EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

Gridiron Football is better than Rugby Football

0 points
6 points
BlackflagBlackflag (PRO)
What is Gridiron?
Gridiron (Grid-Iron) football, also known as "North American" football, is a sport that is extremely popular in the United States and Canada. The goal of the game is to get a prolate spheroid ball down a 100 yard field, to a 10 yard "end zone". 

The game starts with a kickoff, where one of the two teams, following a coin flip, will kick the ball to the other team. From that point on, the receiving team, composed of 11 players (as is the defending team), will try to make it 10 yards down the field without being tackled. This is known as a first down. 

Kickoff Demonstration: The 10 yard "down" line comes into effect once the receiver is tackled

Players  can use any tools at their disposal to make it 10 yards down the field. If the ball holder is tackled before making it 10 yards, then the game advanced to "2nd" down. If the offense is "Downed" five times, then the other team gets the ball. 

Hopefully that better explains how the game is made. I would like to move on to "why" Gridiron is better.

More Strategy
In gridiron, there are few limitations in what one can do in the game. The goal is to get the ball 100 yards down the field, and there are 1000's of ways to do this. It isn't just running the ball, because if you do, you'll probably get face planted. Each team has play books with 100's of plays, dozens of which are custom. The play combinations literally never end. The game is essentially moving 11 players up the field, and 11 players stopping their advance. 

3 zone blitz

Goal line Shotgun Pass

Income of Gridiron Teams (Top Ten)
Dallas Cowboys Income: 2.3 billion (most in the world)
New England Patriots Income: 1.8 billion 
Washington Redskins: 1.7 billion
New York Giants: 1.55 billion
Houston Texans: 1.45 billion
New York Jets: 1.38 billion
Philadelphia Eagles: 1.314 billion
Chicago  Bears: 1.252 billion
Baltimore Ravens: 1.227 billion
San Francisco 49's : 1.224 billion
Revenue comparison NFL vs NRL
NFL: 9 billion :)
NRL: 159 million.............. euros :(

Better Branding

Now watch how Rugby copied Gridiron teams (Broncos, Cowboys, Steelers, Raiders, Panthers, Bengals (Tigers), Eagles, and Titans)

Eight of Australia's teams are direct copies of Gridiron football teams. Several things can be interpreted from this..........
1. Gridiron Teams have more originality
2. Gridiron Teams have cooler logos
3. Rugby is mooching off of Gridiron franchise 

Better Controversy
The biggest controversy in Rugby, is the New Zealand national team, the All Blacks....

Racist white people doing monkey impersonations of black people
Which compares nothing to the controversy we have in America, with the Washington Redskins, names after a derogatory terms for Native Americans. Polls consistently show that 30-40% of people are angry over the name. Which is a far better controversy than the all blacks, who rarely get the spotlight except a few games they played on foreign soil. Since New Zealand only has 4 million people, compared to America's 300 million, we have more people in opposition to our controversial team. Here is the Redskins mascot, a black guy with a Cherokee headband on. 

Gridiron as an educational tool
Almost every highschool in America has a gridiron team. Unlike rugby, which is played mostly on a national level, gridiron is both played on a primary and collegiate level. School boards often claim that gridiron is a good sport for building...
1. Character
2. Team skills
3. Strategy and problem solving
4. School identity (gridiron takes a stronger influence on team identity)
5.  Social Skills

One of 10,000's of highschool Gridiron teams found in America and Canada
Rugby offers little, because sports and school aren't as intertwined in other countries such as Australia and New Zealand. 

Hotter Cheerleaders 
After doing a fair amount of research, I have discovered that the standard rugby cheerleader wears a flat top and short, shorts.  

The average rugby cheerleader is a "5". Americans and Canadians have higher standards, coupled with a higher population, so only the BEST of the best can make the cut. Resulting into all around "10" cheerleaders. 

Cowboy Cheerleaders

Redskins Cheerleader

Eagles Cheerleaders

Bronco's Cheerleader 
I will let the judges see the infallible evidence brought forward when they make their decision.
Pro tip: Judge with your d***

Better Championships
The largest championship in Gridiron is the Superbowl. Actually, the Superbowl is the second largest championship in the world. With over 115 million viewers and gets a full broadcast in 232 countries throughout the world. Meaning it is truly, the big game. 

