The Instigator
Clayd
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
blackhawk1331
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

I believe the NFL should allow players to play

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2010 Category: Sports
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,568 times Debate No: 14087
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

Clayd

Pro

We NFL fans are all aware of the fines players are being handed, and the penalties they are being given for "illegal" hits. I believe they should allow the players to play the game without these. If a play smacks a QB's helmet, it's a 15 yard penalty. What is the point of them having one if they can't be touched there? "leading with your helmet" What would you like them to lead with? You're head is that the top of your body and when someone is running at you and you need to take them down, and you have limited time to think, you are going to lead with your head. The NFL is ruining the sport. Goddell is trying way to hard. People won't watch, and rating are going to go down. People watch the game for the hits, and it's turning into a flag football league. I suggest only giving fines if it's blatant. Penalties should be re viewable. Also the fines should consist of a lot less money than they do now.
blackhawk1331

Con

First, please explain "illegal". Why is it in quotation marks? It seems that you think they are illegitimate calls, and illegal hits don't exist, but they do.
Now, you ask what the point of helmets is if you can't be hit in the head. The helmets are for the occasions when people are hit in the head. This way, any injuries won't be as severe. Your question is kind of stupid. It's the same as asking what the point of having jails is if you're not allowed to commit crimes. The jails are there for when people do commit crimes. Just like the helmets are there for when you get hit in the head. It doesn't matter if it's illegal, people will get hit in the head, therefore, they have helmets to avoid more serious injury.
Yes, your head is at the top of your body. I'm glad to see you can sing "Head, shoulders, knees and toes". Clearly you also learned the hand motions too. Now, I think by "lead with your head" they mean that you should think your plays through. Not run into the opponent head first. I ran into a couch head first accidentally, and trust me, it hurts. If people were running into each other head first, the NFL would be reduced to nothing. Anyone who ran the ball would end up injured because they'd be running full force into their opponent. I'm watching the Eagles playing the Giants right now (thank God the Giants are winning), and hits are made with the shoulder. Even following the line of thinking that "lead with your head" means to make your hits head first, then your head is LEADING your shoulder, and you make the hit with your shoulder.
As to your limited time to think theory. Do you have any idea how many thoughts can race through your mind in those few seconds? To put it simply, we aren't currently capable of building a computer big enough to process at the same speed as a human brain. I am a hunter. I hunt mainly for pheasant, and I have even less time to react than a football player. When the bird flies up from nowhere, and sounds like a small gun going off, I have to: overcome the shock, pull up the gun, flip off the safety, put my finger on the trigger, aim, and fire. This has to happen in one or two seconds, and it has to happen perfectly. If it doesn't, the bird flies off unharmed. A football player has to do far less, and in far more time. Limited time isn't an issue because your brain is capable of the processing speed, and when you spend lots of time training to do that job, your brain also trains to react faster.
People won't watch? Really? Where on God's earth does that come from? I'm sitting in a room full of people who freak out whenever I talk, especially when I trash the Eagles. I've already been hit (lightly and sort of jokingly) for talking. Trust me, people aren't going to stop watching because of the penalties, and ratings aren't going down.
This isn't a game watched for the hits. Everyone I know who watches hates hits because it means that the play ended, and their team didn't get a touchdown yet.
I can understand, however, that the penalties should be reviewable, and less expensive fines should exist. So, that issue should be dropped because we are in agreement there, and it is a poor argument at this point.

Now for my arguments.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1st
Providing penalties and fines is as an extra safety precaution should be fine. I think everyone should agree with this because if the players are getting injured, there's no game. If there's no game, then the penalties don't matter. We all know that there are already a high amount of injuries in football. If these penalties reduce that number, is it really that bad? The penalties don't eliminate hitting, they eliminate certain hits. Such as horse collar tackles.
The video I posted applies here. If you watch that hit, you'll see it's not safe in any way shape or form. Hitting like that could kill. It's essentially a noose. Our necks aren't designed to take that much force.

