Athletes are paid higher salaries than teachers because they serve to maintain the status quo
I thank my opponent for an interesting topic.
I will give a basic overview of my arguments:
Based on my opponent's statement on corporatism, I believe my opponent's definition of status quo necessarily implies some inherent corporate/capitalist norm
Thus, I believe my opponent's stance to ultimately be that athletes are paid higher salaries in order to maintain some exploitative capitalist/corporate norm.
I will be taking the opposing stance: that the maintaining some corporate/capitalist status quo is not the cause of athlete's higher salary
I assert that the cause of athletes' salaries most significantly, perhaps even solely, caused by a generic supply and demand relationship.
The higher salaries are merely a capitalist manifestation of a demand for professional athletes against a low supply of high quality athletes. I argue that this demand exists independent of corporatism. Athletics and athletic values are not confined to capitalistic societies. To claim that corporate goals cause athletic demand is to ignore humanity's evolutionary and historic value of the athletic.
Weighed against its demand (supply divided by demand), the proportion of athletes is far smaller than those of teachers.
Thus I argue that the demand for athletes and its subsequent supply-demand relationship, rather than goals of maintaining corporatism, cause athletes' higher wages.
Also, my opponent's claim, that athletes are paid higher salaries than teacher because the serve to maintain status quo, necessarily implies that teachers do not serve to maintain status quo. If teachers do serve to maintain the status quo, then the resolution is negated.
I assert that teachers do maintain the status quo. In fact, I assert that teachers are the most significant agents to maintaining the status quo.
If my opponent's hypothesis is true, then both athletes and teachers maintain the status quo. The athletes' higher salaries cannot then be due to this factor since both athletes and teachers share it.
My basic premises:
- Athlete's higher salaries, in a system which doles salary, is due to supply & demand than a need to maintain the status quo.
- Teachers serve to maintain the status quo, thus the resolution must necessarily be false (by way of logic)
What is 'the status quo'?
I will first address the issue raised by Con regarding the negation of the argument due to the mutuality of teachers and professional athletes maintaining the status quo, as this (in the mind of my opponent) is a possible deal breaker. As I detailed other reasons for the salary gap and included doctors (who include herbalists and other non-traditional forms of medication), I do not agree that a negation exists. I also stated that professional athletes are considered to be MORE valuable as distractions and outlets for escapism promoted to the masses. By stating it thusly, I alluded to the fact that teachers can also be viewed as maintainers of the status quo. This view has some substance, yet, there are some differences. Whereas, professional athletes follow a uniform guideline of rules and regulations that are outlined in their respective sports, teaching is implemented with various methods. Many of these methods were created and designed to be different from or go against the grain of the typical or status quo methods of teaching. (i.e. homeschooling, unschooling, self learning, etc.) I was not able to fit the entire concept in the header. However, when viewed from this perspective, I suspect my opponent will consent to a continuation of the debate.
In alignment with that suspicion, I will make a prima facie case for my argument.
: the current situation : the way things are now
: the existing state of affairs
In this context, my intent when I allude to the status quo will be a depiction of the materialistic, classist, competitive and self-serving nature that typically accompanies capitalist governments. Particularly the higher valuation of property and its ownership over the people or the citizenry. It may also behoove my opponent to bear in mind the difference between corporatism and corporatocracy.
"I assert that the cause of athletes' salaries most significantly, perhaps even solely, caused by a generic supply and demand relationship. The higher salaries are merely a capitalist manifestation of a demand for professional athletes against a low supply of high quality athletes."
Of course, this is the standard statement or public announcement propagandized in regard to this disparity, however, as most propaganda, it is miseducation and false advertisement.
As my opponent has offered the claim that the disparity is a manifestation of the laws of S&D (supply and demand), I will list the laws as part of the foundation of my counter argument to said claim. The counter-argument being my assertion that the disparity is more a result of manipulation of these laws of S&D than a natural manifestation of them.
The four basic laws of supply and demand are:
1. If demand increases and supply remains unchanged, then it leads to higher equilibrium price and higher quantity.
2. If demand decreases and supply remains unchanged, then it leads to lower equilibrium price and lower quantity.
3. If supply increases and demand remains unchanged, then it leads to lower equilibrium price and higher quantity.
4. If supply decreases and demand remains unchanged, then it leads to higher equilibrium price and lower quantity.
In the article "How to manipulate the law of supply and demand"" Neil Patel states, "If you"re willing to think and act strategically, you can easily manipulate the laws of supply and demand. It should be surprising to learn, however, that by manipulating the laws of supply and demand, you can make more profit in less time and with far fewer headaches. Manipulating supply and demand is actually not difficult since there are only two variables involved: supply and demand. If you"re able to gain control over these two variables, you will be able to gain control of your pricing and profit margin ...the lessons I"ve learned.:
Lesson #1: Positioning Yourself as a Rare Commodity
Lesson #2: Gain Control Over Supply
Lesson #3: Manufacture Demand
Lesson #4: Never forget Lesson #1"
Although the concept is basically the same for all pro sports, to illustrate the manipulation, I will use the NBA.
1. Positioning Yourself as a Rare Commodity - The NBA is a rare commodity, as rare as it gets actually, as they have a monopoly over professional basketball in the U.S.
2. Gain Control Over Supply - Although Con suggests that there is a shortage of supply, as for professional basketball, this is inaccurate. The NBA controls the supply of players through the use of its draft.
3. Manufacture Demand - Advertising, Merchandise, promotion of players as role models. (side note: management is not promoted as widely as the players, although this would be a more lucrative and feasible profession.)
4. Never forget Lesson #1 - Along with the NFL, the NBA is the only pro league in the U.S. that requires players to complete a certain number of college semesters before being eligible. This provides further control over the supply.
Thus, the professional business model of pro sports (in this case the NBA) is not a natural 'capitalist manifestation' of supply and demand. Also, in this case, it is not the case that demand 'exists independent of corporatism'.
"Athletics and athletic values are not confined to capitalistic societies."
While this is true, it is irrelevant as to why such a disparity exists between teachers and professional sports players salaries, especially in the US. The Olympic athletes receive nothing for their participation, unless they medal. The amount they receive is a pittance compared to professional sports.  These athletes are said to be competing out of respect for the nature of true sportsmanship. Also, athletes in professional athletes in other countries are not paid at the same rate of those in the US although the popularity(demand) is high. In the case of pro basketball, it has become a world wide sport.
In fact, international teams often lure prospective and current NBA players to their leagues. "Thanks to a major marketing push and generous salaries, the CBA attracts many famous NBA players: Stephon Marbury, Tracy McGrady and Gilbert Arenas are on the list of standouts who crossed the Pacific." College players, who many argue should be paid, are given nothing.
