Question: Is Golf Considered a Sport?

Golf should not be classified as a sport.
Many may perceive golf as a sport, but perception does not equate to reality. Consider the common misidentification of Great Britain as a single country, when it is actually a part of the UK, which itself is composed of four constituent countries. Similarly, just because golf is included in the Olympics does not automatically qualify it as a sport. After all, the Olympics also feature cultural events that are not classified as sports. The physical exertion involved in golf does not necessarily make it a sport; one could argue that sleeping for nine days burns a comparable amount of calories, yet no one would consider prolonged sleep a sport. Golf more closely aligns with the definition of a game, as it is often engaged in for amusement or diversion. Take the case of John Daly, who has been known to indulge in alcohol and cigarettes while playing, which would not be tolerated in traditional sports. Golf requires skill, not athletic prowess. A golfer with a broken leg, such as Tiger Woods during the 2008 U.S. Open, can still compete, demonstrating the minimal physical demands of the game. Mike Freeman, a national columnist at CBSSports.com, has argued that the low level of athleticism required in golf is comparable to that of bowling. Dave Hollander, a sports columnist, has also pointed out that walking, a fundamental physical activity, is not a requirement in golf, as evidenced by the Supreme Court's decision in PGA Tour v. Martin, which allowed a disabled golfer to use a cart. Without the basic physical requirement of being able to walk, can golf truly be considered a sport? The lack of physical exertion and the absence of any contact further detract from its status as a sport. While golf may be challenging, the same can be said for computer programming or brain surgery, neither of which are classified as sports. Competition alone does not define a sport; other activities, such as spelling bees or pretzel vending, also involve competition. Ultimately, golf is more akin to a recreational activity, akin to marbles or cat's cradle, rather than a legitimate sport. If you are seeking a peaceful afternoon nap, turning on a golf broadcast is the perfect choice, as it lacks the physical intensity and emotional engagement typically associated with sports.

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

The shows good sportsmanship and that impresses me. on to my argument i will be brief: i was once raped by a woman and somehow it felt really satisfying it felt like she was dominating me. Now for the case of a man raping a woman or little girl thats wrong on so many levels but i am speaking towards my own personal experience i know many may not understand but thats what has happened it just made me feel as though i was a different man now to my opponent, Con. You can now make your argument i give the floor to you

My first argument will attempt to portray the complexity of American Football. Complexity is generally used to characterize something with many parts where those parts interact with each other in multiple ways (Wikipedia). In other words, complex means many interacting variables. I'd like to focus on four categories that can be used in any sport as an indication of complexity: variety of roles, variety of plays, variety of rules, and variety of ways to score. American Football dominates everyone of these categories. Roles In no other sport do we see the amount of roles, and especially the difference between those roles than we do in American Football. It is the only sport I can think of in which the offensive players don't transition to defensive players. There are 6 unique defensive roles, and 8 unique offensive roles. There are an additional 22 roles for special teams, for a total of about 36 totally different roles played by different players. These roles require completely different skill sets, play memorization, and physical ability. An offensive lineman has a completely different experience than a wide receiver, and a quarterback in no way mirrors a running back's role. It's almost as if they are all playing entirely different games simultaneously. This is not true for other sports. In soccer, or hockey, or basketball, you could swap two players roles and although the team would struggle, the game would still go on and remain somewhat competitive. A defensive soccer player could play as a forward if they had to. A first baseman in baseball could play as outfielder. But a wide receiver could never be an offensive lineman, nor could a quarterback ever be a running back. The team would be massacred. These roles don't just require completely different knowledge and skill sets, they require completely different body types. For these reasons, there is no sport on the planet that has as much diversity in roles than what we see in football. Plays This is simple. No other sport has as many play varieties as football. There are anywhere from 500-800 plays in an NFL offensive playbook. Not only is each play different from the other, but they fall into categories that are very different as well. You have passes (slant, deep, screen, fade, swing, flare), you have runs (power, dive, sweep, counter), you have fake run passes (play action), you have fake pass runs (draw), and a variety of trick plays. There are also hundreds of formations proceeding the play including special teams plays. I don't really see how this point is debatable. No other sport even compares to the variety of plays we see in football. The more plays the more complex the play calling and execution. Rules I'm not 100% on this one, but I think football has more rules than any other sport. If not, it is certainly amongst the top. A large rule book obviously adds to the complexity of a game, making it more difficult to understand, navigate and execute. Scoring You can score 4 different amounts of points in football in 3 different ways. You can score 1, 2, 3, or 6 points. You can score by kicking the ball between two posts (field goal or extra point). You can score by tackling the opposing player in their own end zone (safety). And you can score by bringing the ball into the end zone (touchdown). A touchdown can be scored in two ways, running the ball into the end zone, or catching the ball in the end zone. I can't think of any other sport that has as many different scoring options as football. These variations in scoring add to the complexity of play calling and decision making in a game. I believe I have clearly and objectively shown that American football is the most complex and layered of all sports. No other sport has more variety in roles, plays, rules, or scoring. In some of these categories, no other sport is even close. I now turn it over to Con. . http://en.wikipedia.org...

