anti-Doping Agency was established as a result of the scandal. However, EPO is extremely hard to detect and its use has continued. Italy"s Olympic anti-doping director observed in 2003 that the amount of EPO sold in Italy outweighed the amount needed for sick people by a factor of six. 23 In addition to trying to detect EPO directly, The International Cycling Union requires athletes to have a PCV no higher than 0. 5. But 5% of people naturally have a PCV higher than 0. 5. Athletes with a naturally high PCV cannot race unless doctors do a number of tests to show that their PCV is natural. Charles Wegelius was a British rider who was banned and then cleared in 2003. He had had his spleen removed in 1998 after an accident, And as the spleen removes red blood cells, Its absence resulted in an increased PCV. 24 There are other ways to increase the number of red blood cells that are legal. Altitude training can push the PCV to dangerous, Even fatal, Levels. More recently, Hypoxic air machines have been used to simulate altitude training. The body responds by releasing natural EPO and growing more blood cells, So that it can absorb more oxygen with every breath. The Hypoxico promotional material quotes Tim Seaman, A US athlete, Who claims that the hypoxic air tent has "given my blood the legal "boost" that it needs to be competitive at the world level. "25 There is one way to boost an athlete"s number of red blood cells that is completely undetectable:26 autologous blood doping. In this process, Athletes remove some blood, And reinject it after their body has made new blood to replace it. This method was popular before recombinant human EPO became available. "By allowing everyone to take performance enhancing drugs, We level the playing field. " There is no difference between elevating your blood count by altitude training, By using a hypoxic air machine, Or by taking EPO. But the last is illegal. Some competitors have high PCVs and an advantage by luck. Some can afford hypoxic air machines. Is this fair? Nature is not fair. Ian Thorpe has enormous feet which give him an advantage that no other swimmer can get, No matter how much they exercise. Some gymnasts are more flexible, And some basketball players are seven feet tall. By allowing everyone to take performance enhancing drugs, We level the playing field. We remove the effects of genetic inequality. Far from being unfair, Allowing performance enhancement promotes equality.

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

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

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

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.

all star cheerleading is a competitive sport that takes a lot of practice and hard work to win at the competitions. People may think that it is not a sport but it is.... all star cheerleaders have to be in great shape to pull off there routine and remember the whole thing exactly.... the competition is judged by levels and is judged by stunts, pyramids, formations, spacing ,gymnastics running and standing, also by motions and sharpness of them, it is judged by creativity and difficulty of the routine.

Hey Chris,This is not a serious debate. It will be light hearted and jokes/minor insults are allowed. No conduct points should be taken away for these things.BoP is sharedAll 3 rounds for debateMay the best sport win.Limit 3 arguments per round + rebuttals.I'll start off with some arguments. 1) Basketball uses a ball.Ball sports are obviously better than non-ball sports, and a ball is a lot less dangerous than a puck. A common hockey injury2) Basketball takes less skill to playAnyone can pick up a ball and throw it into a hoop, hockey takes skill and skating around on the ice is hard enough by itself. Even kids can play. Fun for the whole family.3) Basketball is cheap to playAll you need is a ball and a hoop. Struggle basketball being played by kids. Minimal resources required.As we can see, hockey is clearly more expensive, harder to play, and more dangerous than basketball.

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


Question: Is Golf Considered a True Sport?

Table Tennis is More Physically Demanding than Golf

In this debate, I will argue that table tennis is not more of a sport than golf, primarily because "sport" is a noun and cannot be quantified as more of itself than another noun. However, for the sake of argument, let's compare the physical demands and skills required in both sports.

Starting with the force required in each sport, we can calculate the number of swings or hits and the force applied to the equipment and balls. For table tennis, we have 21,168 swings, while golf has 450 tee-offs. Dividing the number of swings in table tennis by the number of tee-offs in golf gives us 47.04. Now, let's calculate the force required to swing a table tennis paddle and a golf club. A table tennis paddle weighs 77 grams, and the force applied is 1.875 m/s^2, resulting in 0.144375 Newtons. A golf club weighs 115 grams, and the force applied is 78 m/s^2, resulting in 8.970 Newtons. Dividing the force required to swing a golf club by the force required to swing a table tennis paddle gives us 62.129870, which is significantly higher than 47.04. This means that it requires more force to swing a golf club 450 times than it does to swing a table tennis paddle 21,168 times.

Next, let's consider the force required to hit the balls in each sport. A table tennis ball requires 0.0050625 Newtons of force, while a golf ball requires 3.58254 Newtons of force. Dividing the force required to hit a golf ball by the force required to hit a table tennis ball gives us 707.6622222, which is much higher than 47.04. This means that it requires more force to hit a golf ball 450 times than it does to hit a table tennis ball 21,168 times.