The average football game reaches near capacity. Rarely does any game fall below 100,000 audience members. The superbowl, racks up ticket costs anywhere from 1,000-10,000$ 
This is clearly superior to Rugby, who's largest championship is the "Rugby Championship". Which is netted far less in both profits and fans.

More Fans
This report clearly shows that Gridiron is the 10th largest sport. Rugby did not make the list.

More Culture 
Gridiron is more intertwined with lifestyle in countries that it is played. Games are treated as huge events. Communities will talk about them for weeks, and many will tailgate at the game over night, just to be the first one's to see their two favorite teams battle it out on a 100 yard slaughter ground. The act of tailgating, or barbecuing at a sports event, was created, and is most popular, in the United States of America, the home of gridiron. 

Gridiron isn't just a sport, it is a way of life. Much like the gladiator games of ancient rome, gridiron stadiums have become the beacon of the American social experience. People go to bars to watch gridiron. People watch their children battle in a highscool game. Everything in America and Canada is about one thing, gridiron. America and Canada may not be the most culturally, socially, or politically advanced nations, but we did one thing right, and that is gridiron. A game that constitutes 75% of a nations 200 year culture must be truly stunning, and there is a reason we say here "nobody leaves a football game without a smile on their face". Gridiron is truly a wonder among Americans, and I highly recommend we ignore national lines, and simply look at the impact of the sports we are advocating for. With that, I leave the floor to NZlockie.

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-08-29 01:06:48
| Speak Round
nzlockienzlockie (CON)
I'd like to thank my opponent for setting this debate up. The subject matter is dear to my heart and I count it a privilege to defend the honour of Rugby.

Housekeeping: This debate will argue that GridIron (American) Football is "better" than Rugby Football. My opponent has done an admirable job defining Gridiron and I offer no contest to his definition. 
HOWEVER he seems to be a little hazy when it comes to Rugby. In his round he has alternated between two very distinct codes, Rugby Union and Rugby League. Along side three variants of Rules Football and a Canadian variant of Gridiron, these codes all join with American Gridiron to form, "Football". (Yes, yes, both sides are well aware that Soccer is the REAL football - but we are suspending this for the purposes of this debate.)
Since my opponent has failed to specify the exact code of Rugby he is arguing against, I will argue that on the balance of the range of categories, either one of the two main Rugby codes is better than Gridiron. 
I remind the judges though, that the burden of proof remains largely on PRO. He needs to prove that Gridiron is superior to both codes of Rugby Football. I'm running my counter argument to merely show that he is wrong. 

Definitions: Rugby UNION : Intricate and complex, this is the thinking man's code. 15 players on each side. The attacking team can score in the following ways:
3 points for a penalty conversion. The ball is place kicked through the upright posts. This is an uncontested option awarded when the defending side infringes.
3 points for a drop goal. The ball is kicked through the upright goals during the course of regular play. The ball must be dropped on the ground before striking it. 
5 points for a try. The ball is pressed to the ground behind the defending team's goal line by the attacking side. In addition to scoring the 5 point try, this also allows the attacking side an attempted place kick conversion for a further 2 points. The difficulty of this kick is determined by exactly where the try was scored.

The game is free flowing for 90 minutes, except for a 15 minute break at half time where both sides switch ends. Stoppages are called for injury only. This time is added onto the overall time though, so the game will always be at least 90 minutes of playing time. Aside from this, and when stops are required for infringements or for the ball going out of play, play is continuous. 

Definitions: Rugby League : Hard and Fast, this is the code of the working class. 13 players on each side. The attacking team scores in the following ways:
2 points for a penalty conversion. The ball is place kicked through the upright posts. This is an uncontested option awarded when the defending side infringes.
1 point for a drop goal. The ball is kicked through the upright goals during the course of regular play. The ball must be dropped on the ground before striking it. Unlike Union, due to it's low point value this option is only used if the score is very tight in the final minutes of the game. 
4 points for a try. The ball is pressed to the ground behind the defending team's goal line by the attacking side. In addition to scoring the 5 point try, this also allows the attacking side an attempted place kick conversion for a further 2 points. As in Union, the difficulty of this kick is determined by exactly where the try was scored.