"To claim that corporate goals cause athletic demand is to ignore humanity's evolutionary and historic value of the athletic."
There is a difference between admiration for athletics and adulation, fawning or idolism. Corporate goals do partially cause or magnify demand by the use of marketing, advertising, and role modeling. (especially in regard to certain target markets) "I question why sports such as basketball and football are shoved down are throats by the media, while sports like the senior Olympics harbor little value in terms of communication by publication or broadcast. One can argue that because so much revenue is plugged into teams like the Yankees or Giants, fans feel obliged and compelled to watch them, whereas "low key" sports such as track simply cannot contrive that much revenue." 
"Weighed against its demand (supply divided by demand), the proportion of athletes is far smaller than those of teachers."
Need of clarity - Not sure, but if you are saying that there are more teachers than professionally eligible players, that is arguable. Especially when one considers the manipulation aforementioned.
I reiterate and reassert that athletes are paid higher wages in comparison to doctors and teachers because of their perceived higher value in the eye of the corporatocracy.
They provide a distraction for the masses - "We see more in our newspapers about sports than we see about world or national news, the arts, culture; we turn on the local television at night and see more TV sports news than the similar things; when we turn on the television on the weekend, the tube is glutted with sports entertainment, not to mention all-sports networks." 
They provide a method of escapism - sport is the opiate of the masses, due to the fact that we are in the age of the sport consumer, which is dissimilar to the age of the sport spectator...One can argue that sports counteract religious morals; guarding society from bleak realities and instilling a false sense of achievement.
They foster the status quo - By becoming fans, spectators engage in certain kinds of pleasures, fulfilling their own desires through fetishism, voyeurism, and narcissism...The world of sports encourages commercialism, sexism, and most importantly, nationalism. 
They promote unhealthy competition - "As a society, we construct "types" of athletes based on their economic and social value, which acts as a connotation for their overall significance to the universal spectator. The idea of "winning" is something that fuels competition, which in my view is one of America"s greatest vices; we compete not simply to enhance our own physical attributes, but to provide ourselves with a sense of achievement at the expense of another"s failure." 
Side Note: The highest paid teachers are in Luxembourg and the lowest in Indonesia. This is a global issue. Societies, especially the US, need to get their priorities straight. While the educational system and process in the US needs a major overhaul, the majority of teachers are teaching out of a earnest desire to enrich the students they encounter. I think many teachers feel stifled by the system.
I thank my opponent for his detailed response.
PRO: “I also stated that professional athletes are considered to be MORE valuable as distractions and outlets for escapism promoted to the masses. By stating it thusly, I alluded to the fact that teachers can also be viewed as maintainers of the status quo."
CON: Pro athletes’ being a better distraction and/or escapism outlet has nothing to do with higher salaries or maintenance of social norms (the status quo). Drugs and video games are immense industries (the former less legal) of distraction. In fact, video games are more distracting than pro sports are, yet pro video game players are paid a pittance if at all (most pay to play). I will tie this in to my other premise later.
My opponent is trying to move the goal post: a fallacy at best, and a misconduct at worst. Please refrain from doing so in the future.
Even if we accept your refutation:
For the sake of discussion, I will contend my opponent’s point. My opponent is saying that professional athletes serve to maintain the status quo more than teachers do, and are consequently paid higher salaries. I argue that this is simply not true.
Teachers are arguably the most important agents in a system of education. Every society’s system of education serve to indoctrinate the masses, from an early age, to the system. For example, in U.S. society, we are taught that school is important, that our grades matter. The system encourages us to go to college and to find jobs to fulfill labor demands. School systems are also used to indoctrinate some level of patriotism. U.S. history courses, for example, justify its American revolution. Essays written on the subject generally portray American Revolutionaries in the right (proclaimed heroes) .
This is a uniquely American perspective taught to Americans by teachers as part of the curriculum of education. The opposing point of view is implicitly ignored and contradicted. However, this does not mean that the opposition is not perhaps more in the right nor does it mean that it does not exist.
Americans’ views of the American revolution being propagandized by the educational system perpetuated by teachers is only one of a myriad of subliminal indoctrination of the status quo. An even more relevant example would be the existence of economics courses (micro/macro and required economics courses in high school) which serve to enforce capitalism.
Ironically, by berating the self-promoting system education system of capitalist society, the article in source , as part of an educational communist text, implicitly condones the educational promotion of communist society.
Education is the most important medium in maintaining the status quo no matter what the status quo may be (capitalism, corporatism, elitism, communism, socialism, etc.), and spreads ideals via teachers.
Thus I argue that teachers not only maintain the status quo, but that they are the most significant group in society in maintaining the status quo. If maintaining the status quo determined salary, then teachers’ salaries would be vastly greater than those of professional sports players.
It doesn’t matter that different media of education exist. It doesn’t refute the fact that the central, propagandized system of education is self-promoting, even mandatory. Furthermore, the medium may change, but the educational standards generally remain the same.
In more structural form, my opponent’s argument runs thus:
P1) Supply and demand are the cause of professional players’ salaries
P2) Demand (and consequently the level of supply) is fomented by corporate interests (i.e. ads)
C) Corporate interests foment demand in order to maintain capitalism (the status quo).
So here’s my point of contention: Capitalism may or may not be a status quo (I accept my opponent’s late definition of status quo), and I do not dispute that corporations and corporate interests exist only within some capitalistic frame (result from capitalism). However, none of this helps to logically conclude that corporations sponsor athletic events and interests in order to maintain the status quo. I assert that the reason corporations foment demand is to gain monetary profit. Maintaining capitalism has nothing to do with it.
I argue that if the demand wasn’t existent in the first place, then no matter how much advertising is done, corporatism cannot draw profit. Pretend, for example, that I began to try to sell pieces of dead leaves. I could spend millions advertising for dead leaves, but ultimately, my return would probably be in the negative. I’d probably go into debt. There simply isn’t enough of a demand for dead leaves to merit investment & marketing in the first place. Thus I argue that demand for athletics exists at some level individual from corporatism. I could probably even theorize and argue some evolutionary tie to this demand (athletic people are valuable in hunting-gathering, primeval society).
My opponent’s bringing up the olympics only serves to further my point: there is a demand for athletics regardless of nationality or political system. Nations are willing to host the olympics even if it means running means running a net loss in revenues. Thus demand & supply exist outside of the capitalist status quo.
I argue that olympic athletes’ salaries are less than those of, say, professional NBA players precisely due to supply & demand. The IOC reported a net revenue of $5 billion from 2009-2012.
The NBA, on the other hand, netted the same $5 billion over the course of the 2011-2012 season. That is 4x the IOC’s revenue (since the IOC’s revenue is cumulative over 4 years). In fact, the NBA league’s revenue trails behind those of the NFL($7.5b) and Major League Baseball($9.9b).
