The Instigator
FutureAirForceGirl
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jonbonbon
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

Should the military be paid more than athletes?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Jonbonbon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/7/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 798 times Debate No: 80632
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)

 

FutureAirForceGirl

Pro

I'm sorry if this may not sound right I'm young but this was an essay I decided to do and would like for some feedback sorry Ik its long. Thank You for who ever served (salute) sorry if this takes a lot of peoples time i just would like a review on what anyone thinks.

Do you think our sports teams should make the same amount of money as our military branches or even receive more recognition along with help for living? Every year there is a time and a place to watch a big game on TV either for football, baseball, hockey, soccer, and basketball. Has anyone ever considered thinking how much really do the average players make along with the most famous players? All of these famous players are on TV for special occasions either Derek Jeter for baseball, Lundqvist for hockey, Eli Manning for football, Cristiano Ronaldo for soccer, and LeBron James for basketball. The majority of everyone around the world thinks,"Oh yes they are great players and they should be making a lot of money, they are our entertainment,"but just because they are on TV and fantastic makes these players and the rest of them eligible to make so much money? Why should these players that are not put in life threatening danger and on TV make more money, receive more recognition, and live better than some of America"s finest military branches do ?
According to records that show America"s military branches have been around since the earliest of 1775. An example and reason why our military branches should make more money is because one, one out of eight soldiers come back with (PSTD) Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. PSTD is a hard and long way to recovery and most of the soldiers that come back with this diagnosis are not helped and by not having this problem solved it leaves soldiers in distress and out of a mind"s state that can permanently make them distrot for the rest of their lives. Having to encounter death, being held captive in some people"s situations, losing body parts, and more painful experiences makes them a type of hero that is not being recognized. Not to mention that they are not even recognized as a hero more so recognized as people that serve and are looked up to without having the label of a hero. These soldiers that fight for our country are not just fighting for the country itself they are serving for me and for you because many other countries do not have the freedom like we have and that"s why we have to fight to keep it America"s freedom. If people around the world can watch sports as entertainment why don"t they have wars on TV, oh ! that's rights because it's more gruesome than watching players run around. Also no one wants to think about what really goes on during war. A very good quote from the Armed Forces said, "All gave some, some gave all." This is meaning that there are ones that put on gear and go out there to play ball and some are going out giving it their all literally giving their life.
In Conclusion to the first example to why military branches should make more money a second example why America"s military branches should make more money is because the soldiers fighting for this country are letting sports player and the rest of the country able to live almost as if in harmony. NO ONE in America worries about being attacked during the day. American"s can peacefully return home after a day's work while soldiers go through exasperating training that pushes them to the limit. When it all comes down to it there is absolutely no similarity between sports training and military training. A huge difference between sports and the military is that there is no sensitivity given or received you need to be confident, straightforward, proud, and most of all respectful and obedient. In other cases such as sports you don"t need all these qualifications. America"s military branches of soldiers have to represent a high honor of dignity and respect and what exactly do sports teach you besides teamwork, you can learn that anywhere that is a life skill not a life goal. A man who was once known as a football player died as a hero fighting for his country. Pat Tillman played as a professional football player and gave it all up to fight for his beloved country in April 22, 2004 and his name will die in fame. Also another quote from the Armed Forces was,"go down in flames or go down in fame."
Furthermore, the soldiers that do make it home alive but not in the best of the best condition sometimes may need reinforcements but exactly when are these applied? sometimes it is never applied enough or at all, sadly. Why is that America has so much money to spend on things that are to no use of citizens and people yet we do not seem to be putting it to any reasonable causes. Thanks to Wounded Warrior Program things have somewhat have been on the upside for soldiers for when returned home. From a different point of perspective sometimes people like to ask themselves why is America not getting involved? Well maybe they do maybe they don"t but only one knows what they want you to know. When returning home it may occur that soldiers may not be impecunious so they turn to programs that help, and sometimes even fundraisers don"t cover all of the costs, why not have some of the sports players portion of the money go towards the soldiers? People can almost consider some sports players greedy. Greedy people would rather get then to give, and that explains a lot of America"s sports and their character.
Finally when all has been said and done American soldiers may return home and some may rest in peace and sports players go and live a normal life. Things and images may be erased from the Internet but will never be erased from the men and women who had witnessed it. America is one and we all should stick together as one and not leave behind the ones who have gave it all for the country we all love. What is less appealing to the eye may cause the most sadness of all. Anyone can be a sports player if they really want to but it takes more than being a good player to be America"s hero's. In the end, do you think that a man with a helmet on a field defending this country should make less of a salary each year than a man with a helmet on a field defending a ball?
Jonbonbon

