Hockey is not a violent sport?

[sampark 0]

Hey Guys,

I have to right a paper/ speech on why hockey isn't a violent sport.

Do you guys have any facts that I could back up my paper/ speech with?

Thanks

[Chadd 916]

Hockey is a violent game.

[jmiami 4]

Hey Guys,

I have to right a paper/ speech on why hockey isn't a violent sport.

Do you guys have any facts that I could back up my paper/ speech with?

Thanks

Who would make you write a paper like that? Sounds akin to being asked to write a paper about why the sky isn't actually blue. Yes, it's a violent sport; case closed. I would try to opt out of that assignment and write about something else.

[nicholus.h 0]

Hockey is a violent game.

Who would make you write a paper like that? Sounds akin to being asked to write a paper about why the sky isn't actually blue. Yes, it's a violent sport; case closed. I would try to opt out of that assignment and write about something else.

Wow, good job being helpful, guys. It's like you've never enrolled in debate class. Which is fine, but "don't complete the assignment" is not helpful at all.

POSSIBLE THESES (THESI?):

-Hockey is a non-violent sport played by violent people

-Hockey is a non-violent sport in which violence is sometimes an unintended effect

I mean, if it were me, I'd try to argue that hockey is largely a non-violent sport with certain, violent aspects that are largely glamorized in a disproportionate way. The vast majority of hockey played in North America is played non-check, and even in leagues where it is not, the aspects of skating and finess are more prominent and more important to successful hockey than violence. When they put NHL highlight reels up on ESPN, it's the goals that dominate screen time, not the hits. The best and most recognizable players in history are people known for their incredible skill, not for their incredible hits. And the hockey moments we remember most are about skill, and not about violence.

The rules that are in place for hockey are designed to remove much of the major violence from the game. While checking is legal, boarding, fighting, etc. are not legal aspects of the game, and while they can be prevalent, this may reflect more the culture of the sport or the people playing it rather than the sport itself.

Hope you got some good ideas.

[IPv6Freely 2082]

Sorry, nothing here. It's a violent sport. I'm not even sure how I'd argue the other way without sounding like I have no idea what I'm talking about.

[dsjunior1388 81]

Wow, good job being helpful, guys. It's like you've never enrolled in debate class. Which is fine, but "don't complete the assignment" is not helpful at all.

POSSIBLE THESES (THESI?):

-Hockey is a non-violent sport played by violent people

-Hockey is a non-violent sport in which violence is sometimes an unintended effect

I mean, if it were me, I'd try to argue that hockey is largely a non-violent sport with certain, violent aspects that are largely glamorized in a disproportionate way. The vast majority of hockey played in North America is played non-check, and even in leagues where it is not, the aspects of skating and finess are more prominent and more important to successful hockey than violence. When they put NHL highlight reels up on ESPN, it's the goals that dominate screen time, not the hits. The best and most recognizable players in history are people known for their incredible skill, not for their incredible hits. And the hockey moments we remember most are about skill, and not about violence.

The rules that are in place for hockey are designed to remove much of the major violence from the game. While checking is legal, boarding, fighting, etc. are not legal aspects of the game, and while they can be prevalent, this may reflect more the culture of the sport or the people playing it rather than the sport itself.

Hope you got some good ideas.

Matt Cooke was all over the airways this season. Who in this group has forgotten Scott Stevens hits on Paul Kariya, Eric Lindros, Slava Kozlov, etc. Why do people in Detroit wear "Kronwall'd" T-shirts? Its not from his shot on the power play. Why do you go to Original 6 arena's and see Probert, O'Reilly, Domi, jerseys, even though these players are long since retired? How many people get excited to see a Gordie Howe hat trick?

[Allsmokenopancake 0]

Wow, good job being helpful, guys. It's like you've never enrolled in debate class. Which is fine, but "don't complete the assignment" is not helpful at all.

POSSIBLE THESES (THESI?):

-Hockey is a non-violent sport played by violent people

-Hockey is a non-violent sport in which violence is sometimes an unintended effect

I mean, if it were me, I'd try to argue that hockey is largely a non-violent sport with certain, violent aspects that are largely glamorized in a disproportionate way. The vast majority of hockey played in North America is played non-check, and even in leagues where it is not, the aspects of skating and finess are more prominent and more important to successful hockey than violence. When they put NHL highlight reels up on ESPN, it's the goals that dominate screen time, not the hits. The best and most recognizable players in history are people known for their incredible skill, not for their incredible hits. And the hockey moments we remember most are about skill, and not about violence.

The rules that are in place for hockey are designed to remove much of the major violence from the game. While checking is legal, boarding, fighting, etc. are not legal aspects of the game, and while they can be prevalent, this may reflect more the culture of the sport or the people playing it rather than the sport itself.

Hope you got some good ideas.

I would disagree. The rules are in place not to remove the violence, but rather to control it. The vast majority of beer leagues are non checking, but high schools, juniors, college, semi pro leagues are all checking leagues.

Hitting is allowed, fighting is allowed in many leagues, aggression can be a benefit when used properly.