The actual game play differs greatly from Union and is actually very similar to Gridiron. The attacking side is given 6 plays to score. If they can't score in six plays, the ball is handed to the Defending team and it is their turn. Each play ends when the ball carrier is tackled, but unlike Gridiron, there are no stoppages called at this point. The tackled player gets up and play starts again immediately by them passing the ball back through the legs to a team mate - similar to a hike in Gridiron. 
The rules and different game play mean that there are far less stoppages in a game of League and as a result the games are usually faster and free flowing. It basically ends up as one ball carrier running as hard and as fast as they can at two or three of the defending players in the hope of breaking through the line. The defenders' goal is to hit the ball carrier as hard as possible so the they drop the ball and possession is handed over early.

Which code is better? 
Our intent is to break the sport down into categories where each code can be measured fairly. We will then be able to show that over the majority of these categories, one of the two "Rugby" codes will be deemed "better" than Gridiron, thus we can safely conclude that Gridiron is NOT better than Rugby.
I will be sure to include the categories my opponent submits as well, both from the first round and from any future rounds. 

Better: Income
I don't contest that the NFL generates more income than Rugby. However as this has little to do with the sport itself it should not play a major role in deciding which code is better. The fact is that Gridiron is really only played professionally in one country*. That one country happens to be one of the largest consumer markets in the world and they know nothing of the other codes mentioned here today. The American consumer's decision to back Gridiron with their dollar has not been made because they've decided one sport is better than the other, it's because they have not been given a choice!

*Canadian Football doesn't count here as it is a different game. But I'd include if you like, it won't damage my point.

Better: Strategy
My opponent has brought up some points to illustrate that strategy is involved in Gridiron. Nice. Strategy is involved in EVERY sport. 
First let's deal with the similarities:
ALL codes use play books with hundreds of plays, and yes most of these are custom. For the Rugbys these can include planned kick return moves, planned plays from set pieces and also trick plays aimed at fooling the defending teams. Gridiron does the exact same thing, except with less players - so less variables.

On to the differences.
Timeouts and Huddles: In Gridiron, after every tackle/down the players all get together and discuss their next move. Coaches can also call a time out to REALLY explain something if they want to. This is not possible in either form of Rugby. Plays must be called out and executed WHILE the game is being played. This requires a far more intimate understanding of the plays. 
ALL players must be strategists: Gridiron is a sport where a player can be told what to do, where and when to do it and then be sent out to execute. If the move fails for some reason, they get another crack at it. Rugby is not like this. In Union , the players MUST all be able to think strategically. If their play fails, they lose possession. This means that EVERY player must be capable of being the play maker.
Strategy under pressure: In both forms of Rugby, strategic decisions are having to be made by the players who are actually playing the game. WHILE they are playing the game. Since it is such a physical game, this requires discipline to a degree that surpasses the Gridiron player who is given numerous occasions to pause and reflect, and can even take a timeout and ask his coach. 

Better: Branding     
I'm pretty sure this was not even a serious point, but in case it was, I'd like to point out to my opponent that:
a) He has selected teams from ONE Rugby League competition. There are two major League competitions in the world and at least seven major Rugby Union competitions.
b) The names selected have come from icons of the region - just as they were in the NFL. Nobody is copying you. Interesting to note that Australia actually HAS tigers. Unlike the USA.
c) The NRL competition was birthed as the NSWRFL in 1907. Many of the teams he's mentioned chose their brands at least 20 years before the first version of the NFL was even conceived. 

PRO's contentions in this regard are negated.

Better: Controversy
My opponent again shows off his lack of knowledge of the subject matter. Ask ANY sports historian what the biggest racial controversy caused in Football was and they will tell you that it was little old New Zealand's decision to send a rugby tour through Apartheid South Africa in 1967. 
NZ wasn't going to let a little thing like Global Sanctions get in the way of a rugby game against the only other country at the time who was any good at it, so we sent a tour. As a result, 22 nations boycotted the Summer Olympics in Montreal.
On a side note, it's worth mentioning that PRO's picture of "Racist White guys doing monkey impersonations of  Black people" actually depicts the NZ Maori side, who naturally have every right to perform the Haka.

