Iginla: Hockey is better and safer with fighting in it

[nickk382]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

How predictable. What do you think you know about the "substance" behind my rejection of the argument for fighting?

You're unbelievable. I understand you try to make an argument against fighting, but your argument doesn't nearly come close to make a stand on why fighting in which has been a part of the game forever, should be eradicated for good.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by nickk382

You're unbelievable. I understand you try to make an argument against fighting, but your argument doesn't nearly come close to make a stand on why fighting in which has been a part of the game forever, should be eradicated for good.

How's that, exactly?

[nickk382]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

How's that, exactly?

If you think that fighting in hockey should no longer be allowed, then why don't we disallow the clean blind side hits that happen? You think that all those huge hits happen accidentally? No, they're done intentionally. Not only that, but those hits are the actually ones that cause serious injury, not fights.

So please enlighten me why fighting should truly be disallowed? You want to just make baseball and hockey to be compatible?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by nickk382

If you think that fighting in hockey should no longer be allowed, then why don't we disallow the clean blind side hits that happen? You think that all those huge hits happen accidentally? No, they're done intentionally. Not only that, but those hits are the actually ones that cause serious injury, not fights.

So please enlighten me why fighting should truly be disallowed? You want to just make baseball and hockey to be compatible?

Look. You clearly have not read my posts—or at least not carefully thought through anything that I have been saying to this point in this discussion, because your questions have virtually NOTHING to do with anything I have posted.

I suggest you go back and have a look at my arguments, and then challenge them individually and specifically on their merits. Here, I'll even give you a head start:

Here is my reason for rejecting the "nuclear deterrent" defense of fighting in hockey:

Premise A: There is fighting in hockey, and there has always been fighting in hockey.
Premise B: There is dangerous play caused by reckless and unsportsmanlike actions with sticks and equipment in hockey, and there has always been dangerous play caused by reckless and unsportsmanlike actions with sticks and equipment in hockey.
Conclusion: There is no evidence to suggest a correlation between fighting and the instances of dangerous play caused by reckless and unsportsmanlike actions with sticks and equipment in hockey.

Here is my argument for why I have been consistently calling for more information about the purpose and place of fighting in hockey:

1. Fighting in hockey is dangerous and there is mounting evidence that its continued place produces long term substantial health risks that dramatically affect one's quality of life.
2. The purpose of fighting in hockey is both highly debatable and not well established.
3. As a means to justify the risks, the best course of action is to educate ourselves as best as we are able to about both the purpose and effect of fighting in hockey, and the long-term impact.

Most of the rest of the relevant points you can find on the last two pages.

[nickk382]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Look. You clearly have not read my posts—or at least not carefully thought through anything that I have been saying to this point in this discussion, because your questions have virtually NOTHING to do with anything I have posted.

I suggest you go back and have a look at my arguments, and then challenge them individually and specifically on their merits. Here, I'll even give you a head start:

Here is my reason for rejecting the "nuclear deterrent" defense of fighting in hockey:

Premise A: There is fighting in hockey, and there has always been fighting in hockey.
Premise B: There is dangerous play caused by reckless and unsportsmanlike actions with sticks and equipment in hockey, and there has always been dangerous play caused by reckless and unsportsmanlike actions with sticks and equipment in hockey.
Conclusion: There is no evidence to suggest a correlation between fighting and the instances of dangerous play caused by reckless and unsportsmanlike actions with sticks and equipment in hockey.

Here is my argument for why I have been consistently calling for more information about the purpose and place of fighting in hockey:

1. Fighting in hockey is dangerous and there is mounting evidence that its continued place produces long term substantial health risks that dramatically affect one's quality of life.
2. The purpose of fighting in hockey is both highly debatable and not well established.
3. As a means to justify the risks, the best course of action is to educate ourselves as best as we are able to about both the purpose and effect of fighting in hockey, and the long-term impact.

Most of the rest of the relevant points you can find on the last two pages.

Ok, well me not carefully reading your posts before doesn't change my standpoint on your debate, so I'll continue to rebuttal.

Your reasons why with my response:

1. Playing hockey is dangerous, not fighting.

2. Fighting in hockey was never debatable for dozens of years until the recent few. (For reasons in which I don't know why. Maybe the world is getting softer, which in my opinion, truly is).

3. What the hell are you talking about? Playing hockey is what gets you injured long-term, not fighting. Tell me what fights have severely screwed a player's career?