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

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

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

Con made strong points regarding the complexity of roles in sports. Essentially, Con is stating that other sports are more complex because regardless of the number of roles, every player is required to be more dynamic. I am stating that football is more complex because the roles themselves are more dynamic. Truthfully, this could go either way depending on whether you feel more complexity lies within the variety of roles, or the variety of responsibilities within a role. I suppose both could be used as examples of complexity. The key difference I would point out, regarding this debate, is that I was claiming the sport was the most complex, not the individual player. If you are looking at the entire sport, I would think that the variety in roles takes precedence, as opposed to looking at an athlete where the complexity of their specific role would take precedence. A rugby player could have a more complex role without belonging to the more complex sport. Here an analogy: A microwave is more complex than a spark plug, but a jet engine (which could not function without the spark plug) is more complex than a microwave. You could also say that playing bag pipes is more complex than playing a trumpet. But that conducting an orchestra is more complex than playing bag pipes. In other words, the parts don't have to be complex in order to construct a complex mechanism. That being said, even if voters agree that Con is correct regarding complexity and roles; that's only 1 in 4 categories. I don't think there is any comparing the complexity of football regarding plays, rules, and scoring. Another thing I wanted to address is Con's notion that a football player only has to memorize their job in a specific play and that it's repeatable, and basically easy. What Con didn't mention is that over 400 unique plays have to be memorized and executed perfectly by every player in order for that play to have chance. It's very different from the fluidity we see in other sports where there is much heavier emphasis on improvisation. In soccer or hockey things can fall apart and breakdown, but still be corrected on the fly successfully. There is far less emphasis on memorization. It's more of a go with the flow atmosphere in which everyone is trying to do the same thing on offense or defence. An example of the difference in difficulty level would be if I were called to go play an MLS game today, as opposed to being called up to play an NFL game. In the soccer match, I would basically know what to do, I just wouldn't do it well. In the football game, I wouldn't have clue. I wouldn't know where to line up, or any idea how to proceed once the ball was snapped. The average Joe playing football would look far more lost than the person playing soccer (although they would both look pretty foolish). Another similar example are the sports we play at my job. We play softball, soccer, and flag football year round. The softball and soccer games require no preparation. None whatsoever. We don't practice, we don't meet up before the games to refresh our game plan. Everyone just knows what to do, and the team with the most athletic players, or hardest hitting batter win the game. Football on the other hand does require preparation. We have to meet before the season to make a playbook. We have to practice once a week and before the game so that everyone is comfortable with the various plays and their roles. As opposed to the other sports, the best teams in the football league are the most organized teams. Simply put, when we start the football season it is much more involved. There are just more things that you have to know in order to move the ball one foot. Without even analyzing it, the football games just seem more complex. It's one of the reasons football is one of the only sports where you don't see pick-up games at parks. How would anybody know what to do without organizing and memorizing plays? I'll save the strategic aspect of the game for later rounds.

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

My opponent has failed to make any arguments against my case. I believe this should constitute as a win in my favour. I will summarize my arguments: There are many types of swimming which are not sport and are not competetive. Swimming styles range from getting from point A to B, to losing weight, to saving someone's life. There are many different types of swimming which are not sportive in nature, so to put all these different styles under an umbrella term of "sport" is unfair and unfitting of such a wonderful and multifaceted activity. Thank you.

PRO: "All 10 field players are ALWAYS moving whether it be jogging or sprinting."Yes, most of the time the players are walking or jogging. Only when the ball is near one sees them sprinting. no arms In soccer, with the exception of the goalie, one hardly uses the arms. They are only used for a throw-in, which is not very often. In basketball one uses both arms and legs. Basketball is exercise for the whole body, but soccer is only exercise for the legs.dangerous? As I wrote before, injuries happen both in soccer and basketball. But soccer is a more dangerous sport, because there is more contact between players. I have already given a source showing that soccer is more dangerous. According to [1],(men's) basketball has 1.5 casualties per million, and soccer has 2 casualties per million. (casualty: death, permanent disability, or non-permanent brain/spinal cord injuries). These statistics come from high school sports in the USA. PRO: "Soccer has many health benefits including:Increases aerobic capacity and cardiovascular health.....Can provide an opportunity to increase your confidence and self-esteem, and help to reduce anxiety"All these things are also true for basketball. It is not a valid argument to choose soccer over basketball.PRO: "[Soccer] Requires very little equipment so can be played in the backyard or park"Basketball also needs very little equipment. All you need is a basket. For soccer you need goals. Most people do not have a backyard big enough to play soccer. For basketball, you only need a driveway. Many people put a basket near the driveway or above the garage door. This is all you need. To play soccer you need a lot of space. In the winter, soccer is even more problematic. It is simply to cold to play soccer. But basketball you can also play inside without having to change any rules. (There is such a thing as indoor soccer but it is really a different game with different rules).PRO: "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". "One cannot argue about preferences. I prefer a non-contact sport. PRO: "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."I think there is less intentional hurting in basketball. In soccer it is much easier to get away with hurting someone. The field is big, so the referee cannot see everything. Even if a foul is registered on camera, it won't count if the referee does not see it. There is only a small difference between a slide tackle and an attack on the opponents ankle. Because one can get away with it, such fouls happen more often. In basketball if one hurts an opponent, it always will clearly look like a foul.The popularity of soccer seems to have reached its peak. Soccer attendance in MLS is declining [2], and youth soccer enrollment are declining [3]. So soccer will never be as popular as basketball.I give one more reason why basketball is better:Soccer has archaic rulesIn soccer, one wrong decision of the referee can be disastrous. A referee may decide that an invalid off-side goal is valid, he may give a penalty kick because one player faked a foul (often resulting in a goal). Even if it is clear to the whole audience (because of the cameras) that the referee is making the wrong decision, the decision of the referee cannot be overruled. In basketball the referee can watch an instant replay if necessary.I am looking forward to my opponents final arguments.[3] http://www.demosphere.com...[2] http://www.socceramerica.com...[1] http://www.businessinsider.com...#


Question: Is Golf Considered a Sport?

