Question: Is Golf Considered a True Sport?

Table Tennis is a More Competitive Sport than Golf

Mr. Pote, I am an eighth-grader from Kansas, and I haven't had any formal debate training or classes. This is my first debate, and I will try my best to present a formal and opposing argument. I agree with my opponent's definition of a sport, and I won't contest the statement that "if both are sports, and nothing can be more of a sport than a sport, then they are equal sports."

Contention: "Golf also directly sets opponents against each other, however, the number of opponents is normally much higher than the number of opponents in Table Tennis." (5) "Naturally, the more opponents there are, the harder it is for any one player to consistently win." Golf is typically played in tournaments, except for casual games, which are not how professionals play. Similarly, Table Tennis is also a sport that is played in tournaments. Therefore, there can be an equal number of opponents in a Table Tennis tournament as there are in a golf tournament. If a golf tournament has 25 players, and a Table Tennis tournament has 25 players, Table Tennis is actually the harder game to consistently win, as there are more chances for mistakes, as you have to play multiple games to win the tournament.

"Also, golf courses are not nearly as controlled as Table Tennis tables, and it is therefore easier for variables to randomly cause a loss/victory. Golfers must not only beat their opponents, as is the sole task of Table Tennis players, but they must also beat random variables." Golf does have more variables than Table Tennis, but Table Tennis also has variables, such as the size and weight of the paddles, the weight of the balls, and the type of table. Typically, golf is played on nice days with little wind. (Sources: http://www.golflink.com... http://www.usatt.org...)

"Golf takes more skill than Table Tennis because the distance that a golf ball must be hit far exceeds the distance that a Table Tennis ball must be hit, and the golf ball must not only be hit far, it must be hit far with great accuracy. Sending a ball of roughly equal shape and size a farther distance with the same accuracy is inherently more skillful." Skill is not defined by the distance hit but the accuracy of the ball hit. It takes more skill to hit a Table Tennis ball in the exact spot that will make your opponent miss than it does to hit a golf ball in the general

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.

oh ok to me it is fair because if we all die today education is not going to make a hill of beans sports players should live life to the highest peek you would if you were a sports player or can you play any sports at all the point is tomorrow is not promised so live every day it its you last !!!!!!!!! GOD BLESS YOU

I would like to start my stating my disappointment in con for deviating from the planned debate, but we can be flexible for the sake of time and amicability. In Con's first refutation he states the he would assume that if you do not know how to ice skate he hope you would not be playing professional hockey, and I agree, but he is leaving out one major thing about professional sports. Each and everyday of their lives including their professional career they are constantly learning and re-mastering fundamental skills. So even though we are debating common fundamental skills, you can not deny that a professional player at one time had to learn how to play the game, and must continue to practice. I chose the professional level of play so that common rules would be placed into effect instead of certain rule sets where balks are not counted in baseball or checking isn't allowed in hockey, or any other rule differences among different age groups. I gave you flexibility, I think I may appeal to you for some leniency in this instance. In addition to mastering skating, which if anyone has ever tried before, you know it is very difficult to simply go slowly with your girlfriend, much less go balls out towards a puck with a defender hanging on your back. A hockey player must also learn how to use his stick as an extension of his hands, which is not easy to get used to either because the stick is not a part of your body as in soccer or basketball where you can use your feet and hands respectively. Applying more to the professional level a hockey player must also be quick to think as there is a certain strategy to the game that takes more than a couple years to master. A player must learn where to move without the puck as well as with it, and players must jostle with defenders in order to get that crucial positioning, in addition to the offensive side, players must also recognize the same opportunities the other team has while they are playing defense. Conclusion: Although Con would like to make my mastering skating argument irrelevant the fact of the matter is that hockey players must continue to practice and work hard at that skill in order to maintain their high level of play. In addition if a hockey player suffers an injury he/she must, in some cases, completely re-learn how to skate and play in general. While he/she will pick up the concept more quickly the fact of the matter is there are more skills a player must master and practice in professional ice hockey than say boxing where they must only learn to punch, or football where players must mainly know how to kick and ball handle. In Con's second refutation he/she has misunderstood the my argument. I am not saying that a sport's danger defines it's difficulty, but instead that danger compliments the skills the players on the ice possess and perform. . http://www.youtube.com... in this video we see Blackhawks defenseman Brian Campbell skate back to track down a loose puck with Capitals forward Alex Ovechkin, known as a dirty player on his back. In the video at the 0:04 mark we see Campbell look back and see Ovechkin, knowing full well that he will be hit on this play Campbell maintains focus, tracks down the puck, and gets rid of it. A display of speed, skating, hand-eye coordination, strength, and most importantly focus all in one simple hockey play. You can see it again here . http://www.youtube.com... where Vernon Fiddler at the 0:03 second mark tenses up because he knows a hit is coming but keeps focus on a get rid of the puck. I can pull this examples all day. The point is that yes hockey being dangerous does not make it the hardest sport to play, but the danger the players are put through and the skills they are expected to being able to command under that danger make ice hockey a difficult sport. In Con's their refutation we see him/her come back to a point made earlier which I have already touched upon. Even though the skills are expected of pros you can deny the fact that they have once had to learn the skills, and they must still continue to practice and master that skill in the present. But Con does bring up an interesting point, "As you see, hockey is not the only sport that requires hand-eye coordination and focus. I have shown you many other sports that require the same skills. And just in case Pro says that skating is difficult to learn, I would say swimming is much harder to learn, as there are several different strokes that you need to learn. Therefore, hockey is not the hardest sport to play on the professional level, all sports are equally difficult. " In the excerpt above con basically states that difficulty is relative, which is the whole basis of his argument, which I must admit is a tad bit annoying, no offense con, but everything can be relative. Hitler is evil to me, but I'm sure the White Power group down the street thinks of him as revolutionary, so I view your whole argument invalid in a debate setting. In addition you view swimming as harder, but I can guarantee you there are more people who can swim around the world than there are who ice skate, one continent in particular comes to mind. *Cough*Africa*cough* And with a whole continent out of the running I would say I have substantial evidence to refute that point. Argument: Con unfortunately I can not provide you with a player who has experienced both professional ice hockey and another sport. I think I know why though, because ice hockey players must devote their full attention and focus to their sport because they must practice so much to continue to master the skills and fundamentals of the game. But I challenge you to find me a professional ice hockey player who said hockey was easy, and don't give me some sarcastic quote please, it must be sincere. Conclusion: Ice Hockey is and continue to be the hardest sport to master and play at a high level. It is a team game, so you must rely on other people to perform their duties which let's recap, involves hand-eye coordination, balance, strength, accuracy (shooting), and most importantly and most underrated SKATING.

