Are young children putting their health and even their lives at risk if they partake in the sport of football? Some claim that the American sport is far too dangerous and the risk of concussions and injuries far outway the pros of the physical sport, while others insist that technological improvements and new regulations have made the sport safer. Jonathan Zimmerman, a professor of history and education at New York University, argues in his paper, “We Must Stop Risking the Health of Young Football Players,” that football is a sport that is too dangerous for the youth. He states his belief that technological improvements in helmets and changes in the rules of the sport have had little effect on reducing injuries and that nothing has worked. …show more content…
Zimmerman’s argument has good structure and a reasonable claim, however, his multiple assumptions, overuse of pathos, lack of support, outdated evidence, and no recognition of the opposing side takes away from his argument and greatly weakens his claim. His argument lacks validation and is not logically convincing. Zimmerman structures his argument in a way where it starts in the past and progresses to present day.
He begins by discussing Rugby and how hazardous it is for young men. He backs it up by including a quote from the Cornell President, Andrew D. White. Zimmerman (2016) quotes White by stating, “‘The sight of a confused mass of educated young men making batter-rams of their bodies, plunging their heads into each other’s stomachs, piling upon each other or maiming each other for life- something indeed… killing each other… is a brutal monstrosity’” (p. 1). By using this hyperbolic quote Zimmerman in injecting pathos into his argument in order to manipulate the reader. Pathos can definitely sway an audience’s opinion when used correctly, however, Zimmerman’s use of it here is considerably poor because it adds a bit of repetitiveness to his paragraph due to the fact that before the quote he states something very similar too it. Instead it may have been better if he stated a statistic that added more support and validation to his statement. Zimmerman (2014) then goes onto state, “Amid newspaper reports of 18 football deaths that fall” (p. 2). While this fact has potential to help maintain Zimmerman’s stance against football, it fails and becomes almost invalid because of how this statistic is from 1905. It has little impact with an audience with present day. While Zimmerman speafootball in the past and the days of rugby he could have instead spoken of why the American sport is a problem now, in present day. By focusing too much on explaining the past of football he has not given enough evidence and backing on why it is still so dangerous in present day. Zimmerman then goes onto discuss the inclusion of the forward pass and then the introduction of helmets. However, his argument still lacks solid evidence and statistics for backing up what he is claiming. For instance, when Zimmerman (2014) writes, “helmet-to-helmet hits remain one of the key causes of concussions and
other injuries” (p. 2). With no credible source being stated and no evidence of this statement it becomes useless rather quickly. Zimmerman could have improved his argument by adding or citing any studies or research that could back up his claim so that he becomes more credible to his audience. Furthermore, his argument could have been enhanced if he had specified about the “other injuries” and give specific cases which could have added more to his argument against football. Zimmerman could have benefited by focusing on the premise of football and concussions and the damaging effects of concussions and repeated ones caused by football. The essay then continues on to discuss how the younger athletes face more risks and then goes on to state how much money the NFL puts into programs to improve safety. In these last two paragraphs Zimmerman fails to wrap up his argument and lacks solid evidence. He also takes credibility away from his argument by making multiple assumptions. Zimmerman makes one assumption and bases his argument on it and then uses it throughout his essay. The assumption however, has an insufficient amount of backing to support it. Zimmerman (2014) begins by saying, “For the last century, schools and colleges have tried to modify the game so fewer people get hurt. And it hasn’t worked” (p. 1). This is a major assumption, Zimmerman is assuming that with added regulations and new safety measures that nothing has worked. Moreover, he provides little evidence to back up this premise, and that the statistics he does state are outdated and do not support the argument that is against the version of the sport that is now in present day. In addition to that, what Zimmerman uses to support his argument is by using a lot of pathos to emotionally manipulate his readers. Zimmerman speaks about how the youth are at high risk and refers to them as victims, and also mentions how football has young men killing each other. An example of this is when Zimmerman (2014) writes, “And the most common victims are kids, who are starting football at ever-younger ages”(p. 2). After this he states a statistic that is rather frail. He gives the percentage of the chance of sustaining a concussions, while instead he could have attempted to find the percentage of concussions youth football players suffer each year which could have worked better with his pathos and strengthened his argument by stating the larger risk. By using words like