You're misunderstanding that playing hockey is dangerous, not the fighting that includes it.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by nickk382

Ok, well me not carefully reading your posts before doesn't change my standpoint on your debate, so I'll continue to rebuttal.

Wow. So, essentially you are proclaiming that you are intractable and not open to changing your opinion, regardless of what I might say or write. There really is no reason for me to continue this discussion with you, but I will enlighten you about one item:

Originally Posted by nickk382

...Fighting in hockey was never debatable for dozens of years until the recent few. (For reasons in which I don't know why. Maybe the world is getting softer, which in my opinion, truly is)...

This kind of willful ignorance is really inexcusable. If you honestly don't know why this is now becoming an issue, then you need to start by taking the time to inform yourself.

It's called chronic traumatic encephalopathy, and it's scary:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2945234/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/sp...-to-brawl.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/sp...anted=all&_r=0

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

How predictable. What do you think you know about the "substance" behind my rejection of the argument for fighting?

Quit being smug, "how predictable"? Seriously? What did you predict?

As I said, your argument is full of filler. I made a claim on the substance of your argument because I don't believe it has much, and I found it a little humorous you needed to ensure everyone was aware you were an "educated" hockey fan.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Premise A: There is fighting in hockey, and there has always been fighting in hockey.
Premise B: There is dangerous play caused by reckless and unsportsmanlike actions with sticks and equipment in hockey, and there has always been dangerous play caused by reckless and unsportsmanlike actions with sticks and equipment in hockey.
Conclusion: There is no evidence to suggest a correlation between fighting and the instances of dangerous play caused by reckless and unsportsmanlike actions with sticks and equipment in hockey.

1. Fighting in hockey is dangerous and there is mounting evidence that its continued place produces long term substantial health risks that dramatically affect one's quality of life.
2. The purpose of fighting in hockey is both highly debatable and not well established.
3. As a means to justify the risks, the best course of action is to educate ourselves as best as we are able to about both the purpose and effect of fighting in hockey, and the long-term impact.

Most of the rest of the relevant points you can find on the last two pages.

Premise A, B and Conclusion: Flawed
Fighting is not seen as a safeguard against all dangerous plays and dirty stick work, nobody has ever claimed that, so your conclusion is meaningless. Your conclusion is based on your perception of it's intended effect, not based on the effect that any actual professional has claimed.

Just to show you how inept your theory is:
Premise A: Police have existed for all of the last 100 years.
Premise B: Crime has existed for all of the last 100 years
Conclusion: There is no evidence to suggest a correlation between police officers and crime over the past 100 years - Something tells me you'd be looked at like an idiot if you tried to make that argument.

As for the rest:
1. Yes.
2. No. It's only debated by detractors and those outside of the game. Those who are affected by fighting show no evidence of being confused by it's purpose. Just because you're confused by it's purpose, does not mean it is unclear to the vast majority. Your own lack of understanding is not of concern to the general public or the NHL.
3. Perhaps, but you're in no position to make that claim. This is of course entirely dependent on whether the NHL, the NHLPA, and the majority of fans agree with you. If they all agree that this is something essential, then it will be the best course of action, but it isn't currently seen that way by any significant portion of population involved in the NHL.

[nickk382]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Wow. So, essentially you are proclaiming that you are intractable and not open to changing your opinion, regardless of what I might say or write. There really is no reason for me to continue this discussion with you, but I will enlighten you about one item:


This kind of willful ignorance is really inexcusable. If you honestly don't know why this is now becoming an issue, then you need to start by taking the time to inform yourself.

It's called chronic traumatic encephalopathy, and it's scary:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2945234/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/sp...-to-brawl.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/sp...anted=all&_r=0

The size of your 'johnson' is extremely scary. Let's get rid of UFC and all boxing sports while you're at it.

You're pretty much saying that all contact sports should be put to an end. Unless all players in contact sports are bubble wrapped with bullet proof vests from head to toe.

Players sign the contract, understanding the risks they're taking. You my friend, are signing a contract, to admitting you have a serious misunderstanding of what sports can do in general. It's not the fighting that you have to be concerned about in your standpoint on the subject.

Do you think when you were younger, your mother was aware of the injury possibilities of whatever sport you wanted to play when she was signing the permission slip?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by strombad

Premise A, B and Conclusion: Flawed
Fighting is not seen as a safeguard against all dangerous plays and dirty stick work, nobody has ever claimed that, so your conclusion is meaningless. Your conclusion is based on your perception of it's intended effect, not based on the effect that any actual professional has claimed.