The complete list of Nations which boycotted the Olympics over NZ's decision are: Libya, Iraq, Kenya, Zambia, Nigeria, Gambia, Sudan, Ghana, Tanzania, Uganda, Algeria, Ethiopia, Madagascar, Central African Republic, Gabon, Chad, Togo, Niger, Congo, Mauritius, Upper Volta and Malawi. 
This was almost every sovereign nation in the entire continent of Africa, and more than trumps 30/40% of Americans being "upset about a name."

Better : Education
My opponent contends that almost every school has a gridiron team. Very good. 
In rebuttal, I'd like to point out that literally EVERY school in NZ has at least one rugby team. Most have several. Despite it being a very physical sport, most high schools will also have a full contact Girl's team - and they will have no problem recruiting. 
And this is only one country. Unlike Gridiron, which is only seriously played in North America, rugby is played EXTENSIVELY in schools throughout France, Australia, the United Kingdom, Ireland, South Africa, Argentina and Canada. Believe it or not, they EVEN play it in America where they rip off our Haka and make terrible movies about it.  
As if that weren't enough, school teams from these countries regularly tour other countries, thus adding another important element to their educational experience. When was the last time a high school gridiron team toured a country on a different continent?

Better : Cheerleaders
Yes we have cheerleaders in both forms of Rugby as well: From both South Africa and Australia...
"H" from the Durban Sharks Super Rugby Union team...

Cheerleaders  from the Brisbane Broncos Rugby League team...

And even from New Zealand...

Murray from the Manawatu Rugby Union club.

Better: Championship
For this category my opponent has submitted the Superbowl - truly a massive sporting event. For both Rugby Union AND Rugby League, I submit the World Cup. And when I say, "WORLD cup - I don't use the term in the American sense where you hold a world sporting event but you don't actually invite any other countries to attend - I'm talking about an event that countries take so seriously that fans paint their entire house in the country's flag.  

Although the Superbowl still dwarfs the Rugby Union and Rugby League cups in terms of sheer size, both these other competitions rate far more in terms of global significance. 

Better : Fans
My opponent submitted a link to a silly top ten list. Really it was silly. I urge you to check it out. I'll even make it easier by letting you click here
As rebuttal, here is a better list made more scientifically, by actually attempting to collate numbers instead of just asking for votes. 
As you'll see Rugby and American Football place an even 9th on the list. Cricket places 2nd. So that's depressing. 

Significance of Geography - something that's important to note is that Gridiron's fan base is almost exclusively American. 300 million. Let's be super generous and double that to 600 million. That's Gridiron's POTENTIAL fanbase. 
Rugby is already played seriously on EVERY continent in the world. Most continents have at least one top tier rugby nation and in most cases the game has been played there for almost 100 years. Even if its fan base is smaller today, which according to my list, it isn't, but even if it is, its potential fanbase is almost 8 billion. 

Better : Culture
It seems my opponent and I differ on the definition of the word, "Culture". 
Needless to say, people barbeque before after and during both Rugby League AND Rugby Union games, JUST as they do in America before a Gridiron game. South Africa actually has a long standing tradition of tailgating outside the stadiums in exactly the same manner the Americans do - even when it's a night game!

They even sell handy packs for this exact reason!

In NZ, Australia and the UK, it is far more common for people to congregate in the bars and pubs, but rest assured, the culture and atmosphere is at least identical to Gridiron's, if not greater.
 < Aussie Rugby League culture. 

I hope that my opponent decides to continue down this "atmosphere" line, but before he does, I suggest he googles, "Hong Kong Sevens".

Round 1 Summation:
This round has consisted of me effectively rebutting my opponent's points. As this is a four round debate + reply speeches, + CX - I'm going to leave it there for now. 
In my next round I intend to go on the offensive and show that Rugby is a HARDER game, thereby making it a better game.  

To sum up the categories thus far:
Income: Not Applicable as it has little to do with the sport and more to do with the market.
Strategy: I'd give it to Union, but even League outshines Gridiron. 
Branding: Null point.
Controversy: 25 nations boycott what is for many of them,  their one chance to shine because of a Rugby Issue vs 30/40% of Americans "upset" about a name.
Education: Clear points to Union and League which are both global games and widely played throughout schools.
Cheerleaders: Rugby has a wider range. 
Championship: Size vs Quality. Also size may not be an issue much longer.
Fans: Even-stevens at this stage, although again, watch this space. Rugby is growing y'all!
Culture: Let's be honest, no football fans have culture. And I'm including soccer in that too. 

