The Instigator
Crazy4Steelers07
Pro (for)
Losing
11 Points
The Contender
patsox834
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Micheal Vick should play in the UFL (United Football League) if the NFL suspends him next season.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
patsox834
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/17/2009 Category: Sports
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,746 times Debate No: 8955
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

Crazy4Steelers07

Pro

This debate steams from an editorial article from yahoo.com. (http://sports.yahoo.com...)
Other than taking the pro position and explaining this debate, I will allow my challenger to go first.
In the event that Roger Goodell suspends Micheal Vick from playing in the NFL (National Football League) next season for most (More then 8 games) or the entire season then Micheal Vick should play in the UFL (United Football League), the new indepedent league set to compete with the NFL as minor league in the fall of this year on Fridays.
patsox834

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for instigating this intriguing debate; I hope it goes well.

My position is that Michael Vick shouldn't be allowed to play professional football with any sanctioned league, whether it's the National Football League, the United Football League, the Canadian Football League, etc., because of the crimes he committed.

For those who might be unfamiliar with Vick and the controversy that surrounds him, here's some information:

<"Vick and three others are charged with competitive dogfighting, procuring and training pit bulls for fighting and conducting the enterprise across state lines.

Michael Vick was indicted Tuesday on charges of illegal dogfighting.

The dogfighting operation was named "Bad Newz Kennels," the indictment states, and the dogs were housed, trained and fought at a Surry County, Va., property owned by Vick.

The indictment alleges that the 27-year-old Vick and his co-defendants began a grisly dogfighting operation in early 2001 in which dogs fought to the death — or close to it.

Losing dogs were sometimes killed by electrocution, drowning, hanging or gunshots."> (1)

All of this can be substantiated by the following link: http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:PPytD-HmYL4J:espn.go.com/media/pdf/070730/taylorstatementfacts.pdf+tony+taylor+summary+of+facts&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a

That link takes the user to a summary of the facts in Vick's case, which were used against Vick and his accomplices in court. In features a confession from Tony Taylor, who was partners with Vick in their heinous "business."

<"Beginning in or about early 2001 and continuing through in or about September 2004, in the Eastern District of Virginia and elsewhere, defendant TONY TAYLOR, also known as "T," knowingly and unlawfully combined, conspired, confederated and agreed with PURNELL A. PEACE, also known as "P-Funk" and "Funk," QUANIS L. PHILLIPS, also
known as "Q," MICHAEL VICK, also known as "Ookie," and with other known and unknown persons, to commit the following offenses against the United States, to wit:

a. traveling in interstate commerce and using the mail or any facility in interstate commerce with intent to commit any crime of violence to further any unlawful activity and to promote, manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, and carrying on of an unlawful activity, to wit: a business enterprise involving
gambling in violation of Virginia Code Annotated Sections 3.1-796.124(A)(2), 18.2-326, and 18.2-328, and thereafter performing and attempting to perform acts to commit any crime of violence to further any unlawful activity and to promote, manage, establish, and carry on, and to facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, and carrying on of the unlawful activity, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1952;

b. knowingly sponsoring and exhibiting an animal in an animal fighting venture, if any animal in the venture has moved in interstate commerce, in violation of Title 7, United States Code, Section 2156(a)(l); and

c. knowingly buying, transporting, delivering, and receiving for purposes of transportation, in interstate commerce, any dog for purposes of having the dog participate in an animal fighting venture, in violation of Title 7, United States Code, Section 2156(b). TAYLOR agrees that he entered into the conspiracy willfully and with the intent to further the
conspiracy's unlawful purposes.">

Not only does it describe the crimes in detail -- but it has ~50 pieces of information which collectively prove the guilt of Vick and the other members of his nefarious gang beyond a reasonable doubt.

In essence, Vick and company knowingly ran a dog fighting ring, which resulted in the brutal and disgusting deaths of many dogs -- but not only did they kill the dogs who lost, but the methods used to kill them were sociopathic; the dogs were tortured. The dogs also suffered an abundance of injuries. The killing and torturing of all these dogs seems to be more than morally equivalent to the killing of an individual human, which would still have Vick in prison, and not in a position to be reinstated to any football leagues.

Knowing this, it's my belief that Vick should still be in prison, and thus, not playing professional football.