Con

I think that's a very well thought out essay concerning a side based on principle. I'm just going to explain why that doesn't work.

The thing the essay fails to take into account is the difference between the public sector and the private sector. The public sector is anything controlled by the government, and the private sector is everything else.

So first of all, we need to know why sports players get paid more in order to analyze the situation. The reason why is because they get paid based on the revenue the sports industry makes. The soldiers are paid based on tax laws and benefits from the government (which I agree could probably be raised a bit).

The private sector can pay people however they want as long as it stays within laws (for example, you can't refuse to pay someone because of skin color or religion or something like that).

The public sector is paid by tax dollars.

Therefore, in order to pay each soldier more than what the average sports player gets paid, you would have to tax the citizens so much that no one in America would be able to afford any of the basics of living.

I agree that soldiers are underpaid and underrecognized, but you can't pay each on hundreds of thousands of dollars (nearing the millions). Like five percent of America would actually be able to pay that much in taxes and still be able to buy food without taking out loans. And everyone taking out loans to buy food would just cause the American economy to tank below anyone else's in the world.

So it would be great if soldiers could be paid more, but what is being asked is way too much money.
Debate Round No. 1
FutureAirForceGirl

Pro

You had stated that,"Therefore, in order to pay each soldier more than what the average sports player gets paid, you would have to tax the citizens so much that no one in America would be able to afford any of the basics of living." This isn't so true. You wouldn't have to higher taxes for citizens in America because if money that was taken out of the players budgets it would cover the amount that isn't being given to the soldiers and the citizens wouldn't have to pay anymore than they are already paying now. Also another thing that you stated was," The reason why is because they get paid based on the revenue the sports industry makes. The soldiers are paid based on tax laws and benefits from the government (which I agree could probably be raised a bit)," but this is also not true because if the industry is making money why cant they afford to give some to the soldiers also why cant military then raise and the sports industry lower the price so it is evenly balanced both ways.I'm sure everyone that reads this can agree that this website is a debate you either agree or disagree correct? Well you have also stated that,"I agree that soldiers are underpaid and under recognized, but you can't pay each on hundreds of thousands of dollars (nearing the millions)" If you agree that soldiers are underpaid and under recognized then why are you on the defense side. The final statement made in your debate was "So it would be great if soldiers could be paid more, but what is being asked is way too much money." Now if I'm correct you agree soldiers should be paid more. Do you or do you disagree ?
Jonbonbon

Con

Thank you for that response. Allow me to clarify some ideas.

A lot of my opponent's rebuttal revolves around the idea of just taking the money away from athletes and giving it to the soldiers. This might seem like an okay solution on the surface, but that comes with a lot of problems.

1) Discriminating against athletes

My opponent only recommends we take these from athletes, because they don't create a strong benefit to society. However, people enjoy sports for the same reason we enjoy movies. Some of the people in movies make as much or more than athletes. Why take specifically from athletes? It's unreasonable to make a law that just discriminates the sports industry and give it to the soldiers.

2) The plan opens up a lot of negative possibilities

If the government is essentially able to set an income ceiling for someone (the government says, "if you make more than this, we take the rest of your income"), then that opens them up to set that sort of restriction on everyone in America. They may say a CEO is only allowed to make 150,000 a year or a small business owner is only allowed to make 60,000 a year. Then the government takes the rest of the money. This also comes with its own disadvantages.