Cheerleading IS a sport. There ARE competitions for it. And also it requires a lot of strength and courage. It's also very dangerous. It's more dangerous than football. 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.

Before I begin I would like to say that I myself am an avid ballet dancer. I value dance too highly to call it a sport. Jake Vander Ark says the following about the difference between dance and sports: "In sports, the objective is to win... tossing a toy back and forth to accomplish mindless objectives. ... In sports, winning is the endgame. players win so they can win so men can buy beer and congratulate each other for sitting in front of a TV, cheering on athletes... who provide meaningless entertainment that artificially heightens emotion. I can't think of anything lower. And dance is anything but low." Calling dance something other than a sport does not degrade its difficulty or its value, it actually heightens it.

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

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

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

first of all thank you for debating with me . You failed to answer my question is American idol a sport. And My arguement about swimming has a lot to do with this resolution. swimming seems to me harder than cheerleading. but it isn't a sport a sport has criteria. Since, you have not specified that criteria, here we go. It has to be a part of the olympics, the olympics is the first sport outlet, or one of them. Is cheerleading in the olympics. No, so it is not a sport.

Athletes are spoiled, and have no idea what real work is. They are not doing anything important. If I were not disabled, I would be a lawyer. You have no idea to watch otherwise useful humans waste their talents on a God damn ball.


Question: Is Golf Considered a True Sport?

Dancing should be considered a sport.

The notion that dancing is a sport is one that I support wholeheartedly. Dancing involves significant physical activity, requiring the body to move in various ways, much like traditional sports. It is not merely a passive activity but one that engages the body and mind, with clear objectives and goals, akin to those found in sports.

Where are all your evedince to make these "true statements" true?

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

Hello! Dack McJonnel here!Pro has the burden of proof to prove that he is more of a MLG pro than I am, as he has the positive claim. All I saw were assertions that were unsourced. Pro did not meet his burden of proof.1. SpidersPro states that:P1. Spiders have more swag than conP2. Pro has a spider as his user profile pictureC. Pro has more swag than con However, this does not make sense: pro cannot be a spider, because spiders do not know how to use the internet. Anyone can use a spider as their profile picture, but that does not make them a spider, nor does it magically increase their "swag".2. Gaming skillsPro claims that:P1. If one gets accepted by Faze Clan, and they did not apply, they are an MLG PROP2. Pro was accepted by Faze Clan and did not apply.C. Pro is an MLG pro.Disproving premise 1:MLG is a gaming organization that hosts tournaments. In order to be an MLG pro, you join the pro tournament by purchasing a pass.(http://en.wikipedia.org...) You do not randomly get accepted by "Faze Clan" and become an MLG pro.Disroving premise 2:Pro is not a part of Faze Clan;s member list. Nowhere on the list does it say "reeseroni". (http://www.thetechgame.com...)I have disproved both of pro's arguments. I hold that pro did not meet his burden of proof.

The pro did't put up an argument and i don't think she will be posting one in the following rounds so i will make mines fairly short. The pro did not say what type of dance so i will just use dance in general. Dance cannot be considered a sport because there is no set of guidelines that determines whether someone wins. For example unlike basketball, football and other sports you can not decide who wins just by looking at a scorecard/scoresheet(when scored by points it is a person giving out points). Instead the winner of dance competitions is determined by judges which means the winner can vary depending on what a judge means. In my opinion someone who does not know anything about a sport should be able to determine who won based on a specific set of rules/guidelines and in dance this cannot be done. For this reason i conclude that dance is not a sport.