My opponent conceded that there are more variables affecting golf than table tennis, and the increased force required to swing a golf club and hit a golf ball makes it more difficult to consistently win at golf. However, my opponent could not assign a numerical value to these variables

I contend that hunting for sport should be illegal. Humans are an an omnivorous species and as such we raise and keep "slaughter houses" where animals are kept and killed for the purpose of food consumption. While some morally object to this practice, most of us don't worry about where our food comes from - we just like to eat it. Eating is the primary reason for the acceptance of this murder. We accept that in addition to tastiness, animal consumption has been a natural process for our species since the dawn of humanity, and offers nutrients and other health benefits that protein substitutes and vitamins simply do not. However, hunters don't kill for the purpose of nourishing humanity or even for the traditional enjoyment of food consumption that has been culturally sustained throughout the globe for ages. Instead, hunters kill purely for their own enjoyment or "sport." The problem with considering hunting a sport is that usually when one chooses to engage in sport, i.e. basketball, football or even swimming, his or her competitors or even the individual themself knows and chooses to participate in that activity. With hunting, the animal being killed has absolutely no inclination that they are participating in this so called "sport." Lisa from the great movie My Cousin Vinny describes, "Imagine you're a deer. You're prancing along. You get thirsty. You spot a little brook. You put your little deer lips down to the cool, clear water... BAM! A f****** bullet rips off part of your head! Your brains are lying on the ground in little bloody pieces!" An animal has no way of knowing that they are being hunted for one's amusement. They are not choosing to participate in the sport. They are not challenging you or accepting the challenge of your hunting skills vs. their survival skills. Thus, it's murder. An analogy to demonstrate this reasoning is boxing or Ultimate Fighting. If one were to randomly select someone to beat the living crap out of, it would be battery/assault. But when both opponents are choosing to consciensously participate in a battle of the senses, technique or skill, THEN and only then is it a SPORT. Now, Con has mentioned that overhunting is only the third leading cause for animal extinction in the world. While that may be true, it doesn't mean that hunting or overhunting should still be permissible simply because there are 2 more prominent causes. For instance, if larceny is the 3rd most committed crime in the United States, should that make it morally permissible or any less worth prosecuting simply because theft and burglary come in at numbers 1 and 2? Clearly no, if the act (larceny) is inherently wrong. So far I have argued that hunting for sport is inherently wrong because it is done for the sole enjoyment of taking pride in one's ability to kill another innocent being without a warranted necessity. Con has stated, "hunters hunt for the adrenaline of game getting close, the challenge of getting game, and the overall anticipation of the hunt." In other words they like the challenge of seeing if they can overcome animal instincts and defeat (kill) their "enemy." Two counters- One, this is a cheap experiment/win for humanity, as we are equipped with guns and other tools/devices that are man-made and do not come solely from nature. If we truly wanted to compete, we would use home-made spears and other minor devices instead of automatic rifles. And two, given today's technological advances, it is more than feasible to assume that we could invent some sort of system that allows humans to test their skill and ability without having to actually kill a living and innocent being. Consider Duck Hunt the Nintendo video game (hopefully some of you are old enough to remember that)... If my 14 year old opponent cannot, think about other more realistic yet censored and safe forms of competition, i.e. paintball. It is a way to act out a "war" against conscious opponents, without causing any type of real death or destruction. I contend that we can develop a program or game or SOMETHING to give hunters the "adrenaline" they so desperately seek, without having to comprimise the lives of animals, the morality of killing in general, OR the reality that many animals have and continue to go extinct because of this heinous "sport." This also effectively counters Con's point that hunting is not a slaughter, simply because "only GOOD" hunters actually achieve the kill. What kind of flawed logic is that?! That's like saying a singer is only a singer if they are good at singing. Clearly that is not the case. Next Con points out that no animal has gone extinct in North America since 1950 due to hunting. Again I have two counters. One, why is North America being singled out? He fails to mention other continents that continuously have animals going extinct thanks to human interference and overhunting. Two, he is absolutely wrong with his assertion. "By 2010, there will be no more fish in the North Atlantic. Scientists claim this is because of major overfishing in the area, which will result in everyone eating only jellyfish sandwiches. The North Atlantic catches have fallen by half since 1950, and the devastating decrease of ocean organisms are still continuing at a faster rate than ever before. Fish prices have risen a sixth fold during that time because of such demand for more fish. The only way to curb the amount of fish in the North Atlantic is to decrease the amount of fishing drastically, or else all hopes will be gone." Source- http://www.animalsgoingextinct.blogspot.com... Fishing, according to Con's definition, does count as a form of hunting. Another thing to consider is that legal hunting makes it possible for the wrong people to obtain licenses for weapons and firearms which can be dangerous to society. If hunting were illegal, the number of gun licenses would be drastically decreased, thus there would be less opportunity for the practice of illegal gun sales and trade. Also keep in mind that an instigated appreciation for violence for children of a young age can be dangerous to their mental health and the safety of others. Psychologists note that a violent tendency towards animals is an indication that one will harbor violent thoughts and carry out depraved actions as an adult. Now I'm not saying that all hunters are crazy psycho killers, however, the idea that a CHILD can be allowed to own a gun and use it to kill something (and possibly someone!) when they can't even legally buy a pack of cigarettes until they're 18 seems like incredibly backwards logic. On a final note, I'd like to note note that even if a hunter DID kill for food (and not just hanging a pair of antlers or stuffed animal skin on their walls), it is still wrong as it is not a warranted necessity. Legal "slaughter houses" exist which are far more government regulated than any hunting law could be. It is strictly enforced that these habitats exist at a certain standard of production and performance. And while I'm not arguing that they are more morally permissible than hunting, it is common knowledge that the likelihood of their perpetuated existance is far greater than the notion that most people hunt (or even many people, as most people do not), so they will continue to exist. Establishing hunting laws is not difficult, but enforcing them is. Thus if there is a legal and relatively safe way to raise and utilize animals for food, clothing, or whatever your preferred use may be, then hunting is an immoral and frivolous activity which comprimises the life of innocent creatures for the sake of some people's amusement.