My opponent’s source on olympic revenue writes of olympic athletes being paid less, and takes up track and field olympians as an example. I argue that track and field demands are lower than that of other sports (TV viewership of only about half a million in a world championship, about 3% of NBA viewership in a season game). Track and field athletes are paid less regardless of olympic affiliations.
None of this really matters, however, because the olympic games and games such as those hosted by the NBA, NFL, etc. are completely different. The organizations follow different business models, resulting in some earning more revenue than others. The end motive is always profit. Organizations with more money are obviously able to pay more money than organizations with less money.
The IOC’s business model is more geared toward the worldwide promotion of sports. 90% of the IOC’s revenue is redistributed in order to host and promote the olympics while only 10% is paid to its operatives.
I assert that, contrary to my opponent’s claim, some athletes are paid more than others because they bring more profit in a profit-driven organization, and not in order to maintain some status quo. The nature of the totality of Olympic games and that of sports such as basketball contain many differing elements (i.e. the specialization and game element is more prominent in one over the other).
2) Logically, the resolution is negated because teachers (and educational organizations) not only serve to maintain a society’s status quo, but in fact are more significant agents than athletes and athletic organizations.
I thank my opponent for responding. However, although my opponent has accused me of moving the goal post, I assert that he has clumsily attempted to minimize the distance required to score. My opponent's argument illustrates shortsightedness that verges on blindness. He is also being narrow minded by attempting to confine the argument's total equation to a single variable. If my opponent wishes to focus on a technicality and wallow in trivialities, he is free to do so. As he did eventually get to the true intent of the resolution, I will briefly address his retorts and focus the remainder of my response on said intention.
"...the source of differentiation"
To be clear, the argument rests in the full explanation which states, "Their roles are considered to be more valuable in that they serve as distractions and offer escapism to the masses...I assert that these athletes are paid more because they are deemed by the corporatocracy to be more valuable to the preservation of the capitalistic structure and the promotion of a materialistic way of life." All of the agents of conformity promoted by society act in unison to maintain the status quo. (i.e. education, entertainment, sports, etc.) As stated, some are More valuable than others. An example: While both the heart and the toe are a part of the body, I am sure recognizes that one is more valuable than the other. I will leave it to my opponent to figure out which one has more worth.
"the other professions simply produce less overall revenue per capita employee."
The resolution is not solely contingent on economic data. I think most people know professional players are paid more per capita. As stated, "It seems to illustrate a dysfunctional and distorted valuation of national priorities. " The explanation of the resolution does not only question the economic valuation but the apparent dysfunction and distorted valuation of the nation's priorities. I acknowledge the generally accepted reasoning regarding free market pricing (S&D) and go on to state my assertion that "these athletes are paid more because they are deemed by the corporatocracy to be more valuable to the preservation of the capitalistic structure and the promotion of a materialistic way of life." Thus, the reasons detailed for the higher pay And the distorted valuation of priorities are:
1. Pro athletes serve to maintain the status quo
2. Pro athletes serve as distraction and provide escapism.
3. Pro athletes preserve capitalistic structure and the promotion of a materialistic way of life.
"Pro athletes’ being a better distraction..."
To ignore the more factor or the valuation of utility negates one of the major contentions of the full argument. As stated it is a poor attempt to limit the scope of the full argument.
Now on to the actual issue:
"Thus I argue...teachers..most significant group in...maintaining the status quo."
As stated, my opponent has focused on one component of the arguing points in the resolution. Ignoring the other reasoning provided for the differentiation in salary and the distorted and dysfunctional valuation of national priorities. (i.e. distraction, provision of escapism, preservation of capitalistic structure and promotion of a materialistic way of life.)
Though I agree with my opponent on much of the information he detailed regarding the purpose of teachers, I do not think all teachers readily agree with the ideology of the propaganda. This is why 'standardized' tests are designed by the bureaucrats and mandated as a requirement for students to pass. These tests give the bureaucrats control over the educational curriculum and the scope of the education, as teachers are expected to 'teach to the test' in order to achieve desired standards or benchmarks that are set by bureaucrats. Thus, while teachers are agents, they are more educational mediators who channel propaganda than autonomous instructors with the ability to construct and convey innovative and radical lessons that challenge the existing notions and ideology. This is why education is rhetoric and routine in need of revitalization and re-invigoration.
While teachers, or the educational system, do lay the groundwork for acceptance of the status quo, They Are Not Able To Continually Bolster This Groundwork Throughout The Lifetime Of Their Audiences. Thus, most become aware of the propaganda they were programmed with during childhood by the time they become adults. Distractions and methods of escape like sports, movies, drugs (illicit or approved), video games, etc., become crucial in re-captivating the mass' waning beliefs in the status quo by making the desired norms of the establishment fashionable and promoting acceptance of the illusion of the classist, capitalist structure that is managed by the corporatocracy. (In regard to the socio-economic and political design of the US) The worth of these agents (i.e. teachers, athletes, actors, politicians) is determined by their ability to distract and captivate the public into the cage of conformity. Thus, anyone or anything that effectively bolsters the inherent traits of capitalism (the status quo) that I have detailed can be valuable to corporatocracy that manages the system.
"If maintaining the status quo determined salary..."
Limited in scope of complete argument.
"I believe my opponent’s response...accepts.."
My response stated both supply and demand were 'fomented' or manipulated, mainly to dispute the opponents contention that unadulterated S&D was the cause of the professional athletes salaries.
the economic success (sports model of United States) derives from artificial scarcity (entry into the majors is closely restricted) and monopoly power (these are the best leagues in the world in their sports -- the potential for new entrants to become rivals is negligible). Perhaps surprisingly, the European model is one of pure capitalist competition, red in tooth and claw. Profitability is very low.
"So here’s my point of contention..."
This is a circular argument, in that gaining monetary profit is the goal of capitalism. Demand is fomented to increase profit as well as for other reasons. (i.e. distraction, escapism, arrested development)
"I argue that if the demand wasn’t existent..."
This is a statement of the obvious. Again, there is a difference between interest in athletics and commercialization.
"None of this really matters..."
Agreed, as we are not arguing the inherent demand for or the economics of athletics but national priorities in regard to the purpose and importance of education.
"athletes are valued outside of this ‘status quo’..."
This is false...my opponent agreed to the definition provided for status quo, I will restate it for convenience:
In this context, my intent when I allude to the status quo will be a depiction of the materialistic, classist, competitive and self-serving nature that typically accompanies capitalist governments. Particularly the higher valuation of property and its ownership over the people or the citizenry.