Wrong. Jarome Iginla cited precisely this as THE REASON fighting is important to hockey:

Originally Posted by Jarome Iginla

"Fighting helps hold players accountable for their actions on the ice, even more so than penalties. If it was taken out of the game, I believe there would be more illegal stickwork, most of it done out of sight of the referees; more slashes to the ankles or wrists, and in between pads; and more cross checks to the tailbone. Incidents of players taking such liberties are rare in today's game because fighting gives us the ability to hold each other accountable. If you play dirty, you're going to have to answer for it.
...In my opinion, fighting prevents more injuries than it causes."

Incidently, have NHL players, coaches and management ever deviated from this defense? I'm asking because I am honestly curious, because I have yet to see anyone in the NHL make claims about fighting that do not in one way or another invoke the "nuclear deterrent" argument.

Originally Posted by strombad

Just to show you how inept your theory is:
Premise A: Police have existed for all of the last 100 years.
Premise B: Crime has existed for all of the last 100 years
Conclusion: There is no evidence to suggest a correlation between police officers and crime over the past 100 years - Something tells me you'd be looked at like an idiot if you tried to make that argument.

You're right, but that is a very simplified version of the argument, and an actual indication as to why the sort of study and pursuit of information that I am advocating is so necessary. The correlation between the purpose and function of police officers as enforcers of law and order and the instance and frequency of crime is well established scientifically. There is NO SUCH ANALOGOUS ESTABLISHED CORRELATION between fighting and the control of unsportsmanlike conduct in hockey.

Originally Posted by strombad

2. No. It's only debated by detractors and those outside of the game. Those who are affected by fighting show no evidence of being confused by it's purpose. Just because you're confused by it's purpose, does not mean it is unclear to the vast majority. Your own lack of understanding is not of concern to the general public or the NHL.

Once again, I have no lack of understanding. I am perfectly clear about the perceived purposes of fighting in hockey, and I have chosen to reject them on the grounds that they are poorly established and do not accurately reflect reality. Your constant assertions that I am somehow failing to grasp this is becoming tiresome, unless you can demonstrate from anything that I have said to this point that demonstrates my ignorance in this matter. In my estimation, the actual purpose of fighting in hockey at present is primarily beholden to tradition, and then somehow justified for the sake of entertainment, and as an imagined need for players to enforce The Code™.

The debate is happening whether you like it or not; the point is that there are more than a pedestrian number of well informed observers and participants who disagree about the purpose of fighting in hockey, and they challenge the premises offered by the League because the nuclear deterrent position is not well established.

But besides this, a much more important point is raised in the bolded portion of your response here:

Are the families and friends of Bob Probert, Derek Boogard, Rick Rypien, Wade Belak, and the certain unknown numbers of others who have suffered debilitating and fatal effects as a result of the culture of fighting in hockey UNAFFECTED? Or are they CONFUSED?

Originally Posted by strombad

3. Perhaps, but you're in no position to make that claim. This is of course entirely dependent on whether the NHL, the NHLPA, and the majority of fans agree with you. If they all agree that this is something essential, then it will be the best course of action, but it isn't currently seen that way by any significant portion of population involved in the NHL.

Argumentum ad populum.

By challenging my third premise, am I to conclude that you believe it to be a good idea to wilfully reject the possibility of gaining more information about the purpose and effect in hockey?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by nickk382

The size of your 'johnson' is extremely scary...

Good lord. I'm done with you.

[nickk382]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Good lord. I'm done with you.

I'll pray that you don't get a concussion from falling out of your bed when you sleep. We might have to ban sleeping without cages around our beds to prevent us from falling out of them.

Make sure you tell your kids that you might have now or will have in the future that skateboarding, skiing, snowboarding, running, cycling, and even playing a video game might give them concussions, and they absolutely need to wear a helmet at all times. Even when they're doing their homework. You never know how frustrated a kid can get when they have way too much homework. They might bang their head against the desk.

On that note, let's ban HOMEWORK! He shoots, he scores!

[Itse]

Originally Posted by strombad

Just to show you how inept your theory is:
Premise A: Police have existed for all of the last 100 years.
Premise B: Crime has existed for all of the last 100 years
Conclusion: There is no evidence to suggest a correlation between police officers and crime over the past 100 years - Something tells me you'd be looked at like an idiot if you tried to make that argument.

