#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Should football players wear helmets?
American football.
Yes
Side Score: 40
|
No
Side Score: 30
|
|
Not that I don't trust you, but could we get some proof of this? The numbers for head injury cases where the athlete had a helmet compared to the time period before helmets were used, and maybe some peer reviewed source stating that if there were no helmet, they would have more injuries. Side: No
What you said "Players would be much less likely to lead with their head without the helmet." What I said "I imagine the number would only increase if there were no helmets." Of those two statements, which of those sounds like a fact, and which sounds like an opinion? Opinions require no proof, factual statements do. Side: Yes
You avoided my question I see, and denied my proof with another baseless claim, something you seem to be fond of. Is this Ad hominem? yes, because it seems you don't want to argue the issue, you want to argue with me, so I'll take that bet that I'm right, putting my character on the line. Side: Yes
Is this Ad hominem? yes No, I didn't insult you. You avoided my question I see No, they both sound like opinions. I didn't avoid your question. denied my proof Your definition of proof is just as loose apparently. putting my character on the line Putting nothing on the line. Wow, big gambler. don't want to argue the issue You started it though. Side: No
My bad for the confusion, my argument was mostly ad hominem, attacking you as a debater rather than your arguments, but I went on to explain why. If a question mark is used, it's a question, simple as that right? Picking and choosing random sentences, what's up with that? Side: Yes
2
points
2
points
I hope everyone understands that helmets in Football are for safety and not for fashion or something useless. It is like saying, why should a car have breaks? There are a lot of concussions during football games, but even if there werent, wouldn't it make sense to wear a helmet just in case. Side: Yes
1
point
|
Putting on a helmet or a seatbelt then hitting someone else in a similar situation doesnt mean you will be safe. People die wearing seatbelts and get head injuries wearing helmets. The helmet is intended for safety during sporting events or recreation. Â Putting a helmet on makes it possible to hit someone with your head. Getting a gun makes it possible to shoot other people. Guns are also made for safety or sport/recreation. Football players also wear cleats, next thing you know they will be kicking each other in the faces! ;P(Antonio Brown if you missed it). We Shouldn't get rid of seatbelts or hemets any more than guns or cleats. Both helmets and seatbelts are safety devices that are made to limit the risk in a worse case scenario situation (well up until limits of the device). Removing neither would be wise as we have seen their benefit in reducing certain types of injuries. Even with these safety equipment in place there are additional rules or supervision needed. We already have rules that limit how we play or drive. Races sometimes have restrictor plate rules and football has rules against things like horse collars tackles, spearing and so on. I think this is an issue that can be mitigated by penalties and or rules change. I think an issue here is specifically American football. It is a sport where you have a pretty large disparity in the players size, even more so in highschool and college. In a sport like football you can often see a 220lb guy tackle a 180lb guy at a full run. I mean outside of an assault or an episode of cops, sports is the most likely you are too see a thing like that. Side: Yes
I just got through telling you that seatbelts and helmets are not related. Removing neither would be wise as we have seen their benefit in reducing certain types of injuries. Removing helmets will reduce the head injuries caused by thinking that helmets will protect against bad decisions. We need to decide if that is a valid trade off. Side: No
I just got through telling you that seatbelts and helmets are not related. If you don't like the seat belt analogy how about lab goggles? They are all safety equipment that can offer a sense of false security in some users. Removing helmets will reduce the head injuries caused by thinking that helmets will protect against bad decisions. I think this is an issue of informed consent. I noted highschool and supervision because of this. Manufacturers have specs on the helmets and warnings on proper use and the game has rules against helmet to helmet contact already. ?.do you at least recognize that the purpose of the helmet in manufacturing is to prevent injuries from incidental contact and not as you put it  Putting a helmet on makes it possible to hit someone with your head.. 1)An undisclosed portion of the people go against the rules or safety suggestions by manufacturers result in the want to take away safety equipment. 2) Football plays over the levels of their safety equipments optimum protection. If I am understanding you right these are your concerns more or less? Side: Yes
Players changed their playing style with the introduction of the helmet. The helmet protects against incidental contact, but it also protects against injuries when doing stuff the wrong way. If we take away the helmet people will learn to do things the right way. The question is, are there more injuries because people tackle the wrong way, or is it because of the incidental stuff. Side: No
3
points
