REAL QUESTION: IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A DEBATE WITH OUT AN ARGUMENT?

[~RustyGunZ~]

Originally Posted by uh-oh

my whole argument is physics and medical research

google concussion statistics in youth football vs. high school vs. college vs. nfl

kids weighing 100 lbs that run a 8.8 40 yard dash don't have the same mass and speed as kids that weigh 200 in highschool and put up 4.6's

you guys presented no evidence, just your opinion. so i didn't present any evidence, just opinion, i thought it was retarded to think otherwise. but here is the first article after googling "less likely for concussion in youth football"

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full...25967116686784



you can extrapolate the data as the players get bigger, stronger and faster

its not a retarded viewpoint, its backed by science, physics and data.

im sure you could google is youth football more dangerous and find an article with facts that back your side

which again proves my whole point of you can only debate things that aren't fact at their core. neither of us will budge on this so if you think im whats wrong with debates understand you are the same person on the opposite side of this debate

Now, since your data leads to middle schoolers getting concussions.. How much choice do they have in not getting into that life altering situation before hand? Your main argument was we shouldn’t feel bad for them because they can just not do it with all their facts they’re of course presented, encouraged to believe, and capable of understanding.