It seems like you are using violence as a synonym for fighting. But fighting is not the only violent aspect of hockey. And even in non check leagues, you can still play the body positionally, which can lead to violent impacts.

I don't see any way to successfully argue that hockey is not a violent sport. It is a full contact, high speed sport that also permits hand to hand combat with little punishment (5 minute penalty for a guy who plays 5 minutes anyway isn't much of a deterrent).

Now, you could argue it's not violent if you were talking specifically about violence only in terms of fighting, as it's not at all the major skill set needed for the sport, but that's not what the OP said

[BarDownGinos 3]

Hey Guys,

I have to right a paper/ speech on why hockey isn't a violent sport.

Do you guys have any facts that I could back up my paper/ speech with?

Thanks

There's a book called Blades of Glory that may help you out some. There's a chapter on women's hockey and comparisons are made to how the women's game is more similar to the NHL of the 30s, 40s, 50s than today's NHL. Probably a bit of a stretch but if your speech doesn't have to be too long you may be able to get something out of it.

[steelnation248 101]

While I agree with the previous posters who said hockey is a violent sport, I'll try to help you out.

Maybe you can say that hockey is an aggressive sport, however it can get violent at times when certain style players step on the ice.

That's the best setup I can think of. Good luck with your paper/speech. Like I said, I do think it is violent, but you may be able to get enough info to say otherwise.

[NextBobbyOrr 0]

I kinda don`t know how to argue this point. I mean it`s debatable and could be pulled off, but it`d be no easy feat. The way I see it, the players CAN(not saying they are intentionally or unintentionally, but can) be violent. As well, the nature of the game is rather violent. I mean a bunch of people in a small disclosed area running after a piece of rubber with blades on our feet and sticks on our hands. Aside from the money of hockey, there`s other reasons some parents don`t wanna send their kids to hockey(One of which is violence). And Sam, you saw how bruised Cam got this season. I remember at least 2 concussions, his back and shoulder...

If I were you, I`d try to speak more about the safety aspect. That way you could move more into the field of protective equipment and try to haggle your way to prove that the safety is "increasing"(If it really is). Or if you have to stay with non-violence, get the most concrete facts you can find and speak from an objective POV. Good luck, text me if you need to.

[wrangler 157]

Considering you're starting with a lie, you'll just have to BS the best you can.

Suggestions:

Emphasize the skill and finesse, and the continual practice on them.

Downplay the violence as incidental to the game, rather than the purpose of the game.

Draw parallels between hockey and sports such as basketball, where contact is part of the game.

Distinguish it from sports such as boxing or football, where violence is an essential part of the game.

Hopefully some ideas like this can prime your mental pump, and you can take it from there, developing the thinking skills that your teacher is trying to stimulate in you.

[Chadd 916]

Wow, good job being helpful, guys. It's like you've never enrolled in debate class. Which is fine, but "don't complete the assignment" is not helpful at all.

Doing work for someone doesn't help them either.

[samson35 0]

It's pretty tough to argue that hockey isn't a violent sport. I guess try looking up violence in a dictionary and show how, by definition, hockey isn't violent.

To be honest, I'd suggest changing your topic to something that is more open to debate. It is just too easy to find holes when you argue that hockey isn't violent. E.G. non-contact hockey; one can argue that players still slash, which is violent.

[interpathway 9]

It is just too easy to find holes when you argue that hockey isn't violent. E.G. non-contact hockey; one can argue that players still slash, which is violent.

If this is for a debate class, these are often the perfect arguments to assign because kids sitting on their hands in class can come up with rebuttals rather easily, forcing the participant to debunk and refute the questions directed his/her way.

[samson35 0]

If this is for a debate class, these are often the perfect arguments to assign because kids sitting on their hands in class can come up with rebuttals rather easily, forcing the participant to debunk and refute the questions directed his/her way.

I agree, the assignment is great and often offers refreshing arguments. But I just feel like this particular topic is just too one-sided. Maybe something like hockey is not a malicious sport. I feel like there is too much in hockey that can be attributed to violence for someone to argue that it isn't violent.

[pittu 15]

I dont have alot to add other than to say that I don't view hockey as a violent sport. Alot of people play it somewhat violently,but that doesnt make the sport inherantly violent. Just because you may have a mid ice collision or take a stick to the head accidentally doesnt make it violent in my eyes. What makes it violent is people's intent to be violent. The game itself could care less if it's played violently or not. Heck, 99.9% of the pick up hockey I see played is pretty damned non-violent!...unless you are black, disc shaped, and made out of rubber.

[nickyb13 9]

I think your best bet is to compare injuries from hockey compared to injury from other contact and non-contact sports

[nicholus.h 0]

I would disagree. The rules are in place not to remove the violence, but rather to control it. The vast majority of beer leagues are non checking, but high schools, juniors, college, semi pro leagues are all checking leagues.

...

It seems like you are using violence as a synonym for fighting. But fighting is not the only violent aspect of hockey. And even in non check leagues, you can still play the body positionally, which can lead to violent impacts.