This is actually a great example of why textcritic has a point and you don't.

You could spend your whole life reading studies on the effect of police on crime (and even quite a bit on societies without police). Essentially all of it has been done within the last 100 years. Making studies like these is not a problem.

So why not do them? And why claim to know the results before such studies are done?

The only studies that have been done on the topic show that it does not have a notable effect in the outcome of games, even though numerous players and coaches still claim that it does. This is a strong indication that really players and coaches have little clue when they are talking about fights.

EDIT2: ############ seems to trigger a filter. Google "hockey fights impact on games" for the page I'm talking about.

The extra 0.1 goals the team might get after a fight, in other words, are generally cancelled out by the 0.1 goals the other team will get after a fight.

Now before you get excited about your favorite team signing a new goon, remember that an NHL team needs to improve its goal differential by approximately six goals to win one additional game. So winning a fight is worth a little more than 1/80th of a win in the standings;

Since sports is an environment with so much data available, studying the actual effect fights have on dirty and dangerous plays and/or injuries should not be hard at all.

By the way:
If you want to make people feel safe, it's more effective to have a couple of visible cops patrol the area on foot that it is to have them do normal police work, even though those two cops patrolling on foot have almost no effect on serious crime in the area. It's just how the minds of people work.

My guess is that a somewhat similar situation applies to hockey. Goons are the visible police, and them fighting is a visual confirmation that they are doing "police work". Having them around makes the players feel safe just as having police around makes people feel safe, even though it actually has little real effect on the dangers that threaten them. (Although this is a simplification; visible cops reduce visible petty crime, which in turn at least in some cases can reduce serious crime.)

Also; like in the Oilers - Flames games, fighting is often a dangerous, injury causing play in itself, and even essentially a dirty play. This makes the pro-fighting argument in my eyes pretty close to "we need to have guns to make people safe".

Had Ference beaten Stempniak with a stick with the exact same results, everybody would agree that it was a dirty play, and we would have gotten four minutes of powerplay, which would have served as a stronger penalty on Ference. But because it was a fight, the Oiler-fans (and some of our own fans) are saying that it was great, and we got 2 minutes, because the culture around fighting effectively prohibits harsh penalties for hitting people with fists, regardless of the rules.

EDIT: For the record; not me or as far as I understand textcritic are straight up saying that fights don't prevent injuries. They might. What we are saying that it they might not, and as long as we don't know which it is, saying that it does is a really weak argument. That argument would need evidence to back it up.

To me it seems really, really unlikely that fights have any real benefits.

And again: if you say that something works, you should be able to back it up with something. It's not up to the other side to prove that it doesn't, and actually ignoring arguments that are not backed up in any way is perfectly fair. This is because coming up with claims is easy, and disproving them is hard, and if we start accepting any arguments without evidence, going forward in a discussion becomes impossible.

As long as people are just saying that fights reduce dirty plays without trying to back it up, the discussion goes nowhere. It's unreasonable to expect the other side to do the work to prove your argument for you.

This is something that anybody with a basic understanding of statistics and time on their hand could theoretically do, to get at least some preliminary evidence. I mean, some blogger alredy did this, basicly from that premise, and the results were that fights have no effect on injuries.

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/201...ional-fighter/

Over the last five seasons, the blog Springing Malik has tracked injuries in the NHL, recording man games lost. I compared those numbers with the NHL’s official record of major penalties. There’s quite a bit of noise – nobody expects an enforcer to prevent a player from pulling his groin in the off-season, for example – but my belief was that if fighting helped prevent injuries there should be at least some small correlation between more major penalties and fewer man games lost.
Instead, in four of five seasons there was a positive correlation – meaning that teams with more fights suffered more injuries. Here are the correlations, with a negative number indicating teams with more fights having less injuries and a positive number indicating the opposite:

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Wrong. Jarome Iginla cited precisely this as THE REASON fighting is important to hockey:

Incidently, have NHL players, coaches and management ever deviated from this defense? I'm asking because I am honestly curious, because I have yet to see anyone in the NHL make claims about fighting that do not in one way or another invoke the "nuclear deterrent" argument.

