The Instigator
DebateGirl221
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Siege
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Footballers are valued more than teachers

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Siege
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/28/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,124 times Debate No: 35139
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

DebateGirl221

Con

Recently at school I have noticed that some teachers aren't given the respect they so surely deserve. Then I hear some students talking about footballers like they are gods. I just don't understand it. Teachers do more for this world than footballers ever will, yet footballers are paid a whole lot more and get more respect. Well I've had it. Teachers give teach give us skills for life, whereas footballers just kick a ball about. If anyone disagrees with me, then please, feel free to make an argument.
Siege

Pro

I accept. I'll allow Pro to present her case.
Debate Round No. 1
DebateGirl221

Con

DebateGirl221 forfeited this round.
Siege

Pro

Well I can't really argue until my opponent makes a point, so I'll wait until next round.
Debate Round No. 2
DebateGirl221

Con

DebateGirl221 forfeited this round.
Siege

Pro

Well my opponent failed to properly present her case, thus not allowing me to properly rebut her
point of view. However, I will make a quick case anyway.

"Teachers do more for this world than footballers ever will, yet footballers are paid a whole lot more and get more respect."

To begin with, "respect" is a matter of opinion, and my opponent can not back up her claims that teachers are more respected than footballers. What we can look at however, is the salary difference between the two. It is true that footballers get paid more than teachers. In fact, many times as much. However, I would like to point of that pay doesn't always reflect job importance. A good example of this would be the President. Benefits aside, the President makes roughly $400,000 a year.[1] The Vice President makes a little over half of that. Now I'm sure my opponent would agree that the President of the United States is THE most important and respected job in the free world. Yet, footballers also get paid more than both the President and Vice-President.

When it comes to the more important jobs, in actuality, you don't want pay to be too high, as to be the primary draw to the occupation. If the President's salary suddenly jumped to 400 million a year, it is likely that more people would be after the job for salary alone. When you can minimize the salary for an important job, you increase the likelihood that the people in the field are there because they want to be, and not because they want to do something that gets them rich. This is a trend you commonly see in investment banking, where the people who are working purely for money can't handle the strenuous workload and change occupations within the first three years.

I ask voters to vote pro based on the lack of convincing points presented by my opponent and also due to the fact that salary is not a accurate measure of how "valuable" an occupation is to society.

[1]http://www.infoplease.com...
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by HostileBelief 4 years ago
HostileBelief
This should have been a longer debate and Siege you have my vote!
Posted by DebateGirl221 4 years ago
DebateGirl221
Thanks for the advice. This is my first official debate, so I guess I still have quite a bit to learn. :)
Posted by JustinAMoffatt 4 years ago
JustinAMoffatt
1. Ahh, ok.
2. Well... typically, in debate, you present a resolution (this is a statement you either believe is false or true). If you are Con, you believe the statement is false. So essentially, you are saying that you DON'T believe that "footballers are valued more than teachers". What I think you mean to say is you DON'T believe that "Footballers SHOULD be valued more than teachers". Make sense? :)
Posted by DebateGirl221 4 years ago
DebateGirl221
Thank you for the comment, and:
1. Yes, I am referring to soccer.
2. The topic of my debate is "Footballers are valued more than teachers", which I am thoroughly against.
Posted by JustinAMoffatt 4 years ago
JustinAMoffatt
Two clarifications.

1. Is footballers referencing what Americans (such as myself) would call "soccer players"?

2. Is the resolution "Footballers should be valued over teachers" or "Footballers are valued over teachers"? Since you are con, I'm assuming the former.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by GOP 4 years ago
GOP
DebateGirl221SiegeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F Pro used a source