Baseball actually takes no inteligence to play. you hit a ball with a stick and run for about 15 feet and then wait. In basket ball however you need to wiegh chances and risks in less than a few seconds. It also takes skill and geometry to play and so it is very dificult.

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!

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

This is a question many gamers and non-gamers ask all the time online. Are video games a mental game, or are they just for inactive slackers? Everyone knows a person who is into video games or you just might be into video games and it is very well to know if these games are worthwhile. Although something might be a sport, it doesn"t mean it"s productive. Video games could be a sport in a way. Many people say that video games aren"t a sport for its lack of physical activity. There are many games that are considered to be a sport but have no physical activity in them; some of these sports include curling, chess, auto racing, golf, competitive eating, and poker. You would think that most of these sports include mental productivity but so do video games because many them challenge the gamer to make tough decisions, take risks, and work as a team. Games such as "Star Craft" can increase a player"s brain flexibility (This was found out by British researchers Brian Glass, Todd Maddox, and Bradley Love). Although video games could be a sport they also could not be considered a sport. "Sport" is defined as "an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature," by Dictionary.com. If you think about it most people play video games for entertainment and for doing nothing. Most people don"t play virtual games thinking that they are going to become a professional gamer with mental skill in the game. Video games do have some productive games but are not used for productiveness and used as excuses to wasting time on a computer or console. In conclusion, I would say that video games are a sport. Even though they can be useless, they are a sport. Sports aren"t always productive just like video games but it is a skill that is very challenging to earn. Video games can be very lazy, sluggish, and idle but it"s still a skill that can be a competitive and worldwide.

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

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


Question: Is Golf Considered a Sport?

Golf may not be as physically demanding as other sports, but it requires a high level of skill and mental discipline.
In the realm of sports, it is evident that some sports demand more physical exertion than others, yet skill and mental fortitude are crucial in all sports. When comparing golf to other physically intensive sports, it becomes apparent that while golf may not require the same level of physical exertion, it necessitates an extraordinary degree of skill and mental discipline, making it a sport in its own right.

I agree two those term's, I would like to start with the physical aspect you probably think it would go to Football but if you think about it not really. Number one you are skating which uses up more energy then running. Second body checking which is pretty physically demanding, you could say is not as hard getting tackled. But with the fights , slashing , illegal checking , ect... about one of these thing's happen during a game and some times all of them. So really it's about as bad as getting tackled. The last thing is the player's in Hockey spend a longer time on the ice none stop playing, when a Football play is about 4 seconds.

Just because you guys can play football better doesn't mean anything. And some of you take steriods which happens to be illegal but people still do it to get better at sports. And don't try to tell me that people get those humongous muscles from working out. It's impossible! Especially in two days. And many girls have been beating guys at sports like tennis, swimming, pro ice skating, which I am involved in myself and can say that girls are more graceful and have better balance at many sports and can play better. And our small figures let us do many more sports without being weighed down my huge muscles. Girls have also started beating guys at tae kwondo, judo, badmitten, and martial arts. The only other reason guys are beating us is because many girls are too afraid to join what may be called a "male sport" because people think they couldn't be good even though they could be much better at guys at it, for example, soccer and basketball. Even baseball, and if you consider this as a sport, archery.

I accept thy challenge, and will proceed to surpass your contact sport with another.. after this brief intermission! "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." Just because someone fights does not mean that they study any codes of chivalry, and it also does not mean they can not be greedy, cowards, or wife-blamers. Just because they are fighters does not set them apart from the fact that they are human. I know in movies these kung-fu masters and wrestlers seem to possess no fear, along with an additional sense of honour that forbids them from doing anything that the audience frowns upon, but this not always apparent in real life. This leads me to your challenge. Let me refresh the memory of our audience before I delve into this exciting provocation. "I challenge you to name a contact sport that requires more athleticism." I will use all of your definitions of athleticism in my response. I believe that sword-fighting is a contact sport that requires more athleticism than mixed martial arts. Let's see why: 1. Conditioning: sword-fighters must be in prime condition to fight their opponents. An unfit sword-fighter is a dead sword-fighter. 2. Strength: A weak sword-fighter lacks the endurance to survive in drawn out battles. 3. Toughness: A wussy fighter will never prevail over those with hearts of steel. Bawling out over simple cuts could get you decapitated in a sword fight. 4. Heart: Sword-fighters need "miles of heart," just as fighters do. However, I believe it much more daunting to take place in a fight to the death then face someone who may render you unconscious at worst. However much heart it requires to fight, you need much more to SWORD-fight. To clinch the matter, I will even provide you with an example: Zorro. Zorro is a revered fencer who deals out doses of hot fiery justice to criminals in many movies, TV shows, and comic books. Not only does his job require healthy doses of 1, 2, 3 and 4, but Zorro includes intellect, honour, and skill in his endeavors against the tyrannies of man. For those of you not familiar with the adventures of Zorro, here are some videos displaying his remarkable athleticism. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... And for those of you who have 20 minutes on their hands, here is a tale of one of Zorro's many triumphs. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Let's see how Zorro rates against your 4 key elements of athleticism: 1. Conditioning: As you can see, Zorro does not show any signs of weakness or fatigue during the sword fight. This is the result of many hard hours of training. 2. Strength: Zorro has the strength to parry his opponent's many blows, even double-handed ones (part 2 of the 20 minute episode), proving his strong arm. 3. Toughness: As shown in the first video, Zorro can withstand sword cuts, and he claims they make him even stronger. A tough guy if I ever saw one! 4. Heart: Zorro has a heart "both ways." He is a brave man, willing to duel an enemy (part 1 of the 20 minute episode) that he plans to lose against. It takes bravery to put your life in the hands of another. The second way Zorro has heart is that he is in love. This strengthens him and gives him something to live for, thus improving his fighting ability. Zorro displays remarkable skill, while also showing that sword-fighting requires more athleticism than mixed martial arts. If you have watched the videos, you will see that there is more to the arena of sword-fighting than a simple "ring, or octagon, or cage." Many obstacles (i.e. chairs, posts, civilians, etc.) present themselves to you, and a sword-fighter must learn to take advantage of such items. You may argue that fighting can also take place in areas littered with debris, but many more obstructions are available while sword-fighting. For example: in the Zorro videos above, Zorro and his enemies take advantage of curtains and shades while fighting to gain an edge on their opponent. In martial arts, things can not be sliced off and thrown, putting them at a disadvantage. I would like to finish by saying that sword-fighting requires much more athleticism than mixed martial arts, and IS considered a contact sport. I rest my case.