Wrong. You believe the theory of "fighting prevents some dirty plays" to mean the same as "fighting prevents all dirty plays." In your premise and conclusion, you state that they have no correlation. Because they both exist there is no correlation, according to your premise. The reality is (and thank you for quoting Jarome) is that professionals claim the elimination of fighting would cause MORE of these plays, notice how MORE is different? MORE infers an increase in an already established number. These plays already exist, professionals believe there would be more of them, not the very beginning of them.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

You're right, but that is a very simplified version of the argument, and an actual indication as to why the sort of study and pursuit of information that I am advocating is so necessary. The correlation between the purpose and function of police officers as enforcers of law and order and the instance and frequency of crime is well established scientifically. There is NO SUCH ANALOGOUS ESTABLISHED CORRELATION between fighting and the control of unsportsmanlike conduct in hockey.

Argumentum e silencio
Moralistic fallacy

It isn't a very simplified version of the argument, it's the version of the argument you presented. If your argument is simple and in need of a defence, I'd suggest you strengthen it before making it while offering someone a "head start" on their criticism towards you. Making a flawed argument and then backtracking by bolstering it after the fact is tiring. If you would like to claim that studies should be done to prove the correlation between the two, you can, but at this time there is zero evidence that there is NO correlation, while there evidence of the witness that there IS correlation. You're cherry picking what you see as evidence, and in the absence of evidence you believe to be suitable, you claim the conclusion must be false. That doesn't fly in any reputable circle of logic or analysis.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Once again, I have no lack of understanding. I am perfectly clear about the perceived purposes of fighting in hockey, and I have chosen to reject them on the grounds that they are poorly established and do not accurately reflect reality. Your constant assertions that I am somehow failing to grasp this is becoming tiresome, unless you can demonstrate from anything that I have said to this point that demonstrates my ignorance in this matter. In my estimation, the actual purpose of fighting in hockey at present is primarily beholden to tradition, and then somehow justified for the sake of entertainment, and as an imagined need for players to enforce The Code™.

You still fail to grasp this.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

The debate is happening whether you like it or not; the point is that there are more than a pedestrian number of well informed observers and participants who disagree about the purpose of fighting in hockey, and they challenge the premises offered by the League because the nuclear deterrent position is not well established.

But besides this, a much more important point is raised in the bolded portion of your response here:

Are the families and friends of Bob Probert, Derek Boogard, Rick Rypien, Wade Belak, and the certain unknown numbers of others who have suffered debilitating and fatal effects as a result of the culture of fighting in hockey UNAFFECTED? Or are they CONFUSED?

Appeal to authority

Again, a glaring issue presents itself in your argument. The vocal minority of those questioning fighting in the game is in fact a pedestrian number. As for them being well informed? That's a statement without any significance, as there is at least an equal percentage of well informed observers who are not in disagreement over the role of fighting. It's not as grand a query as you claim it to be, so feel free to relax.

Argumentum as nauseum

Are we discussing the role of fighting? Or the health effects of fighting? Because I've repeated that it is dangerous and potentially not worth the risk. Do I need to repeat myself in every post? Or are you going to practice proper reading comprehension and show that you understand that by not depending on health effects to make a point? You're not making one to me, because I agree with you, so if those points aren't for me, then feel free to address them to a different audience.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Argumentum ad populum.

By challenging my third premise, am I to conclude that you believe it to be a good idea to wilfully reject the possibility of gaining more information about the purpose and effect in hockey?

Argumentum ad consequentiam
Straw man

See, the thing about argumentative fallacies, is that everybody makes them. Your arguments are full of them, and yet for whatever reason you feel it's appropriate to casually call one out from time to time for some unknown purpose. You've made plenty, I'm sure I have too, but try to make sure your arguments are clean and without fallacy before daring to venture into them. It's doing for you the very opposite of what you intend.

To answer your question, I don't necessarily disagree, nor do I agree. I don't believe you have any significant credentials or intelligence to make a claim about what is best for the game, so I question the proposition. If you would like to tell me what you would hope to accomplish and more importantly why it needs to be accomplished, I would be willing to listen. Keep in mind however, in stating why it needs to be accomplished, you should be addressing a common problem or significant area of need that could be served. If your "why" is narrow and more self serving than it is serving an actual purpose, then I'm not interested.

To put it simply, if you're going to convince me, don't tell me of your opinion, tell me of facts and evidence. That's what you require from the NHL, so I think it's fair to require that from you. You've spent too long telling me how you and a few others "feel" based on a lack of evidence. How is that better than what NHL players "feel" in regards to in-game evidence?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by nickk382

I'll pray that you don't get a concussion from falling out of your bed when you sleep. We might have to ban sleeping without cages around our beds to prevent us from falling out of them.