It's like a really bad way to create a communist economy. The people work then the government receives the benefits. I know that's a really shallow definition of communism (it's not really meant to be a definition anyway), but hopefully you understand my point. Essentially you're creating a really bad form of communism. You may as well just try to get as close to the Marxist idea of communism and hope that works in America.

Toward the end of the year, production could essentially stop. Once you've met your quota and it's impossible to keep making money, then what motivates you to keep working? You would essentially transfer from being an employee to being a slave to the government (because you're doing work, and the government receives the benefits).

Soldiers would never want that to happen. I've never met a soldier who thought a government should just arbitrarily take money from its people. By just taking money away from citizens because the government wants would be dishonoring the soldiers. They're in the military to fight for freedom, not to make a living. Soldiers know going into the military that they're not going to make much money. They fight for other people, not money. If you start hurting the people, you spit in the face of our soldiers.

3) My agreement

Keep in mind I did not concede the debate. I agreed with the problem, not the solution.

Soldiers make basically nothing. They are below poverty line with a starting pay of between 18k to 19k a year. [1] That's awful, and I agree that especially for an active duty soldier, that's way too low.

The average athlete makes at least 3 million dollars a year. [2] That's pretty high, but because it's based on the industry's income, I don't think that's too high. That's just worth of the industry to the American people.

However, what this means is that I can argue that soldiers should a make anything between 20,000 and 1,000,000 dollars a year. Maybe I think that 50,000 to 60,000 would be pretty reasonable. That's middle class living, and it's anywhere between easy and very possible to get by with that salary even with medical treatments.

60,000 to 70,000 is not more than athletes, but I think that is a pretty good pay. I'm not presenting an official plan, just an example.

Therefore, I can agree with the problem without agreeing to my opponent's solution.

4) Who could actually take a pay cut

People that could take a pay cut in order to give to the soldiers are any of the members of this list [3]. These are congressmen and people active in Congress. Sure, they don't make nearly as much as athletes. But they do make more than the average person needs. Even the President could take a pay cut.

The reason this would work from an economic standpoint is the fact that the revenue source is the same. The government isn't stealing money from a separate entity, they're just redirecting it to another division. I understand that's not going to happen because the people making the laws would be giving themselves a pay cut, but that's still the best option on a scale of what "should" happen.

Summary:

My opponent's plan actually disrespects soldiers, because it supports the government taking the American peoples' money after they've reached a certain dollar amount. It's not a good plan, because it causes a lot of real economic problems. It specifically discriminates athletes for no clear or good reason. It also doesn't provide us with the best option.

Thank you for reading, and I hope I clarified the issue.

Sources:

[1] http://www.goarmy.com...
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
FutureAirForceGirl

Pro

Ok I'm not being nasty but your so called examples from the sources of the websites are stupid and here's why, this is your opinion most of the things you have stated were from the websites and most of the time you said things that make absolutely no sense by far everything you said were examples that are going to be shut down in some way shape or form because they just don't make any sense what so ever.

"Discriminating against athletes," you had said. First off make sure you yourself understand exactly what you're saying because that makes no sense at all. No one is discriminating no one. I myself am an athlete and I would rather see people fighting for our country make more money than me. To be perfectly clear on what discrimination is I will tell you, it means, "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group
.' Also to be perfectly clear I have a right to be against aka which I am being and that isn't called discrimination its really called my opinion.

Also you had stated,"My opponent only recommends we take these from athletes, because they don't create a strong benefit to society. However, people enjoy sports for the same reason we enjoy movies. Some of the people in movies make as much or more than athletes. Why take specifically from athletes? It's unreasonable to make a law that just discriminates the sports industry and give it to the soldiers." Here is also another example that inst reasonable. This so called example wouldn't make it very far in court because again it isn't discrimination but an opinion. Again you seem to fall short when giving examples because hardly anyone complains about the income an actress or actor makes they are entertainment they also have a lesson during the movie. But athletes, what exactly are they teaching us? Think about it.

