In How Soccer is Ruining America by Stephen H. Webb, the use of heavy irony and opinionated
stances by the author is prevalent within each negative point he has to say about the sport of soccer. He asks the audience this, "What other game, to put it bluntly, is so boring?". He proceeds to answer his own rhetorical questions with, what is thought to be, the hope of pissing off his audience and affirming his stance for the article. A big use of his grammar is eloquent and verbally loved throughout, but contradicted with his supposed viewpoints, but of course that is just an opinion.
The large chunk of the article goes along as a list of four points that smack the idea of soccer being any good whatsoever. On the first one, he talks about how humans were given two hands with fingers including opposable thumbs by God and that we should be using them for things such as throwing items and praying all while mentioning that the use of our feet, instead of our hands, is primitive and that the hands are "divine" in the eyes of God which we see as a connection to Christianity which validates the ethos of having religion.
His second point contrasts the sport of baseball to soccer and gets the emotions rolling out at an attempt of persuasion to the reader. His reminiscence of baseball and how it was so exciting and thrilling is a big illusionary tactic to get a reader to understate the significance of soccer being enjoyable.
The third point has to do with soccer being a "foreign invasion", or an imported product of European sport. "Soccer is a European sport because it is all about death and despair", he says. For infamous circumstances, it's subtlety assumed that he says this because of World War I and World War II and what non-goodness Europe has cranked out in the past. A large ruse to get people upset, which is really what he's trying to get out here and show how terrible a sport it is.
Lastly, and apparently, soccer is a girl's sport by his words. His sexist claims such as soccer being as feminine as childbirth and women having no "bloodlust" for practically any other sport goes to show how he thinks soccer really is in general, weak.
Before the ending of the article, the author uses hyperbole and political party nonsense to show how soccer even came about which induces the reader to naturally think this man is a nutcase. However, reading further along, he begins to confuse the reader by contradicting everything that he has said in the article up to this point. He reasons with the reader with explanations for why soccer is popular and how it actually is good for parents. "I read books on the sidelines during the game, and this embarrasses my daughter to no end. That is my one way of protesting the rise of this pitiful game", which the author writes and makes the reader really wonder if what he has said above is partly true in its entirety. "Nonetheless, I must say that my kids and I come home from a soccer game a very happy family", as this is the last sentence of the piece, the author somehow gets to ironically experience some sort of satisfaction from a soccer game.
stances by the author is prevalent within each negative point he has to say about the sport of soccer. He asks the audience this, "What other game, to put it bluntly, is so boring?". He proceeds to answer his own rhetorical questions with, what is thought to be, the hope of pissing off his audience and affirming his stance for the article. A big use of his grammar is eloquent and verbally loved throughout, but contradicted with his supposed viewpoints, but of course that is just an opinion.
The large chunk of the article goes along as a list of four points that smack the idea of soccer being any good whatsoever. On the first one, he talks about how humans were given two hands with fingers including opposable thumbs by God and that we should be using them for things such as throwing items and praying all while mentioning that the use of our feet, instead of our hands, is primitive and that the hands are "divine" in the eyes of God which we see as a connection to Christianity which validates the ethos of having religion.
His second point contrasts the sport of baseball to soccer and gets the emotions rolling out at an attempt of persuasion to the reader. His reminiscence of baseball and how it was so exciting and thrilling is a big illusionary tactic to get a reader to understate the significance of soccer being enjoyable.
The third point has to do with soccer being a "foreign invasion", or an imported product of European sport. "Soccer is a European sport because it is all about death and despair", he says. For infamous circumstances, it's subtlety assumed that he says this because of World War I and World War II and what non-goodness Europe has cranked out in the past. A large ruse to get people upset, which is really what he's trying to get out here and show how terrible a sport it is.
Lastly, and apparently, soccer is a girl's sport by his words. His sexist claims such as soccer being as feminine as childbirth and women having no "bloodlust" for practically any other sport goes to show how he thinks soccer really is in general, weak.
Before the ending of the article, the author uses hyperbole and political party nonsense to show how soccer even came about which induces the reader to naturally think this man is a nutcase. However, reading further along, he begins to confuse the reader by contradicting everything that he has said in the article up to this point. He reasons with the reader with explanations for why soccer is popular and how it actually is good for parents. "I read books on the sidelines during the game, and this embarrasses my daughter to no end. That is my one way of protesting the rise of this pitiful game", which the author writes and makes the reader really wonder if what he has said above is partly true in its entirety. "Nonetheless, I must say that my kids and I come home from a soccer game a very happy family", as this is the last sentence of the piece, the author somehow gets to ironically experience some sort of satisfaction from a soccer game.