The Instigator
Ore_Ele
Con (against)
Winning
42 Points
The Contender
That1User
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

High Schools and Colleges should not have sport teams

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 6 votes the winner is...
Ore_Ele
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 12/24/2014 Category: Sports
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,765 times Debate No: 67183
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (6)

 

Ore_Ele

Con

Zoinks has stated "I think there never should have been sports teams directly associate with either high schools or colleges. Those places are about academics"[1].

In this debate, I am challenging the premise of that claim. The resolution for the debate is "High Schools and Colleges should not have sport teams."

I am taking the Con side, meaning I believe that they should have them, or at least have the option of them (it will come up in the arguments).

Since this is a moral debate on "should," the BOP is shared by both sides to support their position. Also, because the debate focuses on morals of a "should" statement, there is no set moral code that is beyond question. My opponent may present their own moral beliefs and I may present my own. The one that is more compelling to the voters shall likely win out.

The opening round is for acceptance and quick definitions.

High School - "a school attended after elementary school or junior high school and usually consisting of grades 9 or 10 through 12." [2]

College - "an institution of higher learning, especially one providing a general or liberal arts education rather than technical or professional training." [3]

Sports - "an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature." [4] For the purpose of this debate, we are only looking at sports which are sponsored and organized by the school.

Since Zoinks has rejected to defend his own words on the battlefield of debate, I will open this up to any that hold the same view. I do hope that no one takes it (as that will make me feel better about the world), but we shall see.

Thank you,

[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[4] http://dictionary.reference.com...
That1User

Pro

I accept this debate. In this debate, I am going to defend the resolution that High Schools and Colleges should not have sport teams. Before we begin, I want to thank my opponent for creating this debate and I appologize for accepting it.
Debate Round No. 1
Ore_Ele

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and giving it the opportunity to be fully explored. That being said, let's dive on into this.

===Con's Case===

==High School sports==

Studies have consistently shown that at the high school level, sports directly tie to better grades and better participation in the classroom [1]. We also find, through a study of over 1,000 high schools, that participating in sports lowers crime rates and suspension rates [2].

==College sports==

While it is easy to point out how Football and Basketball in college have reached a level to where they are doing more educational harm than good, this debate is about all sports, not just those. Extracurricular sports on the whole (meaning overpowering the drag of football and basketball) are benefitial to students' grades [3]. If college wants to get the best education possible, it cannot only be about education, as weird as that sounds. Young adults need a balanced life so that they can best absorb the information in the classroom.

We also come across another important aspect, specifically when looking at Football and Basketball in college. Profits. Now, I will not get into how little of the profits go to what I would think they should go to. However, in 2008 [4], the top 40 colleges spent over $360 million for tuition. That paid for over 27,000 students to get a higher education. These top 40 schools also made a profit of almost $200 million that year ($198,148,104 to be exact) which went to the school in the form of better pay for teachers, better facilities for the campus, and lower tuitions for non-athelete students. So these sports are helping to make the education better and more obtainable for everyone else.

I will leave this at this for now and allow my opponent to present their case.

Thank you,

[1] http://sports.yahoo.com...;
[2] http://ns.umich.edu...;
[3] http://dc.cod.edu...;
[4] http://espn.go.com...;
That1User

Pro

Pro's Case:
==High School sports==
"Studies have consistently shown that at the high school level, sports directly tie to better grades and better participation in the classroom [1]. We also find, through a study of over 1,000 high schools, that participating in sports lowers crime rates and suspension rates [2]."

While sports are beneficial to high school students, high school sports are also a negative to high school students, their high schools, and their families. Not only are the costs of high school sports are rising [1] but there are also many cases of sports related injuries. [2] These sports related injuries, especially those that lead to brain damage, lead to lower levels of academic success. Here is a moral argument against high school sports:

Whatever causes harm should not be funded
High school sports cause harm and are funded
Therefore high school sports should not be funded.

As an alternative, instead of high school funding sports teams, students should join sports clubs so high school do not have to spend money on sports, but instead pay money for academic programs or healthier school meals.