Though my opponent feels he has scored he has totally missed the mark by fixating on one component of the argument and obsessing over the economics of athletics. Professional or commercialized athletics is the poster board for the status quo.
a veritable marketing orgy of violence and consumption—advertisers spending millions per minute to pander to our desire to own more stuff while fighter jets roar overhead reminding us of how the right-to-stuff is protected. Why must a football game become a vehicle for materialism and the power that defends it? 
Pro-sports contribute next-to-nothing to communities economically yet they are sucking public dollars that could be better spent on parks, schools and public services into millionaires/billionaire's pockets and deluding a whole generation of at-risk youth into believing in the possibility of an "athletic career". 
it is time once again for Americans to fork over hard-earned dollars, probably billions of them, to satisfy an insatiable hunger for sports escapism even in these difficult economic times...Labor Day sadly brings the real end of summer, it also carries the hopes of millions of sports fans for rejuvenation for themselves and the home team, a true escape from the reality of health care, the economy and war. 
Preservation of Capitalist Structure
Commercial sport has become one of the most visible manifestations of globalization, with broadcasting and sponsorships turning clubs and players into vehicles for generating cash -- some consider them more brands than athletes. 
Preservation of Classism
sports team ownership is based on enormous wealth, not merit 
Stars of the team are given endorsements moreso than their teams. (i.e. Lebron James, Kobe Bryant, etc).
Among adults,the continued proliferation of fantasy sports wagering further aggrandizes personalaccomplishmentsover team success. 
"Sports is another crucial example of the indoctrination system...It offers people something to pay attention to that is of no importance...It keeps them from worrying about things that matter to their lives that they might have an idea of something about...It's a way of building up irrational attitudes of submission to authority, and group cohesion behind leadership elements, in fact its training in irrational jingoism...That's why energy is devoted to supporting them...and advertisers are willing to pay for them." 
Once again, thanks to my opponent for his response.
The Soccer War
My opponent believes my point on teachers being more influential in maintaining the SQ to be trivial. It is not trivial at all, and my opponent agrees to that in his attempting to argue that athletes contribute more to status quo maintenance than teachers. It is a necessary component in order for the resolution to hold true.
Organization vs. Agent
I’ve described the way teachers are direct agents of spreading & maintaining SQ. My opponent does not dispute this description. Rather, my opponent tries to claim that it is the organization (the creators of the educational standards) that is proportionally more responsible than the body of teachers in serving the status quo.
I argue this to be false. While organizations do set standards, the totality of teachers are directly responsible for communicating indoctrination of SQ. Without teachers of any kind, the organization of education as it is would not be able to communicate or maintain any ideas let alone SQ. Thus the ones who set the standards are much less influential than the millions of teachers who, as indoctrinated agents, are necessary to fuse SQ into the psyche of each successive generation. In fact, teachers can function regardless of whether or not there is an organization. Anyone who teaches SQ helps to maintain SQ.
On the other hand, my opponent’s assault on teacher’s role in SQ actually applies more to sports than to education. Athletes do nothing in terms of SQ because athletics is valued outside of SQ trappings. Similarly, escapism, or leisure, exists independent of SQ, and therefore cannot, alone, serve SQ. This leads into my opponent’s following assertions:
“Their roles are considered to be more valuable in that they serve as distractions and offer escapism to the masses...I assert that these athletes are paid more because they are deemed by the corporatocracy to be more valuable to the preservation of the capitalistic structure and the promotion of a materialistic way of life."
My opponent’s assertions are that sports are escapist distractions, that the purpose of marketing sports is to provide escapist distractions, and that escapist distractions serve to maintain SQ.
Escapist Distraction from what?
Marketing sports in order to maintain SQ
My opponent cannot read minds. Therefore he cannot know what the corporate leaders are thinking. Therefore he cannot know whether or not these people market sports in order to maintain SQ. He can only guess inductively and assert himself to be right. I will attempt to show why the premises leading up to his inductive conclusion has little to do with said conclusion, and are based solely on non-correlating ideas. I think this part of the debate is significant enough for further discussion.
Escapism serves to maintain SQ
Does it? Again, what is escapism? If it includes any and all activities not anti-SQ, then nearly everything serves to maintain SQ. That is simply ridiculous. Does my opponent mean escapism to mean only non-productive activity? What is productive then? I assert that non-productivity, or leisure, can occur outside of a system with SQ therefore cannot serve to maintain SQ.
Hitting each other with baseball bats
Even if sports under which athletes play serve as escapist medium (somewhat questioned, but willing to concede) and even if the escapism is the goal (I contest this, but even if we accept it, I could argue that leisure is good), there is no reason to believe that escapism serves to maintain SQ.
Butting heads with rebuttals
“my opponent has focused on one component of the arguing points in the resolution.”
Sure, but it is a component which you’ve been arguing: that athletes serve the status quo more so than teachers. This component may be singular, but it is significant for the purposes of this resolution. Again, as I contended above, your points against teachers’ utility in terms of serving the status quo apply more correctly to athletes. No one tells athletes to spread ideas which correlate with SQ. Athletes alone do not spread SQ because athletes exist outside of SQ. So I don’t see how you’re negating teachers’ SQ utility relative to that of athletes at all.
CON(me): "If maintaining the status quo determined salary[, then teachers would be paid more]"
PRO: “Limited in scope of complete argument.”
It still communicates my point. I think snipers are more efficient than semi-automatics.
“My response stated both supply and demand were 'fomented' or manipulated, mainly to dispute the opponents contention that unadulterated S&D was the cause of the professional athletes salaries.”
My opponent accepts S&D. However, my arguments still contend the maintenance of SQ, so whether or not there is S&D, SQ maintenance is still disputed.
“monetary profit is the goal of capitalism.”
I cry assertion! Here is a relevant quote.
Capitalism, like any other economic system, is proposed and implemented not with the purpose of inequality, but, contrarily, actually for the expressed purpose of maximal equality. Analagously, political systems aren’t built with the purpose of injustice, the intent of political systems is ultimately societal justice. Just because injustice and inequality appears in the system, doesn’t mean it is intended. My opponent mistakes intent with results. Maybe athletics and athletes indirectly serve to maintain SQ. Maybe initially popular political systems were agreed to and implemented with the expectation of good results, but that doesn’t mean the intended result and the actual result will be the same. Actual results and intended results are not the same thing. A thing’s intended consequence and a thing’s actual consequence can be and often are at odds.
My opponent seems to equivocate athletes’ and sports’ perceived effect on society with their intended effect.
Correlation != Causation.
“there is a difference between interest in athletics and commercialization.”
Interest in athletics is necessarily responsible for the success of athletics in the commercial field and thus athletes’ salaries. Again, I could try to commercialize dead leaves, and most likely receive a net loss. Thus, if the intent of commercialization is to maintain the SQ, then anything and everything that can be commercialized (even if unprofitable) should logically be commercialized. Thus profit is more inductively likely because most anything that is profitable is commercialized (even if it’s immoral or illegal; arguably prostitution and drugs).
