Dear students,
For your final blog posts, you will write a persuasive paragraph in a series called "Would You Rather." In each post, I will give you a scenario, and you will have to defend your answer using the following criteria:
- A topic sentence stating your opinion
- At least 3 supporting sentences defending your opinion
- One counter argument
- A concluding sentence summarizing your writing
Here is your "Would You Rather" for today:
Would you rather be the best player on a losing team or the worst player on a winning team?
Please remember to check for mistakes by reading aloud your post to yourself before you publish it. I cannot wait to see what you write!
Your teacher,
Mrs. Braddy
Here is an example of a proficient post:
If I had to choose between being the best player on the losing team or the worst player on the winning team, I would choose the worst player on the winning team. First, you tried your best. Second, you can feel good about yourself and your team for winning the game. Finally, you may be the worst player, but you probably did something to help your team win. However, some people prefer to be the best player on the losing team. You can show off your skills, you can help your team by getting home runs, and it is not always about winning. I prefer to be the worst player on the winning team.
I would be the worst player on the best team because we would win a lot, and I wouldn't have to work hard. It would be much easier. That is my reason.
ReplyDeleteI would want to be the best player on the worst team. Because we could get better and start winning then everyone is a good player.
ReplyDeleteIf i had to choose between being the best player on a loosing team or be the worst player on winning team, I would choose to be the best player on the loosing. First, if you loose you can still feel good about yourself. Second, when you loose you can give your team some tips. Finally,your team may still loose it least you are the best player. However, other people may really like to be the worst player on the winning team. you can make a home run, do some cool tricks. I would rather be the best player on the loosing team.
ReplyDeleteIf I had to choose between 1: being the best player on a losing team or 2: being the worst player on a winning team, I would choose number 1. I would choose number one for a couple reasons. First, if you were the worst player but your team still won you would not be helping your team. If any thing making it worse. Also because even if your team is losing you ares still doing good. Some people may say that that your team will be known as a winning team even if you are not good. Well people may see you play and realize that your team is better without you.
ReplyDeleteI would rather be the best on the losing team because I think it would be fun to play a lot and if your having fun then that is all that matters. Some people may think that it would be no fun to lose, and they would say that winning is all that matters. If you were on the winning team you may not get to play a lot because you were the worst. Also if you were the best then you could challenge yourself to beet the other teams. that is why I would chose to be the best on a losing team.
ReplyDeleteIf I had a choice between being the best player on a loosing team or the worst player on a winning team I would rather be the best player on a loosing team not be the player on a winning team because you could be really popular and everyone would like you not all of the other bad players on the team. You could also show off your skills to everybody and if your playing a winning team you can be the best player and beat them up even though you might loose. although some may argue it would be fun to be the worst player on a winning team because you would not have to do anything and you would get a big trophy and not do anything, and you could brag to people that your team beat them really badly and you didn't do anything. Over all I think it would be really fun being the best player on a loosing team not the worst player on a winning team because you can be very popular and show off your mad skills.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI would be the worst player on the best team because the team I would be on is a hockey team, and hockey is a team sport, not a player sport. also, I would learn more from the better players, unlike the losing team. Finally, we would still win, even though we still have one bad player we are still the winning team. that is why I would be the worst player on the best team.
ReplyDeletei would rather be the best player on a winning team because it is not about winning it is about having fun . and if you are good and you understand the game it can be fun. But if you do not understand the game it can be hard to play. But either way you can still have fun with your friends.
ReplyDeleteIf I were to choose to 1 be the best player on the losing team or 2 be the worst player on the winning team. I would want to be the best player on the losing team because when you lose it always shows something you can improve on, so you can work on whatever you need to work on. You can always teach yourself something if you lose a game or season.
ReplyDeleteIf I had to choose between the best player on the losing team or the worst player on the winning team, I would choose the best player on the losing team. First, you can like coach your team through it. Second,you can show off your skills. Finally, you can help your team by getting home runs,and remember It is not all about winning
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf I had to choose between being the best player on the losing team or the worst player on the winning team, I would choose to be the best player on the losing team. First, you get to play more and not just sit on the bench. Second, you can feel good about yourself because you really helped your team. Third, your team will get better because every game is a challenge. Finally, you can lead your team and help them get better. However, some people prefer to be the worst player on the winning team because you get to win. Also, you may be the worsted but you still helped your team but, you won’t get that much better because the teams you are playing aren’t a challenge. And so that is why I would rather being the best player on the losing team.
