Marks for sports.
Debate Rounds (2)
It is a general topic and my opponent can be from any country.
My opponent must argue for the topic i.e. sports persons must be given marks for sporting achievements. These marks will be used for admissions to colleges.
Background: Admissions to colleges are on the basis of Board Exams or competitive exams which can be given once a year. Admissions are currently based purely on basis of marks obtained in the respective exam. Some people are trying to start a campaign to grant marks for sports persons.
Getting admitted to a good college is important because a good education is the pathway to economic stability. In our country a good education is the best method to rise out of poverty. Our country has only produced 1 Olympic gold medalist in its 60+year history (Current population 1billion+). This is why people want to promote sports by granting marks to sportsmen/sportswomen. However it must be noted that this lone medalist is the son of a multimillionaire and received training abroad at considerable expense. Good training facilities are not available to the common man. Training must be undertaken at a considerable personal expense, putting it out of reach to the common man. The people who want to grant marks for sports come from well to do families who can afford to gain training at personal expense.
This move smacks of elitism. People from the economically weaker sections constitute the majority of students who gain admission to top colleges and the elite are trying to gain an advantage in the guise of promoting sports.
Secondly, Competition in each sports is of different level, it may be extremely difficult to reach district level in some sport whereas one may play at the national level for others without facing any competition before. We cannot give blanket marks to each sport based only on the level (i.e. district, state or national) at which a sports person has played.
Most importantly, the limited number of seats in top colleges can be best utilized by granting them to smart, hard working students who are interested in academics i.e. students who score well. It would be a waste of resources if we were to grant seats to students who have limited academic talent simply because they are good at sports. Competition is cut-throat with top engineering colleges having a <1% acceptance rate. Students who do get admitted have studied anywhere between 5-10 hours daily for 2 years. Sports people without academic foundation would simply not be able to keep up with these students. Moreover it would be injustice to other students if we were to essentially penalize them for not being good at an unrelated activity (sports).
The only incentive to play sports should be the activity itself. Financials can be based on advertising or other revenue. We can promote sporting talent at the cost of academic talent. Sports people in my country do not have very good economic prospects and this is why admissions to college are sought for them. However there is no need to promote an activity from which the country as a whole does not benefit. If there is no economic gain from sports (for sportsmen as a whole), then it indicates that as an activity it does not benefit the country. The fact of the matter is, a country does not benefit in substantially when someone wins an Olympic medal.
Lastly, one plays a sport because it is fun and is good for the body. Playing sports to gain admission to a college would essentially be against this spirit. There is nothing wrong with promoting sports for the physical development of the country but the solution does not lie in giving marks for sports.
I thank Marcusato for the topic and wish us luck.
I will make a couple comparisons to my own country of America in this speech. We don't technically have marks, but we do have all kinds of exceptions, scholarships, and special admission grants that basically have the same effect (1). For all intents and purposes, consider us as a country that uses them.
C1: Marks generate revenue
For sports, colleges make money by selling tickets. But to sell tickets, you've got to put some great, exciting players on the field for the fans to see. Winning games helps too. In both cases, marks get great sports players out of high school and onto the college team. Without some kind of mechanism helping great players get into college, we would suffer from an extreme shortage of star players and great teams. This is true because, as should be obvious, a good percentage of strong athletes are unintelligent and do not meet the standard requirements for college admission. Marks get these great players onto the field and making money for the school.
America's college football program is a billion dollar industry. We would suffer enormously if we did not give exceptions for sports players to get admitted. We would have very few star players left and thus, would draw less spectators and ticket sales. Less money from sports revenue also means less money for top professors and academic scholarships. But since we do have marks, we have an industry generating millions for colleges across the country. Expect Indian colleges to profit as well if these marks can get more great players on the field.
4000 character limit, so that's the only argument I have space to run.
C1: Con says that in India, only the elite can afford adequate training, so if people from different social classes are all admitted into college for sports, the elite will have an unfair advantage.
However, even if the poor may not have access to sports training due to their own misfortune, that's not a reason to shut them out of college wholesale. Some athletes are naturally talented, and can succeed without the best gyms in the world.
Second, this is only a short term harm. Remember that colleges will make more money in the long run due to selling more tickets. The school can use this money to GET better training facilities. So in the long run, everyone will have access to training, not just the wealthy.
Also, Con gives me some offense by pointing out that college is instrumental in getting out of the lower class. Marks will put more high schoolers into college, which means more people have a chance at getting out of poverty.
C2: Con doesn't like that we have to give an equal amount of marks to all sports, even though some are more popular than others.
This isn't a problem with the concept of sporting marks. If this is how his country is implementing the system, then they are just doing it in a bad way. American colleges can give 25 full-ride scholarships a year for football players, but only 16 for baseball. This is still a system similar to marks, but doesn't have the disadvantage of having to distribute them all equally. So the marks for sports concept is still valid.
C3: Con is afraid that sports players will crowd out the intelligent students who would otherwise have a spot in a top college.
However, unintelligent players won't last in top colleges anyway. Here in the States, we can get dumb football players into a university, but they have to be passing all classes in order to play. If they're failing, they become ineligible. This is why our top colleges generally have crappy teams; they only accept the players who can pass their difficult classes. That's a small minority.
India can adopt a similar "No pass no play" policy. This will ensure that smart students aren't being unfairly crowded out by football players, because the players themselves have to be smart. So this won't be a problem.
I thank Blackvoid for posting his argument. I apologize for my shoddy formatting(the whole thing goes away if u make changes after going to review).