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.

Firstly, thank you for this debate. I look forward to it. 1. What is the sport really watched for? The 'goals' themselves are not what is looked forward to in a soccer game. What it is watched for is the battle of strength, speed, finesse, and skill to earn the better team these goals. Therefore, the low amount of goals doesn't contribute to how exciting it is to watch. 2. The sport isn't just watched, it is played. You have to think of the entertainment value for the players as well. In most games, there are two eleven man teams, constituting twenty-two players that all are gaining happiness from this sport. 3. Many people watch soccer. In the 2010 FIFA world cup there were around 26 billion total views in 64 games. (http://www.cbsnews.com...-/ )

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

My opponent just missed the deadline to post her argument. That is a shame, actually, but never mind, there's another round to go. In the meantime, with the China 2008 games approaching, I was wondering what the origins of the Olympic sports were and so I did some research. Apparently, warriors in ancient Greece used to compete with each other, for example, to see who could throw a spear the furthest. This became the javelin event in the modern games. However the history of some of the other events is less obvious. For instance, in the days of the ancient Greeks, gunpowder was unknown outside China and so their canons wouldn't fire. The warriors, therefore, had to take the cannonballs out and throw them at their enemies themselves, and this discipline eventually became the shot put event. As most people know, lesbians are named after the Greek island of Lesbos, where female homosexuality first evolved. In those days, the lesbians sunbathed on the beach naked because bikinis hadn't yet been invented. Naturally, their nude antics soon attracted the attention of the local garrison of soldiers and they all used to go down to the beach to gawp at the women, probably hoping to witness some girl-on-girl action, although the history books do not specifically record this. Anyway, the lesbians quickly became irritated by the close attention of the ogling warriors so they built a big wall round the beach to keep them away. However, the ingenious soldiers discovered that they could use a large branch to help them leap over the wall and this developed into the pole vault event. Greek food has not changed much over the millennia and in the days of the ancient Greeks, soldiers were forced to eat vine leaves stuffed with rice and fermented vegetables and other gruesome dishes that you can still find in Greek restaurants today. One mealtime, a warrior had a fit of understandable frustration, stood up and said "I've had enough of eating this muck, I can't wait until someone invents the hamburger" and he threw his plate away in disgust. His fellow soldiers duly followed suit and this developed into the discus event. I bet not many of you knew these facts. Now you will be able to impress your friends and relatives with your superior knowledge of the Olympics this summer.

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.

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...

So I wanted to include some info on how curling is for retards and janitors and back it up with some evidence. So here you go https://www.facebook.com... https://sportcultures.wordpress.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.ca... https://ca.askmen.com... The first lesson that hits you is: Curling sucks. This is stupid. And if you like curling you're either: A.) Trolling. Or B.) Scottish. Because even though Scotland gave us the guy who invented Buicks, we also have to endure their lame ice sport and the overblown coverage its quirkiness encourages. Even though it's presence is almost non-existent, seeing it at all is still a real kick in our big American schlongs. Memorably described to me once as "a mixture of lawn bowls and housework", curling is one of those sports that if you don't play it, you don't get it. I'm sure its exponents have fun pushing a rock along the ice and then sweeping around it, but for spectators its eye-wateringly boring For retards this is a great sport as it doesn't require a lot of talent, you just have to slide down the ice, and janitors are already used to sweeping floors and mopping floors so the arm movement is essentially the same, therefore they are a shoe in for this activity.


Question: Is Golf Considered a True Sport?

Is golf truly considered a sport? The true definition of a sport encompasses all games that involve physical exertion. Based on this, golf can be categorized as merely a game, not a sport.