"The plan opens up a lot of negative possibilities." How can these plans possibly open up negative possibilities when many people agree they should be making more?

Alright this needs a lot of clearing up. The government which you said is essentially able to set an income the sports industry receives the money which you had stated in the other response. "If the government is essentially able to set an income ceiling or someone (the government says, "if you make more than this, we take the rest of your income"), then that opens them up to set that sort of restriction on everyone in America. They may say a CEO is only allowed to make 150,000 a year or a small business owner is only allowed to make 60,000 a year. Then the government takes the rest of the money. This also comes with its own disadvantages." Again the CEO is not what were talking about and the CEO isn't a type of hero the way soldiers are so why are they still making more than our soldiers?

Our economy, psh please the economy takes the money but really the athletes are still left with millions of dollars or close enough to call it millions why soldiers are falling shorter and shorter away from it. "It's like a really bad way to create a communist economy. The people work then the government receives the benefits. I know that's a really shallow definition of communism (it's not really meant to be a definition anyway), but hopefully you understand my point. Essentially you're creating a really bad form of communism. You may as well just try to get as close to the Marxist idea of communism and hope that works in America."

"The end of the year, production could essentially stop. Once you've met your quota and it's impossible to keep making money, then what motivates you to keep working? You would essentially transfer from being an employee to being a slave to the government (because you're doing work, and the government receives the benefits)." I would like to thank you for bringing this up because you stated," doing work, and the government receives the benefits." Well the government still deducts money from soldiers which the government receives just because they do not make enough as it is they still take. Athletes on the other hand, the deduction for them still leaves them satisfied with there wealthy pay at the end of the year.

"Soldiers would never want that to happen. I've never met a soldier who thought a government should just arbitrarily take money from its people. By just taking money away from citizens because the government wants would be dishonoring the soldiers. They're in the military to fight for freedom, not to make a living. Soldiers know going into the military that they're not going to make much money. They fight for other people, not money. If you start hurting the people, you spit in the face of our soldiers." Thank you again for mentioning this because you are putting words in soldiers mouths. You don't know if they would want to take money from its people and if they did it would most likely be because they feel they aren't receiving enough for all that they do for American's. Of course they know they are fighting for our freedom its kind of obvious is it not? But why is it that they cant be paid and treated the same. No one said they fought for money but isn't there bravery and courage enough to make you want to give make to our soldiers after all they do for us?

'The average athlete makes at lThat's pretty high, but because it's based on the industry's income, I don't think that's too high. That's just worth of the industry to the American people." Why in the other paragraph did you say the government when now you say it isn't it is the industry?
"However, what this means is that I can argue that soldiers should a make anything between 20,000 and 1,000,000 dollars a year. Maybe I think that 50,000 to 60,000 would be pretty reasonable. That's middle class living, and it's anywhere between easy and very possible to get by with that salary even with medical treatments." What happens if our soldiers need more than just 50,000 t o 60,000 because they need replacement arms or legs or anything else? How can you expect them to live on a low salary that doesn't cover it all?

"Who could actually take a pay cut." I am glad you said this because athletes can take a cut but not soldiers.

'The reason this would work from an economic standpoint is the fact that the revenue source is the same. The government isn't stealing money from a separate entity, they're just redirecting it to another division. I understand that's not going to happen because the people making the laws would be giving themselves a pay cut, but that's still the best option on a scale of what "should" happen." You don't know what the government does or doesn't do.

'My opponent's plan actually disrespects soldiers, because it supports the government taking the American peoples' money after they've reached a certain dollar amount. It's not a good plan, because it causes a lot of real economic problems. It specifically discriminates athletes for no clear or good reason. It also doesn't provide us with the best option.'
It really doesn't cause any problems if the people agree. In the end let America's people decide who they'd rather receive more money.
"Thank you for reading, and I hope I clarified the issue."
Sadly you haven't clarified the issue again, sadly.
Jonbonbon

Con

Alright, this round is basically just going to be a response to last round. The numbers are just for separating points, not necessarily being used as a paragraph-by-paragraph analysis or anything of the sort.