If we go by the dictionary definition, then yes, cheerleading is a sport but I'm more interested in society's definition versus dictionary definition. "An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment." "There ARE competitions for it" -There are Magic the Gathering competitions too. Which is, most definitely, not a sport. "And also it requires a lot of strength and courage." -So does oil rigging. "It's also very dangerous" -So is oil rigging. "It's more dangerous than football." -So is oil rigging. "And whoever decides to debate this an says its NOT a sport is either talking about football cheer which isn't a much of a sport as competition cheer or they have never cheered before and don't understand what it takes. I'm a base and it takes a lot of strength to do it." -This has nothing to do with anything. Just because you can compare cheerleading to sports that are considered sports doesn't mean it's accepted as a sport.

Ah, now i understand where your arguments come from. To the inexperienced chess player, much of the game is considered luck, and it is based on the phenomenon known as hope chess. This is where the players hope for their opponents to mess up so they may win by sheer luck. Now on the the points made by the affirmation, " Often, masters will have a "feeling" about a position and follow this. " This is absolutely correct. and this is known as intuition, which is developed by skill, that is, when masters play for such a long time, they tend to find and use patterns, and when they go with a gut feeling, that is merely because they encountered a similar scenario previously and they therefore knew how to deal with it. If it helps think of a game of chess like a multiple choice math test with 20 questions. While you may be lucky with a guess, it is in no way a substitute for skill and understanding. I would like to thank the affirmation for providing such strong arguments, and I would also like to urge the Voters to vote in favor of whichever side they felt performed better. Thank you!

I accept this argument. As an ice hockey player myself, I think so as well, but it's all a matter of opinion. Pro must accept the BoP and must logically prove and provide evidence that hockey is indeed the best sport.

It was very kind of you to take me into consideration. Video games can benefit people in various ways, and therefore, are not bad for all people. Video games can include exercise, like on the Nintendo Wii, and can actually help people in school if they are educational games. Different games can help in different classes.

So my opponent has conceded that in swimming people don't compete against other people, but only themselves. But the thing is that in soccer you compete against other people and yourself. Soccer players compete against themselves so they can compete against other players and win. It's not like Messi or whomever you think is the best soccer player, stops practicing. Soccer players practice so they can improve their skills. They also compete against themselves by, for example, juggling. Soccer players push themselves to be better at the sport. Then my opponent says that there is a more of a chance for people to get injured in soccer than in swimming, but I see no evidence presented for this assertion, therefore I ask pro to provide it with the link. Then my opponent claims that you burn more calories in swimming, but that's good depending on the person. For example, that would be bad for someone who is underweight and is trying to gain weight. Therefore that point is futile. Pay If you look at one of the top paid, I don't even know if he is the top paid, Messi has a net worth of 218 million. The richest swimmer I found is Michael Phelps, and he has a net worth of 55 million. http://www.alux.com...

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.