victim, maiming, and killing it evokes negatives emotions from the reader so they view the sport as an object that brings danger and negativity. But, Zimmerman relies too much on the use of pathos. While trying to get his audience’s emotions riled up he takes away from his argument by not focusing on evidence that could better support his belief and strengthen his stance. Zimmerman takes what little evidence he has and surrounds it in pathos in an attempt to strengthen it while in reality as it stands alone it is rather weak and absent. Furthermore, Zimmerman does not seem to cite many sources or provide where he draws some of his evidence from. For example, Zimmerman (2014) declares, “And as a 2011 study showed, former football players who sustained two or more concussions in their youth have a significantly higher rate of cognitive impairment as adults” (p. 2). If Zimmerman were to be more specific about what this study was and who conducted the study it may have helped boost his claim, but because of his vague phrasing and only stating it as a “2011 study” it may leave the reader questioning his credibility. In addition to that, Zimmerman uses a decent amount of quotes from presidents. By mentioning the President of Cornell, Roosevelt, and Obama he tries to build his validation and support. However, it may have built more support if he instead quoted and provided research by medical professionals or those who deal with exercise science. More to add is that Zimmerman also fails to look into the opposing side and gives them hardly any notice or say, leaving him without a rebuttal to further his stance and to give a more solid argument against his opposition. Overall, Zimmerman’s support is lacking and his argument seems to have a feel that it is slightly all over the place. Zimmerman could improve his essay if he focused more on the present day of football. He focused too much on the past with rugby and did not speak more on the present day of football. He overuses pathos and is lacking in support and credibility. He is vague in some of his phrasing that takes away from his credibility. The sources and evidence he uses have poor validation and are not current facts. Zimmerman can improve his argument by finding solid evidence and credible sources so that he can better set up and support his claims. He should also try and focus more on specific injuries that are serious in nature to better move and sway his audience. As of now, Zimmerman has an argument that is lacking in support, credibility, and lacks focus and is too vague when discussing certain premises, making its claims weak and causes his stance against football to crumble.
He Appeals to Logos when he writes, “Over the past two decades it has become clear that repetitive blows to the head in high-impact contact sports like football, ice hockey, mixed martial arts and boxing place athletes at risk of permanent brain damage….Why, then, do we continue to intentionally expose our children to this risk?” He continues by writing, “If a child who plays football is subjected to advanced radiological and neurocognitive studies, there can be evidence of brain damage at the cellular level of brain functioning…. If that child continues to play over many seasons, these cellular injuries accumulate to cause irreversible brain damage, which we know now by the name Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy,” a disease founded by Dr.Omalu in 2002. C.T.E can cause “major depression, memory loss, suicidal thoughts and actions, loss of intelligence as well as dementia later in life.” C.T.E has also been linked to “drug and alcohol abuse as children enter their 20s, 30s, and 40s.” Dr.Omalu Appeals to Ethos when he writes, “As physicians, it is our role to educate” and “protect the most vulnerable among
It is difficult to agree with an author when the reader is not sure what the other side of the argument they are making is. Is there a good side to the sport? If a window was opened to even the smallest bit of information on the positives of football, the reader would be able to agree with McMurtry because they would know what they are actually arguing against. Sure, the game has negatives, but what about all of the positives, from the childhood level all the way to professional? Football gives kids an opportunity to meet new friends, get exercise, and in some cases, gives them an opportunity to escape from an underprivileged life. At the professional level, football provides entertainment, a huge source of money, and opportunities to give back to the community. There are limited things in life that do not have both positives and negatives, so it is unfair to judge football solely based on the negative facts. Because of this choice, anyone who loves the game of football will likely take the opposite side of McMurtry because he immediately takes the antagonist stance on football, and if he does not say a good thing about the sport, then the football fan is going to already disagree with
Playing football comes with great costs, including physical and mental health deterioration, plus the amount of time spent prepping before game day. Which can pose several questions, “Why suffer for a game, is it worth the money? Is it worth the fame? How great is the cost?” I believe that football, should have stricter regulations for the treatment of injuries, along with informing players of just how devastating a concussion can be, along with the other major injuries that commonly occur while playing football.
