Kill 'Em! Crush 'Em! Eat 'Em Raw!

1.John McMurty's essay begins with a personal anecdote about the results of playing sports- especially football- since childhood.  When he can no longer ignore his physical condition, he seeks treatment and is hospitalized.  How does the anecdote lend credibility to his argument?
A).    The anecdote gives his argument credibility because it's the authors own personal story rather than just facts that some other random person said.  This makes the author credible because it lets the reader clearly understand that he knows and understands the topic of football and the consequences that come right along with it.  His use of his own personal story, also gives his supporting ideas in his argument variety making his essay more interesting and credible.

2. Paragraphs 5-7 compare and contrast football and war.  Is this comparison convincing? How does the comparison appeal to logos?
A).    The comparison between football and war is very effective and convincing in McMurty's argument, it reveals war as being a logic reason as to how football is dangerous to society.  The comparisons also stereotype football as being violent and deadly like a war, when in reality it can be if the players aren't playing the game correctly.   His contrast however leads the reader to view football as being better than war. The comparisons appeal to logos, because they are logical resonings supporting McMurty's argument the dangerous sport of football. 

5. McMurty also addresses the argument that games such as football allow us to discharge our "original-sin urge into less harmful channels than, say, war" (para. 15). Cite passages where McMurty counters this argument. Do you agree with him? Why or why not?
A).     McMurty counter addresses his earlier argument that people playing football "as [they] [move] through high school, college and pro leagues", make "[their] body dismantled. Piece by piece"(para. 9). This citied reference counters his argument because unlike the quote in paragraph 15, this quote shows football as dismantling bodies, therefore it being a bad sport, and in paragraph 15 football is viewed as an anger reliever.   Also, he counters his arugument proving "[he] had learned that physical injury- giving it and taking it- is the real currency of the sport"(para.11).  I do agree with what McMurty says in paragraph 15, football is a fun and entertaining sport for young men to participate in, it's a fantastic anger reliever as well as a stress reliever, if all players treat it as just a game.  I agree with the author because i'm a football fan myself, and the author provides good logical reasoning to support that football can be dangerous, but not always.

6. Consider the language of football, especially the words shared by the military.  What sports other than football have a militaristic side?
A).     Other than football, the sports of hockey, paintball, soccer,and archery all seems to have a militaristic side.  Hockey and soccer are militaristic in the way that you have defenders who defend your goal, just like in the military one group is defending their camp and position from being invaded by the opposing group.  Also, those two sports involve teamwork, because in hockey if you don't work as a team then the person with the puck couldn't succesfully score a goal without the teams help, the same relates to soccer.  Archery and paintball are militaristic because you aim at a certain target to obtain your goal, and in the military they have a certain goal and they obtain it by aiming at their target that's given to them.  In paintball and archery agression is brought out on the targets, just like in football and the military after you shoot or hit someone you relieve anger and stress on you once you take the shot.