(1) = http://www.cbc.ca...
Debate Round No. 1
Crazy4Steelers07

Pro

Ok, first off I would like thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

On to my opponents arguments, and then I will present my own:
Yes, Micheal Vick was guilty of running a dog fighting ring, which he was convicted for and would be the result of his absence from proffesional football and the open world for the past two years. However, Micheal Vick has been relesed from fedreral prison (http://sports.espn.go.com...). He has paid dearly for his crimes. Vick is left in debt, jobless, and without two years of his life. You have merely listed the facts of Micheal Vicks case, and stated that he is a convicted felon and that convicted felones cannot play proffesional football. You have no warrent to this claim, so why can't they? Yes, it is likely that the NFL and suspension happy Roger Goodell will suspend Vick from playing this season, but that is soley up to his personal judgement, not based on any rules that prohibit convicted felones from playing. Basically with no warrent to back up the claim that convicted felones can't play professional football (which is rediculous and can't be backed up) my opponent presents no reasons why Vick can not play in the UFL.

Micheal Vick, if suspended from the NFL next season, should play in the UFL.
Contention 1#- Vick Needs a Job
After all the dust has cleared from the horrific dog fighting incedent, Micheal Vick finds himself alone and broke. He actually owes people a lot of money. Vick needs not only a job, but one that can pay well enough to overcome the massive amount of debt he posses. Vick posses only one major proment career path that can make up the money he owes: Playing proffesional football. At this point, it becomes more about paying the bills then playing in the NFL, or getting the big contract with the big endorsments (and trust me, noone is going to endorse him). Vick needs a place he can play and the UFL is just the option

Contention 2#- The UFL needs Vick
Honestly, how the UFL is still planning to carry out their season is beyond me. The recent american economic crisis has hit the sports industry hard, and crippled many minor and supplemental leagues. The AFL (Areana Football League) cancelled the entire 2009 season, and after 25 years, the future of the league is still in question and it easily could fold. Instead, the UFL looks to fight the recession and open a new football league, and not only do that but play games in the fall on Fridays to compete with high school football games, and have a season run con-current with the premier American Football League the NFL. The UFL is taking a huge risk, and amoung all this risks, they need one certainty: A house hold name. If Vick where to play in the UFL, he would at least be one person everyone knows in a league of otherwise nameless players. Vicks obscure form of playing quaterback, with his flushing out of the pocket speed made him a spectical to watch in the NFL before his legal troubles. Vick could be the face of the UFL, and while doing show use the good fame to help relieve his name and show the world he has changed. The move at most would only be temporary, probally last just one season. But if the UFL doesn't fold after its first season, like other leagues have done that have tried to compete with the NFL (Noteably the XFL), then some at least people would know something about the UFL.

With these clear advantages of Vick needing a job, and the UFL needing some plubicity: its clear that Vick should play in the UFL, because my opponent has not presented any reason why he shouldn't play except that his a convicted felon which has paid his debt to society. Should a convicted felon not be aloud to obtain a job, to make a living?
patsox834

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for his reply.

Firstly, I believe my opponents opening argument to be rather fallacious; he 1: misrepresents my position; 2: doesn't address the crux of my argument; 3: appeals to the emotions of the voters. I'm hopeful that none of you will fall for such tactics.

As I stated, my opponent took my position and did a little distorting, which is a straw man fallacy. My opponent essentially claimed that I simply listed facts pertinent to Vick's case, and then stated he was a convicted felon, and people who have been branded as convicted felons can't play football professionally; however, I believe my opponent completely missed the boat on this one, as I did no such thing. My point was that the killing and torturing many, many dogs, as well as the other crimes he committed, are more than morally equivalent to the killing of one, individual human being, which means Vick should still be locked behind bars and sharing a cell with a morbidly obese drug czar named Raul, rather than having an opportunity to play with a professionally sanctioned football league.

And the above paragraph leads directly into my second point, which is that my opponent hasn't offered any refutations to the beef of my argument. He stated that Vick has been released from federal prison and fulfilled his sentence, but this is irrelevant to the argument I used, which is that Vick's actions and crimes are equal to, and possibly more than equal to, the killing of a single human, which means he should still be in prison. Since this point hasn't been rebutted, please extend that argument.