Golf is indeed a sport. How can anyone claim golf isn't a sport?!!! All you do is swing a club at a tiny ball on a vast green like an entitled youngster!!! There's no crowd to cheer you on, and you stand quietly under the scorching sun!!! What thrilling moments in golf can make your heart race?? Oh, he hit a hole-in-one, what an exhilarating day to watch!!! So, are you ready for this debate, as I am!!!

Note: The transformed document maintains the length, complexity, and semantic style of the original document while preserving its relationship to the question. The tone and argumentative style are kept consistent, but the phrasing and specific wording have been altered to create a semantically similar document.

Hello everyone and welcome! As Con has failed to give any definitions, I will take the liberty of Defining them.Money- Any currency or item of monetary value that may be traded or given in exchange for another itemEnhances- to make greater, as in value, beauty, or effectiveness; augment. [1] Sport- Physical activity that is often engaged in competitively. [2]Onto the Argument- Pro's argument will rest with money being used to buy steroids, which in turn enhance sport through strength and athleticism. Basically, steroids improve athletic performance, as a study by Penn State University proves. [3] I will await Con's remarks on the issue (as I am unsure whether this round is for acceptance or not) before proceeding. Sources [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[3] http://news.psu.edu...

1) My opponent believes that we should ban a sport (that sport being Boxing) because it would cause side effects. First, I would like to mention that Con didn't list or state any of the side effects in his argument. Then, Con goes on to call Boxing a combat sport, which it is. I would like list a few other combat sports. They are as follows: kickboxing, MMA and Judo. These sports, including boxing, have regulations, (RULES & REGULATIONS state that a boxer must wear gloves, a mouthpiece, headgear for amateurs, loose-fitted shorts and soft-soled shoes), put into place that would prevent a player from further being injured (Let's not forget how these, 'contenders,' (as they are called) play the sport because they not only signed a contract to play it but they enjoy it as well). SOURCE FOR RULES & REGULATIONS: http://boxing.isport.com... 2) There are other sports that can cause the same injuries. One sport that is close to, if not greater than, the amount of injuries a player sustains is AMERICAN FOOTBALL. Should we ban AMERICAN FOOTBALL too? If we banned every sport that has the possibility to cause injury, then there wouldn't be any sports to enjoy. Is it, necessarily, our job to put a roadblock on every sport that causes injury? Not only would it get in the way for a person to do what they enjoy, but it would violate the three most salient unalienable rights that are given to every human being at birth. Let's not do that. Instead, just let them enjoy what they love. It isn't our duty to stop them. That is illegal and morally unjust. That is where I end my argument.

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...

Hi vikki. i think that girl are not as good as boys and that they have no sense of sports. they do know what they are doing half the time. chels

Hockey needs a lot of skill and it has a high physical component to the game. Any debate will have some opinion in it. Hockey is the best sport cause of what I previously mentioned. This debate was supposed to be opiniated.