Thus, even if my opponent’s claim on SQ maintenance is true, it is empirically overshadowed by the profit incentive to the point that any other incentive can only be conspiratorially guessed at.
“Preservation of capital[ism and classism]”
Correlation is not causation. Even I can point out manifestations of capitalism, but they do not necessarily (not even close) result from some drive to maintain your SQ. There are an infinite number of reasons people value sports and are willing to pay money to sports, consequently upping athletes’ wages.
Instead of addressing each point:
Everything under “Here’s How” fails under my opponent’s equivocation.
My opponent has no reason to believe SQ maintenance is a goal. He equivocates correlation (what may or may not have happened) with causation (it happened because that’s what it was intended).
Teachers serve to maintain SQ more, if at all. I have shown direct causation. My opponent has made nought but haphazard guesses and connections.
My opponent's assertion is just that. His reasoning is based on evidence which are irrelevant to proving his claims.
My opponent concedes S&D
My opponent does not dispute that athletes' wages are caused by non-SQ-maintaining factors (interest in athletics, S&D, etc.)
Intent != Results; Causation != Correlation.
I thank my opponent for finally joining the debate...
"my point on teachers being more influential in maintaining the SQ to be trivial.."
I did not find the point itself to be trivial, but rather the fact that my opponent attempted to limit the argument by focusing on one component. Whether teachers are more influential in the maintenance of the status quo will be left to the reader. I would only remind my opponent and the reader that an agreed upon definition of status quo has been determined. That definition being:
a depiction of the materialistic, classist, competitive and self-serving nature that typically accompanies capitalist governments. Particularly the higher valuation of property and its ownership over the people or the citizenry.
Thus, for my opponent's counter-assertion to be true, teachers would have to promote materialism, classism, competition, and narcissism or grandstanding More than professional athletes. One must bear in mind that the resolution is clearly referring to professional teachers or those paid salaries to teach.
Let us test my opponent's assertion of teachers being more "influential in maintaining the SQ" as he seems to be determined to rest the majority of his argument on this assertion.
This seems to be futile, yet, I ask the reader to question if teachers maintain materialism More than pro athletes.
Some questions worth asking would be:
Do teachers promote or endorse high priced jerseys with there names plastered on them?
Do teachers promote or endorse high priced footwear?
Do teachers market their names as brands?
One of the biggest issues with professional athletes endorsing these products is that the pros are believable. Young kids and teens look up to these men and women and even idolize them. But here is the irony: it is unlikely these professional athletes eat the foods they endorse, and they certainly don’t make them part of their everyday diet...The researchers even named names...Peyton Manning, LeBron James, Serena Williams. These three had the most endorsements for junk food than any other professional athletes, but there were more. 
Do teachers maintain classism More than pro athletes?
Obviously classism exists among the players in the NHL...This shines the light on flashier players, especially those who can put the puck in the opposition net and goaltenders who can keep the puck out of their net. Often overlooked in this metric is the importance of the grinders who sacrifice their bodies to clear ice space for scorers...No matter what metric, it boils down to a form of classism, and it makes it difficult for progressive fans to support labor (the players) in its battle with the capitalists (team owners). 
...nothing provides a better digest of golf than exclusion, annoyance, cultural damage, and self-absorption....Golf is the worst sport...Golf is worse because it is more classist, more racist...While country clubs struggle with in terms of excluding people of different religions and races, they do not struggle at all with excluding members of lower social classes. They were created as social clubs for the middle- and upper-class, and that has not moved backward an inch...golf clubs were specifically designed to foster the advancement of the upper middle-class...women (and poor people and workers in the service sector) aren't part of this great culture...What's more, the social status qualification of country clubs is the easiest to enforce: simply raise annual dues. Far easier than trying to guess if an applicant is as white as they say they are..."The clubs have long histories of racial-ethnic homogeneity, but they now display some demographic diversity while preserving the economic and cultural homogeneity with which members are comfortable. 
If sports were once part of a tradition of American populism, they have devolved into socially segregated and elitist centers of culture. This has been evident for some time in the marquee events such as the World Series, Super Bowl, and for the international jet set crowd. the Olympics. The last two decades has seen it creep into local and regional sports. It is a "premium" world where exclusivity can be bought if you have the financial resources. 
While I do admit that teachers serve as agents in the classist framework of the current educational system, I argue that professional athletics is a greater agent in its service in the maintenance of classism. Teachers do not typically live in gated communities because of their status. The reader should consider we are not arguing the inherent demand for or the economics of athletics but national priorities in regard to the purpose and importance of education. Some questions worth asking?
Do teachers work for owners like pro basketball, football and hockey players?
Is competition in any genre of professional athletics restricted to the general public?
...many modern sports are also dangerous and prone to conflict. It is not rare for boxers to deeply injure each other, hockey players to fight, or a baseball batter to charge the mound leading to a full team vs. team brawl....Unfortunately, in the competitive quest for individual and team success, unsportsmanlike practices are pervasive. In hockey, many teams have a player called an "enforcer," whose main job is to physically punish the opposing team...and he will never shy away from a fight.  Although grades can be viewed as competitive, I am sure the reader and my opponent will agree that teachers do not promote risking injury or fighting.
Athletes are willing to risk their health, even death, to compete and win their respective sports.
How much will they risk? Sports Illustrated interviewed a cohort of elite Olympic athletes, asking, “If you were given a performance-enhancing substance, you would not be caught, and you would win, would you take it?”...Ninety-eight percent of athletes answered yes. When [asked], “If you were given a performance-enhancing substance, and you would not be caught, win all competitions for 5 years, then die, would you take it?” More than 50% still said yes. 
This promotion of the individual applies to all sports advertisements; critically, it recasts a team sport into individual one-on-one contests. Such promotion reduces the process of the game to individual acts, like points scored, or rebounds. 
Narcissism has been found to be especially high amongst the celebrities we worship – and that includes sports stars. 
This individual adulation can detract from the team focus and glorify the wrong people as role models, as well as turn people into mere commodities...a clear precursor to an adult sport celebrity deification. But no one seems to have any problem with David Beckham being commonly referred to as a “half-god” in Japan...
Another point worth noting is that students are often allowed and encouraged to put sports ahead of their education, especially if talented. The commercialization of sports actually supersedes the maintenance of the status quo practiced by teachers. This is proven by the myriads of children who feel they don't need to learn anything because their going to be sports stars. They do not consider the percentage of individuals who actually make it to the pros, especially when one considers the classism and manipulated S&D.
Marketing sports fosters capitalism and escapism.
"...what is escapism?"