The point that I was trying to get across when saying Battlefront is a casual game is that you said that you played the game and got to a high level fairly quickly, and therefore said there was no skill in the game, which is entirely untrue. I concede that Battlefront does not require much skill, but like I said, it is a casual game. Casual games are not meant to be hard or difficult, they are just meant to be fun. You then go on to say that "just because golf seems like a casual sport, it isn't sport?" Golf is meant to be a sport, but it can be taken casually as well which brings me onto you continuing to insist that button mashing is all gaming is. If that were true, then I could say that hitting a ball with a stick is all Golf is, but as I said previously, there is more to it than just that. If you want to play Golf competitively, you have to know things like how the wind affects the ball, and many other factors that I do not know of as I do not play Golf - it isn't really something I'm very interested in. As with football (or soccer as you call it), yes it's a sport, but it is non-contact sport. Which means that if you are talking about contact sports, you wouldn't include football as it is not that kind of sport, just how I do not include Battlefront as it is not the kind of game I am talking about. Button mashing isn't all it takes to play a video game. I do see your logic and your reasoning, but it is very flawed. Button mashing would be just that - mashing all the buttons with no thought or clear purpose. Maybe there's a quick time event that requires you to mash a certain button, but if you went into a competitive match of CS:GO and simply mashed all the buttons when you saw someone, you would die very quickly. As I stated previously, the definition of skill is being good at something, and the kind skill required to play CS:GO and to play Golf are quite different. In CS:GO, you need to react faster than your opponent and have the skill to be accurate enough to land most of your shots on their body and kill them before they can kill you. You need to know how grenades will bounce of off surfaces so you know the best angles at which the throw them. You need to know how to counter each weapon in the game so as to minimise the chances of getting killed by them. In Golf, you need to know wind patterns, you need to know the right pitch at which to hit the ball, and many other things that again, I do not know. My point here is that pressing the right things at the right time is very different to button mashing which will get you nowhere. I have never played rugby before as, again, it is not something I particularly enjoy, be it real life or video game. However, I do understand that playing rugby in real life is a lot harder than playing rugby on a video game, however every rugby game out there is a casual game meant for fun, so it is not going to be very hard. If a rugby game was made targeting the hardcore gamers, it would include mechanics to suit that and button mashing would be out of the equation. It would be hard and it would need skill. You would have to know what buttons to press and when, and it would punish you for making a mistake, just like real rugby would. You go on to say that the skill CS:GO players is laughable. Well, let me ask you a question: How many competitive matches of CS:GO have you played? Just like how you said that if you were to pit me against professional rugby players, I wouldn't stand a chance, the same is true for you. You simply would not stand a chance because yes, you can learn how to play quickly (the whole point of tutorials), but that doesn't mean you can compete against Fnatic or other professional teams. These are people that know the ins and outs of the game and know just what to do, when to do it, and how to do it to near perfection. Yes, you could sit down some rugby players and they'll learn how to play in a minute (again, the whole point of tutorials), but if you gave CS:GO players and a gun and told them to shoot a target, they would learn pretty quickly how to control the gun and hit the target because they are much smarter than you give them credit for. I used the example of Snooker to try and tell you that you need to look beyond the surface because Snooker is something I know and love and so I can talk about confidently and know about I'm talking about, and it's a real life example of a sport that if you look at it just on the surface (like what you're doing with video games) it's very basic and technically shouldn't be a sport, but when you look at all the different aspects and requirements, you can see that Snooker is actually quite complex and requires a high level of skill. You say that you laught at the fact that I say there is strategy in CS:GO, and once again I ask you, how many times have you played CS:GO competitively, or even watch players play on YouTube? If you were to watch the right people, you would see that good players communicate and form plans. For example, you may throw a smoke and then have one person flank and wait behind enemy lines, and then either give a distraction for the person behind the smoke to rush, or wait for one or more of the enemy to go into the smoke to see what's behind there. Sometimes 3 or 4 people can be behind that smoke to ambush the people they they know are going to come through eventually. Sometimes, it could be a mere distraction so that they are focused on the smoke, thinking some people are going to rush through, only to come behind them and attack where they aren't looking. I have had cases where good communication has led to a pincer movement and won us the game because the enemies attention is split between two attacking groups. I understand your reasoning for your disdain towards gaming, but it's simply not fair to judge gaming the way you do. You can't really compare games to real life and say there's no skill in doing x because doing y does this and that, because they are two very different things each with their own kind of skill. To compare them is to compare Star Trek to Star Wars and say which one is better. They both go about the sci-fi theme very differently. One likes to be more scientific about it, the other likes to be more fun and action filled.

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

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


Question: Is Golf Considered a True Sport?

Golf is More of a Sport than Ping Pong

Definition: Sport-noun: 1. 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. (1) Noun: The part of speech that names a person, place, thing, or idea. In sentences, nouns generally function as subjects or as objects. (2) Adjective: A part of speech that describes a noun or pronoun. (3) Contention one: Nouns are not qualitative. Nouns are people, places, things, or ideas. If something falls under the category of being a noun, it is on the same level of being the aforementioned noun as every other noun that is the aforementioned noun. No sport can be "more of a sport" than another sport. Arguing that one sport is "more of a sport" would be like arguing that one sentence is more of a sentence than another sentence. A sport is the definition of a sport, therefore nothing may be more of a sport than a sport. My opponent agrees that "Golf is a very physically demanding SPORT. .. " and "Ping Pong on the other hand is a SPORT" then they agree that both Golf and Ping Pong are sports. If both are sports, and nothing can be more of a sport than a sport, then they are equal sports. Contention two: Golf is a more difficult sport to consistently win at. a) Sports are "often of a competitive nature", which means that the goal of the sport is to win. b) Ping pong directly sets two opponents (or four) against each other, and 'points' are made when an opponent makes an error that include such things as: "Allowing the ball to bounce on one's own side more than once. Double hitting the ball. Allowing the ball to strike anything other than the racket. Causing the ball not to bounce on the opponent's half. "(4) The player (or team) that reaches a point threshold first in considered the winner. c) Golf also directly sets opponents against each other, however, the number of opponents is normally much higher than the number of opponents in Ping Pong. (5) Naturally, the more opponents there are, the harder it is for any one player to consistently win. Also, golf courses are not nearly as controlled as Ping Pong tables, and it is therefore easier for variables to randomly cause a