In Malcolm Gladwell’s article “Offensive Play” he writes about the effects of football, boxing, and dogfighting can have. The effects of these gathering events for the amusement of others can have a lasting toll for those that are going through it. Gladwell describes how the effect of contact to the head can have on the neurological system. He shows in his article that players that play in the league can suffer from brain damage that is similar to Alzheimer or dementia.
In the article “Should Kids Play Football” from the Scholastic Scope on February 2015, writer Jennifer Shotz discusses both issues of the benefits and dangers of playing American football. For example, Jennifer Shots mentioned that tens of thousands of young football players get concussions every year. She states that most players return to the game after they are healed but some never return because their concussion was too severe to their health. On the other hand, the writer also discusses how football isn't the only sport that encounters concussions. The rules of football are always changing and each new rule provides a safer way to play the game. For example, the writer notes that Pop Warner has reduced the amount of practice time dedicated
A parents worst fear is to have something tradgic happen to their child, especially if it was something that was caused by a sport, such as football. “Don’t Let Kids Play Football” is an article that is warning parents and children about the dangers of playing high contact sports. In the article published in The New York Times, Dr. Bennet Omalu, a physician who diagnosed CTE shares research that shows the long term effects of high impact sports and discusses the possibilities of brain damage. ”Don’t Let Kids Play Football” is rhetorically persuasive because Dr. Omalu uses moral duty to appeal to audience’s emotions and uses evidence to support the research on CTE.
Daniel J. Flynn’s argument of why Football Does a Body Good is extremely convincing. The evidence that he presents throughout the essay debunks the counterargument of how dangerous football can be. The essays is full of statistics and examples of how football can positively benefit you. The facts that are presented are effectively used to refute all the negative claims against the dangers of football. He successfully argues toward the benefit of football by presenting appeals to reason, and showcasing his credibility throughout the essay, but he unfortunately does not keep an unbiased tone for the duration of the essay.
He wrote the article to persuade readers about the immortality of football. Almond also provided a lot of evidence and proof to get his readers to agree with his argument. However, he did not only try to convince his reader base on what he believes, but he provided evidence for medical research that has proven that football has both physical and psychological effects on players and the human body. He also discussed all sides on of the issue by stating that he was once a football lover and he is still not against the game itself, but he is against the negative effect it has on the players. Moreover he provided some facts on what football does to the human body. I think that I was personally convinced by the author’s argument a few reasons: one, the author was once a football fan and he is still not against the game. What he is against is the effect it has on the players. Two, the author provided personal and medical evidences on the negative impact of the football. And three, he stated that football players now used helmet which they claim that it will reduce the high speed collision, but if you really think about it, the helmet does not really help much. This should be clear to everyone that watches or play football that it definitely has some negative effects on people. Whether you are player or fan, you should think twice before playing or watching the
Nate uses many rhetorical questions that evoke emotions in the reader. Nate starts of the article with a rhetorical question in the second sentence that says, “How can they avoid brain injury while still getting run over by the gravy train (Jackson, 1)?” Nate also uses similes throughout his article, but this one in particular has a lot of emotion in it. “Blaming the NFL football player for a hit is like blaming a bullet for a homicide (Jackson, 1).” Jackson, really gets to his reader’s emotion with this sentence that talks about the player’s health: “The threat that concussions pose to football is really a threat to its promoters. The game will live on despite them, and will morph to meet the sensibilities of an ever-changing national conscience (Jackson, 3).” Jackson also makes another great point with the last two sentences of the article: “We are making a generation of tough boys; it is true. But what good is toughness without brains (Jackson,
“Concussion rates for children under the age of 19 who play football have doubled in the last decade, even though the overall sports participation has declined” (Youth Football Concussion Statistics). Football is extremely popular in American culture. Children all across the world love watching and playing the sport. However, many studies have shown numerous possible long term effects of starting the beloved sport when young. Undeveloped brains have a harder time recovering from bumps and blows that occur during playing time. After examining the long term effects of children playing football, it is clear that the tradition of tackle football in youth should be held off until the brain is more fully developed,
American football can be joyful and entertaining to watch but what people do not know is that players are suffering a disease that has never been discovering before. In 2009, Jeanne Marie Laskas novel “Concussion,” brought one question to American. Can football kill people? She concludes that playing football can cause permanent brain damage, cause a person to go crazy, and to the point of death. She uses diction and anecdotes to bring a threat to football players in America to light.
