www.debate.org
I think the NFL should allow players with criminal history to continue to play. The past is the past and just because a player did some shady things in his past doesn't mean he shouldn't be allowed to do what he loves. The player has probably did or is doing some type of punishment for his actions and to say he can't play after he finished his punishment is throwing salt in he wound. Everyone needs to be given a sound chance to prove them self, no one knows what the person is going to do after their punishment they might have learned their lesson. Even criminals need a way back in society, how can they do that if you take their jobs away after one slip up.
The news article talked a lot about the and cons about letting NFL players play if they had a criminal history. Some of the cons were that football is already under criticism over criminal conduct by the players and allowing the players to continue to play and receive high pay it shines a bad light on the organization. The article also referred players with criminal records as "thugs" and continued to say that the NFL doesn't need thugs, they define thugs as "a poorly adjusted person whose anger issues are unresolved, such that he lacks the maturity to subjugate his selfish desires". Thugs destroy teams and are not needed in the NFL. The article clearly states that if you are a felon you should not be abel to play in the NFL "Fans are tired of explaining police records to their kids".
When I first read the article, I was shaking my head at everything the author said. I don't agree with most of the things he said, I think he just forcing his opinion on us and really has no evidence to back his clam up. He puts down people with criminal records by giving them the name thugs, he goes on to say that thugs cannot handle the responsibility of a long-term contract. The author states this without having evidence to back it up it sounds like he is just stating an opinion and trying to make it sound like a fact. The author also wrote that "fans are tired of explaining criminal records to their kids". I really don't agree with that because thats just an assumptions, you can't generalize that everyone has kids and they all are tired of explaining criminal records to their kids. Even if you do have to explain it to your kids, who is to say they didn't hear the word at school, or with their friends, what are the chances that they would ask you to explain criminal records because they heard the NFL say it. When I watch the NFL the words criminal record never comes up, fans like me just care about the game and he announcers don't want to make things awkward and bring up the past of some player.
The article was slanted in many different ways, the author generalized many people and categorized them as one. When the article brought up the point of parents having to talk to their children about criminal history because they heard the announcer say it. That is a slant because the author of the article had no evidence that anyone did that, I know that I never once heard the NFL announcers talk about a players past criminal record. The article was also slanted in the way because he calls football players with criminal records 'thugs' and the label thug doesn't sound so good, even when he tells his definition you can tell he is trying to degrade players with criminal records. Another thing that I saw slanted was when the article talked about how the NLF are already critizied about its allowing the players with criminal record to play. The NFL has been around for many of years, people love football, something as small as this won't take the NFL off the map.
No comments:
Post a Comment