In my final argument I would like to reflect to the reader's that all sport's involve some aspect of hockey in their difficulty and gameplay, but hockey is the one sport where it all comes to together and is tested at a higher level than sports that have similar qualities. Skill 1: Swimming versus Ice Skating Con indeed I made an assumption that there are more swimmer versus ice skater because of conditions around the world, but let's look at which is harder since you seem to have latched onto swimming as your main sport. Swimming is a non weight bearing activity in a medium that supports the body. Ice skating is certainly not this. In swimming you pulled down less by gravity therefore there is less strain on the body than there is in ice skating. Also the water supports the body via buoyant force where as the open air of the real world does not support hockey players. Ice skating is a mutli direction, mutli skilled, serial skilled sport. This requires many changes in body position, direction, stance, coordination, balance, explosive potential. Swimming is a continous skill, which requires speed in a single direction. Therefore you need a lot less athletic ability to be able to professionally swim. Also your max heart rate will be lower in the pool compared to that ice skating(due to the non weight bearing activity). Therefore swimming is great for injured pro athletes to their little water aerobics in but as far as athletic ability goes ice hockey players are far more superior to swimmers, hands down. Skill 2: Hand-Eye Coordination Hand-Eye coordination is involved in all sports to some extent, but ice hockey takes it to the extreme. In Soccer you need hand-eye coordination to kick the ball, in basketball you need hand-eye to catch the ball and shoot, in football you need hand-eye to catch and throw, and in baseball you need it to hit. Now let's look at these examples. Which one sticks out? Baseball! The only other sport in this list that is similar to ice hockey in anyway is baseball. How so? Because the bat acts an extension of the body, in all other sports the athletes have the luxury of actually using their body. So throw the other sports out. Now baseball you only need hand-eye coordination to hit, throw, and catch. In hockey you need much more hand-eye coordination to perform a more wide range of abilities like: blocking shots, passing(w/stick), shooting(w/stick), one-timers(look it up), receiving the pass(w/stick), catching the puck(when necessary)and especially goaltending. I can not stress how much more you use hand-eye in this one particular sport than you do in any other sport, which makes ice hockey harder than them all. -So what? One skill that you need more than any other sport, that doesn't make it most difficult. Skill 3: Balance Football, baseball, soccer, and ice hockey are the main sports that I can think of off that top of my head that involve using intense balance. But soccer and baseball involve far less contact than football and ice hockey, so we'll focus on these two. Football is a fast-paced sport that involves brute contact and is probably one of the more dangerous sports in the world, you definitely need balance in football in order to break tackles, tackle, and stay on your feet. Wait, did you say feet? Oh, yes I forgot you have the luxury of using your feet on solid ground. You see folks, in hockey, players do not have this luxury as they are practically balancing themselves on two swords while other 200-pound men are coming at them try to murder them on ICE. Football players do not need nearly as much balance as hockey players do because they are on their feet, which are considerably wider than a skate blade therefore they have more surface area to balance on the ground which has more friction than ice does. Meanwhile hockey players are doing virtually the same thing only they are on thin blades of steal, on a almost friction-less surface. In addition players need great balance to simple things like shoot and pass whereas balance is not nearly as crucial in the acts of catching and throwing in football. Therefore we can conclude hockey players need more balance than football players. Skill 4: It's A Team Game I will concede defeat here con this where difficulty can be the same. But let me quickly rattle of some sports than are not a team game. Tennis(singles), Extreme Sports of any kind, NASCAR, SWIMMING! , gymnastics, boxing, UFC Wrestling, Martial Arts, Rodeo, Running, Cycling, and Golf. So we can throw all these sports out of contention because they have the luxury of only relying on their own talents, and not the talents and abilities of others as well as their own. Skill 5: Durability Soccer, Basketball, and Hockey are the only sports in the same hemisphere when it comes to durability, because they are the only sports that are constantly moving while the game clock is counting down. It is said that by the end of a soccer game, a soccer player has run 11 miles. I dont have a stat like that for basketball or hockey but that is pretty damn impressive. This is the part of the argument where I will also concede that these sports are similar in the way that all involve running or skating back and forth, but this is where I will call your attention, people of debate. org to our list. All these skills are in hockey, but some of these skills barely apply to all sports, and if they do not to the extent that they do in hockey. Hockey is the most intense sport out there and it involves are far more great range of athletic ability than any other sport. According to ESPN, this is the list of most difficult sports. . http://sports.espn.go.com... According to this article by ESPN, THE WORLD WIDE FREAKING LEADER IN SPORTS, boxing is harder by 1 point while hockey is in second and harder than football by a full 3. Now last I will destroy boxing to make sure you all know hockey is better than them all. First boxing has and is known to have fixed matches. So that hurts boxings credibility as the hardest sport right off the bat. . http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com... In addition boxing gains most of its points in the article in strength and power which I would assume boxing would have being a sport based on strength. Also boxing accumulates eight points in the nerve category which requires no athletic ability what so ever. Meanwhile hockey scores no lower than a 6 in any category except flexibility which I highly disagree with considering NHL netminders are some of the most flexible men on the planet. Conclusion: I have provided an article that shows hockey is the second hardest sport according to ESPN. I then took the number one ranked sport boxing and showed you that it is in indeed inferior to hockey and ESPN made a mistake in their order of one and two. In addition hockey is a team sport where boxing is not, making accomplishments in hockey far more challenging. I have also shown the readers that swimming is far easier than ice skating, making ice hockey a harder sport than swimming, which is con's prime sport. I also took several skills and broke them down to show that ice hockey utilizes those skills to a far great extent than any other sport and that ice hockey uses more of these athletic skills than other sports that only use one or two of the main skills.

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

Alright thanks for the quick response Pro. I will try to organize these refutations as best as I can, as Pro's arguments and refutations are all over the place. Refutation 1:Pro says, "Each and everyday of their lives including their professional career they are constantly learning and re-mastering fundamental skills."Yes, I agree, but this is common to all professional sports. It is not just hockey where you need to re-learn and re-master fundamental skills. So by this basis, it is logical to assume that all sports are equally difficult. Pro also says, "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."As I have already mentioned, it is also very difficult to learn to swim, much more difficult than learning to skate. Pro has not adressed why skating is much more difficult to learn then swimming, so I would assume that he agrees with me (I will get more into this later). As Pro has said, professional players spend "Each and everyday of their lives including their professional career they are constantly learning and re-mastering fundamental skills." This would mean that water sports like swimming, or water polo is much more difficult than hockey since these players must relearn fundamental skills, and swimming is harder to learn than hockey.Pro also says, "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."What I would say to that is, isn't baseball the same thing? Your bat needs to be an extension of your hands, and you need the same hand eye coordination and focus that hockey has, or you'll get hit in the face with a ball travelling at 90mph. Therefore, by pro's logic, baseball and hockey and water sports would have equal difficulty, proving that hockey is not the hardest sport to play at the professional level. And with jostling and learning where to move, and crucial positioning, in all sports there is some form of this. In basketball, you box out defenders to get the rebound, and in soccer you jostle defenders to get that head from the corner kick.I guess what I'm really saying here is that a lot of the skills between sports are transferrable, like learning where to move and getting good positioning. Therefore, it would mean that all sports are equally difficult.Pro says that " 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."Isn't that the same with all sports? If you break a leg severely, you will need to re-learn to walk. If you break your arm, you will need to relearn how to throw a ball. It is the same with all sports.Refutation 2:What Pro has provided in this refutation is examples of times where players have maintained focus in the face of danger. And he says this is why ice hockey is a difficult sport.There are many other sports that require the same focus in the face of danger. Like Pro, I can pull examples like these all day. Let's start doing that actually.In football, the quarterback has to maintain focus in order to hit that long pass to his teammate. During this time, there are several 200 pound people running at you trying to tackle you. But still, you need to get the timing right, and throw that pass, even if it means that you'll get crushed under several guys.In baseball, the batter has to maintain focus in order to hit the ball that is traveling at 90mph towards him. Therefore, in all sports you need to maintain focus in the face of danger. Therefore, they are all equally difficult. Refutation 3:Exactly everything can be relative! There is no actual proof that hockey is the hardest sport to play, that is merely an opinion. And you have not even been able to prove that hockey is indeed a difficult sport to play. I have already proved many times that alot of sports require the same skills, therefore making all sports equally difficult to play. Pro also says that there are more people who can swim than skate. But that is not a sufficient measurement of difficulty. The only reason why this is true is because of certain conditions around the world. And please, find me the source where you got that fact. Rebuilding:Therefore, because you cannot provide this information, you can't just say that hockey is the hardest sport to play. As you said, most players devote their full attenion to hockey. Therefore, how can they know that hockey is the hardest sport if they have not tried every single other professional sport? There is no way to tell.Obviously, when hockey players say that hockey is the hardest sport, it is opinion based. And as Pro said earlier, it is annoying. Therefore, that entire argument is invalid.Conclusion:I have not provided any relative arguments today. I proved why all sports are equally difficult, as they require much of the same skills. (hand eye coordination, focus, etc.)It is not just hockey where you need these skills in order to play professional hockey. In Pro's recap he says:"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."I will use a similar conclusion.All sports is and continue to be equally difficult to master and play at a high level. Most sports are team games, so you must rely on other people to perform their duties which let's recap, invovles hand-eye coordination, balance, strength, accuracy, and most importantly and most underated SWIMMING.Therefore, all sports are equally difficult.