If we take away the helmet people will learn to do things the right way. If helmets are taken away, the specific techniques (even if they're the wrong ones now) that the athletes trained for aren't going to change overnight. Compare it to taking training wheels off of a bike. Simply taking the training wheels off of a bike doesn't suddenly endow a child with the ability to ride without training wheels. That skill is developed while keeping the training wheels on the bike, relying on them less and less, and eventually no longer needing them. If there is merit to doing away with helmets, it's something that would need to be planned for ahead of time so that the players can adapt. Otherwise, regardless of any reduction in injuries due to improved form, there will be significantly more injuries in the period between when the helmet is removed and the new form is perfected and internalized. Even then, in the midst of a heated play it would be easy for a player to slip into one of the old habits that assumed the presence of a helmet. Side: Yes
I think I disagree with your approach because you are removing the helmets to change play, rather than adjusting play. Would you remove guns from everyone to target crime? It seems to go about changing the outcome by targetting the wrong thing. I mean helmets don't cause people to go head first, people do! ;) Levy et al20,43 reported that the introduction of laws to control the use of the head in blocking and tackling, and the implementation of NOCSAE helmet standards in American football, has resulted in a 74% decrease in fatalities and 84% reduction in serious head injury since 1976 Heck we have made adjustments in the past, apparently football was a pretty tough sport before. I don't see the merit in throwing the baby out with the bath, we can keep the equipment and work within their specs. I am pretty adverse to limiting anyones liberty because of misuse by a few, on any subject really. I feel the idea of safety standards being to low in professional football not a bad angle on your side of the issue. The style of play in American football is conducive to repetative stress injury and head injuries like concussions. I am still seeing this solved by only changing rulings though and not getting rid of safety gear, things were pretty rough before modern equipment. If anything is a driving force behind the issue it isn't the helmets but the organizations that breed this culture where athletes pay high prices later in life. http://m.bjsm.bmj.com/content/39/6/ Side: Yes
Me personally doesn't matter, because me personally wouldn't hit someone with my head even if I were wearing a helmet, nor would I hit someone with my anything if I could help it. What those 'idiots' on google prove, is that this is a thing people do, headbutting that is. Disproving your theory that removing helmets from the equation will remove headbutting from the sport. Side: Yes
1
point
For some values of just fine, sure. To be fair, only 5 and 7 would have played out differently with helmets, but there is plenty of other protective gear eschewed by rugby players. Rugby is also played differently, emphasizing endurance more than explosive power. Gridiron, with its system of downs, puts a larger emphasis on explosive power. Side: Yes
So I repeat. What does this have to do with football? I'll add, that they are different if that was not gathered. One could also say basketball players don't wear helmets, or for another contact sport where helmets aren't mandatory there is lacrosse. I had to check to make sure that was true since I can't recall seeing lacrosse players in helmets. It turns out they have a helmet for one of the players, just like rugby. Side: Yes
It is a valid argument to say that if basketball players don't wear helmets then football players don't need to wear helmets. It is up to you to determine if the reason why helmets aren't needed in basketball is related to football. The same goes for rugby. Rugby doesn't use helmets. Side: Yes
This argument makes no sense. If we can't take the information we learn from one place and apply it to another place just because the 2 places are different then we would be lost as a species. Being different doesn't mean anything. Are they different enough that it doesn't matter, and why? High school and college are different. Does that mean college shouldn't have teachers? Side: Yes
The difference between your teacher example, and my statement that they are different, is that for schools, a teacher is a requirement for it to even be a school, but a helmet or no helmet rules does not classify any sport as being the sport. Using your logic we could say all sports need a ball, since even though they are different they are both sports. My statement they are different, is insisting that the rules, and the game play are different thus different equipment is needed apparently. High school and college are different, thus different teaching methods are used. They have their similarities but they also have their differences. Side: No
Didn't know I need to state how football and rugby are different. Only if you make the completely braindead argument that if 2 things are different they can't have similarities. I figured people had enough common sense to understand that, and if they didn't know at worst they could google the differences like I did. If you use google you find all the ways they are the same as well. The original argument was arguing that they are similar enough that football doesn't need helmets. You ignore all the similarities that you are so eager to use to shoot down opposing metaphors. It would be nice if you showed some scrutiny to your own argument. Side: Yes
Who said they can't have similarities, I said they're different with the implication that the rules, and equipment needed would be different. No one still has not shown me how they are similar enough to validate the original statement. Using google you'd see how similar they are, and how different they are once again validating my statement, they are different so it's hardly a fair comparison. I find it funny how you say I should scrutinize my own arguments, when you won't even admit you're wrong even when switching sides. Side: No