Thank you and vote CON!


Return To Top | Posted:
2014-09-01 05:21:13
| Speak Round
nzlockie: thanks for starting this debate. in this article, (http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/01/02/is-football-dying/ ) NBC Sports voicing an opinion that gridiron is dying.
nzlockie: this opinion is being echoed by many MANY commentators. in the meantime, most reports have Rugby Union as between the first and third fastest growing sport in America.http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11292591
nzlockie: If Gridiron is a better sport as you claim, how do you explain this trend?
Csareo!!!!: Cross examination ism
Csareo!!!!: Damn, isn
Csareo!!!!: Isn't for arguments. Can you rephrase the question?
nzlockie: Sure. You've made several claims in your first round that infer bigger is better. Specifically, income, fan base and championships. Reports indicate that Gridiron's size base is falling while Rugby's is growing. Do you concede that rather than bigger being better than smaller, growing is better than dying?
Csareo!!!!: It depends on the rate of growth relative to the size as of present. Something can be growing, but how long until it reaches a cap, or begins to fall again? A very short fall can rebound into a extreme rise in popularity. Gridiron has 100's of millions of fans compared to rugby. So no, I would not concede that point. The British Empire began to decline in the late 1800's, as the nation of Argentina began to prosper. Would you consider the British Empire to have been greater than the Argentine confederation in the late 1800's?
nzlockie: We're not discussing "greater" in this debate, we're discussing "better". Logic dictates that the horse to back is always the one live one at the back as opposed to the dead one in front. Rugby has been a truly international sport for over 100 years. Gridiron has been around for almost the same length of time and has yet to seriously cross a border.
nzlockie: You mention the cap? I'd say the ceiling has been reached! There's a limit to how big America's population can grow, and with sports like Rugby gaining a serious foothold, you'd have to concede the writing is on the wall.
nzlockie: I'd also take you to task on your assertion that Gridiron has 100's of millions of fans as compared to rugby. Your only evidence for this claim comes from an online survey where people were asked to vote! My survey which found that the numbers were virtually identical comes from someone actually tabulating the numbers. A little more reliable I think...
nzlockie: New line: In your round you posted 9 areas that showed Gridiron was better than Rugby. Only one of those areas, (Strategy) actually anything to do with the sport itself. Given that, is it fair to say that you concede that Rugby is a better GAME than Gridiron?
nzlockie: As in, the game play is more challenging/thrilling/exciting than Gridiron - despite the fact that you contest that the market appeal is less.
nzlockie: For example, I can say that Aston Martins are a better car than Buicks, despite the fact that Buick is a bigger company that sells more units and has a wider market appeal.
nzlockie: (one day later) Your silence is deafening. So you DO agree? Rugby is a better GAME than Gridiron?
nzlockie: (two days later) Oh dear. Everything has gone quiet. Could a forfeit be coming up in Round 2?
Csareo!!!!: The cross examination was 5 days long. Why the rush :)
Csareo!!!!: Well, I contest that your survey was more reliable. Mine wasn't a survey. There was no option to vote, and if there was, then that meant 1/7th of the globe did. Your survey was a rough estimate, that contained rough number ranges of the amount of fans. Saying Gridiron has about 390-410 million. In what ways was my source silly? It as exact and precise, and everything else you said to dismiss it was fabricated and untrue.
Csareo!!!!: Gridiron has growing influence in Canada, UK, and Australia. Are you certain the cap has been reached? Why is rugby not constrained to the same cap?
Csareo!!!!: You also claim Canadian Football is not gridiron. The first line of wikipedia says "Canadian Football is a form of Gridiron football". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_football). Gridiron is a form of football played on a grid, involving two teams getting to the other side of the field. How is Canadia football not gridiron?
Csareo!!!!: The International Rugby League has 18 member nations. The International Federation of American Football has 64 member nations. Would you concede the influence of North American Football, IE, Gridiron, is greater than that of rugby?
Csareo!!!!: Correction: "Well, I contest that your survey wasn't more reliable."
nzlockie: Welcome back! I thought you might have lost interest for a second there!
