The Instigator
olle15
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
SportsGuru
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

Get baseball out of my courts

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/14/2008 Category: Sports
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,116 times Debate No: 2643
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (3)
Votes (8)

 

olle15

Pro

This steroid thing is getting out of hand its gone all the way to the supreme court what kind of mess is this steroids are the leagues business they can do as they wish but keep it out of the court so more important things can be settled.
SportsGuru

Con

First, to my opponent, thank you for creating this debate, good luck, and may the best debater win. Secondly, to the voters, PLEASE vote for the best debater NOT for who you agree with unless they are the same person. To paraphrase ABC Family "The following arguments do not necessarily support the views of SportsGuru." I am debating because:
1.I enjoy debating
2.I want to improve as this is only my second debate on this site.

Now to analyze my opponent's round 1 statements.

"its gone all the way to the supreme court"

This is not a reason to take baseball away. It is simply how the system works. Making baseball not go to the Supreme Court would require large changes in the judicial system if not the whole government. Advocating this change contradicts your importance point as the system as worked for over 200 years.

"…are the leagues business they can do as they wish but keep it out of the court"

I am sorry but legal precedents disagree with you. Although we do not have a communism-style economy in this country, the government can intervene in a business. The biggest example of this can be found in monopolies. The United States government has an antitrust law that as Wikipedia states "prohibits anti-competitive behavior (monopoly) and unfair business practices." Therefore, the United States government has the power to put any part of a business (even steroid usage) such as MLB "in the court". The government has done this with many businesses such as when it broke up Standard Oil in 1911, AT&T in 1934 and United Aircraft and Transport Corporation in 1934 and attacked U.S. Steel, Apple and even MLB in 1922. Therefore, through historical examples and current law, we can see that the league's business does not need to be kept "out of the court".

"This steroid thing is getting out of hand…what kind of mess is this".

Although I agree with what you say, this is actually in support of my side. As you stated, "this steroid thing is getting out of hand". Why would it not make sense to have the government (that is experienced in investigating business as shown above) sort this out? Steroids usage is a big problem, so get the biggest power in the land to fix it. This is just common sense. I will address any importance arguments in my next dissection.

"…so more important things can be settled"

This seems like your main argument. Before I attack it, I think an entry from a debater's friend Merriam-Webster is in order.

important: marked by or indicative of significant worth or consequence

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

My opponent claims that there are more important things need to be settled in the Supreme Court. First, I challenge my opponent to prove such things that are more important than the steroid issue. As my opponent has the burden of proof, if my opponent does not have this proof my opponent automatically loses his main point. As there are only two rounds, I will also show how the steroids issue is important and most likely more important than most think.

Using the definition of importance, we can see whichever potentially have more consequences is more important. Thus, I will show all the potential consequences of not having baseball in court

The estimated 2007 revenue for MLB is $6 billion dollars. With 30 teams and around 25 players on each team, there are at least 750 personnel not including those in the front office. Now, the whole reason baseball is in the courts is to clear up the steroids situation and to therefore raise the confidence of fans of baseball's "cleanliness". Taking baseball away from the courts would therefore instill a larger sense of doubt than is already there. Because, there is such a large amount of doubt, the number of viewers and therefore the amount of revenue would systematically drop and go so low that baseball would be go bankrupt or very close to it. If baseball goes bankrupt(or close to it), that is at least a $6 billion dollar drop in revenue for the economy and a large spike in unemployment as those working in baseball would have to find new jobs. The economic effects are even more disastrous when one considers all the business that is made selling baseball merchandise. Considering as of 16 Feb 2008 at 01:45:28 AM GMT the national debt is $9,293,703,908,586.32 and our economy is on the edge of a recession, it is doubtful our economy would be able to bounce back. If our economy fails, we have no money. If we have no money, the government cannot protect its citizens because of lack of funding. If the people are not protected, a revolution will eventually occur or the U.S. will be taken over. Either way will lead to a nuclear war as taking over the U.S. is an act of war and if a revolution occurs anarchy would ensue and some crackpot out of over 3 billion people would commit an act that gives one of the countries that does not like the U.S. to attack it. Once the war starts, all life on Earth except cockroaches will eventually be destroyed.

