Does American football underrated other sports
Debate Rounds (3)
Thanks, Qwertyuiop123. I am going to speak briefly about our resolution, and then offer my own arguments.
The definition of "underrate" is "to rate or value (someone or something) too low" . To underrate something or someone is to actively, though not necessarily knowingly, rate something below its worth. To possess this capacity, it follows that you must be a person capable of discerning and evaluating worth, but this conception is at odds with the resolution, as clearly a football is not a person, nor does it take on humanoid characteristics. Therefore, I recommend that we interpret this resolution in the way I believe PRO intended it, which is as an assessment of whether football, or the existence thereof, is causing other sports to become underrated. In other words, sports fan, or the American people generally speaking, are actively engaging in the act of underrating.
It follows from this understanding an affirmative statement: the American people are underrating other sports by virtue of the existence of football. The burden of proof in fulfilling this resolution will fall squarely on PRO, whereas my job is to negate his points. Note that PRO has not sought to establish an objective understanding of value, nor has he provided any means by which we are to gauge whether or not or the degree to which a sports has been rated fairly or unfairly. Therefore, PRO must also be capable of providing a framework for such assessment. Failure to do so will result in a vote for the negative, as such a framework is necessary for establishing the resolution.
PRO's only contention in his opening round is that other sports do not get as much attention "as they deserve." To deserve means "to be worthy, fit, or suitable for some reward or requital" . This suggests that, to deserve something, you must exhibit qualities that establish merit. In other words, there must be an objective bass for deservedness. But this basis is absent from PRO's case. Not only does he leave out this standard, but he does not specify which other "sports" he is speaking of. On top of that, his example is anecdotal. He suggests that this is true "in our schools," but doesn't tell us which schools, or why these schools serve as a representative sample of the American populace. His examples are completely anecdotal.
PRO goes on to offer one example of competitive swimming, and says that it does not "get the cheerleaders or the crowd that is given to football." In order for this example to be taken as having any merit, he must first establish that competitive swimming is deserving of the cheerleaders and crowd size of football. Then he must be able to evidence the point that all competitive swimming are deficient in these areas. Why, for instance, would cheerleaders be expected to attend a competitive swimming event? Cheerleaders are customary to football in much the same way as lifeguards are customary to swimming. In much the same way that PRO wouldn't, or at least shouldn't, contend that the absence of a lifeguard at a football game is evidence of being unerrated, he shouldn't be able to state blindly that the absence of cheerleaders at a swimming event is evidence of such.
Let me reiterate, though, that there are three components to this resolution. The first component is that there is an objective standard of deservedness, and certain sports bear a certain level of this, and it is unwavering, at least insofar as it is possible to make an assessment as to relative deservedness. The second component is that these sports are currently lacking in terms of what they deserve. The third component is to establish, after successfully proving the second component, that football unto itself is the sole cause of this.
There are several ways I could attack this resolution, and I intend to address all three components of it I addressed earlier. The first component, which posits that there is an objective standard of deservedness, falls for a number of reason. First, deservedness manfiests itself in human affection. People have different tastes and preferences, and these tastes and preferences determine how they choose to allocate their limited time. There are people, as PRO acknowledges in his opening remarks, prefer one sport to another or one activity to another. They may opt to completely disregard one activity and solely focus their time and attention on another. This doesn't mean that the activities they opt to eschew are utterly meaningless and undeserving, especially considering that other people, who have different preferences, see them as worthy of pursuit. Because deservedness manifests themselves in human experiences, which are inherently subjective, it is impossible to establish this standard of deservedness as subjective. In the case that we fail to establish this basis, the resolution cannot be true because we lose sight of our barometer for gauging current deservedness relative to what, in PRO'S judgment, it ought to be. It follows from this analysis that the second component would also be impossible to prove true.
The three component, which also fails by virtue of the fact that I have disproved the first and thus second components, fails also because PRO needs to establish causation. Humans only have a limited amount of time in their days, and if we accept that deservedness manifests itself in human attention and affection, we must bear in mind the opportunity cost of time. If this is the case, that altruistic feats, education, traveling and much more--activites that people actively engage in, and which necessarily consume much of our time--are also causes of people opting to focus their attention, at least partially, away from other sports. They may in fact, also, focus their attentiona way from football. The causes of this may be limitless and impossible to quantify. We simply cannot narrow this down to one root cause, which means that Pro cannot establish the third component necessary to affirming the resolution.
I have refuted PRO's arguments and provided analysis as to why an objective standard for deservedness cannot be established because it manifests itself in human experience which is inherently subjective. Moreover, I have demonstrated that PRO cannot establish causation, because the actual causes of people drawing their attention away from other sports may be infinite and limitless. In light of PRO's burdens, which I have laid out in my framework analysis, PRO is unable to meet his burden of proof. I highly advise our audience to vote negative for these reasons.
Thank you for reading, and I pass this debate back over to PRO.
Qwertyuiop123 forfeited this round.
Pro has forfeited Round 2.
This is unfortunate, but I will give him a chance to return in the following round. Hopefully we can continue the debate as planned.
Judges, please disegard this round.
Qwertyuiop123 forfeited this round.
Pro once again forfeits. Therefore, vote Con. Thank you.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
|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||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.