nzlockie: Once again, you're confusing Rugby with Rugby League. Different code. Rugby Union has an International board made up of over 100 member countries. That trumps both other codes.
nzlockie: As mentioned in my round, I have no problem with including Canadian Football in the definition. It doesn't affect my case.
nzlockie: (BTW since when was wikipedia an authoritative source?)
nzlockie: I'll quickly address your question regarding your survey and then I'll ask you to please answer MY question.
nzlockie: The following quotes are all taken from the opening paragraph of your survey article:
nzlockie: "Here is a list of the top 10 most popular sports, as listed on the mostpopularsports.net website." - This is silly. If you want to use the list, just link the original article. Don't give me secondhand information.
nzlockie: "The website author notes that this list takes into account the population of countries and are based on general surveys/discussions on the internet" - This is silly. He is judging the popularity of a sport based on forums and internet users. How many member accounts have YOU held for a single website Csareo/Jifpop/Chosen/Ba'al?
nzlockie: "The source of the fan numbers is unknown." - This is silly. So I'm just supposed to take their word for it? When they admit that THEY don't even know where the numbers have come from?
nzlockie: Now please address my still unanswered question: In your round you posted 9 areas that showed Gridiron was better than Rugby. Only one of those areas, (Strategy) actually anything to do with the sport itself. Given that, is it fair to say that you concede that Rugby is a better GAME than Gridiron? (Further clarification on the question followed this, including an analogy involving Astons and Buicks.)
Csareo!!!!: I'm actually confusing nothing of the sort. Rugby has an international league, and international tournament, correct? Can you answer my question please?
Csareo!!!!: i wish you would stop referring to it as a survey. It was data collected and cited, and there was no option to vote. It was based off of fan trends. Your own source indicates Rugby has less players anyways, and actually as aaround my source's number, strengthening my data. Can you give true reasons why the data is unreliable? All the things you said in opposition were incorrect. What makes your site more reliable? How is a top ten list more reliable than a sport specific article/site? Where did the data come from? I'll accept it either way, because it reinforces my case.
Csareo!!!!: No, I would not concede that point. Absence of arguments does not equate to their non-existence. I will focus more on the game next round.
nzlockie: To quote from my source: American Football: 9th most popular sport with around 390-410 million fans (US mainly)
nzlockie: Rugby: 9th most popular sport with around 390-410 million fans (France, England, New Zealand and South Africa mainly)
nzlockie: My source ranks both sports identical in 9th position.
nzlockie: To pick up your other point: Please understand that Rugby League and Rugby Union are DIFFERENT SPORTS. Rugby League has 18 member countries, Rugby Union has over 100.
nzlockie: If you don't want to read my explanation of the two sports , please go check wikipedia or whatever you like. It is very hard to follow your argument when you seem to jump between them all the time.
nzlockie: In regards to your question: Would I concede the influence of Gridiron is greater than that of Rugby? No I would not. The fact that Gridiron actually came from Rugby supports the idea that Rugby has had a greater influence that Gridiron. I had planned to bring that up in round.
Csareo!!!!: I am willing to concede that rugby and gridiron have the same amount of players, since your sources says so as well
Csareo!!!!: Gridiron came from rugby? Can you back that claim?
nzlockie: Sure can. Even your wikipedia mates agree.
nzlockie: Thanks for answering my question. I'm pleased that you have assumed BOP to show that Gridiron is better GAME than Rugby as well. That will make the next round interesting.
nzlockie: Are you happy to concede that Rugby Union has a wider sphere of influence, considering that the IRB has more member nations than the IFAF?
Csareo!!!!: I concede that rugby currently has a wider sphere of influence. Can you show me the page that says that
nzlockie: says that it has a wider sphere of influence?
nzlockie: The IRB recently changed their marketing to establish themselves as the "World Game". This article explains their reasoning: http://www.thescore.ie/irb-world-rugby-name-change-1642032-Aug2014/
Csareo!!!!: Okay, thanks! I think I have my case prepared, so no more questions from me
nzlockie: thank you, roll on round two!