Children who are active recklessly engage in activities where injuries can occur. Nobody can predict when or how seriously anybody will get injured during an activity, however, the risks of children playing tackle football is prevalent where the dangers are imminent. The game of tackle football on a youth level is dangerous for children since they are developing physically and mentally. According to an article from The Atlantic, “America’s most dangerous football is in the peewee leagues, not the National Football League” (Barra, 2013). According to a journal article, “sports injuries account for approximately 23% of pediatric emergency department injury related visits” (Podberesky, Unsell & Anton, 2009). “Of these sports injury-related
Since football’s inception, it has been considered a manly sport. Young boys have been encouraged by their parents to participate in the game. For many boys, it is considered a rite of passage. However, football is a dangerous sport. A study conducted by the Center for Injury Research and Policy found, “an estimated 5.25 million football-related injuries among children and adolescents between 6 and 17 years of age were treated in U.S. emergency departments between 1990 and 2007. The annual number of football-related injuries increased 27 percent during the 18-year study period, jumping from 274,094 in 1990 to 346,772 in 2007” (Nation 201). These reported injuries include sprains and strains, broken bones, cracked ribs, torn ligaments, and concussions. A concussion usually happens when a player takes a hard hit to the head or is knocked unconscious on the playing field, and if not diagnosed and treated quickly, a concussion can result in death.
Across numerous sports in the world, helmets are a staple of safety. Assumed to be a benefit, most athletes do not consider the risks of a helmet; both mental and physical risks. Society tells us that no matter what; a helmet will be safer than being exposed to harmful elements. There is also the idea that helmets are beneficial, but the way athletes use them causes more injuries than if a helmet had not been used at all. This culture, using your helmet as a tool, encourages more risky behavior for helmet wearers. Adventure writer and pilot, Lane Wallace argues that football culture is to blame for current helmet use, and that helmets are beneficial in her article “Do Sports Helmets Help or Hurt?” In his article “Disposable Heroes”, Neurologist David Weisman reasons that the worst helmets might be a better solution than better helmets.
From long practice hours, hot summer workouts, and many Friday nights, my personal observation of this dangerous sport is exceptionally prevalent. My initial experience of the damage that football brings came my eighth grade year when I witnessed a senior football player on my team try and eat a phone on the ride home after receiving a concussion in the third quarter of the game. Which is a prime example to defend the fact that football related injuries to the head result in people not “being all there.” Not only have I seen someone try and eat a phone, but I have also witnessed head injuries resulting in my own friend randomly yelling at me after a game for no reason, and also a friend trying to jump down a full flight of stairs thinking he was starring in a movie. The fast paced, high intensity contact that comes with playing football is nothing to think flippantly of when it plays a role on brain trauma, and the results of brain trauma.