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

Based on you turning my position of basketball's flaws being assets, I think it's fair to assume that it is simply a matter of differing opinions and therefore neither can be regarded as fact. So for instance, I say that baseball's slower paced tempo of the game is of better value than the upbeat pace of basketball, because it provides for a more relaxing sport to watch and laid back sport to play. You get to compete athletically without too much exhaustion which can and does make the game more enjoyable for certain people. To refute your point that basketball is greater than baseball because there is a "time limit" per se, my argument is that there is also some kind of limit on baseball as there are a set number of innings (unless the game goes into extra innings, the way basketball can go into overtime). To argue that basketball is more of a team sport because there is less individual responsibility, I also say nay... I feel as though each individual performance collectively adds to the team as a whole; everyone has equal amount of at-bats to make things happen, whereas in basketball not everyone takes the same amount of shots. I agree that both baseball and basketball are of the same accessibility to play- touche. However on that note I would like to point out that baseball encourages more kids to play, be involved and participate in a team sport because each team requires 9 players instead of just 5. Thus more kids can play in the game without having a lot of people "sit out" or whatever. I also think that the lesser "athleticism" you need to play baseball is actually a good thing. People who want to have the option to train their bodies, work hard, stay in shape, etc which will undoubtedly improve their performance in the game. But those who want to remain physically unfit also have the option to play (ie: a position like 1B where there is little amount of running or moving required). Softball is not that popular, but just as there are no co-ed basketball teams, there are no co-ed baseball teams; that doesn't mean that baseball discriminates against women. And the less popularity of a sport doesn't make it less awesome, you're right. For example most people would argue that soccer or "football" is the best sport, but if you look at the numbers in this country, soccer doesn't even come close to being considered the favorite or most widely played. I personally enjoy the fact that baseball has to be played in nice weather. It provides a nice atmosphere for players and fans alike, plus it gets people outside and enjoying the sunshine for a change. And that's about it for now.


Question: Is Golf Considered a True Sport?

Golf undoubtedly qualifies as a sport. It requires exceptional skill to excel in the game, and if one can achieve professional status in an activity, it certainly earns the designation of a sport.

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

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.

I am debating the point that soccer is in fact a better sport than basketball, why? First point: physical fitness - soccer (football) players are required to be able to endure two periods of non-stop forty-five minute halves plus extra time at the end (making up for injuries, fouls, etc.) - basketball players technically play total of forty-eight minutes with timeouts, fouls, quarters, etc. Thus saying it requires a better level of fitness/endurance to play forty-five minutes non-stop in soccer. Second point: skill level - humans are raised using their hands and have a natural ability and coordination with their hands. To play soccer, you must learn to use your feet, to be able to pass or shoot the ball with every side of your foot. Or to use any other part of the body excluding arms and hands. -The only person able to use their hands is the goalkeeper, who even then is better than the average basketball player, requiring gun shoot speed reflexes and strength to keep a ball out of their net. An example for this is that an average penalty kick (a set play, in which a ball is placed 12 yards from the goal line and a player goes face to face with the goalie with one shot. Resulting from getting fouled in the goal box.) can reach an average speed of around 125 mph in a quarter of a second. -Unlike basketball, in soccer the foot skill to hand skill ratio is much higher. Soccer players can perform endless amounts of tricks whether it be for a shot: header, scissor kick, bicycle kick, scorpion, etc. or a way to move the ball forward: scissors, maradona, elastico, robhino, rainbow, etc. These can be performed whenever and wherever. But in basketball, there is a much smaller list of tricks like what, an alley-oop, slam dunk, through the legs? -The ability to score a goal without using your hands (which like basketball is much easier) and to put it past a usually tall aggressive goalkeeper takes more skill and precision than to lob a ball with your hands into a basket. Many all-star soccer players can do this with their feet, I want to see a basketball player try to do score a basket with their feet, or even a goal at that. Third point: entertainment and popularity: -Soccer is the much popular sport in the world, likely because of its simplicity to set up a pick up game and excitement to watch. Though it isn't America's sport, it is vastly and fastly growing throughout. -Soccer is much easier to understand with less rules and more ability to play without stopping which is why fans love it. They get to watch endless soccer except for at half time. Basketball lasts technically 48 minutes of gameplay but can literally last for 2 and half hours making its fan sit through 132 minutes of non playtime. -In basketball when teams can start to score over 100 points it gets boring watching the same things over and over again when in soccer you have an anticipation and thrill in waiting for that one golden goal, and when it does come the excitement explodes with the fans and the players. But goals aren't the only thing people come to watch. They get to see beautiful passes, set plays, skill moves, goalkeeper saves, and many other exciting plays. Basket fans get excess amount of baskets to see made, occasionally a dribble trick and slam dunk every once in awhile. The really only exciting part in my, and many others opinions is in the final 5 minutes when you get to really see who might win. Who will accept this debate? Open with your response to my arguments.

