Phil Mushnik & 'Debating' MMA
Dec 25, 2006 20:34:02 GMT -5
Post by LWPD on Dec 25, 2006 20:34:02 GMT -5
This article is an excellent example of the style of argument MMA promoters and Ambassadors need to learn to effectively combat in public debate. Phil Mushnik has always been a very strong debater when it comes to attacking the merits and 'right to exist' of athletic events that are inherently destructive to the competitors health (pro wres, boxing, etc). One can't win over public sentiment by playing the 'lesser of other evils' or 'not as bad' arguments...emphasizing a respect for freedom of choice...while clearly spelling out the alternative approach...is the most effective rebuttal.
Courtesy of NY Post
60 Minutes Panders To Young People
By Phil Mushnik
Two weeks ago, "60 Minutes" gave its implied blessings to the latest American sports fad, Ultimate Fighting Championships - in-ring street fighting, a blood sport sold to young American males as the latest in violence-reliant entertainment.
In that piece, correspondent Scott Pelley made three noteworthy comments about UFC. 1) UFC began to get a foothold in the U.S. in the 1990s. 2) Its promoters recently installed some new rules because UFC was perceived as too dangerous. 3) "In fact, a recent medical study found that MMA [Mixed Martial Arts, which includes UFC] fighters are less likely than boxers to suffer brain injuries."
Whoa. What medical study? By whom? If UFC is relatively new here what sample group was used? Is there a medical study that concludes that Ultimate Fighting, in which a man is allowed to knock his opponent down, jump on him and continue to punch him in the head, is safe? Or just safer than boxing? And if so, how much safer? And based on which rules – the new UFC rules or the old ones? And from where did "60 Minutes" obtain this medical info?
Not long ago, "60 Minutes" would have been far more inclined to alert viewers that through enterprises such as UFC, American kids were being further desensitized to violence, as if they aren't violent enough. But 60 Minutes, instead of asking whether UFC is designed to do anything better than stoke the lowest visceral senses, noted that UFC is getting very popular. And on the new 60 Minutes anything popular, especially among the young, must be good.
LWPD (the most effective defense against this type of argument is to focus on underlining the motives and resulting consequences of i. disrespecting and taking away the ability of adult age participating athletes to make their own choices ii. the possible curtailing of the ability of these same adults to make a living in their chosen profession and iii. emphasizing that that the elitist tone of this type of commentary shows a complete lack of respect for the adult paying audience that has arrived at a different set of independent value judgments than those of the Phil Mushnik's of the world...the close is essentially 'I'm willing to respectfully agree to disagree with those who view MMA differently than I do without forcing my opinions on those who feel differently...are you willing to do the same?...and the hook is in then exposing that those making this type of argument usually _AREN'T_ willing to do the same)
Courtesy of NY Post
60 Minutes Panders To Young People
By Phil Mushnik
Two weeks ago, "60 Minutes" gave its implied blessings to the latest American sports fad, Ultimate Fighting Championships - in-ring street fighting, a blood sport sold to young American males as the latest in violence-reliant entertainment.
In that piece, correspondent Scott Pelley made three noteworthy comments about UFC. 1) UFC began to get a foothold in the U.S. in the 1990s. 2) Its promoters recently installed some new rules because UFC was perceived as too dangerous. 3) "In fact, a recent medical study found that MMA [Mixed Martial Arts, which includes UFC] fighters are less likely than boxers to suffer brain injuries."
Whoa. What medical study? By whom? If UFC is relatively new here what sample group was used? Is there a medical study that concludes that Ultimate Fighting, in which a man is allowed to knock his opponent down, jump on him and continue to punch him in the head, is safe? Or just safer than boxing? And if so, how much safer? And based on which rules – the new UFC rules or the old ones? And from where did "60 Minutes" obtain this medical info?
Not long ago, "60 Minutes" would have been far more inclined to alert viewers that through enterprises such as UFC, American kids were being further desensitized to violence, as if they aren't violent enough. But 60 Minutes, instead of asking whether UFC is designed to do anything better than stoke the lowest visceral senses, noted that UFC is getting very popular. And on the new 60 Minutes anything popular, especially among the young, must be good.
LWPD (the most effective defense against this type of argument is to focus on underlining the motives and resulting consequences of i. disrespecting and taking away the ability of adult age participating athletes to make their own choices ii. the possible curtailing of the ability of these same adults to make a living in their chosen profession and iii. emphasizing that that the elitist tone of this type of commentary shows a complete lack of respect for the adult paying audience that has arrived at a different set of independent value judgments than those of the Phil Mushnik's of the world...the close is essentially 'I'm willing to respectfully agree to disagree with those who view MMA differently than I do without forcing my opinions on those who feel differently...are you willing to do the same?...and the hook is in then exposing that those making this type of argument usually _AREN'T_ willing to do the same)
IPPON!!