Make sure you tell your kids that you might have now or will have in the future that skateboarding, skiing, snowboarding, running, cycling, and even playing a video game might give them concussions, and they absolutely need to wear a helmet at all times. Even when they're doing their homework. You never know how frustrated a kid can get when they have way too much homework. They might bang their head against the desk.

On that note, let's ban HOMEWORK! He shoots, he scores!

Good argument. Allow drinking and driving, as people die in car crashes anyways.

See I can play that ridiculous game too.

Perhaps if I also think fighting's days are numbered I too have a small penis?

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Who are you kidding? The League does this all the time. I specifically suggested that such study would need to occur in a trial season or two in one of the minor leagues, which is a practice that the NHL implements ALL THE TIME to test new rules and innovations to the game. They can launch an intensive study of how hockey works in the absence of fighting within the European leagues. There are plenty of reasonable, practical ways to go about doing this. Don't hide your head in the sand and pretend like I'm suggesting something infeasible.

So the league does this all the time with something it wishes NOT to change... I don't think so. You don't take measures to set a grandfather system or even to collect data regardless whether it's pro or negative unless you are interested in need for change for the better (which ever route that is) But I don't think that is the case, the league has shutdown and quickly moved on every time fighting is brought up... it looks to me the NHL whishes to hide it's head in the sand and wanting this to blow over every time it comes up because it doesn't wish to look at it. My point was the NHL wouldn't take the drastic measure you're asking for because it's not open (right now) for change. That type of drastic action can only be done with a open mind that wants to know the results.

Personally I think you'll have better luck winning the lotto then expecting a closed mind (NHL) to be open that they may be wrong or right

That's my point

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by strombad

There will always be pundits and people on their computers claiming that hockey has no place in the game, and I'm often curious how many players of different skill levels and positions coming out in support of fighting it's going to take before the pundits admit they are wrong.

I haven't read the 100 posts between this one and the end of the thread yet, but - as Jiri's response alluded to with his reply just after, certain elements of the media are convinced that they know better than anyone else and have dedicated themselves toward ensuring the whole world knows it.

There was a good rant on Puck Daddy a couple weeks ago (guest blog by a reader) that sums a lot of this up pretty well:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu...4578--nhl.html

[Itse]

Originally Posted by strombad

Wrong. You believe the theory of "fighting prevents some dirty plays" to mean the same as "fighting prevents all dirty plays." In your premise and conclusion, you state that they have no correlation. Because they both exist there is no correlation, according to your premise.

Argumentum e silentio
Moralistic fallacy

Appeal to authority

Argumentum ad consequentiam

Straw man

You used all of these wrong, except for maybe straw man. Although that's stretching the term quite a bit.

The vocal minority of those questioning fighting in the game is in fact a pedestrian number.

Appeal to unknowable statistics.

That's a statement without any significance, as there is at least an equal percentage of well informed observers who are not in disagreement over the role of fighting.

Blatant moving goalposts. You clearly first argued that people who are against fighting don't understand it.

More generally, constantly appealing to formal names of logical fallacies is counterproductive and somewhat rude.

How about we all stop?

Also:
You constantly claim that our argument is "hockey fights don't prevent dirty play /injuries". That is a misunderstanding.

The argument against which we are making is basicly as follows:

"Your claim that hockey fights prevent dirty play / injuries is not proven, and as such can not forever be accepted as an equal argument to the scientifically proven anti-fighting argument that hockey fights cause severe health problems and even deaths."

Or to put it in other words:
In light of recent studies related to the significant health risks of hockey fights, we need to take a more critical view of existing pro-fighting arguments. This is especially true of the argument "hockey fights prevent injuries", since it's the most common argument and the most easily proven or disproven statistically.

See, the thing about argumentative fallacies, is that everybody makes them.

Agreed. But argumentative fallacies are also often in the eye of the beholder, especially if you have a very dismissive / aggressive attitude to begin with.

You've spent too long telling me how you and a few others "feel" based on a lack of evidence. How is that better than what NHL players "feel" in regards to in-game evidence?

The anti-fight argument is not based on a feeling, it's based on the fact that hockey fights are dangerous to the point of lethality, which is an argument based in solid science.

All we are asking is that the pro-fighting crowd come up with equal evidence.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by SebC

If they treat it like an assault (as much of the rest of society does), it would be very close to totally prevented.

