The Instigator
TheRuSSian97
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
TN05
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

Is it fair that people fighting to defend our freedom get paid less than sports players?

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 5 votes the winner is...
TN05
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/16/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,243 times Debate No: 35664
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (5)

 

TheRuSSian97

Pro

A man puts on a helmet do defend our country gets paid less than a man who puts on a helmet to play sports for a countries amusement. is it fair? in the end this all boils down to whats more important. entertainment vs. freedom.
TN05

Con

I'll be taking the side that it is fair that some sports players get paid more than soldiers.
Debate Round No. 1
TheRuSSian97

Pro

It's not fair that a man risking his life to defend our country makes $17,611 a year compared to $770,000 per year.
TN05

Con

The main principle of capitalist economics is that, in return for services, people will be paid money. Pay is determined by a number of factors, such as the perceived worth of the job and the amount of money the business makes. Sports is undoubtedly a market where a lot of money is made - for example, the NFL made 9.5 billion dollars from 2011-2012.[1] That is, undoubtedly, a lot of money, and players make a fair amount off of it - players in the NFL can make anywhere from 46.5% to 48% of revenue.[2] There are far fewer NFL players than active duty soldiers, meaning the amount of money available for pay is far more for the players.

In contrast, soldiers are employed by the government. The amount of money they make is not comparable to the amount of money made in the private sector - for one, there is no competition in the 'army' industry. For another, the amount of potential money soldiers can make is entirely dependent on the amount of tax revenue made, in addition to the amount of money allocated to the Defense Department. These issues severely hamper the idea that soldiers making less than athletes in unfair - you cannot compare their pay, because they do not operate as a business. There are 1,454,515 active-duty soldiers as of February 2009.[3] In order to increase all of their pay to $770,000 dollars, you would need $111,997,655,000 dollars allocated annually to soldier's pay. Currently the earn $25,615,463,665 annually. Given that we are almost $17 trillion dollars in debt,[4] we cannot afford to increase pay (and taxes) by that much - it would be unfair to the American people.

To finish: athletes make a lot of money, sure, but their worth - as determined by the nature of their job and the money made by the business - is responsible for their pay. It would be unfair to lower their pay, because they would be reduced to earning minuscule amounts of revenue. Similarly, it is fair that soldiers make relatively little, because Americans have to fund them - regardless of whether they support them or not - and it would be unfair on Americans to boost taxes to fund a $100 billion dollar pay increase.

References:
1. http://www.businessinsider.com...
2. http://www.wrhambrecht.com...
3. http://wiki.answers.com...
4. http://www.usdebtclock.org...
Debate Round No. 2
TheRuSSian97

Pro

We are in debt big time but don't you think that a fat chunk of that debt would go away if these players didn't make so much money? shouldn't some of that go toward the economy? it would help our country majorly and by raising a soldiers salary more people would join the armed forces and in crease our numbers? its un fair to men risking their LIVES to help and protect us earn way less than one who risks a few BROKEN BONES?
TN05

Con

No, I do not think think a 'fat chunk of the debt' would of away if players didn't make as much money. The problem is not a lack of tax revenue, it is an excess of spending. The way to solve the debt is not to increase spending by $100 billion dollars, it is to decrease spending. I would not support decreasing the pay of any soldier, but it is not possible to compare the salary of the two jobs because they are entirely different.

In conclusion, my opponent has not contested any of my key points. He has not contested the fact that the two jobs are very, very different. He has not contested that capitalist economics dictate pay in the private secotr, and that the fairness of pay in the private sector is determined by a number of factors, including revenue made by the business. He has not contested that the pay of soldiers does not rely on the private sector, but instead relies entirely on tax revenue and allocated funds for the Defense Department. He has not contested that we are heavily in debt. And he has not contested that such a massive increase in pay would necessarily result in tax increases for the American people. On the other hand, I have contested his only argument - I have proven it is not unfair that soldiers are paid less than athletes, because the two jobs are not comparable because on relies entirely on tax funds and grants while the other relies on revenue. Given his argument has been utterly refuted, I urge a vote for my side. I rest my case.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
I don't find it fair at all to take someone's entire paycheck and put it in the economy just because they earn more than you.

Besides, it's flawed logic... That $770,000 does go into the economy.

You can't just choose a group you don't like and decide they don't earn a paycheck because everyone else can't spend properly...

Also, Sports is an entertainment industry... As such, you are paid for the amount of people you entertain... If you're an NFL player entertaining millions of people every week, you'll earn a lot... Military doesn't quite work the same...

I didn't see the Pro discuss RDJ's $50,000,000 in royalties off the Avengers + his actual $25,000,000 paycheck from it... Or Eminem's $100 million dollars... Or the nearly $1 billion rappers have in their bank accounts.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by dragon_slayer489 3 years ago
dragon_slayer489
TheRuSSian97TN05Tied
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:43 
Reasons for voting decision: as i find this true its a very hard choise ... i feel that there is a lot of good facts as well enjoy
Vote Placed by DeFool 3 years ago
DeFool
TheRuSSian97TN05Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate saw a face-off between arguments and opinions. Arguments win.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
TheRuSSian97TN05Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I just find the Pro's idea unfair and somewhat prejudice against the Sport Players... He didn't even argue. All the Pro did was talk, while the Con debated an argument with sources... The Pro also shown bad spelling in R2... "..the armed forces and in crease our numbers? its un fair to..." As just an example.. The Pro just all around did nothing good in the debate.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
TheRuSSian97TN05Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I think Con just did not win the debate but swept it. He provided sources to support his points, along with going into great detail as to why he supported it. While pro had a viable argument, he did not support or build on his points and all around had very poor content. I believe this debate boils down to experience. Con better understood the format of a debate and has shown evidence to support his points, While pro merely debated off of speculation and personal opinions. Con sweeps this debate
Vote Placed by JustinAMoffatt 3 years ago
JustinAMoffatt
TheRuSSian97TN05Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: This was going to be how I would've tackled this debate as well, and I think Con nailed it. Pro didn't really provide much more than questions and speculation. However, I do notice Pro is new. So, welcome to the site :) Grammar fell apart for Pro, and Con was decent with it. So that goes to Con as well.