Parolympics vs Olympic Games

I'm writing English since my wife doesn't understand Danish. We are seeking help to clarify a simple argument.

My wife angrily stands by her statement : "it's more difficult to win a medal at the parolympic games than at the Olympic Games"

I'm stunned by this statement, there a fewer handicapped people in the world than physically healthy people without handicaps. By simple mathematics it should be clear that it's easier to win a medal when you compete against fewer people.

Another way to look at it, there are many examples of athletes who were never capable of even qualifying for the Olympics, but after suffering an accident in where the became handicapped they were not just capable of qualifying for the Parolympics but went on to win medals at the Parolympics.

Give us your inputs please.

What is her argument?

Its paralympic :)

Your discussion does not really make sense to me, I'm afraid. What is your definition of "difficult"? Is it the probability of winning a medal once you are qualified for the games? The probability of a random athlete winning a medal in her career? Is it the amount of exercise, commitment etc. you have to put into your sport? Is it all the other aspects of life where a disabled person is often battling on uneven terms?

Having taught disabled kids for quite some years, I would think that your wife would be talking about the mental strenght needed as a handicapped person - not only to take charge of your own life, but also to excel in any sport.

Well, well..

I know a dude who wanted to chop off a leg with a hacksaw, so he could compete in the paraolympics. But he had no arms to work with.

Person A is NOT disabled

Person B IS disabled

Both A & B play a sport on regular, but not in any way professional level.

Both decide that they now want to win an Olympic/Paralympic gold medal. Who would it be easier for, if we take into account, that they are currently on an equal level at their respective sports.

My personal opinion is, that person B would succeed more often than person A. Mostly because of the same arguments that Tafi lays out. Fewer athletes being the main argument.

In the 2012 Olympics there were 10,768 particpants who competed in 302 events (~35 per event)

In the 2012 Paralympics there were 4,302 participants who competed in 503 events (~8.5 per event)

DrNoe skrev:Your discussion does not really make sense to me, I'm afraid. What is your definition of "difficult"? Is it the probability of winning a medal once you are qualified for the games? The probability of a random athlete winning a medal in her career? Is it the amount of exercise, commitment etc. you have to put into your sport? Is it all the other aspects of life where a disabled person is often battling on uneven terms?


Having taught disabled kids for quite some years, I would think that your wife would be talking about the mental strenght needed as a handicapped person - not only to take charge of your own life, but also to excel in any sport.

Well, well..

This one highlighted, because it started like this; her "Iran so powerfull we won more than 20 medals in the Parolympics" me "but it's also a lot easier to win medals at the Parolympics" (coming off the recent Olympic where Denmark beat Iran in the medal count, which I find amazing considering there's 80 million people in Iran compared to 5 in Denmark), but now she thinks she has gained new ammunition in debating the strongest people, by stating that actually Iran beating Denmark in the Parolympics medal count, is more important, since it's more difficult to win medals there than in the "real" Olympics!

So I would say it's the probability of someone winning a medal in whichever Olympics, which is the hardest? She says Parolympics, I disagree.

Iran with 80 million, inbreeds (cousin marriages, something not happening much in my wife's family, but happens a lot in other families), reckless driving in the traffic and a long war with Iraq in the 80's have alle resulted in a higher count of handicaps in Iran per 1,000 citizens compared to example Denmark. Which is why I believe with reason I can argue for why Iran has more handicaps and therefore more possibilities of finding qualified athletes. And that Iran puts a lot of pride into the Parolympics (since it's actually one of the few places where an Islamic Republic can win something).

Like Obama once said; "You've might have won the Parolympics, but you're still retarded".

I try to reason a lot with my wife, but it just seems like Muslim are incapable of arguments derived from reasoning, I would love to debate, and if she has any counter arguments using reason, please tell me, instead she throws a tantrum and get's angry, accusing me of not accepting how powerful Iran really is!

Do other people have same crazy argument's with their partners, I would say 99 % of the time is perfect, but then arises these crazy things where I just can't understand why you would discredit my motive for arguing against Iran, it has nothing to do with the fact I want accept if she was right, it's that I can see she is obviously not, and since she is my wife, I would love her to be clever, so when I see an instance in where she isn't, I would like to educate her, instead she get's angry, it's suck a difficult process arguing with your Muslim wife sometimes, but I still love her <3

Wow blev jeg lige trollet der ? Den så jeg ikke komme