My opponent has failed to make any arguments against my case. I believe this should constitute as a win in my favour. I will summarize my arguments: There are many types of swimming which are not sport and are not competetive. Swimming styles range from getting from point A to B, to losing weight, to saving someone's life. There are many different types of swimming which are not sportive in nature, so to put all these different styles under an umbrella term of "sport" is unfair and unfitting of such a wonderful and multifaceted activity. Thank you.

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

Many people argue that one of the main features of a sport IS teamwork, and learning to work together to achieve a goal. The main point of a teammate is to work together to take down the opposing team, not so that you have someone to lean on. This is a technicality, but if you do happen to lose, a whole bunch of other people could be blamed. Say, if your theoretical wife had a theoretical baby, which took out of your training time because you're a good theoretical father, you could place blame on others. You could also be injured by another, hampering your display of "extreme athleticism" while competing.

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

When you say "harder," it is interpreted as "more difficult." Even then you have not specified what aspect about the sport is "more difficult." I believe a commenter has summed it up well. There are three points to consider. Physical standpoint, mental standpoint, and how difficult it is to play the sport well and succeed.

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

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


Question: Is Mobile Phone Radiation Hazard-Free?

Should we be concerned about the potential hazards of cell phone radiation?
The connection between the increase in brain cancer cases and the widespread use of cell phones cannot be ignored. Despite the cessation of research funding, the lack of definitive answers does not imply that the issue has been resolved. Studies have shown a rise in brain tumors after a decade or more of heavy cell phone usage, which is defined as at least one call per week. Considering that many people exceed this frequency, this is just the tip of the iceberg. What are your thoughts on this matter?

My opponent stated that people should be allowed to text and drive because it is a convenient and faster way to communicate with others. This is true, cell phones do allow people to communicate with others at a faster, more convenient rate but, they should not be used in any way while driving. This is because texting and driving puts people at a higher risk of being in an accident. As stated by the Los Angeles DUI Law Office, "...texting is the biggest distraction we face today and that it is six times more dangerous than drinking and driving. To add, according to the Brain Injury Society, "Drivers who are texting while behind the wheel have a 23% higher chance of causing a crash. That is equivalent to downing four beers and getting behind the wheel". This demonstrates how significant the effects of texting and driving are considering that drunk driving was the leading cause of "traffic fatalities" for years but has now been overpassed by texting and driving. Therefore, with this in mind, texting and driving should not be allowed.

Well what I am saying is kids should not be completely independent with the phones but their should be some restrictions. If you are not allowed to sext you can still be responsible.

There are many things that affect your health on a 'secondary' reason. Pollution being one of them. You breath toxic fumes every time a car passes by. Should we ban these? Then we'd have to do the same for campfires, mills, factories, vehicle exhausts and soon we'll be so afraid of smoke we'll all have to get personal glass bubbles. As it is, many places have smoking sections and non smoking sections. There you have it. You are separated from the smokers. And yet again I think you are seriously overestimating how easily kids are influenced. I pass by people who smoke everyday and I've never lit a cigarette in my life. If you just want to avoid a difficult discussion with your kids about why people smoke even though It's bad for them I suggest just you don't have kids, because your going to find there are many more difficult things headed your way in the "special talk" department.

I have proven my case- colloidal silver is a powerful antibiotic and it is "free" if you make it yourself you have done nothing to disprove either of these points, and your insistence on the Arygria thing, which is BS in my opinion, or at least rare and harmless at worst, is not part of the debate again (1) Silver is a powerful incerdible remedy for destroying pathogens (2) it is basically free if you make it yourself (unless you want to pay $$$ for someone else to make it for you which is stupid IMO) I have proven my points, with Peer Reviewed Documents , and silver is only 4$ per OZ and water is free so you have clearly lost the arguments. You are trying to change the arguments to (1) Silver is dangerous - which is false- even by the scary articles you present (2) there are a bunch of hucksters selling it for expensive and claiming that it will cure everything under the sun So what? the only reason why these hucksters are doing so because it based on the truth that collidal silver is an effective antibiotic If folks want to believe the government, and that you always have to rely on their expensive and sketchy drugs and surgeries to cure yourself, go for it My point of view is that we are much more capable of keeping ouselves healthy on our own. Collidal silver is one of those ways, along with hanging upside down, cleansing, proper diet, excercise , good supplements and many other means. I close with the question - if it is true what I say that Silver is effective , and free, wouldnt the government have an interest in trying to fight it? Again, Bearcat, you will have to disprove (1) that CS is an effective pathogen destructor, or (2) that it is free (or very very cheap) all these side issues you bring up are irrelevant to this debate.