ReplyDeleteI would rather be the best player on the losing team than the worst player on the winning team. First of all, if you are playing a good team you can easily play good and score on them, but your team can’t play with the other team and will lose the game for you. Second, if your team is playing another team that is not so great you will be able to get lots of points, and sometimes you might be able to carry your team. People would start to notice your talent and point out how good he is. That could lead up for you to do more advanced things in that sport. Also, if you were the best on the team your team mates might appreciate you, and if you are encouraging, kind, and respectful to your teammates that will build up teamwork. Lastly, you could show off all of your good moves on almost any team you play. Some people might think that being on the winning team, but being the worst team is better. For example, you would win most of the tournaments and games you play in. Also, your team might be really popular and well known. Lastly, your team might be the team nobody wants to play because of how good the team is. Some bad things about being the worst on the winning team is that you are not helping your team a lot. Second, if your team is playing teams that always beat, you might not get any better even if you are not very good anyway. Also, you might only let you in games towards the end of the game if your team is beating them so bad. Lastly, you probably might not be as well known or be congratulated by others. With that, you might even feel a little left out, and if you mess up on some of your only chances it will make you feel not so great.
ReplyDeleteI would rather be the best player on the losing team because life is not about winning life is not about winning. It just a sport that you play and you give a good hard effort. Plus there isn't a possibility that you win every game. I don't always win and that's a good thing because if I did I would be the person who brags about winning. It's a good thing that, "I lose a lot it teaches you respect and teamwork you can't always win," my dad says that before every game I play in. I trust my dad about what he says he won a state championship in high school. I trust losing teams more than I do winning teams.
ReplyDeleteIf I had the choice to be on a winning team but be the worst player or be on a loosing team and be the best player I would rather be on the winning team and be the worst player. I would rather be on a winning team and be the worst player because the people on my team would help me get better. I would also be on the winning team and be the worst player because if they were really good they would pass me the ball for a layup or a three ball. some may argue that they would be on the loosing team and be the best player because you are the best player on that team. also, they might think that they can score every single point. You can't play a team game all by yourself. I would rather be on a winning team and be the worst player because the people on my team would make me better.
ReplyDeleteIf I had a choice between being the best player on the losing team, or being the worst player on the wining team I would pick being the worst player on the wining team. Because one I would always be trying my best. Two my team would always win and three because maybe I would do something to one of the best players on my team and that's how we won.
ReplyDeleteIf I had a choice to be the worst player on the winning team or the best player on the losing team, I would choose to be the worst player on the winning team because I could learn from the other good players that were on my team. I would get good because playing against better players makes you better. I also would like this because I could watch my teammates play and learn how they play and why they are so good. I would get better over the years and eventually be a good player on a winning team because I have experience from the other players on my team. That is why I would want to be the worst player on a winning team over being the best player on the worst team.
ReplyDeleteI would be the worst player on winning team. Because I would be on the best team. I treid and that is all that maters. Finally I am not athletic so I woud just be on the bench the hole time so I could chill. Some may want to be the best plyer on the loosing team, because they would always get to play, but you would be on the loosing team witch is never fun.
ReplyDeleteI would rather be the best player on a losing team than being the worst player on a winning team. I could become one of the league's best players, and I could request a trade to a winning team. Secondly, I could be noticed by everybody else, and I wouldn't just get some dumb participation award. I could win MVP and All-Star awards. Finally, I could bat whenever I wanted, and I would pitch, so nobody could get a hit off me which would mean we would win because I would also hit homers. However, some people might want to be on a winning team because they would get championship trophies, but they would be getting dumb participation awards not MVP awards. I would be the best player on a losing team.
ReplyDeleteIf I had to choose to be the beat player on a losing team or the worst player on a winning team. I would be a bad player on a winning team because one I might not have done the team any good, but I would still win. I could celebrate, and not say a word since we won we could make it seem like we all are good. Although, some may argue that being the best on a losers team because it would seem like you put a real effort. If I had to choose though i would think being a bad player on a winning team is better.
