Quote Originally Posted by TitoFan View Post
So you've grasped at a proverbial straw a couple of light-years away just to justify your asinine point, and I'm being dismissive? Let me guess... you don't have a law degree, I'm assuming. No way you'd survive in that field with the flimsy defenses you're putting up lately.

Let's set aside the particular and unique case that is Cuba, for a second, and consider the idea of pro boxers in the Olympics. You've seen and read all the countless reasons why this is a terrible idea. You admittedly are just playing devil's advocate. So why the soap box? Is it just me that brings out the rebel in you?

I'm flattered.
Apparently I've grasped a straw significant enough for you to decide to NOT answer the questions I asked.


Yes, you were being dismissive and you've apparently decided to follow up dismissive with more of the same. I guess you are thinking that being dismissive would help make your own case, but I'm afraid debates don't work that way you see I've made my points and now you have to counter those points just saying "Those are your points? Pfft " is NOT an argument, scoffing at the opposing viewpoint is not an effective debate strategy....but then again had you actually wanted a debate then you would have answered the questions I posed, or at least attempted to answer them. Titofan, it's alright, you don't have to answer them if you don't want to and you don't have to come up with counterpoints to my argument.....that is unless you would want to debate the issue.


Go ahead, put Cuba aside....what are the arguments AGAINST pros in the Olympics? They boil down to 2 easily refutable arguments 1. "It's too dangerous" and 2. "We don't want to see an 18 year old vs a 40 year old" ...well 1. "it's too dangerous" is a moot point because not only are there more safety measures in amateur boxing (headgear, bigger gloves), but IF pros were allowed to make the Olympic teams then guess who would NOT make the Olympic boxing teams? probably the inexperienced youngsters would be left off the teams....also if an 18 year old is talented enough to make the Olympic Boxing team for any nation then who is to say that boxer cannot win a Gold medal vs professionals? 2. "We don't want to see an 18 year old vs a 40 year old"....do we say that about the pros? Mike Tyson wasn't old when he was Undefeated Undisputed Heavyweight Champion of the world, he was fighting much older much more experienced competition....WHY DIDN'T SOMEBODY STOP HIM?!?!?! HIS HEALTH WAS AT RISK!!! HE WAS JUST A CHILD!!!! Also Gold medal winners have recently been in their mid-late 20's guys like Audley Harrison 29 years old when he won Gold.


You're flattered? Yeah be flattered all you like you've made no arguments for your position whatsoever I've given just a limited amount of effort here and I could even go so far as to drop the old....


Why don't you want to see the most talented boxers in the Olympics? I thought the Olympics was there to showcase the very best every sport has to offer....well if professional basketball players are playing Olympic basketball, pro hockey players playing Olympic hockey, pro soccer players playing Olympic soccer, then why no pro boxers? Why hold boxing back?


Boxing has been stagnant for some time, MMA has taken off and the time has come for boxing to do SOMETHING different if it's pros in the Olympics so be it, there's only 1 Gold medal, there's no avoiding opponents, there's no long drawn out purse negotiations or lawsuits, the actual true to life amateurs still have the Golden Gloves and other strictly amateur tournaments.


But if you're cool with missing some more potential fights like Ali-Stevenson or Tyson-Savon I mean that is A-OK fine with me....just you know, actually provide an argument rather than just being dismissive because that's how DEBATES work, good talk