Return To Top | Speak Round
BlackflagBlackflag (PRO)
Concession on grounds of.....
- Time constraints
- Lack of confidence in arguments
- Convincing arguments from NZlockie

Good job New Zealand!

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-09-11 01:52:53
| Speak Round
nzlockienzlockie (CON)
I humbly accept the concession. Thanks for the debate Csareo - I know you would have continued had you not been so busy. 
I'm disappointed I didn't get to delve into the things that make Rugby a harder sport than Gridiron, but I'm confident that sooner or later some other person will take up this topic and then I'll be able to unleash on them instead.

Until then, do check out the ABs smashing the Eagles at Soldier's field in Chicago. Also look for Rugby's triumphant return to the Olympics in 2015 after an absence of more than 100 years! USA are actually the reigning Olympic Rugby champions so it'll be good to finally settle THAT score. 

(Check out the guy at 1:40 - whooo!)

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-09-11 02:37:30
| Speak Round
nzlockie: Hey bro - this debate has to keep running til the timer ends.
nzlockie: Next round you should post a few NFL vids that showcase the skills required to play the game!
nzlockie: just for laughs.
Csareo!!!!: To be honest, I had some good arguments, but I was screwed beyond belief on time.

Return To Top | Speak Round
nzlockienzlockie (CON)
Now I realise that it's probably bad form to continue making arguments after the opposition has conceded but since it's unlikely that I'll get a chance to debate this topic again, here were a few of the other points I was going to make to show that only is Gridiron not BETTER than Rugby, but in fact the opposite is true. 

For clarity, I will be dropping Rugby League out of the debate - although I'd happily contend that that one is superior as well.
(Also, just on the off chance that this inspires someone else to take this debate up, I won't go into too much detail here. Save something for later!)

A professional Gridiron team is made up of three basic teams. Offense, Defense and Specials, each with their own pool of substitutes. It is very rare that anyone would ever play every minute of an entire game.  A rugby team has 15 players and 5-7 substitutes. Once a player comes off the field they can not come back on again, meaning that usually 10 people play every grueling minute of this high impact, high intensity game. This places far more emphasis on the all-round skills of the players. With the exception of the front row, (three players in a highly technical and physically dangerous role) most players will have the ability to cover three or four different positions well. 
Strength and Stamina are placed at a premium, unlike Gridiron which places more emphasis on short sharp bursts of energy. 
ALL players must be able to throw, catch, run and tackle. Literally half the team also needs to be able to kick. Contrast this to Gridiron where MOST players only need one or two of these skills. 

I don't know many people who have played both sports who would disagree with this one. Gridiron players are encased in padding and protection. Rugby players go out there with a cotton shirt. There is no contest here.

Although we get the occasional cardiac arrest in Rugby, most tackles hold just as much chance of injury to the tackler as they do to the tackled - thanks to no padding. This teaches rugby players from an early age to tackle hard but safely - around the ankles. Contrast this to Gridiron - feeling invincible with my 10kg helmet and 15kg armour, I fly through the air at a million miles an hour to sack a quarterback with his back turned to me. 

To finish off - I know Gridiron has a few of these but here's a couple of vids showcasing some classic rugby skills!