Escapism was mentioned as a separate role the athletes serve in addition to maintenance of SQ. It is another example of the More factor that my opponent seems to be purposely overlooking or avoiding. "a true escape (distraction) from the reality of health care, the economy and war" 
"..how does escapism correlate with maintaining SQ?"
"...the goal of capitalism"
We live in a corporatocracy where big confederations, often acting with complicit state institutions in ways that discourage the natural workings of a free economy.  Racist attitudes (like homophobia, sexism and nationalism) are fostered within the working class by the myriad educational and ideological processes of bourgeois society, and are passively accepted by the class-collaborationist parasites who dominate the unions, and other mass organizations of the working class. Those who provide escapism are highly valued for their ability to veil the unequal distribution of resources from the masses.
"athletes’ and sports’ perceived effect..intended effect"
The intended effect of commercialized athletics is acceptance and emulation of the status quo (aforementioned) by the masses and the provision of escapism and distraction.
"..profit is more inductively likely.."
Conjecture. SQ itemized earlier in response. I await my opponents response to those issues.
"..reasons people value sports and are willing to pay money to sports.."
Whatever the reason, the solicitation and purchase maintains capitalism.
Hollywood's Vision of Team Sports: Heroes, Race, and Gender By Deborah V. Tudor, pg.33 
Taking Up Folding Chairs.
I did not 'concede' SQ as my opponent claims, but rather I've decided to argue under the hypothetical that the status is what my opponent defines it to be (redundant given the definition of SQ). I more or less still have the capacity to argue what constitutes the current status quo. I choose not to. The trench I've dug says: "[Even] if the status quo is SQ, [blahblahblah]". My opponent has not forwarded arguments in favor of SQ. I haven't done so against it. Let's leave it at that and resume the debate.
Paying the Doctor Who Doesn't Know What Money Is.
An arching point to this debate is: are teachers more influential to maintaining SQ than athletes? I've explained how teachers maintain SQ and I will do so again. Teachers are important, even necessary, to establishing the indoctrinating framework to each successive generation in order for the generation to functionally accept, implement and promote SQ. My opponent does not dispute this argument. Without teachers, there would be no SQ. With athletes, however, SQ exists with or without them. Thus, the extreme necessity of teachers in maintaining SQ is, by itself, sufficient to showing their greater influence in terms of SQ.
Relevant Rebuttals - En Garde!
PRO: Some questions worth asking...
CON: These are rhetorical questions that are irrelevant to the resolution (along with those further down the line). You might as well ask: "Are teachers athletes?" The short answer is no. Teachers are not athletes, and don't have to perpetrate maintenance of SQ the way athletes do. This is, however beside the point. Even if we assume that athletes perpetrate SQ, there is no hard indicative that the negative nature of this SQ is what is intended. Again, my opponent cannot read minds and is only able to make some haphazard inductive guess at whether or not SQ maintenance is an intention. As I've explained (and my opponent agrees as being circular), profit and S&D explain athletes' wages. Moreover, I've shown that profit and S&D are empirically and inductively significant enough to be able to serve as the entire explanation to athletes' wages. Anything else is simply overshadowed and insignificant. Since profit can act as a sole incentive, any other incentive cannot be more than a conspiratorial guess.
Teachers, the ones who are responsible for indoctrinative principles, necessarily maintain classism more than pro athletes.
Again, S&D. There is a demand for athletics and competition outside of classist/capitalist trappings. Is it unreasonable to train our focus on those able to perform feats of skill? People are also inherently materialistic. Even you, PRO, have to admit that you desire certain unnecessary things (TV, car, house, wife/husband, etc.). That's materialism. How do you know your materialism is caused by someone else's desire to maintain SQ? You don't. It's a sheer assertion. Nothing more.
Not related to whether or not something intends SQ.
So athletes can be narcissistic. So? How does this correlate in terms of the resolution? People generally favor the players of more likeable bearing; the humble players. Arrogant athletes are derogatorily termed "cocky" and are generally disfavored by a good number of people. Even you, PRO, serve as an example of the general attitude of dislike toward arrogance & narcissism. So how in the world does this affect SQ negatively if SQ disfavors narcissism? The concept of SQ itself is contradictory in nature.
Even if narcissism does negatively spread SQ significantly among the masses due to some cocky sports players, there is no link to intended causation. Intent and results are not the same. I will repeat that as many times as I need to.
Pro: "students are often allowed and encouraged to put sports ahead of their education"
By P.E. teachers..
Pro: "especially if talented"
As mentioned before, humanity naturally demands athletics (occurs outside of SQ).
Manifestation. Not an indicative of intent.
PRO:"a true escape (distraction) from the reality of health care, the economy and war"
Because we have so much sports that it consumes enough time for us to not even function as human beings. Right.
Why capitalist ideology was developed:
Pro: "Those who provide escapism are highly valued for their ability to veil the unequal distribution of resources from the masses."
Obviously the dirt-poor serfs who began the mechanisms of mercantilism did so in order to serve to maintain a classist, self-serving, narcissistic capitalism (which didn’t exist by the way). I mean, they’ve obviously predicted all the outcomes of capitalism and intended for sports 600 years in the future to have some forms of classist trappings. I apologize for the sarcasm, but your assertion of capitalist practices done in order to serve capitalist maintenance is simply ridiculous.
Pro: "athletes’ and sports’ perceived effect..intended effect"
The intended effect of commercialized athletics is to make money off of people's natural demand for athletics (profit incentive is conceded as circular). There is no evidence otherwise. Perceived effects, used as evidence, is not the same as the intent behind the effect (again, serfs and mercantilism).
PRO: "SQ itemized earlier in response."
Right. Serfs itemized SQ before SQ existed when they started mercantilistic practices. It totally wasn't considered a way to better efficient specialization. Ironic because english society rid itself of the extremely classist feudalism with agrarian capitalism.
No Peace Treaties were Signed that Day.
My opponent concedes S&D and the profit incentive (in that order). I've conceded nothing, and in fact have shown that profit and S&D are far more inductively likely than my opponent's blank assertions of intent.
My opponent then proceeds to claim to know that SQ is first established with the very intent to maintain SQ (results of capitalism). Again, early agrarian society probably didn't have capitalist-founding seers who, for some twisted reason, decided to help some future class of people spread classism.
My opponent's case in favor of athlete's serving to maintain SQ more so than teachers will be weighed more thoroughly in the final round. I believe teachers to have been shown to be more significant in this area.
I thank my opponent, in advance, for offering his perspective...
"I did not 'concede' SQ as my opponent claims, but rather I've decided...(I accept my opponent’s late definition of status quo), and I do not dispute that corporations and corporate interests exist only within some capitalistic frame..."