My opponent also claimed that I didn't give reasons why Vick cannot play in the UFL -- of course Vick *can* play in the UFL, which mean he's, indeed, physically capable of doing so -- but that is irrelevant. Considering this debate is about what *should* happen to Vick, I don't need to give reasons why Vick can't play in the UFL; I merely need to give reasons why he *shouldn't* play in the UFL; my argument is that he *should* be in prison, and thus, he shouldn't be in the UFL, nor any other professional football league.

My last point was that my opponent decided to try and make use of the appeal to emotion fallacy. I believe he did so when he stated that Vick is left in debt, jobless, and "without two years of his life." My hope is that the readers are able to see past this blatant ploy by my opponent.

Now, on to my opponent's contentions:

His first contention is that Michael Vick needs a job. However, my opponent gives the impression that Vick's choices are pretty much professional football or...well...nothing. But this simply isn't the case; Vick can find work elsewhere, and, while it might take him longer to pay off his debts, he still can, indeed, do so -- this all negates my opponent's first contention.

My opponent's second contention is that the UFL "needs" Vick; however, I don't see this as being the case at all. He says Vick could be the "face" of the UFL, but this could very well be a reason for the UFL *not* to take Vick; I don't see why the UFL would want someone who's generally perceived so negatively to be their face of their league -- a player whose reputation is largely negative, and the means through which this negativity were achieved, make it so that the player isn't at all marketable, and is perhaps a burden to the name of the league. In a way, to market such a player would be slandering the name of their own football league.

The resolution has been negated.
Debate Round No. 2
Crazy4Steelers07

Pro

First to refute my opponents argument.
To summarize his case my opponents claims that "Vick should not be playing football in the UFL or anywhere because he should be in prison". This statement has no validity anywhere, unless my opponent has invented a time machine. In which cases he can go back to the Micheal Vick dog fighting trail and have the punishment be more serve. And for anyone that things you can change his punishment now, let me remind you of something called double jeapordy. No individual can be tried for the same crime twice. Thus, Vicks punishment has been set, carried out, and now as far as the goverment is conserned over. Thus, Vick (as all criminals released back into society) must re-aclimate themselves to the real world. My opponent makes the argument that the crimes commited by Vick are 'equal if not greater than murder', however 1)the only way this where to be true if you valued a hundred dogs lives over one humans which is popseress and 2)Even if you want to believe that it his, then let the punishment fit the crime. Vick spent 18 monthes in prison and 6 under house arrest. Donte Stallworth (http://sports.espn.go.com...) who only got 30 days in Jail for killing a pedestrian in a hit and run DUI. My opponents problem seems to be with the American Judicial system and it not offering proper or as long of punishment as they would like. I would suggest him to write his congressman and try to get that changed. I, nor him, nor most of America can change the American Judicial system. We have to live with it choses, and thus Micheal Vick is again within the American society and actively seeking employment. My opponent wishes to change the American Judicial system, which he simply can not do.

Considering Micheal Vick is indeed not in Jail and out in the American Populous, he must as I've stated seek employment. My opponent argues that there are plenty of other jobs out there and Vick doesn't have to go into pro football. Peraphs pro football is not Vicks only option, but it is his best chance. In six season in the NFL, Micheal Vick proved is validity as a pro quaterback. He has played at the highest league at the best level. Even if Vick is not allowed back into the NFL (because he gets suspended) then why not go somewhere else and still get paid? Vick, as I've stated, needs money to pay off debts he's accumulated through this whole dog fighting ordeal. And maybe my opponent hasn't noticed, but our current economic climate is not of that to stumble into an new careers that would make Vick any money. The UFL would still previde a pay day of about $600,000 this year, plus a good chance to get back into the NFL if Vick plays good. The money is to good for Vick to ignore, when no other job he could possible get would pay him that kind of money other than playing in the NFL. Vick has a natural talent. Some of us where born to be programmers, or firefighters, or policeman. Anyone who's seen Vick play has to admit, he was just born to play football.

My opponent then goes on to argue that having Vick in the UFL would be bad plablicity, which they certainly wouldn't want. Look, as the guys on ESPNews aircheck where saying yesterday (6/20/09) "Some Americans just won't forgive Vick, they're not willing to give him a second chance. But they're are fans out there that want to see him get back on the field." Some people which watch him, and those people that hate him maybe they'll watch just to root against him. The plain simple truth is I watch ESPN all the time, read the sports page in the paper everyday, and am surfing the web for sports stories almost constantly. This is the first story I've heard about the UFL in 5 monthes, since they announced a former NFL head coach as one of the coaches for the new league. Noone is paying attention to this league, mostly because it is very unlikely that it will make it, but that aside you have to believe that people have to start talking about it. If this league, the UFL, has games on Friday and noone know they're playing them; how are they suppose to get any money? Having someone play in there league like Micheal Vick, would at least have all the big News Medias and Sport Station talking about the league to follow him. And in the case that the league is at least being exposed, the league benefits.