My opponents first argument is that the -college-sports industry is generating large amounts of revenue for colleges. However if this industry is generating this kind of revenue then sports players would generate sufficient income and would not need to go to college( to gain education to earn a lively hood). He states " Marks get these great players onto the field." He also states that "America's college football program is a billion dollar industry." In such a case why do we need marks as an incentive to get players onto the field?
He may contend that college teams are necessary because they attract local audience i.e the friends of players/fellow students/parents etc however college teams would attract this audience irrespective of whether the players were exceptionally talented.
Audience which love the sport and want to see sports played on a high level would watch irrespective of whether they were linked to a college.
He says "But since we do have marks, we have an industry generating millions for colleges across the country." Why would the sports industry part with millions(to give to colleges) when they do not seem to benefit from the association.There is no reason for fans to support a college team over a local sporting club.
He also states "So in the long run, everyone will have access to training, not just the wealthy." -not true.
Assuming that the sports industry willingly parts with millions:The money will go either to-
a) Colleges, in which case facilities wont significantly improve at school level making sports and hence colleges out of the reach of the lower and middle classes.
b) Schools, in which case the colleges have no incentive to part with seats.
He states," Marks will put more high schoolers into college, which means more people have a chance at getting out of poverty." I have shown that marks will NOT put MORE high schoolers into college but different( less academically gifted) students into college.
He states that " However, unintelligent players won't last in top colleges anyway." This is exactly the point. If a student does not pass and become a productive member of the society it is a waste of valuable resources i.e. a college seat.
He states that " This will ensure that smart students aren't being unfairly crowded out by football players, because the players themselves have to be smart. So this won't be a problem." The problem is not that a SMARTER student is being crowded out.
Pro states that: "Con doesn't like that we have to give an equal amount of marks to all sports, even though some are more popular than others.This isn't a problem with the concept of sporting marks. If this is how his country is implementing the system, then they are just doing it in a bad way." In that case we concur.
That would not be accepted here becasue marks are being given to sports to incentivise people to play the less popular sports(Cricket is a billion dollar industry and does not need promotion, they are trying to promote other sports which are not generating revenue.).However you are not argueing this and hence i will not hold this against you. ( I was merely pointing it out as an interesting fact. They are worried that we are only playing cricket(which is not an olympic sport hence no medals)
I copy pasted your lines for easy reference and to point out ampleness of 4000 characters. ;)
I once again thank you for your participation and insightful views.
I thank marcusato for an interesting debate.
C1: Revenue for colleges
Con questions why players need to go to college if playing sports makes so much money. Well the only way players themselves make money (legally) is to play on a professional team. Opportunities for making money off sports outside of this are negligible. But to get to a professional team, players must make a name for themselves in the college environment. Most countries get professional athletes by "drafting" great players out of college. So if players want to make money, they need to go to college. Giving Marks not only helps them to that, but those great players draw in more spectators who want to see an exciting team, raising ticket sales and revenue.
Con says that players shouldnt need marks as an incentive to go play college sports. However, my argument has nothing to do with incentives. My argument is that players need HELP getting into a college sport. Remember, many great players of any sport are unintelligent and cannot get into a college on their own. This would keep many strong athletes in basketball, , (international) football, equestrian sports, and gymnastics away from college and into obscurity. Marks allow these guys to get in there, make money for the school, and have a greater chance of A. Getting educated, B. Getting on a pro team, or C. Getting on the path to the Olympics.
My argument is also that more great players will sell more tickets because they make the sport more exciting for spectators to watch. My opponent thinks fans will pay tickets to see a sporting club, rather than a college game. This is false; college sports are often aired on TV. Sporting clubs are not. This means colleges have a popularity bonus. Additionally, college stadiums can hold thousands of fans. Local clubs have no such thing.
Con thinks that college associations, like the NCAA, would be wasting million on marks for something that doesn't bring them profit. My whole argument is that college players make millions for the industry. The NCAA gets part of the revenue generated from ticket sales, so it is profitable for them. Marks will put more great players into college, which sells more tickets and makes more money for the industry.
Colleges also get part of the revenue. This means they get more money for training facilities. this nullifies his Elitism argument.
My Wholesale argument was dropped. Even if the poor can't access training facilities, thats not a reason to shut them out of college entirely.
Apparently this was just a pre-emptive argument, in case I said that Marks will bring in more Olympians for sports where his country is struggling. Since this wasn't argued, I'll just move on.
Unintelligent players wont last in top colleges, meaning the academically gifted students wont be kept out. Con thinks that dumb players will try to go to Harvard anyway which will waste spots in a top college. But most players know they aren't smart enough to handle the curriculum of a Harvard or Yale. Therefore, unintelligent players won't go to a top school in the first place. So there is still no wasting of spots.
Also, while top colleges may have limited space, this is not true for the average school. Not every college is so filled with students, that letting a sports player in means someone else is let out. Most colleges dont even have student count limits. So we can add sports players into colleges without subtracting academics.
I have answered my opponent's main two disadvantages of aiding sports players into college. Academic students will not be crowded out because the players themselves have to be academic to continue playing the sport. With Marks allowing more great athletes into college, these exciting players will draw in more spectators and ticket sales. This revenue can be used for better training facilities, which will improve every sport as well as the college itself.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Double_R 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||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro effectively refuted Cons argument and supported his own. Con suffered from not having a structure to his round 2 argument, making it very difficult to follow along with his gerneral argument while Pro made his very easy to follow. Pro needs to be very careful with his "dumb footbal players" comments being misunderstood.
Research this debate: IBM