Micheal Vick should play in the UFL (United Football League) if the NFL suspends him next season.

Firstly, I believe my opponents opening argument to be rather fallacious; he 1: misrepresents my position; 2: doesn't address the crux of my argument; 3: appeals to the emotions of the voters. I'm hopeful that none of you will fall for such tactics. As I stated, my opponent took my position and did a little distorting, which is a straw man fallacy. My opponent essentially claimed that I simply listed facts pertinent to Vick's case, and then stated he was a convicted felon, and people who have been branded as convicted felons can't play football professionally; however, I believe my opponent completely missed the boat on this one, as I did no such thing. My point was that the killing and torturing many, many dogs, as well as the other crimes he committed, are more than morally equivalent to the killing of one, individual human being, which means Vick should still be locked behind bars and sharing a cell with a morbidly obese drug czar named Raul, rather than having an opportunity to play with a professionally sanctioned football league. And the above paragraph leads directly into my second point, which is that my opponent hasn't offered any refutations to the beef of my argument. He stated that Vick has been released from federal prison and fulfilled his sentence, but this is irrelevant to the argument I used, which is that Vick's actions and crimes are equal to, and possibly more than equal to, the killing of a single human, which means he should still be in prison. Since this point hasn't been rebutted, please extend that argument. My opponent also claimed that I didn't give reasons why Vick cannot play in the UFL -- of course Vick *can* play in the UFL, which mean he's, indeed, physically capable of doing so -- but that is irrelevant. Considering this debate is about what *should* happen to Vick, I don't need to give reasons why Vick can't play in the UFL; I merely need to give reasons why he *shouldn't* play in the UFL; my argument is that he *should* be in prison, and thus, he shouldn't be in the UFL, nor any other professional football league. My last point was that my opponent decided to try and make use of the appeal to emotion fallacy. I believe he did so when he stated that Vick is left in debt, jobless, and "without two years of his life. " My hope is that the readers are able to see past this blatant ploy by my opponent. Now, on to my opponent's contentions: His first contention is that Michael Vick needs a job. However, my opponent gives the impression that Vick's choices are pretty much professional football or. .. well. .. nothing. But this simply isn't the case; Vick can find work elsewhere, and, while it might take him longer to pay off his debts, he still can, indeed, do so -- this all negates my opponent's first contention. My opponent's second contention is that the UFL "needs" Vick; however, I don't see this as being the case at all. He says Vick could be the "face" of the UFL, but this could very well be a reason for the UFL *not* to take Vick; I don't see why the UFL would want someone who's generally perceived so negatively to be their face of their league -- a player whose reputation is largely negative, and the means through which this negativity were achieved, make it so that the player isn't at all marketable, and is perhaps a burden to the name of the league. In a way, to market such a player would be slandering the name of their own football league. The resolution has been negated.