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

I contend that hunting for sport should be illegal. Humans are an an omnivorous species and as such we raise and keep "slaughter houses" where animals are kept and killed for the purpose of food consumption. While some morally object to this practice, most of us don't worry about where our food comes from - we just like to eat it. Eating is the primary reason for the acceptance of this murder. We accept that in addition to tastiness, animal consumption has been a natural process for our species since the dawn of humanity, and offers nutrients and other health benefits that protein substitutes and vitamins simply do not. However, hunters don't kill for the purpose of nourishing humanity or even for the traditional enjoyment of food consumption that has been culturally sustained throughout the globe for ages. Instead, hunters kill purely for their own enjoyment or "sport." The problem with considering hunting a sport is that usually when one chooses to engage in sport, i.e. basketball, football or even swimming, his or her competitors or even the individual themself knows and chooses to participate in that activity. With hunting, the animal being killed has absolutely no inclination that they are participating in this so called "sport." Lisa from the great movie My Cousin Vinny describes, "Imagine you're a deer. You're prancing along. You get thirsty. You spot a little brook. You put your little deer lips down to the cool, clear water... BAM! A f****** bullet rips off part of your head! Your brains are lying on the ground in little bloody pieces!" An animal has no way of knowing that they are being hunted for one's amusement. They are not choosing to participate in the sport. They are not challenging you or accepting the challenge of your hunting skills vs. their survival skills. Thus, it's murder. An analogy to demonstrate this reasoning is boxing or Ultimate Fighting. If one were to randomly select someone to beat the living crap out of, it would be battery/assault. But when both opponents are choosing to consciensously participate in a battle of the senses, technique or skill, THEN and only then is it a SPORT. Now, Con has mentioned that overhunting is only the third leading cause for animal extinction in the world. While that may be true, it doesn't mean that hunting or overhunting should still be permissible simply because there are 2 more prominent causes. For instance, if larceny is the 3rd most committed crime in the United States, should that make it morally permissible or any less worth prosecuting simply because theft and burglary come in at numbers 1 and 2? Clearly no, if the act (larceny) is inherently wrong. So far I have argued that hunting for sport is inherently wrong because it is done for the sole enjoyment of taking pride in one's ability to kill another innocent being without a warranted necessity. Con has stated, "hunters hunt for the adrenaline of game getting close, the challenge of getting game, and the overall anticipation of the hunt." In other words they like the challenge of seeing if they can overcome animal instincts and defeat (kill) their "enemy." Two counters- One, this is a cheap experiment/win for humanity, as we are equipped with guns and other tools/devices that are man-made and do not come solely from nature. If we truly wanted to compete, we would use home-made spears and other minor devices instead of automatic rifles. And two, given today's technological advances, it is more than feasible to assume that we could invent some sort of system that allows humans to test their skill and ability without having to actually kill a living and innocent being. Consider Duck Hunt the Nintendo video game (hopefully some of you are old enough to remember that)... If my 14 year old opponent cannot, think about other more realistic yet censored and safe forms of competition, i.e. paintball. It is a way to act out a "war" against conscious opponents, without causing any type of real death or destruction. I contend that we can develop a program or game or SOMETHING to give hunters the "adrenaline" they so desperately seek, without having to comprimise the lives of animals, the morality of killing in general, OR the reality that many animals have and continue to go extinct because of this heinous "sport." This also effectively counters Con's point that hunting is not a slaughter, simply because "only GOOD" hunters actually achieve the kill. What kind of flawed logic is that?! That's like saying a singer is only a singer if they are good at singing. Clearly that is not the case. Next Con points out that no animal has gone extinct in North America since 1950 due to hunting. Again I have two counters. One, why is North America being singled out? He fails to mention other continents that continuously have animals going extinct thanks to human interference and overhunting. Two, he is absolutely wrong with his assertion. "By 2010, there will be no more fish in the North Atlantic. Scientists claim this is because of major overfishing in the area, which will result in everyone eating only jellyfish sandwiches. The North Atlantic catches have fallen by half since 1950, and the devastating decrease of ocean organisms are still continuing at a faster rate than ever before. Fish prices have risen a sixth fold during that time because of such demand for more fish. The only way to curb the amount of fish in the North Atlantic is to decrease the amount of fishing drastically, or else all hopes will be gone." Source- http://www.animalsgoingextinct.blogspot.com... Fishing, according to Con's definition, does count as a form of hunting. Another thing to consider is that legal hunting makes it possible for the wrong people to obtain licenses for weapons and firearms which can be dangerous to society. If hunting were illegal, the number of gun licenses would be drastically decreased, thus there would be less opportunity for the practice of illegal gun sales and trade. Also keep in mind that an instigated appreciation for violence for children of a young age can be dangerous to their mental health and the safety of others. Psychologists note that a violent tendency towards animals is an indication that one will harbor violent thoughts and carry out depraved actions as an adult. Now I'm not saying that all hunters are crazy psycho killers, however, the idea that a CHILD can be allowed to own a gun and use it to kill something (and possibly someone!) when they can't even legally buy a pack of cigarettes until they're 18 seems like incredibly backwards logic. On a final note, I'd like to note note that even if a hunter DID kill for food (and not just hanging a pair of antlers or stuffed animal skin on their walls), it is still wrong as it is not a warranted necessity. Legal "slaughter houses" exist which are far more government regulated than any hunting law could be. It is strictly enforced that these habitats exist at a certain standard of production and performance. And while I'm not arguing that they are more morally permissible than hunting, it is common knowledge that the likelihood of their perpetuated existance is far greater than the notion that most people hunt (or even many people, as most people do not), so they will continue to exist. Establishing hunting laws is not difficult, but enforcing them is. Thus if there is a legal and relatively safe way to raise and utilize animals for food, clothing, or whatever your preferred use may be, then hunting is an immoral and frivolous activity which comprimises the life of innocent creatures for the sake of some people's amusement.

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

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.