ReplyDeleteIf I had a choice between being the best player on the losing team or the worst player on the best team, I would be the worst player because I could still tell people I'm on the winning team. One, I would always try my hardest, but it would be a team effort. Two, we would always win, and have fun. Three, I could pass to someone who plays well on my team, and that would be how we won the game. However, some may want to be the best player because they got fame for getting all the points. I would rather be the worst player on the best team!
ReplyDeleteIf I had a choice to either be the worst on the winning team, or the best on the losing team. I would choose being the best on the losing team because sports are not about winning or losing they are about having fun. Also, I would try my hardest and that is what matters. Lastly, I would be able to help other people get better. Although, some people think they would rather be the worst on the winning team because they would always win. I think it would obviously be, be the best on a losing team.
ReplyDeleteIf I had the choice of being the worst player on the best team, or being the best player on the losing team, I would choose being the worst player on the best team. I chose this because the worst player on the best team is usually better than lots of people on the worst team because the guy on the best team plays on a higher level. I also choose this because I could learn from all the other players. My final reason why is because you have to do tryouts to be on the best team, and all the people who make the team are good. Some people may argue that being the best player on the worst team is better because it is about having fun. I disagree because having Fun is winning. another reason why people might think being the best player on the worst team is better because you could easily move up to the best team. I disagree because you have to get chosen to be on the best team, so the best player on the worst is probably pretty good. I think being the worst player on the best team is better.
ReplyDeleteI would choose being the best player on a losing team because you would be noticed. Also, I could help my teammates get better. Some may argue that if you were the worst player on a winning you would win a lot. Also, if the team was crazy good you would be a decent player. But if you were the best on a losing team you help your teammates get better so you could beat better teams!
ReplyDeleteIf I had the choice between being the best player on the losing team or the worst player on the the winning team, I would choose the best player on the losing team. I would choose this because I could use how I lost as a way to improve my skills. Also, it is not always about winning. Finally, I would have helped my team the best I could. However, some people may prefer being the worst player on the winning team because you probably did something to help your team win, even if you are not the best player. I think that being the best player on the losing team would be much better than the worst player on the winning team.
ReplyDeleteI would rather be the best player on the losing team. Here is why. Pele is the best soccer player ever though he was on a losing team,but he taught his team how to get better. Therefor he got picked to play for Brazil in the 1958 world cup. Brazil beat Sweden 5-2 for their first world cup. This is why I would want to be on the losing team.
ReplyDeleteI would rather be the best player on the losing team. Why I would want do do that is because if you were on the winning team and you did not do well, you might made fun of. If you were on the losing team people would just say good job. If you were on the winning team you would probably feel left out. Some people might want to be on the winning team because you win. Or because your with other people who are good. You can help your team a lot and you Know you did your best.
ReplyDeleteIf I had the choice between being the best player on a losing team or being the worst player on a winning team, I would choose to be the worst player on a winning team. First, if I was on a losing team, playing the sport would be boring because we would lose all the time, so I couldn't do what sports are meant for: competitive fun. Second, a win is a win, even if I'm not that good. Lastly, I couldn't make a fool out of myself in a game if I was the worst player on a winning team. However, some may argue that being the best on a losing team is better because you get more playing time. But since my team would be really good, if they were beating another team badly, the coaches would probably let me play more. This is why being the worst player on a winning team is better than being the best player on a losing team.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteIf I had to choose between the best player on the losing team or the worst player on the winning team I would choose the best player on the losing team. If I was the best player I would most likely play the whole game. Also, I would be able to give my teammates some tips to help improve the way they play. Finally, I could invent new ways to help my teammates play better. However, some people would like being the worst player on the winning team because they would win a lot. I think that being the best player on the losing team is better.
If I had to choose between the two, I would chose to be the worst player on the winning team because I am not big with sports. Most teams have their best players on the field the most. Being not much of a sporty person, I could sit in the shade a lot. I think it would be better to be the worst player on the winning team.
ReplyDelete