Seriously, let me pose this question to my opponent and voters:
Can you name any players currently planning to play in the UFL this season?
Can you name the teams in the league?
How many games in there season? What's they're play-off format?
How do the rules differ from that of the NFL?
What is the purpose of this league?

Basically you are all drawing blanks. The reason for this is becuase the league has recieved no publicity, and thus noone know about it. You want publicity, then you need new outlets to be willing to talk about you. And having someone as famous, and maybe even as contrevesial, as Micheal Vick will allow the UFL to do that.

FYI: The only awsner I know from those questions is the number of games (6) because they're where talking about it on ESPN when they where talking about if Vick should play in the UFL. Also, I'm sure you could find most of the information on the official UFL website (www.ufl-football.com/), but really is it your responsibilty to go find out this league exsists????

Vote Pro, Micheal Vick most definently should play in the UFL if the NFL suspends him because it would not only benefiet himself, but also the UFL at large.
patsox834

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate.

In my opponent's attempts to refute my rebuttals, he has still managed to not address parts of my argument; he's seemingly avoiding it by saying what "can" and "can't" happen. Ex: stating I can't change the judicial system, go back in time, and nor can Vick go back to jail.

No, Vick can't go back to jail, I don't have a time machine, and nor can I change the system -- but this is very much irrelevant to this debate, which, as I explained thoroughly in my last post, is about what *should* happen to Vick. What can and cannot happen and what *should* happen are two different things, and the resolution quite clearly reads: <"Micheal Vick should play in the UFL (United Football League) if the NFL suspends him next season.">

In essence, simply because he can't go back to prison doesn't at all necessarily mean that he shouldn't, which means my opponent hasn't come close to adequately refuting this part of my argument. Addressing what can or cannot happen is attacking an irrelevant argument I never made, which means my opponent is again committing a straw man fallacy.

My opponent said this: <"1)the only way this where to be true if you valued a hundred dogs lives over one humans which is popseress">

I'm not sure what he means, as "popseress" is not a word that would be anywhere close to applicable in the context of this debate. In fact, upon a Google search of that word, the first result was actually this debate. My point is that what my opponent is saying in his first point is essentially incomprehensible.

However, I'm going to assume he means "preposterous," which seems kinda likely...but I'm not sure. But just in case this is true, I'll treat what he said as if it is.

Why would it be preposterous? My opponent has merely said that it is, and not supported himself. I don't think it's "preposterous" at all, considering dogs are, indeed, sentient beings. Taking this sentience into account, as well as how many dogs were probably killed, tortured, and injured, it clearly seems as if these crimes would outweigh the moral significance of an individual human being killed; thus, Vick should still be in prison.

Furthermore, why 100 dogs? My opponent is just busting out completely arbitrary numbers. However, Vick did, indeed, run a dog fighting ring, which was responsible for the death, torture, and injuries of many, many dogs; police confiscated roughly 70 dogs when they busted Vick, and, keeping in mind that dogs, according to the indictment, "fought to the death, or close to it," and that the "Bad Newz Kennels" operation had been running for several years, it seems very reasonable to think 100 dogs died. I'd even say that 100 is actually low-balling the number of dogs killed by a decent amount. But anyway...I just felt like letting everyone know that.

My opponent then followed that up with this: <"2)Even if you want to believe that it his, then let the punishment fit the crime. Vick spent 18 monthes in prison and 6 under house arrest. Donte Stallworth who only got 30 days in Jail for killing a pedestrian in a hit and run DUI.">

I think this is a rather weak analogy, because it assumes that the punishment received by Stallworth is just, which I don't think it is at all. 30 days in jail for killing a person while driving under the influence is absolutely ludicrous.