2nd
The sport may be a little less violent, but it's safer. I will be referring to hunting for this argument. I was small game hunting yesterday. I was hunting in a field for pheasant. There were people hunting in the woods to the edge of the field. They had, I'm assuming, three shells in their guns. This is the maximum. Now, I'd be fine if that number was reduced in the name of safety. At one point, there were so many shells fired off between the two or three people, I had shot raining down around me for thirty or forty seconds. It was harmless, but that much lead was unnecessary, and on a flatter plane could easily have torn a person apart. If there are less shells allowed in the chamber, people will be more careful with their shots because they can't take as many. Just to clear it up, this relates to the football hits because the shells in the gun are the amount of hits that can be made. Less hits that can be made means less injuries (lead flying around).

3rd
Finally, my opponent's arguments aren't even addressing the resolution. The resolution states that the NFL isn't allowing players to play. I will rephrase this. With the NFL, players can't play. The first problem with this applies to the original resolution, and my rephrased resolution. If a player can't play, then their not a player. Therefore, the resolution can't be true. If the NFL doesn't allow players to play, then there are no players. This is, obviously, false. The next problem addresses the converse of the rephrased statement. The rephrased resolution is: With the NFL, players can't play. The converse is: Players can play without the NFL. This is a problem for you football fans. Without the NFL, there is nothing to watch, and this entire debate is void. Therefore, the resolution is fatally flawed. Finally, the NFL isn't stopping any player from playing the game unless the player makes a serious infraction. Therefore, they aren't stopping many players from playing. The converse is: they are allowing players to play.

I await a response.
Debate Round No. 1
Clayd

Pro

The title of my argument was obviously a metaphor and wasn't meant to be taken literally. So your 3rd argument is invalid. I meant "play" as in let them play the game without having to worry about all these different fines and inconsistent penalties. And by inconsistent I mean, sometimes they won't call an obviously illegal hit by the NFL rules, and sometimes they do. They fine players who got into a brawl 25k, but fine players who simply hit someone on the helmet unintentionally 75k.

For your argument about you having less time to react hunting than NFL players do, I disagree. If running back is running towards you, and you're running at them to make the tackle, and suddenly they duck and you hit them in the head, that is a split second. Hunting however, you are usually prepared and ready, the safety takes less than a second to turn off and can be done wile raising the gun and you can follow the birds in the air for about 3 seconds. So I disagree with you there.

Also, players are paid millions of dollars to play a game. The game involves physicality and the chance of being injured. Wile I agree that some hits are obviously unnecessary and and completely inappropriate, they are making this into a game that players are starting to hesitate before tackling a player with the fear of an enormous fine in the back of their minds. Example, I was watching the Eagles game today (Yes I am an Eagles fan and yes we came back and won!) and Brent Celek caught a 65 yard TD. Well that wouldn't have resulted in a touchdown most likely if that safety wasn't worried about a fine and didn't hold up and just helplessly fall to the ground. Another example, Eagles game against the Colts, 2 Eagles defenders hit Austin Collie and the FS Kurt Coleman was penalized 15 yards. Review showed no foul play. He wasn't fined either. These new rules are confusing the refs so sometimes they don't even know what is illegal and what's not. Countless of times I've heard announcers say that. Yes if the player leads with his helmet deliberately, then he deserves some sort of punishment. But if it's obviously just a boom boom play, then give them a break. These plays can change a game so much. Like the Bears game when Suh was penalized for unnecessary roughness on Jay Cutler, there was nothing wrong with that play and further review showed that, but the Bears went on a kicked a field goal because that penalty kept their drive alive.