==College sports==
In order to support her argument, pro stated that college sports generated much income. While this is true, the statistics for these revenues are from the top 40 colleges, and are not representive of colleges as a whole. In adition, very few of those profits go to academics while the rest go to athletics. "Back to Alabama football. Of the $110 million of football revenue, less than $6.5 million went to the university to pay for scholarships, faculty support, and the Acts of Kindness fund. In other words, 5.9% of the football program"s revenue goes toward "academic programming." [3]

"Every man is guilty for all the good he did not do" -Voltaire.
In order to support her position, pro stated that college sports are beneficial to student's grades. While this is true, students can spend the time and energy doing sports into volunteering, and colleges can put that money that goes into sports programs into volunteering organizations. Volunteering also has a plethora of health benefits. [4]
In order to get there excersise, a student can get it from volunteering, or students can set up games indepdently from school funding, and the school can use that money for academics rather than athletics.

Sources:
[1] http://www.deseretnews.com...
[2] http://www.stanfordchildrens.org...
[3] http://www.acenet.edu...
[4] http://www.nationalservice.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
Ore_Ele

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for their arguements and I will get into them right away.

==High School==

Let us first address the moral arguement that my opponent created. The first tenant of it is "Whatever causes harm should not be funded." We can counter this on two aspects. First, my opponent violates his own moral arguement by saying that students should join sports clubs. His own source on injuries [1] includes non-school sports, so he is in violation of his own morals. Second, we can dismiss this line of morals because it is contingent upon "harm" rather than "net harm." This same moral code whould say it is immoral to fund child birth, because that causes harm to the mother's body. You also reach a simple contradiction, since it implies that activity is immoral because it can cause harm, while inactivity is also immoral because it can cause harm.

Even though physical activity may lead to sprains and strains and other injuries, the benefits it has for improving children's lives [2] far outweigh the negative costs of some temporary or highly uncommon injuries. My opponent suggests that non-school sports would be sufficient, however provides no sources that suggest they would be able to reach the same success or the same paticipation rate.

It should also be noted that my opponent dropped the arguement that sports leads to lower crime [3] and higher classroom attendence [4]. I would also like to mention for those that only saw the sources but did not read into them. The degrees to which grades and attendence are improved are redicious. An average of 21 more days attended per year (this is out of a 180 day school year) and a higher GPA of 0.65 (this is out of a 4.0 scale) [4]. And these were not studies done of a single school or tiny sample size, this was out of 35,000 students.

==College==

My opponent seems to miss the point here in their argument. They claim that the money spent on College sports could go to other things, but as I showed, with many colleges, the sports make money, not cost money. This gives them the funds that can help in other areas. Of those 40 top schools, all made money through sports. And of the top 80, only 2 lost money [5]. Of those top 40 schools, They made a total of $3.16 billion, with $360 million going to Tuition for students, and $200 million going to profits and $84 million going to smaller schools (that they pay to come play them). This comes to about 20% that goes to more than just paying coaches and boosters and other special interests. This is money that goes back to help the school and the children.

I pass this back to my opponent.

Thank you,

[1] http://www.stanfordchildrens.org...
[2] http://www.cdc.gov...
[3] http://ns.umich.edu...;
[4] http://sports.yahoo.com...;
[5] http://espn.go.com...;
That1User

Pro

That1User forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Ore_Ele

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. Unfortunately, they missed the last round so I have nothing to refute or to reply to. As such, I will just pass this back to my opponent for their final round.
That1User

Pro

I concede, my opponent has brought up good arguments for sports and has countered my own arguments. I appologize for wasting her time.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by TK57 2 years ago
TK57
Oh waite the Con to Pro In my first comment
Posted by TK57 2 years ago
TK57
Sports create so many jobs. And bring communities together. Con your argument is very weak. Im assuming you regret this debate because there is literally no way sports should not be in high school or college.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Lexus 2 years ago
Lexus
Ore_EleThat1User
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Concession led me to believe that CON won this debate. I was really hoping more about the 'moral' side of things from PRO, because that is actually a pretty solid argument. Anyways, CON won overall.
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
Ore_EleThat1User
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro concedes......
Vote Placed by TK57 2 years ago
TK57
Ore_EleThat1User
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had 0 logical reasons
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
Krazzy_Player
Ore_EleThat1User
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by BLAHthedebator 2 years ago
BLAHthedebator
Ore_EleThat1User
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by jzonda415 2 years ago
jzonda415
Ore_EleThat1User
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.