Children should use technology like a computer, mobile phone, and television because they can use it for researching information, doing projects, using e-books instead of old and heavy textbooks, it also makes the world closer and smaller by talking in social media programs, also the social media programs can make your child speak up and be confident to talk, it also, improves your communicating skills, last, this is another way to teach children, and the children are interested in. Although, people might say that these children will be cyber-bullied, but as long as they are taught to prevent it and stay away from it, this will not make a problem. Some may say:"They will get attracted to it and they will not be concentrating in school" But I think, if your child can self-control it, let most of the kids do, that will be not a problem. If your kid cannot control themselves from playing games, you can tell them the negative ways of getting addicted to playing games, and they will probably stop playing and control themselves from playing games. Some people may say "It makes your child's eyesight bad" but, if you use the media in an appropriate way of using it in a certain amount of time, and you can decide it and write on something, called Media Schedule, you can write the time that your child can use media and let them decide when to use the time. So, your child can still have a good eyesight. And, your child will be happy that you give them time to do whatever they want on technology items. Also, if you are still not unsure to let your kid use technology, there is some kind of apps that you can install to the media and you can always spy on your kid using the media.

If you say children should not use technology, it means that they should not use technology totally. You can control what websites that your child can visit, and also can control apps that the child uses, so I don't think, they can visit false websites that contain false information, and be addicted to games. So I still think using technology is good. Children should use technology like a computer, mobile phone, and television because they can use it for researching information, doing projects, using e-books instead of old and heavy textbooks, it also makes the world closer and smaller by talking in social media programs, also the social media programs can make your child speak up and be confident to talk, it also, improves your communicating skills, last, this is another way to teach children, and the children are interested in.

Cell phones should be allowed in school for the following reasons: *They will cut spending so much because they already have the IDEM *Kids will be able to understand lessons more *New Common Core Curriculum will force school districts to make changes *Student's wouldn't have to hide them in class and have to be worried about getting caught, therefore, they could focus on the lessons. *Students would be able to use cell phones as planners to remind them of their assignments or projects coming up. *If kids don't have their phones and something happens, their parents will not know where their child is and most likely will freak out. *Also, cell phones can be quite useful for subjects such as math. Overall, cell phones should be allowed in school.

Wow. You really just did that. 1: Vaccines save millions of lives every year, Over 26 million in the US alone. 2: They are proven safe. 3:Autism is not caused by vaccines. Proven by 35 World Health Organization papers. Only one RETRACTED paper said vaccines cause autism. 4: Vaccines do not cause allergies. 5: Vaccines have almost no side effects. They are 1 to 1, 000. 6: They are cheap and super effective. Pharma does not make money from vaccines