A patently absurd argument given that in general society, slamming someone into a wall or firing a hard object towards someone at high velocity would both also be considered assault. The hockey rink is not general society.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Itse

You used all of these wrong, except for maybe straw man. Although that's stretching the term quite a bit.

Appeal to unknowable statistics.

Blatant moving goalposts. You clearly first argued that people who are against fighting don't understand it.

More generally, constantly appealing to formal names of logical fallacies is counterproductive and somewhat rude.

How about we all stop?

Also:
You constantly claim that our argument is "hockey fights don't prevent dirty play /injuries". That is a misunderstanding.

The argument against which we are making is basicly as follows:

"Your claim that hockey fights prevent dirty play / injuries is not proven, and as such can not forever be accepted as an equal argument to the scientifically proven anti-fighting argument that hockey fights cause severe health problems and even deaths."

Or to put it in other words:
In light of recent studies related to the significant health risks of hockey fights, we need to take a more critical view of existing pro-fighting arguments. This is especially true of the argument "hockey fights prevent injuries", since it's the most common argument and the most easily proven or disproven statistically.

Agreed. But argumentative fallacies are also often in the eye of the beholder, especially if you have a very dismissive / aggressive attitude to begin with.

The anti-fight argument is not based on a feeling, it's based on the fact that hockey fights are dangerous to the point of lethality, which is an argument based in solid science.

All we are asking is that the pro-fighting crowd come up with equal evidence.

I don't need to go back and forth with two morally righteous members of the anti-fighting crowd, so I'll keep this as simple as I can:

I used those fallacies properly, and admitted to my own argument containing fallacies in an attempt to point out that claiming something is a fallacy was stupid. You repeating my sentiments almost to a T is great, so thank you.

Some people either believe or have mistakenly stated in arguments against fighting that fighting is supposed to STOP dirty plays (not act as a deterrent, which is the case). If that is not you, then clearly my comment wasn't directed towards you. Feel free to disregard.

Part of the anti-fighting agenda is based on the proven scientific data that suggests impacts to the head result in CTE. This is actually true of any collision to the body of significance, so every hit can lead to the very same damage that fighting can cause. I have no problem with people noting that fighting has the potential to cause brain damage. The only time I take issue is when SOME of those people disregard that even casual hockey plays can cause similar amounts of brain damage (scientifically proven), and when SOME people, unable to convince people based on science alone, then attempt to discredit the role of fighting in the game.

If you said "Fighting, whether or not useful to the game of hockey, is not worth the risk because of the possible health effects" I likely wouldn't engage, because I'm not far from believing that myself.

I only ever take issue with the need to discredit fighting as an act in order bolster your own morally righteous viewpoint when it's clear that people are fine with players risking brain damage for a paycheck. If that's what players want to do and the league wants to allow, I'm fine with that.

Both sides of the argument have a lot to learn, but something all members of the anti-fighting group need to do is focus on a winnable issue that is supported by evidence. Since you won't take a player, coach, GM, President, or Commissioner's word that fighting has a place in the game of hockey (health risks aside), then congrats, you've formed an opinion which nobody can argue against because it disregards multiple levels personal accounts of various levels of authority.

Argue it's health effects until you're blue in the face, but if you're making an argument on whether fighting emotionally affects players while disregarding all players who tell you how it is emotionally affecting then you've essentially shut down any notion of logical evidence or fair play.

Anyways, as I just said, we could go in circles forever, but you've set yourself up in a position where you're disregarding standard evidence and requiring only a very specific currently unavailable type which could only then prove you wrong. If you stuck on the moral high ground, requiring only unavailable evidence before you begin to listen to the other side, then there is not much point to you responding any further is there? Nobody is going to convince you.

Just know this: It's OK. You do not HAVE to convince everyone that fighting is useless to convince them that fighting is too dangerous to justify it's value. These are two different conversations, and you'll win a lot more people over if you separate them than you will by attacking the value of fighting as an institution.

If you need further clarification on my point, I'll be happy to reply, but I'm not going to convince you that fighting has value, because unfortunately I do not have the only kind of scientific evidence you have deemed acceptable to your standards. I'm not sure why I have to state I believe in the health risks of fighting in every post, but ya'll keep repeating yourselves like you're convincing me of something I don't already know.

[strombad]

As an aside, out of genuine curiosity:

Why is it people in the anti-fighting group are concerned with the health of millionaires who choose to risk their own health in physically damaging acts?

This is one thing that people never seem to mention and I'd actually like to know.