As Con has previously accepted the contextual definition provided regarding status quo, I find it humorous that he is now denying his acceptance. As such, I suspect that my opponent will attempt to offer his definition of SQ late in the game, so to say. I will not cry misconduct as my opponent alleged, as the delinquency should be obvious to the reader.
"An arching point...are teachers more influential"
Again, my opponent seems to be cofused about the purpose, assertions and scope of the resolution. The 'arching point' (as my opponent puts it) is are teachers deemed more valuable (not more influential) than athletes in maintaining the SQ. As I have already stated, all of the agents of conformity promoted by society act in unison to maintain the status quo, yet, some are deemed to be 'More' valuable than others. The question of value, in regard to monetary worth, is made evident by the differentiation in salary. A differentiation my opponent vehemently ascribes to a natural framework of S&D. Even when evidence has ben cited to illustrate that the European model of professional athletics is more illustrative of the natural framework of S&D. Whereas, less profits are attained due to the competitive aspect that is not present in the monopolistic model of the professional athletic program in the U.S. More arching is the question of why athletes are deemed more valuable.
"..I've shown that profit and S&D.."
More accurately, my opponent has awkwardly attempted to bypass the glaring reality that athletes serve multi-faceted roles.
"..Is it unreasonable to train our focus.."
This quesion posed by my opponent broaches the distraction component of the argument. Is it unreasonable for the focus of the public to be swayed in favor of those who can put a ball in a hoop, a puck in a net, or a golf ball in a hole moreso than toward the intention and ability of education and teacher's respectively? That is the crux of the debate and a question I will leave to be answered by the reader.
"..People are also inherently materialistic..That's materialism.."
This is an ungrounded assumption made by my opponent. However, a generalization that presupposes an innate materialistic quality of all people is not surprising in a capitalistic society. Expectedly, that is an integral component of the status quo of corporatocracy. Therefore, it seems fitting to examine the definition of materialism and materialistic.
".. materialism..caused by someone else's desire to maintain SQ?"
Basically, my opponent is questioning whether maintenance and promotion of the statuis quo can cause or influence the adoption of materialistic qualities amongst the general public or 'masses'. Even you, Con, have asserted your belief that teachers influence the adoption of the status quo amongst their students. Do you now question if the professional athletes that are essentially idolized by these same students (as well as adults) can cause or influence the adoption of materialistic qualities promoted by these athletes? Again, I will illustrate the obvious. Celebrity endorsements also help sell products. Athletes are depicted on cereal boxes and appear onscreen wearing and using specific athletic clothes and gear. Children who like those celebrities are expected to purchase these products. 
s://media1mpact.files.wordpress.com...; alt="voice-throwing" width="606" height="386" />
I view this to be a concession as competition was one of the components detailed in the definition of SQ Accepted by my opponent. Furthermore, competition is, as stated, a natural variable in the natural or mormal framework of S&D.
I do not think it is worth questioning whether narcissism is a part of the SQ in what has come to be termed the age of the selfie.  Thus, whether SQ disfavors narcissism is in itself debatable. The question - is have professional athletes become more narcissistic? Can you imagine a college professor doing a “touchdown dance” after giving a particularly good lecture? 
...the athlete as a professional entertainer seeks above all to further his own interests and willingly sells his services to the highest bidder. The better athletes become media celebrities and supplement their salaries with endorsements that often exceed the salaries themselves. 
"..By P.E. teachers.."
To suggest that P.E. teachers impact student aspirations to be sports stars and and their desire to put sports ahead of education more than the status of the athletes themselves is suspect and disingenuous.
"..demands athletics (occurs outside of SQ).."
Again, commercialization is not the same as recreation. I have yet to see a little leaguer in an advertisement or endorsing wheaties. Pro athletes are promoted as the exemplars and they do not play with amateurs.
My opponent seems to be arguing that athletes are marketed against their will or forced to give endorsements. This is not the case.
Actually, capitalism is an offshoot of feudalism.  Boxing, cricket and football would have provided the same distraction, escapism and maintenance of status quo as pro sports do today. HoweverGood Point Con, I didn't think of that.
I suppose that profit is why the athletes are required to wear formal attire and stand in support of the national anthem too. They could not be promoting the status quo.
"..feudalism with agrarian capitalism.."
The corporatocracy of the time or the rich landowners used their status to "appropriate public land for their private benefit."  Admittedly, the working class had more access to natural resources and wealth than those in the present day.
"..early agrarian society.."
My opponent is attempting to relate early agrarian socities or the 'capitalist founding' to today's corporatocracy and emerging global economy. While their are some similarities, the strategies of control used by today's elite are much more far reaching.
The role professional athletes play in maintaining the status quo and providing and fostering,escapism, distraction, competeition, classism and narcissism has been illustrated. While all gents of conformity promoted by society act in unison to maintain the status quo. As stated, some are More valuable than others. Professional athletes are able to capture the emulation, attention and dollars of children and adults alike. Unlike teachers they provide a life-long service. Thus, they are deemed more valuable and paid and celebrated accordingly. Historically, they have also, in many ways, been beholden to the owners who they play for. Thankfully, this dichotomy is being challenged as some pro athletes speak out about controversial issues.  While they haven't been overly vocal, this is an unexpected break from the norm and the status quo.
..notions about teacher status and prestige, like fast food and reality TV, seem to have been exported worldwide, infecting the field on a global scale...as countries become more Western in their orientation, in their economies, and in their outlook and values, the prestige of the teaching profession decreases.  It seems to be time for the intent and method of education to be reevaluated. Perhaps the student should be put first rather than the test or the status quo.
The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations, Christopher Lasch pgs. 118-119 
Thank you PRO for the debate!
Catapulting Carcasses - the Status Quo
I'm not understanding my opponent's complaints. My opponent has not made explicit arguments as to whether or not the status quo is what he defines it to be, and I've made no arguments to reject his definition (given round 2). If anything, my opponent, having defined status quo in round 2, is the one guilty of late definition.
Nowhere in my previous round or in any of my rounds after my opponent's definition have I made any premises against my opponent's asserted status quo.
That my opponent even dares to try snipe the conduct point in such a way is extremely gross.
I'll just put a lid on the matter and move on to refutations.
Beheading the Hydra:
My opponent attempts to refute my argument on teacher's SQ influence by claiming that my arguments only pertain to value:
Pro: "are teachers deemed more valuable (not more influential) than athletes"
He ignores that my argument actually pertains to teachers' influence on SQ, and then proceeds to make a value argument in favor of athletes:
Pro: "The question of value, in regard to monetary worth, is made evident by the differentiation in salary."
Let us relate this back to the resolution. My opponent is basically saying that athletes are paid more than teachers in order to maintain SQ because of the large salaries of individual athletes versus those of teachers. In short. athletes are paid more because they are paid more. This argument is incredibly circular and is a poor attempt at refuting teachers' causing greater maintenance of SQ (it it exists ;)).