Who said they can't have similarities DrawFour did. Go bug him. But, good luck, he doesn't consider what other people write. I said they're different with the implication that the rules, and equipment needed would be different. Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy? No one still has not shown me how they are similar enough to validate the original statement. You didn't ask for that, why would anyone provide it? They both have tackling. Tackling is the reason why football needs helmets. Why is it that 2 tackling sports don't both have helmets? Using google you'd see how similar they are, and how different they are once again validating my statement, they are different so it's hardly a fair comparison. No, the statement "They are different therefore I have no reason to discuss the matter" cannot be validated. It is literally impossible to validate that statement. Under no circumstances is that statement valid. I find it funny how you say I should scrutinize my own arguments, when you won't even admit you're wrong even when switching sides. Really? Where did I say I was still right about helmets even after I switched sides? Side: Yes
... Why are the rules and equipment needed different for two different sports? Oh idk, maybe because they are different sports... maybe. If it is stated that they are similar enough to validate the statement "rugby players don't wear helmets" I should not have to ask for the similarities, they should be mentioned from the get go. It's a claim without evidence. Well I assumed you believe you were correct, since you picked a side in the first place, but I noticed that even after switching you debated me, on the other side with a condescending reply that was anything but admitting defeat. Side: No
Why are the rules and equipment needed different for two different sports? Oh idk, maybe because they are different sports... maybe. Then tackling shouldn't be allowed in rugby under your logic. If it is stated that they are similar enough to validate the statement "rugby players don't wear helmets" I should not have to ask for the similarities, they should be mentioned from the get go. It's a claim without evidence. It is hilarious that finding the differences is so easy that simply going to google is enough and you don't have to mention the differences, but those pesky similarities have to be spelled out otherwise they aren't failed. Do you know how I spell hypocrite? D-r-a-w-F-o--u-r. Well I assumed you believe you were correct, since you picked a side in the first place Apparently a bad assumption. I can't admit I am wrong if no one asks, can I? but I noticed that even after switching you debated me, on the other side with a condescending reply that was anything but admitting defeat. It is hard to admit defeat when your opponent doesn't want to engage in the debate. That's all I could give you. Side: Yes
My logic didn't state any thing wasn't allowed my logic stated that since they are different it's not valid to say one should or shouldn't have a piece of equipment because the other doesn't or does. According to your logic of my logic, table tennis needs bases because baseball has them. You don't have to admit you're wrong, that'd be asking for too much, but to not reply as if you're correct, makes me wonder. Oh I'm engaged, I'm enjoying this actually XD. Side: No
My logic didn't state any thing wasn't allowed my logic stated that since they are different it's not valid to say one should or shouldn't have a piece of equipment because the other doesn't or does. According to your logic of my logic, table tennis needs bases because baseball has them. Bullshit, under your logic it doesn't make sense for rugby to have tackling. According to my logic it would be ok for table tennis to consider bases which your logic would not. You don't have to admit you're wrong, that'd be asking for too much, but to not reply as if you're correct, makes me wonder. Well, I will let the king of not admitting being wrong keep his throne. My position that football players shouldn't wear helmets is wrong. Long live the king. Side: Yes
If you're saying that I knew what you mean show me where I said I know what you mean, If you're referring to how I said the original commentator was joking, that's not me saying I know what he means that's me saying hyperbole is said in jest, therefore I know it's a joke. He later confirmed... Being a hypocrite about similarities and differences is the only thing one can be a hypocrite about and be considered an asshole? Side: No
"According to your logic of my logic, table tennis needs bases because baseball has them." Oh, look at that. You doing the same thing you were mad at me for doing. If you're referring to how I said the original commentator was joking, that's not me saying I know what he means that's me saying hyperbole is said in jest, therefore I know it's a joke. He later confirmed... Wrong debate. Hope this helps you realize both debates are you posting bullshit, but I won't hold my breath. Being a hypocrite about similarities and differences is the only thing one can be a hypocrite about and be considered an asshole? No, you could be an asshole in a variety of ways. :) Side: Yes
Mad at you? What gave you that impression? This pleases me XD. However, what is is that I'm doing, assuming I know your logic? If that's the answer I actually did do that (with an absurd comparison like table tennis and baseball just to take a shot at you). Ha wow, we've been debating so long my arguments are starting to merge, ultimately it's because we're so far off the original debate topic, we're waging our own war over something that must be similar enough that I could mistake one for the other. Ah just wondering. Side: No
|