"Has been a lifesaver so many times!"
- Catherine Rampell, student @ University of Washington
"Exactly the help I needed."
- Jennifer Hawes, student @ San Jose State
"The best place for brainstorming ideas."
- Michael Majchrowicz, student @ University of Kentucky
Boxing, Doctors-Round Two
Boxing often called “the manly art of self-defense”, which is a sport in which two competitors try to hit each other with their glove-encased fists while trying to avoid each other’s blows in a ring. It has been in existence and evolved from other forms of fighting for a long time. This game has become very popular in most of the countries because it is stimulating, so there are a lot of people like to watch it. However boxing is considered as a violent nature by some of the people. These opponents are trying to against and abolish it. In the essay “Boxing, Doctors-Round Two,” writer Lowell Cohn disagrees about boxing should be abolished. In my mind, his essay contains a lot of false arguments which involved personal attacks, false analogy, and hasty generalization to against the doctors in American Medical Association. Therefore I disagree with his points which he uses to support boxing because his false arguments are abusive and unreasonable.
First, this essay contains a lot of false statement and most of these statements are personal attacks. For example, first, after doctors wrote him letters using a personal attack against him, saying that Cohn “ must have had terrible experiences with doctors to have written what he wrote,” Cohn replies, “ That just shows how arrogant doctors are…Doctors are used to being right.” This reply involves an assumption that is not support or relevant to an argument or against boxing. Both of these statements are fallacious and involve personal attacks against the person(s) representing the argument rather than the argument itself. Second, Cohn also replies, “Why the outage over boxing?” He asks and only to answer himself with an attack, “Because many doctors are social snobs.” Cohn is being very judgment on the doctor in the AMA, although the claim against the AMA is not relevant or supports the author’s claims toward boxing. Therefore, Cohn argument is faulty because it is only evaluating and attacking the doctors instead of supporting his position.
Second, in this essay, Cohn spends several paragraphs criticizing certain doctors. He says, “If this doctor were really concerned with medical evidence, as he claims, he would attack all dangerous sports, not just boxing.” Cohn uses false analogy to compare boxing with the others sports which are not in essence similar. For example, boxing is not a sport which allows teams; it can not be enjoyed by both of the participants; also, Boxing is violent which has two people are fighting with each other in a ring. Doctors wanted to abolish boxing because they saw that normal activities in a boxing match places the athletes at risk of head injury. Some of which may be difficult to detect and impossible to repair, such as brain damage. On the other hand, the other sports, such as skiing and football. They would not directly place the athletes at risk of head injury because they are not supposed to hit each other’s head. Therefore, Cohn’s argument is invalid because boxing is very different from many other sports.
Third, in the paragraph 11, Cohn uses appeal to fear in how negative the consequences is after the AMA eliminate boxing. He states that, “As long as man is man, he will want to see two guys of equal weight and ability solve their elemental little problem in a ring. If the sport becomes illegal,…. And then you will see deaths and maiming like you never saw before.” This argument tries to convince the audience base on “emotion” rather than “reason”. He wants to scare the audience by implying that unless the boxing is legal, you will see terrible event in your life. He believes that this argument can win audience’s sympathy and agreement because most of the people do not hope to see any unhappy events happen in our environment. However, his argument are lacking of enough supporting details for his assumption, how can he make sure that eliminating boxing will cause deaths and maiming. This argument is faulty because it is not a real reason to support that boxing should be legal, and Cohn only makes up this scary assumption to frighten the people in order to make them agree with his opinion.
In short, this essay is full of
View Full Essay
Critical thinking, Rhetoric, Logic, Combat sports, Individual sports, Philosophy, Boxing, Fallacy, Argument, Ad hominem
More Free Essays Like This