<< However, hunters don't kill for the purpose of nourishing humanity or even for the traditional enjoyment of food consumption that has been culturally sustained throughout the globe for ages. Instead, hunters kill purely for their own enjoyment or "sport. ">> Hunters kill for nourishing themselves as well. Farm raised animals don't have the same taste as wild game. We kill for the anticipation and challenge of the hunt. Hunters aren't happy that they JUST killed something. They're happy that they succeeded in the hunt and that they overcame the challenges of nature. < > 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. (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) Let's see, hunting requires skill, physical prowess, and a competitive nature. Oh look at that, hunting and fishing are even in the definition. :D < > Murder-the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) Animal- An animal organism other than a human, especially a mammal. (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) It seems to me that killing an animal is not considered murder by our definition's and law. < > This is worldwide where [modern] hunting (the hunting we're talking about) does not always take place. Meaning even with barbaric forms of hunting still out there, it doesn't cause as much extinctions as things like housebuilding. This debate is over [modern] hunting in the U. S. as I have already stated in Round 1. < > You obviously don't know your hunting facts. Hunting with automatic rifles (i. e. M15's, AK47's) is illegal. A hunter is allowed 5 shots in a magazine for big game and 3 for waterfowl. Those three shots are semi-automatic, not automatic. As in, the person has to eject each shell casing and then pull the trigger again. 5 shots is almost never used unless the animal is already down. Going back to the old saying "One shot, one deer. Two shots, maybe one deer. Three shots, no deer. " Most of the time after that first shot goes off you aren't going to get another one off. Those things run FAST! I have never heard of a person shooting a deer on his 3rd shot. I've only seen someone hit one on his second shot on TV, and he was a professional. With ducks you won't get more than 2 good shots off most of the time. The only time you ever will is if they land. Hunting with spears and bow and arrow would almost be impossible. It took indians years of experience to hunt big game successfully. Even the most experienced could only shoot ducks sitting on the water, and to sneak up on them and get close enough, which is very hard to do. With big game they would have to set traps (illegal, as it should be) for the big game, or they would get in big hunting parties on horseback and round up large herds of animals on open plains and push them into an ambush. Not easy in a dense forest. You have obviously never hunted, so don't act like you know it's easy. People who are serious about hunting spend hundres to thousands of dollars to get the right equipment. They wake up as early as 1 o'clock in the morning and sometimes even camp out overnight. Very few things in this world are more challenging hunting. It's physically exerting, mentally tough, expensive, and. .. probably one of the best experience in the world for some. <> I remember that duck hunting game as a kid. I wanted it so badly but never got it :(. Once again, since you've never gone hunting, you wouldn't know that there is a game that can compare to hunting. Paintballing is fun but the anticipation is different and so is the sense of triumph. I can't explain it to you, you'd have to experience it to really understand. All I can say is that when I've gone paintballing it comes no where close to hunting. < > Once again, you obviously have never gone hunting. Only "good" hunters ever get any game because bad hunters scare away the game, never see the game, or always miss their shots at the game. You're analogy should be changed to: Only good hunters get the game, although others can be hunters while Only good singers are listened too, eve though others can sing. < > "This debate is over whether or not modern hunting (hunting with rules and regulations) in the U. S. shold be forbidden. " Because that's what the debate is over, according to my first sentence of this debate. <<"By 2010, there will be no more fish in the North Atlantic. Scientists claim this is because of major overfishing in the area, which will result in everyone eating only jellyfish sandwiches. >> I refute the reliability of the source used. It's a blog. We're debating hunting, not fishing. Fishing is a sub-category of "hunting". While "hunting" is the other part of the general term "hunting". We're debating hunting not fishing. However, this is exactly why we need to install rules and regulations on overfishing. That's what [modern] hunting is all about. Having rules and regulations put in place when needed due to certain events. We make rules to stop overfishing, we stop fish declination. <> If people are really wanting to get guns to do something bad, it doesn't matter if hunting is illegal. We're not debating gun rights. If hunting was illegal, people would still buy guns to commit crimes. They just wouldn't also use the guns for hunting, just crime. Children aren't allowed to use guns without an adult around, or hunter safety. Without hunters, wild populations would get out of control and ruin ecosystem. (. http://query.nytimes.com...) No characters

