The Instigator
Tinker4
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
PartamRuhem
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

Pro athletes are overpaid.

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  
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/22/2011 Category: Sports
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 13,627 times Debate No: 17614
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (7)

 

Tinker4

Pro

Pro athletes are overpaid. Some athletes are paid over $20 million a year and doctors, lawyers etc. (people making a difference in the real world) are paid less the half that. There is no doubt that these athletes are talented, but they make no difference to the lives of people except entertainment. Disagree?
PartamRuhem

Con

Pro athletes are not overpaid, for a couple of reasons. I mean, first off, giving these athletes all the millions of dollars isn't just saying bye to it all together; when is the last time you heard of an athlete who was saving money and not buying anything, not stimulating the economy? That's the reason they are given so much, because they go out and buy multiple estates and multiple vehicles, and usually a wide variety of economy boosting items. Individually, it may not matter, but all of the athletes together, and you suddenly have billions and billions being dumped into the economy on all sorts of things, keeping businesses alive and helping certain companies expand. It really is the main reason they get paid so much.

Also, many athletes share their wealth not only with our Country by boosting our economy, but charities. You always hear of athletes dumping millions in funds, setting up foundations for specific needs, usually targeting those who don't have a lot. The Chris Bosh (NBA Raptors) Foundation is just one example. The Foundation's website describes the Foundation as "a non-profit organization promoting social enrichment, education and physical fitness among youth. The Foundation assists youth in reaching the educational and athletic goals they set through mentoring and setting examples in the community." The list of athletes who have made charitable contributions is endless, and I feel that this is often overlooked due to negative stories involving athletes in regards to crime or drugs. Indeed, these people earn significant amounts of money playing the games which they love, but in most cases, pro athletes are amongst the most generous and compassionate public citizens.
Many would argue that with the amount of money North American professional athletes earn, this charity work is to be expected. However, lest we forget that there are thousands of financially successful people in other professions who in many cases earn more money than these athletes and perhaps do not concern themselves as much towards community initiatives. In fact, given the fame that is so closely associated with pro athletes, they are also given a platform to promote their charities and gain support from the corporate sector in supporting their cause. Examples such as Chris Bosh, prove as evidence that this platform is not only recognized, but utilized as well.

Another reason is that these people not only are athletes, but national icons in most cases; motivational for many audiences, usually young children, and beneficial to help encourage this Country's youth to get active.

On a final note, think of it this way...they are not just getting paid to entertain us through whichever sport medium, but they are also getting paid to be recognized everywhere they go, having their face on commercials and milk cartons in school, their name on newspapers and on the T.V. They are getting paid to be of ultimate service to the country; not many professions ask for such a hefty price. I can only think of one doctor by name, that being Ben Carson. No lawyers come to mind, and not one CEO of a company is in my brain; however, I could most likely tell you the whole Ravens roster, not to mention every other important player in football, baseball, and even basketball, and I don't even watch the last two. It's the same reason some actors are 20 million a picture.
Debate Round No. 1
Tinker4

Pro

You say that they aren't overpaid because they donate to charities. Well, that's great if they donate to charities and other organizations, but that doesn't mean they aren't overpaid and don't you think that if lawyers etc. were paid the same amount of money they would also donate to charities? I think so.

You also said that athletes are role models, but don't you think people who are saving lives should be the real role models? The average pro basketball players salary in May 2008 was $6 million per year and the average doctors was $200,000. Does that seem fair that basketball players are making that much more than doctors who stay up all night saving lives?
PartamRuhem

Con

I'm saying that because they donate to charities, it balances out the amount of money they make. You would THINK that lawyers and such would donate to charities, but let's be a little more broad with who we consider to have a high paying job. It's mainly successful businessmen, and how DO they become successful?? Well, they hardly spend money. They are tightwads who would rather cut back employee salaries then dare send a nickel to an AIDS fund or, god forbid, start a foundation for, let's just say, the blind? Or deaf, or mentally challenged, or whatever. Also, you haven't even responded to the economic circulation arguement I made.

I'm not saying those who save lives aren't or shouldn't be role models, but people just don't see as much of them, nor do they feel inclined to say "Wow, that doctor patched me up good. I wanna be a doctor!" More like...."Wow, that doctor patched me up good. Now I can go back out and try even harder to be like Ray Lewis."
I'm glad you're pulling stats from 2008....in three years I would say a lot of things have changed with those numbers. Please stop referencing doctors and lawyers like those are the only people in this world that actually matter. That basketball player does a lot to support his community, not only being an entertainer. Doctors issue wrong reports often, and are sued for malpractice because of it. Same with lawyers. Why should that person be paid more than someone not only giving up his own life for the public, but also giving up his money for the public too.

You just focus on them being overpaid because other professions could use the money more, but that's not what this debate is about. You should have worded it "Pro athletes are wrongly paid more than doctors" or whatever. SO, you really have no argument, seeing as I justified their high payments, and you haven't countered it.

Back to you
Debate Round No. 2
Tinker4

Pro

If you want 2011 stats for how much basketball players get paid in comparison to doctors then fine. The average NBA players salary remains at roughly 6 million dollars and doctors average went down to $175,000 so ,yes, it changed, but just more for the NBA players. You tell me to stop comparing pro athletes salaries to doctors, lawyers etc.? Fine, how about I compare the athletes pay to people who work so hard just so they can make minimum wage? Lebron James is just one example of an overpaid, arrogant, self-conceited athlete. Do you think that D-bag deserves all the money he has? Really?