Further, my opponent's analogy simply has no legal validity -- I'm not really sure why a completely different case lacking in similarity should set a legal precedent. Keeping in mind that precedent, in law, means the following: <"...a precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body utilizes when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts."> (1)

Quite frankly, the facts and issues of this case aren't similar at all; the only real thing they have in common is that sentient beings lost their lives, and that isn't anywhere close to enough to establish a valid legal precedent; if this were the case, then the punishment for killing a bird would be the same as it is for killing a human.

My opponent then defends his first contention -- he says this: <"In six season in the NFL, Micheal Vick proved is validity as a pro quaterback. He has played at the highest league at the best level. Even if Vick is not allowed back into the NFL (because he gets suspended) then why not go somewhere else and still get paid?">

Yes, he can go elsewhere, but this is just utterly irrelevant, considering, again, this debate is about what *should* be occurring.

However, to assuage my opponent, I'll go along with this: Why not? Because he blew it. Vick had his chance to sustain a career in football, but, unfortunately for him, he decided to engaged in very serious, illegal, idiotic, and disturbing acts, so it's too bad for him -- as I said, he blew it. Further, despite the fact that Vick *can* play in another league, just because one *can* do something doesn't mean they should -- for example, I can go stick a knife through my neighbors chest. But does that mean I *should* commit such a psychopathic act? Not at all; however, my opponent's logic would support it.

His chances were there, but he threw them away. Why should he get another? Because he's good at football? The absurdity inherent in such an idea is astounding -- my first point would go along the lines of my last one: just because Vick *can* play football at a high level doesn't at all mean he should. Like I was saying, I can; therefore, I should, is a fallacious argument -- a vast array of things can be done. Whoever is in control of bombing stuff can decide to bomb Sweden -- but does that mean they should? Not at all; however, my opponent's logic support's that. Further, he's good; therefore, he should, is fallacious, too. Plenty of people are good at killing. Does this mean they should become serial killers? By that logic, it does.

My second point would be that Vick dug himself into this hole; now it's time to climb out. Vick committed these crimes, and put himself in debt; now it's time to get his way out of it. Why should we put him back on easy street by letting him earn plentiful amounts of money by playing football? This would only be avoiding the consequences of his actions.

My opponent's second contention with him quoting people from ESPN, but that's hardly an argument. Further, I'd like to call ad authoritarium, or, in other words, an appeal to authority. Just because ESPN thinks people want to see Vick doesn't at all mean that's the case. Also, why in the world would someone watch a sporting event to cheer against an individual player...? When one dislikes another, it's simple human nature to not want to have anything to do with them. So, in essence, my opponent's contention goes against our nature as human beings.

My opponent says the league would be exposed with Vick; therefore, they'll benefit -- but, to quote myself: <"a player whose reputation is largely negative, and the means through which this negativity were achieved, make it so that the player isn't at all marketable, and is perhaps a burden to the name of the league. In a way, to market such a player would be slandering the name of their own football league.">

So clearly, just because the league is exposed doesn't mean they'll benefit; it's entirely possible that having a negatively recognized figure "expose" them would burden them, or, as I said "slander their name." Just because people might learn about the league a little doesn't necessarily mean the league will benefit, especially in this context. My opponent didn't really address my initial refutation to his "they'll be exposed; therefore, they'll benefit" I posted in the last round, so please, extend that argument.

To conclude, I've negated both relevant and irrelevant arguments used by my opponent. So please, vote con.

(1) = http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by patsox834 8 years ago
patsox834
Haha, this debate has been interesting. I've actually kinda been playing devil's advocate a little (especially in the argument I'm in the middle of working on.) It's weird, because I didn't think that would happen.
Posted by Crazy4Steelers07 8 years ago
Crazy4Steelers07
UFL comissioner on Vick as good plabicity (http://espn.go.com...)
Posted by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
I find it funny that the UFL would want Vick for publicity, given Vick's reputation.
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
That would indeed be a viable stance, patsox. I think you should go for it.
Posted by patsox834 8 years ago
patsox834
I'm tempted to argue that Vick shouldn't be allowed to play football *anywhere.*
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by tribefan011 8 years ago
tribefan011
Crazy4Steelers07patsox834Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by patsox834 8 years ago
patsox834
Crazy4Steelers07patsox834Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Crazy4Steelers07 8 years ago
Crazy4Steelers07
Crazy4Steelers07patsox834Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by Levin 8 years ago
Levin
Crazy4Steelers07patsox834Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70