Good Thunder EC

The good thunder talk on April 25, 2013 was with Jeff Herbach and Diana Joseph. In this good thunder they talked a lot about Mad Men the TV show and referred a lot to quotes that they took from the show and related those quotes to how they did their own writing process.  They also talked about how they sit and have coffee for six hours and just bounce ideas off each other for that long and come up with great ideas.  They also referred to how Mad Men brings out the creativety within their own writing and how they relate all of their writing to quotes from the show. My favorite quote is "Just think about it deeply then forget it, then the idea will jump in your face." That quote came directly from the main character Don Draper and made me think of how I write and how ideas that ideas I come up with jump in my face just like he said and that is where i get my best ideas.  Both speakers applied humor to their presentation which gave it more of an impact.

Counter Argument

Given the history between the two organizations the rule for eligibility for youth players deciding between college and provisional should not be modified to any extent because of how flawless and smooth it has worked for hockey and the solid foundation it has built for Canadian youth.  Over eighty percent of Canadian born hockey players in the NHL played provisional junior hockey.  It also works perfectly that the NHL oversees a majority of the QMJHL, OHL, and WHL. (Podnieks)  This flawless system has never been argued by CHL affiliates but only by the NCAA.  The NCAA only cares about what it stands to benefit from such a rule change and is neglecting how badly the NHL and CHL would be thrown off equilibrium if such rules where tampered.  It would be an absurdity to the hockey world that would cause a greater argument then resolution.

Podnieks, Andrew. "A Battle Across the Border in Recruiting." New York Times (2011): 16-20. Print.

Debate Response

To show how absurd debates can be and how there wasnt a clear focus, helped bring awareness to topics for the general population.  Bill O'Reilly used a lot of his stern tone to help get points across while Jon Stewart used his humor to make Bill O'Reillys points look comical and not really affect point of views.  One misstep from each speaker is how the didnt really follow debate etiquette.  Yes the debate was worth while because it had appeal through humor and to gain a grasp on controversial topics. Nothing really gets accomplished from debating people wont change their point if view if they strongly believe in a certain thing.

What do I want from my topic?

I feel like an advocate to better the hockey world.  By arguing my topic i feel like I open the door for many players to have a choice of what they want and still value education as a part of their life.  I eventually want to be someone who can be a strong advocate for the hockey world that people will respond to and respect on certain opinions, this being one of them.  I also want to learn the finer points that can affect the game and how youth players and parents will respond if such rules are changed.

Opposite sides of research

http://unitedstatesofhockey.com/2011/07/29/the-argument-against-chl-players-retaining-ncaa-eligibility/

The writer is Chris Peters a freelance hockey writer and broadcaster that wrote this article mainly stating that college hockey is its own unique thing and that major juniors shouldnt even be considered for NCAA eligibility.  He uses Appeal to Authority using himself as a credible source.  He hops on the bandwagon and uses Appeal to common practice with reforming to NCAA hockey and being so biased against major juniors.

letter reactions

 FIRST LETTER
In this letter there is an argument of logic in that fallacies are stated.  There is clear bias toward the patient, when in the opening paragraph the writer just picks the subject apart.  there is Ad-hominen when the writer attacks character in that the writer talks about beer and cigarette money as if its shameful that one can afford those and not health care.  The writer appeals to belief in that all Medicaid people are lazy.

SECOND LETTER
Second letter is clearly way more detailed, yet leaving some details out makes it seem way more unofficial. The purpose of either letter is altered based on the information given and/or left out.  Once the audience was changed and more detail went into the whole purpose ended up getting altered.

argumentative proposal

The topic i will be using is NCAA eligibility for major junior hockey athletes and how the rules and guidelines affect their life.  I narrowed it down because I know solid background information and it would have been to broad to do NCAA eligibility as a whole.  Certain tools that ive used so far is a couple articles on EBSCO but mostly the CHL, USHL, and NCAA websites. Possible tentative thesis would be: Major junior hockey players are affected by NCAA eligibilities rules and guidelines when it comes to injuries, possible income, and education opportunities. Additional things i could look at would be not really case studies but personal interviews or written papers by players that have been affected by this rule.  Other things would be to look at the multiple court cases that have taken place with people breaking the NCAA eligibiltiy rules and their arguments. Other credible sources that could be available are the OHL, WHL, and QMJHL websites because they post many pages trying to pursue major juniors and not go the NCAA route which could be good to look at as a sort of counter argument.