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

Almost ALL arguments made on either of our parts are going to be a matter of opinion due to the nature of the debate topic at hand. It is our job to refine our points and exemplify that our arguments are stronger than our respective opponent's; the better competitor will (hopefully) win the most votes. With that said, I will begin by again refuting your argument that baseball is a better sport because of its slower pace laid-back nature. I disagree, sighting the fact that sports in general became popular and celebrated during the time of the Ancient Greeks, in an era where men participated in the first Olympic games and attempted to display superiroity in various aspects of athleticism. Using their bodies, men came to compete and win against their opponents by methods of paramount strength, agility, speed, talent, wit, etc. Generally, when people are able to move and think at a faster pace, it is deemed a more challenging feat. An example is a timed game of chess; people who perform at top-speed or play chess with a time clock are said to be better chess players. Thus a sport that requires a more fast paced tempo can arguably be considered more challenging when using the logic that I have put forth. More challenging means consistent room for improvement, and a better way to exemplify talent and superiority in various areas practically synonomous with sports (i.e. strength and stamina). Also, not every game of basketball has to be fast paced. There are many teams, in fact, that are actually known to both prefer and excel during a more "laid back" game of basketball. However, the benefit of basketball over baseball is that one can always choose to either increase or decrease the level of intensity (tempo) of a game, whereas baseball is pretty consistent with its timing and pace. In regard to a time clock vs. set number of innings required for a game, my point was not to argue that a timeclock is of greater value than a set number of innings or plays, but rather to provide an example of why having to "beat the clock" provides a greater adrenaline rush. Like I said, you can't really do much to change the tempo of a baseball game, whereas with basketball you can say, "Ok - there's only a little time left - we have to pick up the pace!" The game gets more exciting that way for both the players (who have to think on their feet and perform), and the fans who watch in anticipation to see if their team can overcome the pressure, and prevail by outsmarting and outplaying their opponents. I can also provide a more than sufficient rebuttal to your claim that it's beneficial for everyone on the team to have equal at-bats, whereas basketball consists of various players taking different amounts of shots. My main point is that the concept of teamwork doesn't have to do with individual performances being put together to create one result, but rather a collaborative effort to virtually ignore individual success, and focus instead on the achievements of the TEAM as a whole. In other words, people on basketball teams aren't *supposed* to take the same number of shots. The beauty of it is that each position is equally important and consists of different "tasks" and responsibilities. For instance, I would expect a Shooting Guard or a Forward to take more shots than a Point Guard. Reason being that the PG's "job" isn't to make baskets, per se, but rather to find an open teammate to pass the ball to in order to complete the play and make the shot. A PG's role is different than a Center's job -- that's the beauty of it. It's different positions consisting of different players working together towards a common goal. I love it. I would also like to argue your stance that baseball encourages more kids to play than basketball does. First of all, basketball players do not usually play for the duration of the entire game. In fact, it is common to see a frequent rotation of players going in and out of the game, thus making it not only possible but actually probable that 9 or more kids can participate on a basketball team. Additionally, since you brought up a sport's accessibility to children, I would like to point out that basketball is in fact a cheaper and easier sport to play than baseball. This is because someone would have to buy a glove or mitt to play baseball, whereas you only need 3 pieces of equipment (two "hoops" and a ball) to play b-ball. ALSO, due to the smaller ball and overall nature of the game, a baseball is easier to lose than a basketball, thus making basketball the better bet for kids who worry about losing equipment. Again I argue the superiority of basketball to baseball due to its more demanding physical attributes to play the game. I believe that sports were designed to exhibit superior athleticism, and you clearly most be in better physical shape and have more refined skills to play basketball over baseball. Plus, a lot of people play sports as an alternative to straight-up exercise, and basketball provides a MUCH greater work out than baseball, obviously. My opponent is correct in stating that there are neither no co-ed baseball or basketball teams; however, there is at least an official professional level agency for women's basketball, whereas baseball remains off-limits to women once they reach a professional level of their careers. Thus many girls choose to participate in basketball over baseball, because they know they have a better chance of making a living as an athlete if they chose one route over the other. And finally, your argument that it's "nicer" to enjoy a sport in sunny weather rather than indoors is lacking, to say the least. First of all, just because you enjoy being outdoors does not mean that everybody else does. What about the millions of people who have allergies and prefer being in a place where they don't have to worry about the downsides to their condition? Second, the cancellation of games due to weather conditions can be both disappointing and a huge inconvenience. This goes for both the players, the fans, and the organizations that run the games. Third, the weather outside - for instance the variation of hot and cold - has an impact on a player and their ability to perform. In an indoors arena, the level of playing field is typically very consistent, and therefore does not deter an athlete from performing at their best. Lastly on this point, you forgot that basketball doesn't HAVE to be played indoors -- there are many, many games and events that actually support and/or mandate that basketball be played outside, where players and fans can enjoy all of the "sunny weather" that you promoted in regards to the playing field of baseball. Thus where you can and cannot play a sport and when definitely gives basketball the advantage over baseball. To wrap up this around, I would also like to include several key points, including: A) Basketball allows for more strategy implementation B)Regarding professional sports, the average basketball player earns $5 million; the average baseball player earns $2 million C) Basketball requires more skill because a player must always play both the positions of offense and defense during the duration of a game. With baseball, a player can go an entire game (or even season!) without ever having to be on the defensive end of a play. With basketball, all players are resonsible for equal talent and performance on both ends of offense vs. defense; even if they fail in stealing or rebounding a ball, they still must guard their respective assignment or zone to the best of their ability to prevent their opponent from scoring D) Basketball promotes self-esteem and the notion to try and never give up. This is because small players such Muggsy Bogues stood at just 5'3" tall and weighed a mere 136 lbs, and still made it to the NBA as one of the franchise's most successful players << No more characters :P