I guess I misspoke, it's not about removing the violence. However, the rules of hockey make it clear that (excessive) violence is not a proper part of the game because it's punished, even if the punishment is underwhelming.

Just because there can be violent impacts doesn't make it a violent sport. Baseball can have violent impacts when an OF collides with a wall running down a fly ball or a runner charges into a 2B or the catcher blocking the plate, but I don't think anybody would argue that baseball is a violent sport.

I agree, the assignment is great and often offers refreshing arguments. But I just feel like this particular topic is just too one-sided. Maybe something like hockey is not a malicious sport. I feel like there is too much in hockey that can be attributed to violence for someone to argue that it isn't violent.

Arguing that hockey is not malicious is quite a bit easier than arguing that hockey isn't violent. "Hockey isn't violent" is difficult and takes intelligence and cleverness. It may be excessively difficult (or even impossible) for him to devise an argument that is air-tight and could be sent as an amicus brief in a court of law, but that isn't the point of the exercise. It doesn't sound like he'll be debating anybody, he just needs to present his best argument defending a very difficult position.

On a personal note, I was disappointed that so many in this thread seemed to immediately think "quit" when presented with a task that they considered impossible. Refused to give even a thought about how they would approach an argument like this, wouldn't come up with any ideas, just came in to be nay-sayers. As human beings, we're capable of so much more than just giving up when confronted with a challenge, regardless of how difficult it is. Sure, we may fail, but to not even attempt to conquer the challenge is an attitude that both baffles and saddens.

[ktang 34]

One way to be successful in the argument is to give a very narrow definition of violence, e.g. "hit to hurt", and show that when played properly, hockey doesn't fit this very narrow definition.

[danno25nh 3]

I suspect that anyone that is unable to differentiate between right and write or paper and speech will be unable to craft a plausible argument.

Hockey in all it's forms to include no check rules is a violent sport.

The only potential argument that will not be immediately discredited as straw-man or red herring would be one which defines violence in a manner the precludes impacts, collisions, and intentional physicality from its definition.

Good luck OP

[Lee-Bro 1]

To help you out: Redefine "Violent."

If you can incorporate into your presentation "your" definition of violent and is at least reasonable, you can then discuss things which are violent based on your definition and work DOWN to non-violent sports/activities such as hockey.

In other words, take a page out of Bill Clinton's playbook: "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is."

[Chadd 916]

To help you out: Redefine "Violent."

If you can incorporate into your presentation "your" definition of violent and is at least reasonable, you can then discuss things which are violent based on your definition and work DOWN to non-violent sports/activities such as hockey.

In other words, take a page out of Bill Clinton's playbook: "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is."

Absolutely correct, you have to set your own definition of violent and then play off of that.

The way I would do it (and I hate doing homework for other people) would be to focus on the way the game is played on a pond or in an organized pickup game. Define pond hockey as the true essence of the game, not the NHL or NCAA. Talk about the beauty of fresh ice, the bonding and friendships that are formed, sportsmanship and even the ability for people to play into an advanced age as proof that the game, when played in a pure form, is not about violence.

It's all bunk, but I could still do at least 45 minutes on it.

[samson35 0]

Arguing that hockey is not malicious is quite a bit easier than arguing that hockey isn't violent. "Hockey isn't violent" is difficult and takes intelligence and cleverness. It may be excessively difficult (or even impossible) for him to devise an argument that is air-tight and could be sent as an amicus brief in a court of law, but that isn't the point of the exercise. It doesn't sound like he'll be debating anybody, he just needs to present his best argument defending a very difficult position.

Well I guess both of us lack intelligence. I was basing my suggestion off your suggested theses. I gave my suggestion so that the OP would be able to find more support for his argument.

I don't think that we just thought "quit". I think we just all realized that it's not an easy argument and that even if you spend time thinking about it, it's still hard to come up with an idea or even multiple ideas that can support the argument. I'm disappointed that you wrongfully assumed that we didn't spend any time to think about this matter.

[pbhockey4 0]

Uhh I think you need to find another sport because hockey is a violent sport. But football is more violent. Chess isnt a violent sport haha.

[nicholus.h 0]

Well I guess both of us lack intelligence. I was basing my suggestion off your suggested theses. I gave my suggestion so that the OP would be able to find more support for his argument.

I don't think that we just thought "quit". I think we just all realized that it's not an easy argument and that even if you spend time thinking about it, it's still hard to come up with an idea or even multiple ideas that can support the argument. I'm disappointed that you wrongfully assumed that we didn't spend any time to think about this matter.

Of course it's not an easy argument. It's not supposed to be an easy argument. If it was an easy argument, it probably wouldn't have been assigned, he wouldn't have came here for help and loads of people on this thread wouldn't have come here to say "wow, that problem is difficult. Instead of trying to solve it, you should just get an easier problem." Which is quitting. And really, it's not just that so many here weren't willing to step up to this challenge, it's that so many tried to convince the OP not to step up to the challenge, either.