"No one really gives girls a chance because they think they are going to suck." Really. Where is it you aren't being given a chance? Title IX ensures that in high schools (at least the public ones, the vast majority) have at least as many athletic programs (often more) for females as males. In college, much the same occurs. And don't even try telling me WNBA players do not get a chance to practice :D. "See if it was the other way around and guys wouldn't be given a chance you would probably be as pissed off as us girls. " As a matter of fact I am not "given a chance." It has nothing to do with gender, I simply was rejected every time I asked my parents if I could compete in organized sports (notably football). You however are apparently in ice skating, which I presume is your sport of choice. So it IS the other way around, at least in our cases. I'm rather pissed off of course, but mostly about other things. :D "Its not fair that everyone thinks guys can do everything better. We can do everything just as well. And any girl could beat a male in martial arts if they tried." Contradiction. You say "just as well" and then say "any girl could beat a male," implying both equality and superiority at the same paragraph, and providing zero evidence for either. Find me a woman who can fight Fedor Emilianenko to a draw and I'll concede the debate. Fair is notoriously arbitrary, but so far the evidence points toward males doing sports (which are not of course everything) better the majority of the time. "In your last argument you spoke about Marion Jones. If males were caught doing steroids I'm pretty sure that alot more of them would be sent to jail then females." I don't see your point. Males are caught doing steroids, some of them are sent to jail, but mostly the suppliers. Marion Jones is in jail because she plead guilty to perjury, not on steroid charges. I am of course opposed to anti-steroid laws (for either gender) but that is a different debate. The reason more males than females take steroids is because steroids happen to work better with fewer side effects in male bodies. Why? Because they (some of them) are male hormones. Hmm, becoming more male improves sports performance, that's odd :D. "And as for the evidence for soccer and figure skating, its called watching tv! O o my gosh." Every time I have watched the world cup (the only soccer I watch) the quality of play is better on the male end. I don't watch figure skating. In any event, "TV" is not admissible evidence. Show me numbers, show me facts, don't just pretend a certain medium acts like you are right., because TV as it happens only shows what it wants to show, and is rather unscientific. You have provided no evidence through this debate, and the entire history of human evolution (e.g. males evolving to do most of the athletic tasks such as hunting, females evolving in a manner more consistent with having to account for children) makes your claim rather extraordinary and therefore requiring extraordinary evidence. This does not mean it will always stay this way of course... women and men are athletically closer to equality now than they were 100 years ago, and in the future may be more so. Individual women should do whatever they are capable of, and for some of them that may involve the same sports as men. But there is no reason to believe, and plenty of reason not to believe, that men and women collectively are exactly equal in athletic ability.

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.

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

1. But the point is that we are suppose to convince them. And even then, injuries have different degrees and retirement is based off of that. Someone may get no or petty injuries in every sport. Especially since the site only listed types of problems, but not numbers of injuries from each sport and the degree of each injury. Therefore we don't know which sport has more injuries. Therefore that point has been refuted. 2. That's one person. You can't say one person accounts for all. And how do you know? If it's because she said it then you are neglecting that people can lie. 3. I know who you were referring to, but yet you are still not a mind reader and you still can't possibly know. 3 Again. Yea but in swimming they don't have cooperation. In soccer you directly work with them by passing the ball to each other. In swimming you are by yourself, even if your team gets judged overall. No one can aid or cooperate with you like they do in soccer. 4. Really? You can't just copy a thousand links and paste them and expect me to read every single one. You are support to quote your evidence and provide it, then list your source. Extend my teamwork, portability, and money arguments.

"Most of the time players are walking or jogging" forwards are sprinting for over half the game, if course they jog around. It's not physically possible to sprint for 90 minutes straight. I wouldn't expect a basketball player to understand how tiring soccer truly is, they only have to run/stand in a 94 foot court, while soccer players are running back and forth on an almost tripled size of 300 feet. Soccer is an exercise called high intensity interval training which overall strengthens the heart and raises metabolism. This achieved by sprinting for short periods time and then jogging and doing this over and over again. This is a healthier exercise than throwing a ball to each other and moving around a bit/jogging. Yes you can get away with fouls easier in soccer but doesn't mean it's easier to hurt someone. You could intentionally hurt someone in basketball just as easy. Soccer is definitely more accessible. All you need is something to resemble a ball. Many legendary Brazilian players started As a child juggling (keeping the ball from the ground) melons or balled up news papers. And for a pick up game. All you need for example is two rocks to mark the goal. That's plenty easier to obtain than expensive basketball hoops in which you have to have in order to play basketball. You say all you need is a driveway and hoop but that isn't basketball. That's shooting hoops. So Parallel to this in soccer would be juggling which can be done somewhere as small as a 5 by 5 square with anything that can bounce off the foot. In many countries soccer can be played all times of the year and countries that do experience winter can play indoor which you say is different, but your statement is entirely false and invalid. Indoor soccer is exactly what it sounds like, indoor soccer with slightly different rules such as 8 players instead of 11 per team and kick ins, instead of throwins. There are many different types of indoor such as futsal. Which even then it's similar. "I think there is less intentional hurting in basketball." This argument is clearly invalid. In your own statement you said "you think" not you know. Total viewers of world in NBA final 2013 was 26 million viewers in the nation and 34 mill in the world. Keep in mind this only an American League. For the world cup, which is a world thing not just nation we had 24 million viewers in america, and 3.2 billion viewers world wide crushing NBA statistics with 46.4 percent of the world population. Your statement about declining mls attendance is false. This is true for the recent mls cup but not for average viewers in season. In season viewers for mls is rapidly increasing resulting in sold out season tickets ( Http://fansided.com... ) Your website about youth soccer is very misleading and is not right for the argument you are trying to prove. Youth Soccer is a business. There are plenty of other youth soccer associations within America. This Youth Soccer enrollment in US is declining because of their business. Their decline is likely because of players leaving to other organizations. It is still on a rise and gaining more population. You argue that a referees rule cannot be overuled when in fact it can. There are a total of three refs overseeing the game one center ref, and two side refs. The main purpose of the center is to call fouls, keep track of time and extra time, call goals, and give warning yellow cards and give red cards which kick a player out of the game leaving the team a player short.( this is also a method to Keep soccer safe in warning aggressive players with a yellow card and kicking them out with a red which also keeps them from the next game. ) The purpose of side refs are to call offsides and decide who gets a throwin or corner kick or goal kick. They may also flag fouls and to my main point let a center ref know that his call was wrong. So in actual reality to counteract your statement, a side ref can discuss with a center if a goal should have been a goal or not and the goal can either stand or be taken away. I look forward to my opponents final arguments and hope that they can get their facts straight.