"I could most likely tell you the whole Ravens roster, not to mention every other important player in football, baseball, and even basketball, and I don't even watch the last two." Honestly, I don't care if you can name all those players or how much you like pro athletes that doesn't make them not overpaid. Also I would hope ,if a doctor patched someone up good, that they would want to become a doctor because this nation doesn't need more athletes/"role models". We need more doctors. All in all athletes are not necessary even if they are your role models.
PartamRuhem

Con

I will start this last round by naming everything my opponent hasn't talked about or has wrong.

A.) My economical argument has been left untouched, leaving Pro with no answer for it, making it valid. (STANDING POINT)

B.) My opponent strays from the actual topic here, which is "Pro athletes are overpaid" not "Pro athletes are overpaid compared to *insert profession*". That's a different debate, and all I am trying to say is that they are not overpaid, seeing as it is perfectly logical as to why they make that much money.

C.) My opponent completely misjudges the importance of athletic role models in America, especially an OBESE America, which needs this people to be here helping the youth become active.

D.) My opponent cannot give a valid reason refuting the charities that Pro athletes dump millions into, and the foundations that wouldn't be around without them. If these athletes didn't have larger paychecks, none of the MILLIONS and MILLIONS of people who were helped by those charities would have been helped.

E.) Pro also doesn't counter my "fame" argument, which is simply that in order for someone to do something that will NEVER give them privacy again, they must be paid more. (STANDING POINT)

Pro's claims for the doctor's paychecks are invalid because he states no source. Are we just supposed to take your word for it? In that case, I could go ahead and say that 98% of ALL pro athletes checks go into charities. You wouldn't believe me because I have no source. Same goes for Pro's lack of sources. This is completely irrelevant either way because, like I stated before about the actual topic, doctors don't matter in this debate.

In Round 3, Pro is trying to make a very confusing point. Someone who works really had at McDonald's, making minimum wage, deserves millions of dollars?! Well that seems a bit outrageous. And still, irrelevant. Speaking of millions of dollars, I would like to point out that Pro started this debate saying that $20M or greater was the usual pay for athletes, then states later that on average, a basketball player only makes $6 million a year. Seems he doesn't even have his facts straight.

|Conclusion|
Pro gives no valid or relevant points in accordance to the topic "Pro athletes are overpaid", and I have at least two contentions that he couldn't answer for. Any sensible person reading this would realize that not only do my points hold relevance and merit (as opposes to my opponents), but they weren't even countered.

Multiple standing points for CON
ZERO standing points for PRO

Thank you all for taking the time to read this, and I thank Pro for initiating this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Puppet911 5 years ago
Puppet911
More structure, more framework, and more citation of sources...didn't see many at all. How do we know your arguments are valid if there is no source...unless they're all assumptions...which isn't necessarily good.
Posted by stubs 5 years ago
stubs
This was a horrible debate.
Posted by 000ike 5 years ago
000ike
very interesting debate, but it seems like pro jumbled his arguments. First he said that pro athletes are overpaid, then he changed his argument to say that they are over paid compared to doctors and lawyers. He never defined the word overpaid. Overpaid as in legally undeserving of the money? Overpaid as in morally undeserving of the money? Over paid as in, paid more than necessary for any individual? Moreover, con had many powerful points that went unchallenged by pro. Even by mere visual judgement, the length of pro's rebuttals showed a lack of effort to seriously counter con's points. If I could vote, all criteria, except for conduct, would go to con, whereas conduct would be tied.
Posted by PartamRuhem 5 years ago
PartamRuhem
Yes I do disagree haha
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by VocMusTcrMaloy 5 years ago
VocMusTcrMaloy
Tinker4PartamRuhemTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Convincing arguements for Pro because "athletes give to charities" is a BAD arguement! I would give to charities too if I made $6M/year, so give me that money! Reliable sources- Con didn't quote any sources. Pro didn't need to answer all those arguments-they didn't hold water!
Vote Placed by aircraftmechgirl 5 years ago
aircraftmechgirl
Tinker4PartamRuhemTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Athletes are definitely overpaid...but Pro debated this so poorly that I'd like the time back that I wasted reading this.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Tinker4PartamRuhemTied
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: Sad debate from Pro, who appeared to fail to undertake even an effort to make a case.
Vote Placed by t-man 5 years ago
t-man
Tinker4PartamRuhemTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't awnswer all of Con's arguements
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
Tinker4PartamRuhemTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to uphold the BoP and Con clearly made a much stronger argument. Many of Cons points however failed to negate the resolution and did not have any valid logical connection. His strongest argument was that athletes get paid to do more then just play their sport, but this does not show why it relates to what they actually get paid and why it falls in line with what they should be getting paid. Pro however did not make any case at all other then asserting that athletes make a lot of money
Vote Placed by darkkermit 5 years ago
darkkermit
Tinker4PartamRuhemTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO had absolutely no case and no rebuttals. PROs only argument was that "athletes make millions". CON provides rebuttals why athletes are not overpaid, and PRO does not dispute the claims.
Vote Placed by airmax1227 5 years ago
airmax1227
Tinker4PartamRuhemTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to prove athletes are overpaid... Con made better arguments overall.