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

In my opponent's attempts to refute my rebuttals, he has still managed to not address parts of my argument; he's seemingly avoiding it by saying what "can" and "can't" happen. Ex: stating I can't change the judicial system, go back in time, and nor can Vick go back to jail. No, Vick can't go back to jail, I don't have a time machine, and nor can I change the system -- but this is very much irrelevant to this debate, which, as I explained thoroughly in my last post, is about what *should* happen to Vick. What can and cannot happen and what *should* happen are two different things, and the resolution quite clearly reads: <"Micheal Vick should play in the UFL (United Football League) if the NFL suspends him next season. "> In essence, simply because he can't go back to prison doesn't at all necessarily mean that he shouldn't, which means my opponent hasn't come close to adequately refuting this part of my argument. Addressing what can or cannot happen is attacking an irrelevant argument I never made, which means my opponent is again committing a straw man fallacy. My opponent said this: <"1)the only way this where to be true if you valued a hundred dogs lives over one humans which is popseress"> I'm not sure what he means, as "popseress" is not a word that would be anywhere close to applicable in the context of this debate. In fact, upon a Google search of that word, the first result was actually this debate. My point is that what my opponent is saying in his first point is essentially incomprehensible. However, I'm going to assume he means "preposterous," which seems kinda likely. .. but I'm not sure. But just in case this is true, I'll treat what he said as if it is. Why would it be preposterous? My opponent has merely said that it is, and not supported himself. I don't think it's "preposterous" at all, considering dogs are, indeed, sentient beings. Taking this sentience into account, as well as how many dogs were probably killed, tortured, and injured, it clearly seems as if these crimes would outweigh the moral significance of an individual human being killed; thus, Vick should still be in prison. Furthermore, why 100 dogs? My opponent is just busting out completely arbitrary numbers. However, Vick did, indeed, run a dog fighting ring, which was responsible for the death, torture, and injuries of many, many dogs; police confiscated roughly 70 dogs when they busted Vick, and, keeping in mind that dogs, according to the indictment, "fought to the death, or close to it," and that the "Bad Newz Kennels" operation had been running for several years, it seems very reasonable to think 100 dogs died. I'd even say that 100 is actually low-balling the number of dogs killed by a decent amount. But anyway. .. I just felt like letting everyone know that. My opponent then followed that up with this: <"2)Even if you want to believe that it his, then let the punishment fit the crime. Vick spent 18 monthes in prison and 6 under house arrest. Donte Stallworth who only got 30 days in Jail for killing a pedestrian in a hit and run DUI. "> I think this is a rather weak analogy, because it assumes that the punishment received by Stallworth is just, which I don't think it is at all. 30 days in jail for killing a person while driving under the influence is absolutely ludicrous. Further, my opponent's analogy simply has no legal validity -- I'm not really sure why a completely different case lacking in similarity should set a legal precedent. Keeping in mind that precedent, in law, means the following: <". .. a precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body utilizes when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. "> (1) Quite frankly, the facts and issues of this case aren't similar at all; the only real thing they have in common is that sentient beings lost their lives, and that isn't anywhere close to enough to establish a valid legal precedent; if this were the case, then the punishment for killing a bird would be the same as it is for killing a human. My opponent then defends his first contention -- he says this: <"In six season in the NFL, Micheal Vick proved is validity as a pro quaterback. He has played at the highest league at the best level. Even if Vick is not allowed back into the NFL (because he gets suspended) then why not go somewhere else and still get paid? "> Yes, he can go elsewhere, but this is just utterly irrelevant, considering, again, this debate is about what *should* be occurring. However, to assuage my opponent, I'll go along with this: Why not? Because he blew it. Vick had his chance to sustain a career in football, but, unfortunately for him, he decided to engaged in very serious, illegal, idiotic, and disturbing acts, so it's too bad for him -- as I said, he blew it. Further, despite the fact that Vick *can* play in another league, just because one *can* do something doesn't mean they should -- for example, I can go stick a knife through my neighbors chest. But does that mean I *should* commit such a psychopathic act? Not at all; however, my opponent's logic would support it. His chances were there, but he threw them away. Why should he get another? Because he's good at football? The absurdity inherent in such an idea is astounding -- my first point would go along the lines of my last one: just because Vick *can* play football at a high level doesn't at all mean he should. Like I was saying, I can; therefore, I should, is a fallacious argument -- a vast array of things can be done. Whoever is in control of bombing stuff can decide to bomb Sweden -- but does that mean they should? Not at all; however, my opponent's logic support's that. Further, he's good; therefore, he should, is fallacious, too. Plenty of people are good at killing. Does this mean they should become serial killers? By that logic, it does. My second point would be that Vick dug himself into this hole; now it's time to climb out. Vick committed these crimes, and put himself in debt; now it's time to get his way out of it. Why should we put him back on easy street by letting him earn plentiful amounts of money by playing football? This would only be avoiding the consequences of his actions. My opponent's second contention with him quoting people from ESPN, but that's hardly an argument. Further, I'd like to call ad authoritarium, or, in other words, an appeal to authority. Just because ESPN thinks people want to see Vick doesn't at all mean that's the case. Also, why in the world would someone watch a sporting event to cheer against an individual player. .. ? When one dislikes another, it's simple human nature to not want to have anything to do with them. So, in essence, my opponent's contention goes against our nature as human beings. My opponent says the league would be exposed with Vick; therefore, they'll benefit -- but, to quote myself: <"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. "> So clearly, just because the league is exposed doesn't mean they'll benefit; it's entirely possible that having a negatively recognized figure "expose" them would burden them, or, as I said "slander their name. " Just because people might learn about the league a little doesn't necessarily mean the league will benefit, especially in this context. My opponent didn't really address my initial refutation to his "they'll be exposed; therefore, they'll benefit" I posted in the last round, so please, extend that argument. To conclude, I've negated both relevant and irrelevant arguments used by my opponent. So please, vote con. (1) = . http://en.wikipedia.org...