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...

The day people consider sitting in a chair staring at a screen, a sport, will be a sad day indeed. My opponent seems to neglect the very definition of sport. I will provide it. The definition of sport is "an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment." Not only do sports involve skill, but they also involve physical exertion. There is absolutely nothing physically exerting about sitting in a chair staring at a screen. Yes, I've seen people play CSGO competitively. I watched it and it is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. It's like going to watch a football game but wait, the football players are actually just puppets on strings being controlled by people. How is staring at a screen a sport? And no, I saw absolutely no skill. I've seen these so called "professional players" completely overlook a player on their screen who's right in front of them and then they get shot dead. I've seen a so called "professional player" run into a room without even checking that its safe and get shot dead. Yes I get that these "professional players" may be somewhat intelligent, but the way they acted on screen is absolutely ridiculous. The so called skill that it takes to play these games is quite minimal, I must say. If you want video gaming to be a sport then you've got to include all video games. That includes Battlefront. And as my opponent stated, Battlefront takes little to no skill. As do many video games and what is required of a sport? Skill. Therefore if video gaming as a whole cannot be a sport, then video gaming won't be sport. Now onto button mashing. My opponent finally stops being vague about what it takes to get a video game to work. He says its pressing buttons at a specific time. So pressing buttons at a specific time qualifies to be a sport does it? Well then so does piano, and drums, and writing and texting, etc. How does pressing a button make something a sport? Because that's practically what the "sports player" is doing. There's nothing physically exerting to tapping on buttons, there's nothing in particularly skillful about tapping buttons. At least with piano and all my other examples, you get something accomplished like playing a piece, or writing a novel or sending a text. With video games, its all forgotten when you turn off the screen. In fact piano has more of a qualification than video games to become a sport. Piano is more skillful and more physically exerting than video games and we can debate that topic if you dare. Just send me a challenge and I'll tell you a million reasons why piano is more qualified than video games to be a sport. My opponent keeps talking about video gamers getting punished if they press the wrong button. But what's their punishment? Getting killed on the screen, because that's not exactly a big deal. Making a single mistake in rugby could result with you eating the dirt literally. Making a single mistake in a long distance run could be the difference from winning the race to losing it. Making a single mistake in a figure skating competition could mean going to the hospital. Making a single mistake as a goalie could cost your team the championship. Video gamer, unless they also play a sport, do not understand what true punishment is in a real sport. To them, punishment means going back to the re-spawn point and starting again. To a real sports player, it the difference between returning that serve or losing the match. The so called punishment that video gamers get is minuscule to the punishment of not landing that spin on the ice. Do I really have to pound in the fact that video gamers skills are laughable compared to real sports? Fine, I'll repeat what I said before. To return a 120mph tennis serve you have to lunge across the court in less than half a second. Angle your racket so that the ball doesn't go flying, balance yourself so you don't tip yourself over after you've returned it, measure how hard you'll hit it, and actually have the hand eye coordination to hit it. All that in less than half a second. A video gamer sees an opponent, pulls right trigger because most likely they have aim-assist on. A 800m sprinter has to pace himself. Notice that I said "sprint". That's right, the 800m race is actually a sprint. Running too fast at the beginning will make him lose, running to slow at the beginning will make him lose, having a terrible start will make him lose, starting too early will disqualify him. He will feel the burn in his lungs as his legs ache from exertion. A gamer will feel absolutely nothing when they get shot in the head. A gamer has absolutely no idea what pacing themselves mean. Winning can be the difference between forcing your body to the extremes or not. Winning a video game can be the difference between who can mash the A button the fastest. Being the best at a sport means training till your muscles are aching and you're dead tired. It means time and dedication spent to pushing your body to the extreme. It means time and dedication to practice flicking a puck in the upper left corner of the net from dawn till dusk until you finally perfect it. It means sacrifice and pain sometimes to be the best. Video gaming takes, sitting in a dark room with energy drinks piled around you, while you stare at a screen like a zombie 24/7. You see how easy that is? Video gaming takes relatively zero skill compared to real sports. All because I've never played CSGO before does not mean I can't compete with Fnatic. I could easily compete against Fnatic. Now all because you've never played rugby will mean that you definitely cannot play against a professional rugby team. You would be killed literally. You see the difference? Video gaming requires no sacrifice. It requires no physical exertion. For a sport, physical exertion is required and with it comes the sacrifice of knowing you could get hurt. Like I said before, video gamers don't understand what it's like to sacrifice that net of safety to play a sport you love. My opponent then claims that I'm not looking deep enough. The true problem is that he's not looking deep enough into sports. Sports not only involve the physical aspect, but also the mental aspect. The physical aspect includes wether or not I'm feeling my best today because that could be the difference between winning and losing it all. It includes how far should I push myself to run because training could be the difference between you and your opponent on those final 100meters. Physical aspect includes the whether, is it sunny, rainy, snowing, cold, knowing how to push through is a valuable skill. It includes analyzing my opponent, are they bigger than us and if so, how will that effect out plays. It includes being ready, always being on your toes is the difference between an ace for your opponent or a return. The mental aspect includes whether I think I can beat them of not, the mental game is important. It includes memorizing all the plays in the playbook to counter my opponent. It includes the science behind all sports, how many grooves on a golf ball is too much. It involves intimidating the other team, the Irish rugby cheer is something my opponent should watch. I could go on but I'd run out of room. Do video games really involve all of this? Because I doubt it. I doubt that everyone in Battlefront is playing like this yet even in casual soccer games, kids have to know if their pushing themselves too far. Video games lack the physical aspect and therefore are not even half as deep as sports are. The science behind some sports are actually somewhat astonishing. Maybe it's my opponent who isn't looking deep enough? Then my opponent goes on to explain the "strategy" in video games. It's actually quite funny how he literally states that the so called "strategies" are actually just a bunch of random ways to kill a person by saying the word "sometimes" within his explanation. Oh, sometimes (american) football players do slants, but sometimes they also do a Hail Mary. It just depends on whether they're there or not. If football were actually like that, then yes, video games could be considered a sport. But football games aren't like that. Football games actually do have strategy and actual planned out plans. Which my opponent just so kindly provided that video games do not. It's really not fair to compare video games to real sports is it? Then why are video games want to be real sports when they can't even compare? Yes I can judge that doing x has little skill because y does this. Each does have their own skill as my opponent has conceded. Sports having a lot and video games having very little. The fact that we are arguing whether video games should be considered a sport is why I'm not taking video gaming seriously. Like I said before, it'll be a sad day when reclining on your chair staring at a screen becomes a sport.

