Hockey is not a violent sport?

[samson35 0]

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.

Ah, fair enough.

I just didn't think that this was the only challenging topic the OP could've chosen. Trying to find evidence that hockey isn't a violent sport isn't the only topic worth tackling in this assignment. I don't think the assignment was to prove that hockey isn't violent (if it is, then I stand corrected). That's the OP's topic of choice. If the OP feels that he has sufficient support for his argument and can put together something he likes, then why not. If he's passionate about the topic, then so be it. If he wanted to stay within hockey, some have suggested alternatives. However, I think the point that many of us are trying to make is that there are many other topics he can examine that can provide an equally rewarding experience, and maybe we should've just said that outright. There are other things he could try and argue that would require just as much creativity, if not more.

[Chadd 916]

There's a difference between making a difficult argument and being intellectually dishonest. The latter promotes the type of thinking that allow people to justify whatever actions they want if they just look hard enough for some sliver of truth.

[chippa13 1844]

If you have to get creative with an argument then you've already lost.

[Lee-Bro 1]

If you have to get creative with an argument then you've already lost.

Not necessarily. It's not uncommon for debate clubs or competitions to put restrictions or exclusions on specific points on a topic in a debate. It's a training tool for resourcefulness and finding another way or perspective on the subject matter. This happens quite a bit in law school in mock trial (think suppression of evidence).

[Chadd 916]

This happens quite a bit in law school...

Talk about making my point for me.

[wrangler 157]

In law school they generally give you facts and law that support plenty of arguments for either side. They want to see you recognize the issues, come up with all the available arguments for either position, and support your conclusion, whatever it may be. The goal is to train effective advocates, so that a court is presented with the best arguments that either side can muster, and is able to make an informed decision.

[nicholus.h 0]

Ah, fair enough.

I just didn't think that this was the only challenging topic the OP could've chosen. Trying to find evidence that hockey isn't a violent sport isn't the only topic worth tackling in this assignment. I don't think the assignment was to prove that hockey isn't violent (if it is, then I stand corrected). That's the OP's topic of choice. If the OP feels that he has sufficient support for his argument and can put together something he likes, then why not. If he's passionate about the topic, then so be it. If he wanted to stay within hockey, some have suggested alternatives. However, I think the point that many of us are trying to make is that there are many other topics he can examine that can provide an equally rewarding experience, and maybe we should've just said that outright. There are other things he could try and argue that would require just as much creativity, if not more.

You're right, I don't think this is the only challenging topic the OP could've chosen, but I don't believe that any other topic that he could've chosen would have been much easier. Personally, I think that the OP was presented with a list of choices (probably all equally difficult) and from that list he chose the hockey one.

Also, I would argue that choosing a topic that was more debatable would not have been equally rewarding. It doesn't sound like he actually has to debate anybody, so the defensibility of his topic probably won't affect his chance of success. A topic such as this presents most people with a sort of mental block (supported by many of the responses in this thread); the OP's topic makes most people react with "that's not true, it will be impossible to argue this" and that's part of the challenge and reward you simply wouldn't get with a more debatable topic.

There's a difference between making a difficult argument and being intellectually dishonest. The latter promotes the type of thinking that allow people to justify whatever actions they want if they just look hard enough for some sliver of truth.

You're being overly dramatic and using a slippery slope to do so.

If you have to get creative with an argument then you've already lost.

Lost what? He's not debating anybody.