The syllogism (the premise being argued simplified):
P1: If teachers maintain SQ more than athletes, then the reason athletes have higher salaries cannot be to maintain SQ.
P2: Teachers maintain SQ more than athletes (nothing to do with value, but everything to do with influence).
C: Athletes do not have higher salaries in order to maintain SQ.
I've proven P2, and my opponent, in an attempt to disprove it, resorts to an irrelevant and circular refutative argument.
In the United States, there is an estimate of about 3.7million teachers paid to engage in classroom education in elementary and post-secondary schools (excludes other teachers, but let's ignore that for the sake of simplicity). The average teacher's salary in the United States is $44413.8571 (calculated by taking the average of the teachers' combined salaries). The total average salaryof teachers is $164.331271 billion dollars or about $164 billion (I rounded down, how generous! :D)
Also in the United States, there are about 14,900 jobs for athletes and sports competitors (includes the ones who aren't as successful as, say, Michael Jordan). Their average salary is $40,060 (that's even less than teachers'!!). Their total salary is $596,894,000 or about $600 million (I rounded up, how generous! :D)
The total salary of athletes & sports competitors is a mere 0.36% of that of teachers. Even in terms of value (irrelevant), my opponent's argument fails.
There are about 250 times more teaching jobs than athletes and sports competitor jobs in the U.S., and the median salary of teachers is greater. You shouldn't have attempted that value argument. :D
Catching Shotgun Bullets (like a boss!):
PRO: "athletes serve multi-faceted roles."
Response: As I've said in previous rounds, any facet other than S&D and profit are simply haphazard theories. Furthermore, as mentioned before, athletes may serve certain roles, but that is no indicative of these roles being intended. Intent != result.
PRO: "Is it unreasonable for the focus of the public to be swayed in favor of those who can put a ball in a hoop, a puck in a net, or a golf ball in a hole moreso than toward the intention and ability of education and teacher's respectively? That is the crux of the debate and a question I will leave to be answered by the reader."
Response: Not at all good sir. It would be the crux of our debate if our debate were about leisure or escapism. It is not. The resolution can be affirmed or negated with or without a contention of leisure. Even if weighed, this point of contention holds little to no weight in this debate.
PRO: [Some point on materialism]
Response: Irrelevant to maintaining SQ, but I love semantics!! The word 'materialistic' is defined to be "excessive concern with physical comforts or [..]". Since nothing is inherently necessary (simple conclusion if you question a thing's importance unto the point of infinite regression), everything is excessive. Thus, any concern with physical comfort, no matter how minor, is excessive. Thus, all humans who try to make themselves feel more comfortable (i.e. even something as trivial as sitting down), is materialistic. Thus the conclusion that humans are generally materialistic.
But as previously concluded, the definition of SQ is irrelevant to whether or not there is an intended maintenance of SQ.
PRO: ".. materialism..caused by someone else's desire to maintain SQ?"
Basically, my opponent is questioning whether maintenance and promotion of the statuis quo can cause or influence the adoption of materialistic qualities amongst the general public or 'masses'.
Response: Wrong, I am questioning whether or not there is a desire to maintain SQ. As I've pointed out many times, the profit incentive and S&D are sufficient in explaining the rationale of those operating the gears of capitalism.
I view this to be a concession as competition was one of the components detailed in the definition of SQ Accepted by my opponent."
Response: No concession at all. I did not contend your definition of status quo. I did not choose to as my premises do not depend on such a contention.
PRO: "Self-serving Narcissism"
Response:Are selfies absolute indicatives of narcissism? Is it narcissistic to take selfies? I have shown that the sports world very explicitly favors 'humble' players and derogatorily defames the 'cocky' players. That 'narcissism' and other such negatively connoted words are, by nature of their existence, powerful indicatives of society's disfavoring overbearance, but I'll leave that to the reader.
PRO: "Can you imagine a college professor doing a “touchdown dance” after giving a particularly good lecture?"
Response: Irrelevant, but funny to picture.
PRO: "willingly sells his services to the highest bidder"
Response: That's just how capitalism works. Manifestations of capitalism has nothing to do with the resolution. :)
PRO: "To suggest that P.E. teachers impact student aspirations to be sports stars and and their desire to put sports ahead of education"
Response: Ultimately irrelevant. There are many factors to sports aspirations (personal interest in athletics, innate athletic capabilities. personal interest in sports, the potential of wild success to name a few). To suggest that athletes only aspire to be athletes for money or to maintain SQ (the latter being more ridiculous) is suspect and disingenuous. :)
PRO: " I have yet to see a little leaguer in an advertisement or endorsing wheaties."
Response: Little leaguers supply the game. They don't supply the athletics. Obviously little leaguers are less in demand athletically because they simply don't supply the athletics that pro-athletes can. S&D. As an analogy to your refutation: You might as well refute the demand for iPhones by referencing the disproportionately lower demand for these:
PRO: "My opponent seems to be arguing that athletes are marketed against their will or forced to give endorsements. This is not the case."
That is indeed not the case. I'm simply relating your spiel on marketing to the resolution: it does not refute any of my premises nor does it support the resolution in that it does not affirm the existence of an intent to maintain SQ. My opponent seems to be trying to affirm. It doesn't matter how well my opponent can show that athletes maintain SQ (if at all), if he cannot show that athletes are paid in order to maintain SQ, then he does not affirm the resolution. The resolution necessarily requires my opponent to establish that SQ maintenance is intended. He has not done so, and the marketing spiel does not do so either.
PRO: ""..capitalist ideology.."
Actually, capitalism is an offshoot of feudalism. "
I suppose that profit is why the athletes are required to wear formal attire and stand in support of the national anthem too. They could not be promoting the status quo."
Response: Wait, nationalism was part of SQ? That was not part of my opponent's definitions! Rejected! ;D
PRO: "My opponent is attempting to relate early agrarian socities or the 'capitalist founding' to today's corporatocracy and emerging global economy. While their are some similarities, the strategies of control used by today's elite are much more far reaching."
Response: Actually, this reference to agrarian capitalism was a response to my opponent's assertion that "monetary profit is the goal of capitalism" (along with classism, self-serving narcissism, etc.. SQ in short). Only those who first implemented capitalism (agrarian societies) know why they did so.
I believe I've shown that teachers serve to maintain SQ more so than athletes. Thus, I've proven that SQ maintenance cannot be the reason some athletes are paid way more than the average teacher as was required.
I've shown that my opponent has not established intent. That is, even if athletes maintain SQ, their salaries haven't been shown to be high in order to maintain SQ. My opponent fails his burden of proof.
Again, I extend thanks to my opponent for a stimulating debate.
Vote CON! :D
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|