"I am stating that football is more complex because the roles themselves are more dynamic" I have already explained that the roles in football are not dynamic at all. They are in fact simplistic. "I was claiming the sport was the most complex, not the individual player" I am not psychoanalyzing the player. I am analyzing their role, duty, and goal while calculating the complexity. "the variety in roles takes precedence" This is like saying that quantity is always better than quality. A micro wave and jet engine can not be compared to sports. Conducting an orchestra of 11 people playing hot cross buns is easier than 5 people playing Beethoven. Your analogy's can be used against you if you aren't specific. "A rugby player could have a more complex role without belonging to the more complex sport" You can't have a complex sport without complex roles. I'm not saying football isn't complex but just that it isn't as complex as other sports. "parts don't have to be complex in order to construct a complex mechanism" It is not about the parts but the role the parts play. 1 basketball player=1 part. He has many different roles through the game he has to perform. A running back only has two possible roles. He can either block or run. "over 400 unique plays have to be memorized" I also argued that individually these plays are not that unique and not very difficult to execute. "other sports where there is much heavier emphasis on improvisation" This in no way makes the sport less complex. "There is far less emphasis on memorization" How many coaches in basketball do you think just tell their players to "go with the flow"? There are so many possible outcomes on a micro and macro level in sports that it is impossible for me to count them. The outcomes are calculated by the coaches and reactions must be memorized and executed instantly when said outcome occurs. This level of memorization happens at more of a micro level than football and is less understood which make it more complex. Also because of the lack of stoppage in play more information must be memorized than in football. About your argument of being placed into the NFL or MLS I completely disagree. You would be equally useless in both sports. For example on defense you might be a gap on both teams almost like a missing player but that gap could be filled even though there would be a small consequence on both teams. But unfortunately for both of us this argument is unverifiable and should be disregarded. About your example using pick up games, I find it difficult to really use pick up games in an argument because there are no refs and less rules no matter what sport you are playing. But as for the argument itself, since you used a personal example as an argument I will use a personal example as a counter argument. I have played a lot of pick up games of football and there have been times where people who don't really know how to play join in and it only really takes 60 seconds to explain what they need to do for a specific role. In fact when playing with inexperienced people I notice people make a lot more mistakes in basketball then they do in football. In a football game if someone is over 6 feet tall, fast, can jump high, and knows how to catch a ball they are immediately great wide receivers. In basketball after a quick explanation the person tends to foul a lot on defense and commit a lot of violations on offense. They also fail to have the ability to understand and execute seemingly simple concepts such as boxing out or switching on picks. This is not considering lack of ability like handling the ball but lack of understanding. http://sports.espn.go.com... If you look at ANA, (analytic aptitude) Football is ranked 5th. While this does not prove anything it shows that the ability to think and use strategy is more important in other sports than football.

