I believe the NFL should allow players to play
Debate Rounds (5)
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.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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.
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).
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.
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.
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. 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.
All points my opponent made
The safety factor
I await a response.
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 forfeited this round.
blackhawk1331 forfeited this round.
blackhawk1331 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Clayd 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||2|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.