Again I apologize for failing to submit my second round argument. Here is my original, unaltered text I failed to submit: First point you made was that 1. Skating Expends more energy than running. Second 2. Body Checking. 3. Fights/slashing/checking. 4. More time spent actually participating in and playing the sport. It may seem as though skating uses more energy than running, but there are several aspects to inspect. Skating doesn't necessarily expend/use more energy than running. When you skate you are sliding in slippery ice with little friction allowing them race around the way they do. They may have to change directions frequently, but I comes down to how hard that individual is pushing himself not the skating. Second you mentioned was body checking. Body checking is indeed rough, but taking hits and tackling in football is also rough. In hockey, players cannot out as much behind their hits. Since they are on skates they cannot get the leverage that football players get. NFL players can dig their cleats in the turf and get their center of mass much lower, giving them leverage against the player they are attempting hit/tackle. Also, the average weight of a NHl player in 2013 was around 204 lbs. [1]. The average weight of an Nfl team was in between 240-250 lbs, making the player average about 245.[2] We all know, thanks to physics that more mass equals more power. Mass x Acceleration = Force. The more weight plus more leverage equals harder more rattling hits in the Nfl than in the NHL. 3. You claim that fights, slashing and penalties make the NHL harder than the NFL. While fighting is definitely something hard to do it isn't an integrated part of the game. It certainly happens, but not every single game, and not every single player. Players aren't required to fight, and aren't expected to, it is merely a side effect you may encounter in your NhL career. Illegal checks aren't something NFL doesn't have. The NHL has illegal checking, and the NFL has blindside hits on defenseless players. They each warrant penalties and can cause serious injury. Lastly, I will not deny that NHL players overall have more time playing and participating, although they do get frequent breaks with the different line changes as NFL players get breaks in between plays. I will use your point that they are indeed playing for a longer time to benefit my argument. In 2012 the NFL had 261 diagnosed concussions. On 2013 they had 228 diagnosed concussions. [3]. The NHL had in 2012, 78 concussions and in 2013, 53. [4]. The NFL players suffer many more concussions than NHL players even with a significant difference in the amount of time playing. The NFL players even have high tech specialized helmets that are much more safe than NHL helmets, but still suffer these crippling injuries. ACL and MCL injuries are also much more ore leant in the NFL. [1. http://m.theglobeandmail.com...] [2. http://sports.espn.go.com...]. [3. http://m.espn.go.com... 4. [http://www.cnn.com...] Here is my third round text. Your first point is hand eye co-ordination. This probably belongs in the physical aspect but nonetheless it is a point. I concede, hand eye coordination for NHL players is more difficult than NFL players, but not by a large difference as the NFL has its co-ordination difficulties as well. Your second point was criticism/pressure. NFL players are under an immensely more amount of pressure than NHL players. According to Espn the NFL is the most popular sport in the USA for the 30th year in a row. [1]. The NFL clearly has more fans than the NHL (which is a shame because the NHL is a great sport). More fans, more pressure, more media, more social media, less privacy. The NFL players are exploited by the media. They're every move is being watched by everyone. Take the Ray Rice case and Peterson case. They have caused so much publicity and critisicm towards the NFL and its players. Social media has contributed greatly to this fact as anything and everything travels at great speed to the corners of the Internet. Other players such as Tim Tebow and Johhny Manziel have been dissected by the media and country. Also, every NFL team is guaranteed only 16 games to be played versus the NHL which is more than triple that. Every NFL game gets more exposure and tuned into more because people have less chances to watch their hometown heroes play. Every play counts, unlike the NHL which has a lot more room for error. Consider the Super bowl. This past super bowl with the Seahawks versus the Broncos. It was watched by 111 million viewers, the most watched televised even in the history of television. [2]. Quite unlike the Stanley cup of 2014 which averaged 2.8 million a game. [3]. Your third point is that it not only takes physical but mental strength when you are "checked, slashed, etc." this also applies to the NFL as they endure hard hits and penalties. They also endure taunting by opposing players which can be discouraging, but that varies player to player. Taunting is a lot more prevelant in the NFL than NHL. Lastly you said they must be mentally strong against losing and poor performance. This again can apply to many sports, but I believe even more so in football. With only 16 garnanteed games, there is no room for error. If you start out 0-4, your season won't look too well. Obviously it's possible to come back, but you will endure a lot of doubt from media/fans and doubt your own abilities. The NHL has 82 games per team. More than four times the amount in the NFL, you can start out 0-8 in the NHL and go on to win the Stanley cup. Start 0-8 in the NFL and your season is over. The NFL has a lot less room for error which can fry your nerves. Citation. 1. http://m.espn.go.com... 2. http://m.hollywoodreporter.com... 3. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

I accept this argument. As an ice hockey player myself, I think so as well, but it's all a matter of opinion. Pro must accept the BoP and must logically prove and provide evidence that hockey is indeed the best sport.

Why would you instigate a debate if you weren't prepared for someone to accept it? And if you intended only to have the debate accepted on your terms, why not make the qualifications to accept the debate impossible, requiring your approval? That said, I offer the following options: 1. We use Round 3/4 to make this a 2 round debate regarding your thesis "Chess should be recognized as a sport" OR 2. We mutually agree this "debate" will be a draw. And maybe next time don't instigate a debate then complain because someone accepted it. If you want to debate something but don't have the details worked out don't instigate the debate yet. Or at least make it so you have to approve an acceptance. You can't blame me for simply accepting a challenge. I'm being nice BTW by offering that second option. This seems to me to be the debate equivalent of 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nc6 3. Qh5 Nf6...o darn!! 4. Too late, you took your hand off it.