Waiting for response.
blackhawk1331

Con

Well, my 3rd argument is still valid and you still need to refute it. If you didn't mean for it to be taken literally, you should have said so in your opening statements, or you should have made a different title. I know that the fines may be inconsistent, but they still exist. I agree that those different fines may be unfair, but that doesn't mean they should be illegal. The infractions and punishments just need a clearer definition.
First of all, have you ever been hunting in general let alone bird hunting? I honestly want this answered. I also want you to tell me if you've ever been trap shooting. Also, you generally stop running momentarily when someone is charging at you. It's a natural reaction. When something like that happens you freeze up momentarily. Therefore, you must pause and slow down. This means that you have a couple of seconds of time. More than enough to process the situation. Now, with hunting you are NOT prepared and ready. You could walk through a field a mile long and see nothing, or you could go through a 1/4 mile long field and kick a hundred birds up. You could still hit nothing. You stand in a ready position, and have no idea when a bird will fly up. You are most certainly NOT ready. And yes, the safety can be turned off while bringing up the gun. You still have to line up the sights and get on the bird. Both of those have to be done in order. You can't do therm simultaneously. And I can follow a bird through the air for 10 seconds if I want. I can only kill that bird in the first one or two. Watch the video to see a pheasant hunt.
With the pheasant video, you just need to watch the first few seconds. That guy has a dog, which is more than me, and he STILL missed. You're supposed to have a dog when pheasant hunting for the best results. I don't. I'm at a disadvantage and I can still get a shot off.
I will give you stats for Doves since I can't find a video that actually shows the bird. The location of the hunters is much more predictable. For doves, the average hunter fires 7-9 shots for every dove they bag[1]. Clearly, it's not that easy.
They are getting paid millions unnecessarily. That money can go to much better use. Now, yes it is a physical game, but that's not a reason to allow all hits. Like I said before, rather than eliminate the punishments, they should make clear definitions of what hits are infractions, and what the punishment is for the infraction. With all this confusion stuff, once again, just clear up infractions and punishments. It eliminates the hesitation and the confusion, but keeps the safety factor. Now, I live in PA, and still hate the Eagles with a burning passion, and I can defend my reasoning for this.

Dropped Points
------------------
All points my opponent made
The safety factor

[1] http://www.chron.com...

I await a response.
Debate Round No. 2
Clayd

Pro

I've hunted Ruffed Grouse's. And in that video, the bird comes up at 1:40, he shoots until 1:44. Giving him 4 seconds. (I think he could've got 1 more shot off.) The AVG NFL play is 5-8 seconds. Meaning about 1 seconds for the snap, 3 for the QB to throw the ball. Well that's 4, so after he throws it, the ball could be in the air for about a second, so that's 5. Then the defender and run collide sometimes withing a split second. You also said when someone is coming at you it's a natural reaction to slow down which gives you a couple of seconds? I never realized holding yourself back a little gave a couple of seconds to the runner. If anything it's less than a second and just so you can protect yourself. But that's actually what the runner/receiver does, not the defender. The defender's usually don't slow down at all, that's why they are bang bang plays. It's the runners or receivers that slow down.

Also, you were going very far off topic. This is about NFL hits, not hunting. I will say though, I don't know how having a dog puts you at a disadvantage at anything except for having to walk and pick your dead bird up. Having a dog doesn't make it easier to shoot the bird.
blackhawk1331

Con

blackhawk1331 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Clayd

Pro

Forfeit, opponent missed deadline.
blackhawk1331

Con

blackhawk1331 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Clayd

Pro

Forfeit, opponent missed deadline.
blackhawk1331

Con

blackhawk1331 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by blackhawk1331 6 years ago
blackhawk1331
Sorry I missed this one too. I was having bad luck with this site over break, I got no opportunities to get on until it was too late. Could we start this debate over? If you like this idea, then just send the debate request, and I'll respond ASAP. I think we should just copy and paste the arguments that were posted, and pick up from there. That's assuming you are willing to start over.
Posted by Clayd 6 years ago
Clayd
Just post your argument for my last response and then I guess that's it.
Posted by blackhawk1331 6 years ago
blackhawk1331
Thank you, I really appreciate it.
Posted by Clayd 6 years ago
Clayd
It's alright. I'll forfeit my argument for this round.
Posted by blackhawk1331 6 years ago
blackhawk1331
Crap. Sorry I missed that post, I've been busy with Christmas and completely forgot about the site.
Posted by Clayd 6 years ago
Clayd
In my 3rd paragraph I made a grammar mistake, this sentence: "These new rules are confusing the refs so sometimes they don't even know what is illegal and what's not." Should be: "These new rules are so confusing the refs sometimes don't even know what is illegal and what's not.
Posted by Clayd 6 years ago
Clayd
@Blackhawk - Okay, we're also the same age, so this should be good.

@m93samman - Updated argument, thanks.
Posted by blackhawk1331 6 years ago
blackhawk1331
I'll post my argument tomorrow. I just accepted to reserve the spot.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
Make the resolution more clear. Do you advocate removing all penalties from the game? No fines?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Clayd 6 years ago
Clayd
Claydblackhawk1331Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32