I have played hockey since I was 5 years old, so when I learned that we could write our essay on any controversial topic we wanted, I instantly knew that I wanted to write about fighting in hockey. I find it interesting, as I have watched and played hockey all my life, and the issue is close to my heart. Many people don't want to let their children watch hockey due to the violence in the sport, mainly the brutal fights that often take place. Many people don't value the violence of hockey, while many people watch the sport only for the fights. For me, the issue doesn't affect my values, as I view it as a necessity in the game, but not necessarily in life. From personal experience, both from watching, and playing, I can say that fights can positively affect the outcome of games. Teams can swing momentum in their favor with a well-timed fight. I have played and watched many games of hockey, and now, after the first two ILP's, I have read multiple articles pertaining to the subject. My knowledge of the subject has expanded greatly after reading the three articles for the ILP's, and I now have a more well-rounded view of both sides of the argument.

In "The pros and cons of fighting in the NHL", the author, John Buccigross, lays out the pros and cons of fighting in the NHL. He then goes on to talk about whether or not it would be beneficial to eliminate it entirely. Buccigross talks about important factors such as how fighting effects attendance at NHL games, and how without it, attendance at NHL games would plummet. Buccigross wants to make sure that he doesn't offend anyone with his article, as ESPN has a massive audience with many different viewpoints. This is why Buccigross covers both sides of the argument, as he values the effect of fighting on the outcome of hockey games, while also valuing player safety, and even NHL needs and values. John Buccigross is a well-respected Sports Center anchor, and NHL columnist for ESPN. In this article, Buccigross does a good job of being un-biased in the article, as he writes a "devil's advocate" response for each question or statement about fighting in the NHL. He does an excellent job talking about the separate sides of the arguments for and against, making his article much more credible.

In "Steve Montador's death should prod NHL to ban fighting altogether", author, David Haugh, writes about the death of NHL defenseman Steve Montador, and his battle with CTE, most likely caused by his many fights during his NHL career. He plays on the pathos of the reader talking about not only the death of Montador, but the deaths of multiple other NHL players who all served the same roll of enforcer. Haugh is a writer for the Chicago Tribune, so the death of a member of his hometown team, the Chicago Blackhawks, was something that was important to write about. Haugh believes that because of the clear link between fighting in the NHL, and many cases of CTE, a life threatening brain injury, the NHL should ban fighting altogether. The goal of the author was to inform people of the dangers of fighting in the NHL. Haugh is a sports columnist for a major paper in one of the most hockey-crazed cities in the United States. As a result of this, the article is argumentative, taking a clear stance against fighting in the NHL, and those that support it.

In "Many argue that fighting is a necessary part of professional hockey", authors Adrian Dater and Mike Chambers write about how nearly everyone in the NHL, fans, executives, and players all view fighting as an essential part of the game that cannot be removed without ruining the game. They cite ex-NHL player Scott Parker, who fought for his entire career as their main source. Dater and Chambers value the safety of the players, as well as the entertainment value of the game as a whole. They want to highlight how dangerous fighting is for the participants, but also illustrate how important fighting is to the game, both in terms of on and off the ice. Dater and Chambers both wrote for the Denver Post at the time of the article, writing columns for the local team, the Colorado Avalanche. This article has a unique credibility, as it takes quotes from Scott Parker, an expert in fighting in the NHL, and talks about why and why not fighting should be a part of the NHL. Parker believes that it is a necessity, but also believes that the NHL needs to take steps to prevent the injuries that occur as a result of the fights.

The research question is arguable, as it has many different viewpoints, from players, analysts and fans. Fans and NHL executives want to keep fighting in the game, as it helps increase the entertainment value for them. Players want to keep fighting in the game, but also ensure that they are safe. Some fans even want it removed, as they feel it makes the sport to violent. Viewpoints differ from person to person, but the majority of people involved in the game want to keep fighting the way it is. The different viewpoints help to make my views better-rounded, as they give me ideas that I may not have considered. I may need to consider changing my question to involve multiple perspectives.

