The Instigator
congressucks
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
epicnachos10
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Proffesional Sport Stadiums in the United States benefit their local community

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/17/2014 Category: Sports
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 479 times Debate No: 65358
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

congressucks

Con

1st Round is for acceptance. I hope to have a fun and enjoyable debate!
epicnachos10

Pro

Hey! Im ready to debate!
Debate Round No. 1
congressucks

Con

I strongly negate the resolution resolved: Professional Sport Stadiums in the United States benefit their local communities. To clarify the round, I offer the following definitions.
Professional Sport: a person or governmental entity that sponsors, organizes, schedules, or conducts a competitive game in which one or more professional athletes participate, mainly the NFL, NHL, MLB, and NBA.
Benefit: a significant advantage or profit gained from something
If I can prove that building and maintain sport stadiums bring more harm than good to the community, then I must negate today's resolution. It is the affirmation's burden to prove that public subsidies bring more benefits than harm to the city.
My first contention is that sport stadiums are funded by the public, which means that it harms the local community by forcing them to spend ridiculous amounts. According to the voiceofsandiego.org, around $340.5 million dollars will be spent over the next 11 years in order to keep their stadium, the Qualcomm running. To make things worse, this money will be funded from the taxpayers, which basically means the local community of San Diego, is paying roughly $31 million dollars per year, just to keep an old stadium running. As time goes on, taxpayers will be paying more money, as the infrastructure will deteriorates.
According to the Pacific Standard Magazine, the PPL Park (Philadelphia sport team, soccer) cost around $117 million dollars. 97% of that amount, came from the public, which means every person on average had to pay $3,340.90 in taxes which is crazy. Why would people want to live in an area where you would have to pay thousands of dollars just to build a fancy new stadium.
My second contention is that building stadiums divert money away from important areas, such as education. According to the International Business Times, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emaneul cut school funding, in order to build a new basketball arena and a hotel. He took over $55 million which could have been spent to help build or improve schools. That $55 million dollars could have definitely been spent better, for education purposes. Also according to the Atlantic, the Minnesota legislature took $506 million dollars from taxpayers, to give to the Minnesota Vikings. That money could also have been much better. $506 million dollars given as a gift.
My last and final contention is that it drags away money from important businesses. This is also known as the substitution effect. When a new stadium opens, people will be spending their money at the stadium, in the form of tickets, accessories, or food. While they spend their money at the stadiums, they won't continue to spend as much to other forms of entertainment. According the New Bureau of Illinois, a study conducted by the college students, show that creating a new stadium results in an average loss of 1,924 jobs in the local area. This clearly shows that stadiums suck up all the money, which results in other business losing money, causing layoffs. Therefore, I urge a vote on the negation side of this debate. Thank you.
epicnachos10

Pro

I will be rebutting my opponents arguments and adding a new argument.
Your first contention says that public funding is bad. Well, in the more recent times, private investors have been investing more than the public on stadiums. Also, your second contention says that "building stadiums divert money away from important areas, such as education." It does not do that. High schools and colleges are basically investing in their sport teams which, in turn, bring in revenue to cover up the costs. Lastly, stadium funding does not take away money from businesses. It actually helps them in a positive way as they can advertise and also sell their products in the stadium. Player endorsements add to the positive effect as they basically bring in a significant amount to the player who can use it towards helping his/her school.
My argument is that professional stadiums promote charities and help raise funds. For example, recently, the Millennium Stadium helped Welsh Charities raise 4 million pounds, which is well around 6.3 million dollars. Also, small scale fundraisers are also successful as many raise a ton of money for their needs.
And these are the reasons as to why the pro should win.
Debate Round No. 2
congressucks

Con

I would first like to rebuttal my opponent's rebuttal and his 1 small contention. First my opponent said that private investors are investing more than the public, but what he failed to do is give any form of evidence. You cannot believe that without a reasonable evidence. Also my opponent says that high schools and colleges bring back the revenue. Again, no evidence what so ever. Would you believe that Ebola was a deadly virus without getting percents and statistics? Also, why would high schools and colleges invest in sport teams? That is completely irrational. Is your local high school funding a professional sport team? Most likely not. Finally, my opponent said that it actually brings in money. But what he didn't mention was that sport stadiums result in an average of 1,924 jobs. This clearly shows that businesses are losing money which results in layoffs of its workers. opponent has rebutted my 3 contentions by giving 3 ideas. No statistics what so ever. Now onto my opponent's case.
My opponent has claimed that stadiums promote charities. He gave an example of a stadium in the country of Wales. Now the resolution states, professional sport stadiums IN the United States. Therefore, this example does not hold as it does not fit the resolution. His last part of small scale fundraisers was also supported by 0 facts. Now even if the stadium was in America where is the money going? Is it going to local communities or other places? The resolution states local community so if the money is going to other areas, then that example will be thrown out. Since none of my opponent's contention stands and my contentions still hold, this is why the Con should win this debate.
epicnachos10

Pro

epicnachos10 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.