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

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.


Question: Is Golf Considered a Sport?

Is golf truly considered a sport? Indeed, golf is already officially recognized and classified as a sport!

<< 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

Your idea makes no sense whatsoever. It has no tie. Your latest argument talks about how people should do sports. However, people get the same joy in studying academics. However, that it not the topic at hand. The topic is the funding of sports verses academics. Because you have inadequately responded to the topic, I can't really say anything.. I'm going basically to finish and say it was..interestng debating you. However, I believe it's unfair to give more funding to programs that bring joy to different people.

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.

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.

yeah i'd have to say its mostly my fault cause i should of clearified better what it meant to say was "i dont think its a sport, i know it is".....

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!

The Dude abides. A quick recap for those of you that don't play online poker or haven't seen it on the news as of late. A federal indictment was filed in Manhattan, NY. on April 15, 2011 by the U. S attorney, Preet Bharara. In the indictment, Isai Scheinberg, Raymond Bitar, and nine other individuals are accused of operating illegal gambling businesses online. This has affected Pokerstars, Absolute Poker, Full Tilt, and a few other sites. My main point will be that poker is not actually gambling. This has already been decided to be true by seven states, with more following suit. Gambling is defined as, "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...) Poker should not be considered gambling because there is no uncertain outcome. This has been proven by the worlds best poker players time and time again. It is a game of skill, patience, observations, perception, percentages, and the ability to read what the other players on the table are holding. I will not refute the fact that there is some luck involved in poker but there is just as much luck involved in dominant sports such as soccer, football, MMA, boxing, etc. Yet these sport are not considered "gambling" when the players take the field. If poker was gambling then it would follow suit with roulette, BJ, craps, and countless other casino games that have never had a predominate superstar emerge. Doyle Brunson, Johnny Chan, and Phil Hellmuth have all cleared the World Series of Poker fields of thousands TWICE, back to back, to become champions. There is also about 30 poker players that are consistently winning poker bracelets or at least making final tables in the PPT or Pro Poker Tour. Luck? I think not. The U. S. Government has shut down said sites is because of their own greed for money. They have filed a $3 billion dollar civil suit against the owners of the sites in question for "money laundering penalties". (. http://blogs.forbes.com...) and also seized 76 bank accounts in 14 countries. Of this $3 billion dollars, nowhere in the civil suit does it say that this money is to be repaid to the constituent of the poker sites for monies lost. These charges would not have even been brought about if the government would have just continued to go about it's OWN business in the first place and not said that Americans cannot play poker online. My opponent will try and argue that poker is in fact considered gambling and should therefore be regulated by gaming commissions. This is a false front and will be picked completely and utterly apart by myself in the following rounds. To him, I say, good luck and good debate.

Men compete . It is the way nature made us. Women nurture and that is how we are. Sport is a replacement for war, hunting and gathering. Its OK for women to enjoy sport as a spectator as that is how they can Identify the dominant male for breeding purposes. Its seems to be going against evolution to watch female "athletes" battering each other.

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.

My opponent just missed the deadline to post her argument. That is a shame, actually, but never mind, there's another round to go. In the meantime, with the China 2008 games approaching, I was wondering what the origins of the Olympic sports were and so I did some research. Apparently, warriors in ancient Greece used to compete with each other, for example, to see who could throw a spear the furthest. This became the javelin event in the modern games. However the history of some of the other events is less obvious. For instance, in the days of the ancient Greeks, gunpowder was unknown outside China and so their canons wouldn't fire. The warriors, therefore, had to take the cannonballs out and throw them at their enemies themselves, and this discipline eventually became the shot put event. As most people know, lesbians are named after the Greek island of Lesbos, where female homosexuality first evolved. In those days, the lesbians sunbathed on the beach naked because bikinis hadn't yet been invented. Naturally, their nude antics soon attracted the attention of the local garrison of soldiers and they all used to go down to the beach to gawp at the women, probably hoping to witness some girl-on-girl action, although the history books do not specifically record this. Anyway, the lesbians quickly became irritated by the close attention of the ogling warriors so they built a big wall round the beach to keep them away. However, the ingenious soldiers discovered that they could use a large branch to help them leap over the wall and this developed into the pole vault event. Greek food has not changed much over the millennia and in the days of the ancient Greeks, soldiers were forced to eat vine leaves stuffed with rice and fermented vegetables and other gruesome dishes that you can still find in Greek restaurants today. One mealtime, a warrior had a fit of understandable frustration, stood up and said "I've had enough of eating this muck, I can't wait until someone invents the hamburger" and he threw his plate away in disgust. His fellow soldiers duly followed suit and this developed into the discus event. I bet not many of you knew these facts. Now you will be able to impress your friends and relatives with your superior knowledge of the Olympics this summer.