Thus, the consequences of not having baseball in the courts are destruction of baseball, destruction of economy, destruction of the U.S., nuclear war, and destruction of all life on Earth except cockroaches. I challenge my opponent to find an issue that is more important than preventing the aforementioned events to occur.

I have sufficiently proven my opponent's arguments wrong and await a rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1
olle15

Pro

My opponent's first argument was <> First off I never said I wanted to take baseball away I just want it out of court. Secondly this system hasn't always worked the system has had countless overhauls sense the days of slavery this would just be another one of those overhauls.

My opponent's second argument was that this is the governments business. I can tell you that's wrong the MLB shows none of the required traits needed to intervene there are no unfair BUSINESS practices going on there may be other unfair practices going on but none of them are directly related to business related and it definitely doesn't have a monopoly on baseball and may I remind you that these cases were asked for the gov't didn't intervene own there own they were asked.
Steroid usage is against the rules of the game nothing for the gov't to settle private this is something the league can deal with on their own with private investigations and if there guilty suspend or fire them.

"Although I agree with what you say, this is actually in support of my side." This is completely wrong because you took that quote out of context steroids in court is what's out of hand.

Now about the six billion did you happen to get that the U.S gov't only gets a part of that? And just about every fast food chain and every grocery chain makes more of that and the disappearance of baseball would have little effect on the economy even though that's not what this debate is about. Also at least from what I've seen in my own community and what I've seen on the news this hasn't stopped anyone from going to the games and that includes the doubters fans may be disappointed but that doesn't stop them from loving the game.

And as for the last part I'm ignoring that as either the mistake of a beginner or the theory of a crazy crack pot I mean I'm open to anything but the end of the world due to the lack of baseball come on!!

Oh and the gov't seems to disagree with you because as of Friday no more cases of this kind will be excepted so says the supreme court so it is written so it shall be. Ha!!

(Also if I were you I wouldn't use Wikipedia it's not really accurate good luck in the polls)
SportsGuru

Con

To the voters: Before I begin my argument, I would like to point out the burdens that my opponent and I are burdened with.

Pro (my opponent) is burdened with the burden of proof, that is, a rule indicating that the affirmative has the responsibility to establish the validity of the claim made by the resolution; the resolution is presumed invalid until the affirmative establishes otherwise. Example: Pro stating "the moon is not made of green cheese" would NOT fulfill the burden of proof despite the fact it is correct. Stating "the moon is not made of green cheese" and linking to a scientific article that proves this would

Con (me) is burdened with the burden of refutation, that is, a rule establishing that the negative has the responsibility to prove that the arguments established in the affirmative case are inaccurate or invalid. Using the moon example this can range from "the moon does not exist and therefore you have no proof it is not made of things other than green cheese" to "the moon IS made of green cheese because…" Please keep this in mind as you read my argument.

http://www.geocities.com...

"First off I never said I wanted to take baseball away I just want it out of court."

Sorry, that was a horrible use of the English language on my part. I meant to say "This is not a
reason to take baseball away from (a.k.a. out of the) court."

"Secondly this system hasn't always worked the system has had countless overhauls sense the days of slavery this would just be another one of those overhauls."

This is where the burden of proof first comes in. Although my opponent claims that there have been "countless overhauls sense the days of slavery", he gives no proof that these overhauls have happened and just expects everyone to accept it as fact. As this is the last round, my opponent loses this point as he fails to fulfill his burden. Furthermore, the overhauls required are not the making of new laws (which I think my opponent is referring to) but structural changes in the government, which my understanding of U.S. history says, has not happened. Thus, my opponent loses on this point.

"there are no unfair BUSINESS practices going on"

Despite my earlier use of the English language, I do know that both "unfair" and "business" describe the noun "practice". According to the definition I gave earlier, (which my opponent agreed was correct) MLB must have business practices that are unfair for this to be "the government's business". Now, by not arguing against it my opponent has conceded that MLB is a business. Thus, any practice done in MLB is a practice of a business or a practice that affects a business (a.k.a. a business practice). My opponent also stated that there are unfair practices going on in MLB. Since it has been established that all MLB practices are business practices and that there are unfair practices in MLB, logic states that there ARE unfair business practices and MLB fits the definition (that my opponent agreed was right) of being government business. Essentially, by conceding that MLB is a business and that there are unfair practices in MLB, he has conceded this point. Furthermore, my opponent once again fails to fulfill his burden of proof as he gives no proof of there not being unfair business practices in MLB.