Return To Top | Posted:
2014-09-21 23:13:37
| Speak Round

View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
Apparently my tab auto corrects 'porn' to 'port' must be because I'm not in the habit of typing 'porn' onto my tab s.
Posted 2014-10-12 07:08:38
Promise I'll let it die this time.
Posted 2014-09-29 19:06:35
I'm trying to end it by forfeiting.
Posted 2014-09-29 18:46:26
I can't believe this debate is still going.
Posted 2014-09-29 14:13:19
Posted 2014-09-13 01:04:02
Posted 2014-09-12 06:22:13
I'm seriously considering concession, do to a lack of time.
Unless NZlockie will agree to a round skip.
Posted 2014-09-10 20:30:42
I don't think it is appropriate to make those comments in an ongoing debate.
But yeah, that kinda goes both ways, doesn't it?
Posted 2014-08-31 07:19:17
Posted 2014-08-31 07:17:02
Me saying this debate seems too easy is nothing about how I feel in regards to rugby. I am more one eyed about plenty of other things before rugby. It's too easy because of the massive misunderstanding you have of rugby. If ican see glaring holes in your argument then I know J can tear it up. Just because we understand rugby doesn't mean we are bias towards con's arguement. But J has told me that he can school you on that and to not give anything away in the comments so I will bite my tongue.
Posted 2014-08-31 07:15:31
Okay, well I'll concede that point when the debate comes on.
@NZlockie- cognitive bias can only be defeated through hard analysis of a debate, but yes, I would trust the judges on this site to give a fair vote.
Posted 2014-08-30 13:58:49
I can confirm this. EVERY school in NZ has rugby teams. I'd go even further than this but I'm wary about providing evidence to either side here.
Posted 2014-08-30 07:26:25
Literally EVERY school in NZ has several rugby teams. Kids start from about 6 years old.
I agree with the comments about bias, but I trust the judges on this site to be professional enough to remove this bias. (Obviously I'd say that, but in this case it's true. )
I trust that my argument will be strong enough to stand on its own merits. My goal is to even convince you csareo!
Posted 2014-08-30 07:23:35
Are rugby teams in every school, or just one's apart of this league?
Posted 2014-08-30 00:50:32
Judges aren't supposed to bring in their own knowledge or opinions in decision making, The problem is that cognitive bias isn't conventional, and often people utilize it without realizing. A cognitive relates to how one thinks. A cognitive bias is how one thinks influenced by other factors.
Posted 2014-08-30 00:45:53
??? Cognition isn't exempted by sports???
Cognitive bias is dictated by personal experiences mixed with logic, e.g, arguments made by NZlockie may sound better to a New Zealander than an argument for gridiron.
Posted 2014-08-30 00:43:24
We have high school rugby tours from South Africa and Australia visit our high schools every year. And we visit their high schools. It is VERY MUCH played all over, and at high school. A friend of mine coached a high school team in Scotland. I don't know where you're getting your data. Wiki?
Cognition of a sport isn't a bias.
Posted 2014-08-29 20:27:11
I looked it up though, and rugby isn't played in highschools in other countries (except in some high schools in America)
Posted 2014-08-29 12:18:56
I think the problem with this debate will be congnitive bias brought forward from the judges, even if it is not intentional.
I'm sure both North American football and Rugby football have potential to be international sports (Australia and the UK are establishing leagues), and as all judging goes, only things seen within the frame of the debate should be considered in a decision,
Posted 2014-08-29 12:17:35
This almost seems too easy to be allowed.
Posted 2014-08-29 05:26:15
"sports and school aren't as intertwined in other countries such as Australia and New Zealand."


That has to be by far the statement from Csareo I most disagree with.
Posted 2014-08-29 04:00:47
It was always going to come down to this. Let's get it on. Sort this age old question out once and for all.
Nerd style. With a debate that weighs up the relative merits of each code with logical dispassionate argument typified by multiple syllable words and points off for incorrect punctuation.

Bring it America.
Posted 2014-08-28 02:42:12
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2014-10-07 08:13:18
BlackflagJudge: Blackflag
Win awarded to: nzlockie
2014-10-07 23:49:39
whiteflameJudge: whiteflame    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: nzlockie
The concession's the major reason, though much of Pro's case seems to stem from bias. More importantly, and this is pervasive throughout both cases, I'm not seeing any reasoning for why each of the characteristics of these two sports makes those sports actually better. More is not necessarily better, and yet both sides submit that, on multiple levels, it's simply better to have more - more fans, more beauty (the cheerleader pics were fun), more money, more interest, etc. I didn't see either side really trying to make a link between more and better on any of these levels, and I think that's really problematic when that's the topic.

Csareo - Try to stay objective with your sourcing, a lot of times these seemed pretty biased. Really focus on linking your case to what's "better," and explaining how we can objectively view one sport as better than another. I need a framework for this debate, and I'm not finding it.

nzlockie - You hit all of Pro's points, but didn't provide much a framework yourself, and I feel that could have helped you. I did appreciate the background on Rugby, though.
2 users rated this judgement as constructive
0 comments on this judgement
2014-10-12 06:57:30
sea_shellJudge: sea_shell
Win awarded to: nzlockie
Even without the forfeit, I think asking people to 'judge with their d****' is offensive. This isn't 400 characters but it needed to be said. This is a debate site, not a port site.
0 comments on this judgement

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 4 rounds
  • No length restrictions
  • Reply speeches
  • Uses cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 5 days
  • Time to vote: 1 week
  • Time to prepare: None