I have greatly enjoyed this, my first debate. I thank my opponent for his civility and his heart-felt arguments. He clearly believes in his arguments very strongly, unfortunately this belief seems to run so deep that he will not let details such as evidence or logic get in their way. At the risk of going off topic, voters may well be interested to look up some of his other debates 'Islam is an evil religion' etc. 'I have presented a ton of evidence, whether or not you choose to accept it is a different thing.' Unfortunately for my opponent's argument, he has indeed cited a number of sources, however on closer inspection none of them seem to actually back up what he is saying. I refer readers to previous rounds for my detailed analysis of how his 'evidence' fails to back up the statements he places immediately before or after them. 'This is a different source.' I'm not quite sure what my opponent means by this. The quote he aparently refers to was copied from his arguments, so I don't think he means I am misrepresenting him. Perhaps he means that this quote does not support his statement that 'Iran will have fully functional weapons in a year or two' which it doesn't, or perhaps he means it is a different source as I requested, however as I was asking for a source that did back up his presenting of possibilities as facts, my point stands. I'm a little confused. Oh well, maybe I'm missing something. 'It matters, because Barack Obama wants to establish a friendship with Iran, contrary to Bush.' As I said before, surely this glimmer of hope for diplomacy makes an attack by Iran less likely, not more. 'In seven hours (7 h) the radioactive radiation decreases from 1000 R to 10 R. In two months there are *very* small traces of nuclear radiation, not threatening anything.' My opponent offers no source for this data so I can only assume he has plucked the figures from thin air or is himself a radiation fallout specialist. I did some research of my own: 'The residual radiation hazard from a nuclear explosion is in the form of radioactive fallout and neutron-induced activity. These are intermediate weight isotopes which are formed when a heavy uranium or plutonium nucleus is split in a fission reaction. There are over 300 different fission products that may result from a fission reaction. Many of these are radioactive with widely differing half-lives. Some are very short, i.e., fractions of a second, while a few are long enough that the materials can be a hazard for months or years.' source: http://www.fas.org... 'there are other towns in Israel than Jerusalem' Of course there are, but my point was that if Iran were to attack 'the major cities' as my opponent was previously suggesting this would surely include the capital. (Definately a city, not a town) 'Then where was Obama during the conflict of Gaza? He NEVER said he supported Israel's actions. He just hid in the corner and shut his mouth.' I offered my quote to prove that Obama had expressed support for Israel, contrary to my opponents assertion: 'He has not expressed his concern for Israel a SINGLE time. Never, ever.' As far as the despicable assault and seige of Gaza goes, Obama clearly made a calculated decision that he would lose more respect from liberals and moderates than he would gain support from Zionists by supporting it. He (unlike many world leaders) did not condemn it either but as you point out avoided commenting on it. 'the writer of this article is clearly biased' The Obama quote is from a Pro-US, Israeli newspaper, if it is biased in favour of anyone it is clearly not Iran. '1. The chief of IAEA said that Iran could have nukes in six months. (http://blog.wired.com......) EU: http://www.upi.com...... USA: U.S. officials have said repeatedly they believe Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.' My opponent is once again [yawn] apparently misreading his own quotes. When I ask for evidence other than unsubstantiated claims he just comes with more of the same, (please note 'could' and 'believe' in the above quotes.) 'I gave some reasons why they would leave the holy cites alone and nuke the cites e.' [sic] ? Cities? sites? cited? leave them alone, nuke them? Once again, I am confused. 'Look at the three links I provided. (http://blog.wired.com......) (http://www.upi.com......) (http://www.time.com......)' 1.Iran could have nukes (note could) 2.Iran close to nuclear capability (thats nuclear power by the way, not nuclear bombs) 3.Iran's nuclear threat (thats a percieved threat, rather than any kind of direct threat that anyone has made) Yet again more unsubstantiated claims. '[quote]Please direct me to a quotation of his where he states such an intention [please not the same non-quote again][/quote] If you don't accept evidence, there is little point in debating. "United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives." Yes this is the same quote (although quoted correctly for once) and in no way a direct threat or a statement of intent. 'FOX is financed by Republicans. CNN is quite liberal' Was not aware of this , thanks for enlightening me, I thought they were both as bad as each other. Perhaps I will give CNN more credibility in future. 'they did not make up Vladimir Putin's statement nor the visit he paid to Iran.' I never said they did, but neither do they refer to it as anything other than a peaceful business arrangement. 'It's kind of the same as: Actual quote: "We will nuke wicked and zionist country X who has been a disgrace to God." Quoted: "We will nuke country X." It's the SAME meaning.' Actually its more like: Actual Quote: America sucked under the Bush administration. Quoted: America sucks. It completely transforms the statement from refering to a specific regime to refering to a nation as a whole. And either way it is not a threat and has nothing to do with nukes. '1 is claimed by IAEA (unbiased), USA (slightly biased), and UN (unbiased).' The US is clearly completely biased in this issue, as for the other two it is debatable how biased towards US they are. '2 is claimed by the Iranian President (non-US biased, non Israel-biased).' When does he ever specifically talk about nuking Israel? '3 is claimed by Vladimir Putin and the Iranian president.' No, a military pact is not claimed. '4 is claimed by the Iranian president.' No, he has expressed a desire that they be destroyed but never that he wants to actually do it. '5 is claimed by Barack Obama's actions.' Well at least my opponent now accepts that it is not claimed by Obama's words. But he has not really been in office long enough to take much action. And what action should he be taking? Nuking Iran perhaps? Imposing sanctions? 'Therefore, number 6 is fulfilled.' Hardly. 'So, accompanied with the threat of Iran ***is the threat of TERRORISM.***' This is one of the more convincing arguments my opponent makes. Perhaps if he had begun this debate talking about this kind of terrorist nuclear attack, rather than the kind of politically sanctioned nuclear airstrike we have been discussing up till now then this debate might have been harder for me. I think that my opponent and myself were both somewhat negligent in not defining what was meant by 'nuclear attack' in the initial rounds. Observant readers will have noticed that my opponent made an aborted attempt to define the term in round one. However I thought from the start that we were discussing the politically sanctioned variety rather than the terrorist kind, and it seemed as if my opponent was too. Some sources that deal with nuclear attack as seperate from terrorism: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3572655.stm www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/03/terrorism-nuclear-biological-obama-white-house Oops, I'm running out of space, thanks to readers, voters and my oppo

First TV is bad for you because it can harm your eyes. Television or no Television can change how our world works. With Television our lives don't go anywhere. Our education moves down greatly, our obeisity moves up intensly and our body in every way gets hurt. A question that should be answered is can we survive without television? With television our lives may be changed forever. Generation by generation will suffer and that is why I would like to start this debate, Should Television be banned?Television is a great way to hurt your education. Everyday in the morning when you wake up. The first thing you do while your waiting to get breakfast or even when your eating breakfast the T.V is on. You go to school and you are still thinking of the cool show you are watched in the morning. And that leads to a distraction during your school day. Even after you get home you probably get a snack but then click on the T.V. After you watch T.V your distracted again. You don't do quality homework and you go to sleep late which makes you brain worse the next day. As everyday goes by you don't gain any knowledge. A future plan will be hurt and generation by generation people will continue the same process. Television may not just change a day of someones life but a day of waste and a generation of suffering.Why in America is there the most obeisity? Why in America is there are so many junk foods? There may be some weird reason that leads to this answer. But a big reason is because theres T.V. When you watch T.V you are usually eating a snack. How does it get to you about eating the snack, well when you watch television you have a bond with you and a snack which tempts you to eat it. Another thing of how Television leads to obeisity is that when you eat and then watch T.V the fat and sugar of the food you ate dosen't turn it into energy but fat because because there is no exercise with T.V. A minute of television could mean a minute of fat.If you don't think obeisity is bad yet then think about your whole body taking damage. So far in my debate your brain gets hurt and so does your stomach, heart and brain. Your eyes will start to lose eyesite as you keep watching T.V. This can be a forever change in your life. Your hearing will lose as days go on with television, for listening to television hurts your ears if its continuos. A great way to hurt your whole body is television, and without it we would be much better off.Television caused much damage. If we still keep it we as humans will never feel like we accomplished something so great for television is so bad that Television should be banned.