"…the gov't didn't intervene own there own they were asked."

Although burden of proof is once again applicable here(no proof that asking is required and no proof that no one asked), I have more reasons than that as to why this does not matter. If you look at this statement (and anywhere else in the argument), my opponent does not state WHO asks for the investigation. The most obvious answer is a U.S. citizen, which my opponent must agree with unless he intends on going against the system that he goes on to support later in his argument. However, government officials are still U.S. citizens and could of asked for the investigation. Thus, it is even possible that the Supreme Court asked itself to investigate. Thus, my opponent loses this point as it is left entirely possible that the government was asked (assuming that that is even a requirement)

"This is completely wrong because you took that quote out of context steroids in court is what's out of hand."

Sorry, I interpreted it as the steroid issue in baseball being out of hand. Perhaps punctuation and me thinking clearer would of gotten the correct point across. Voters, just note that Con should not be punished because Pro left their 1st round argument where there were multiple possible interpretations.

"Now about the six billion did you happen to get that the U.S gov't only gets a part of that?"

Yes, this is inherent as 1 out of the 30 teams is in Canada. Thus, if we assume that the Toronto Blue Jays make the average amount of money (which they don't), the U.S. gets $5.8 billion. Although I certainly cannot speak for your financial situation but $5.8 billion is still a big chunk of money. Although, taxes only gets a part of this the rest goes to the economy, which funds other salaries the government taxes.

"And just about every fast food chain and every grocery chain makes more of that"

Although once again you fail on the burden of proof category, this is not even related as that still does not change the fact that $5.8 billion is a lot of money.

"...disappearance of baseball would have little effect on the economy even though that's not what this debate is about."

This is redundant but once again, you fail to prove that the disappearance of 5.8 million dollars would have little effect on the economy. This is enhanced by the fact that I showed how it would have a big effect on the U.S. economy. Oh, and this is related as this is talking about the repercussions of following through with Pro's plan.

"Also at least from what I've seen in my own community and what I've seen on the news this hasn't stopped anyone from going to the games and that includes the doubters fans may be disappointed but that doesn't stop them from loving the game."

Sorry for repeating myself but once again you fail to uphold your burden of proof. You also make a big assumption that your community is just like the rest of America. Well, I say it is not as Houston, Texas is not the same as say Des Moines Iowa. And please don't try to argue that the news is not biased.

"And as for the last part I'm ignoring that…"

Thank you! Because you ignored it, you have conceded it and accepted as right. I will take what I can get. (And if you try to say that your "come on!!" statement refuted it, you fail on your burden of proof on that point.) Even if this chain of events was refuted, my opponent STILL has not given something that is more important than the steroids issue and loses this point.

"Oh and the gov't seems to disagree with you…"

However, voters are supposed to vote on who supported their case better, not who is "right". As I said in round 1 I am playing devil's advocate.

Thus vote for Con as I have shown how Pro has failed to uphold his burden and how he is wrong otherwise. It seems the only thing we will be able to agree on is this statement "Go ‘Stros!"
Debate Round No. 2
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
Yes, I unfortuantly realized that right after I posted my 2nd round arguement and since this was a 2 round debate was not able to bring that up.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
You are both clueless. The steroid issue has NOT gone before the supreme court. It hasn't even been referred out of committee in the House of Representatives. The SC only handles legal issues at the end of their lifespan. The Baseball issue isn't even at the beginning of a legal lifespan.
Posted by wingnut2280 9 years ago
wingnut2280
Its just an attempt to gain points among the senators constituents. Specter is just getting himself in the news. You can tell in his press conferences. Congress shouldn't be doing this to either the MLB or the NFL. They have no oversight to private business or any real reason to.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Corycogley77479 8 years ago
Corycogley77479
olle15SportsGuruTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Gao 9 years ago
Gao
olle15SportsGuruTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by WeaponE 9 years ago
WeaponE
olle15SportsGuruTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by massvideogamer 9 years ago
massvideogamer
olle15SportsGuruTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by kenicks 9 years ago
kenicks
olle15SportsGuruTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Sherlock_HolmesXXI 9 years ago
Sherlock_HolmesXXI
olle15SportsGuruTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
olle15SportsGuruTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
olle15SportsGuruTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03