1) Explaining my sources.

My opponent thinks my sources are stupid and don't make sense. I'm hoping to clarify their usage.

All of my sources were just statistics. I used the first two in order to show the difference in pay between a starting soldier on active duty and the average athlete. My only point in posting this is to say that I have plenty of space in between reality and my opponent's plan. It's not like if I agree with the problem I have to automatically concede my opponent's plan on any grounds. So posting my sources was just to show that on average, I have plenty of room to make a case that soldier's pay should be raised, just not to the extent where each one is earning at least 1 million dollars.

2) Discrimination

My opponent's claim is that her plan is not discrimination. She even provides a definition of discrimination, and I will concede that definition.

I'm going to explain why it is actually discrimination. Here's her definition just as a reminder:

"treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group."

The group in questions is athletes. All of these people can be categorized as a group, because they fit into the same work industry. This is a group specifically targeted by the plan, simply because of the nature of their group (the amount of money they make and their benefits to society).

There's no way this can be cosidered something besides discrimination. That's literally what the plan is. Now my opponent says that it's just discrimination and not an opinion, but I wish to clarify something else. The plan my opponent has put into the debate (to take all athlete income after a certain dollar amount and giving it to soliders) is not just an opinion. It's a plan, and we're voting on that plan. If my opponent's argument is just an opinion, then that leaves her on very weak grounds considering this is a debate, not an argument at a lunch table.

3) Negative effect on the economy

My opponent makes a few claims here. I'm actually going to start quoting just because this part gets a little confusing. So prepare for subpoint a:

a. How can these plans possibly open up negative possibilities when many people agree they should be making more?

Well, here's where we need to remember that "more" doesn't have to mean 1 million dollars more. I argued for a reasonable salary. My opponeny is arguing they should have all the money in the American economy.

b. Alright this needs a lot of clearing up. The government which you said is essentially able to set an income the sports industry receives the money which you had stated in the other response.

First, I would like to point out that my opponent didn't actually do the clearing up that needed to be done. She just quoted one of my arguments and sort of moved on.

Second, I would like to clarify my point. The government cannot currently set an income ceiling. It's not something they're legally able to do. The only thing they can do is set a tax bracket so that your taxes are raised as your income goes up. My opponent wants to set an income ceiling, which would be creating a new law.

The negative affect of this new law is that it opens up the possibility for the government to give everyone an income ceiling. That's why I called the plan a bad way to get to commnunism. We could end up with a government that puts everyone at poverty line regardless of their job. Then we'll end up like Cuba.

To get back to the point, my opponent doesn't even counter the idea that soldiers could just be making middle class income. Middle class income isn't bad, that's why it's the middle class. A soldier could easily get by with that. They don't have to have all of the money in the American economy in order to make a living.

c. Again the CEO is not what were talking about and the CEO isn't a type of hero the way soldiers are so why are they still making more than our soldiers?

Again, this needs a few points to be properly addressed. Apparently, there's been a lot of confusion in the debate, and I need to make sure we clear this up.

- I provided an example of a CEO because I was naming an effect of the current plan. However, this brings me back to the point of discrimination. The plan is just for athletes, not anyone else.

- I already explained why people in the private sector make more than people in the public sector. They don't have to be heroes to make money. They just run a business that provides for the public. In their own way, they kind of are heroes. I say that because they produce things that improve the standard of living for Americans.

TO CLARIFY ONE MORE TIME:

The government doesn't give people their money. My opponent is arguing like the government gives everyone their pay checks, and they're just disctributing the money unfairly. The American people actually give everyone their paychecks, including all members of the public sector. We make the money, then we buy something and give the private sector their income. Or we make the money, and the government taxes us because the government doesn't work without taxes.

Hopefully it's now understood why CEO's make more than soldiers.

d. Our economy, psh please the economy takes the money

I'm not really sure what my opponent means here. I just need a little clarification.

e. Well the government still deducts money from soldiers which the government receives just because they do not make enough as it is they still take. Athletes on the other hand, the deduction for them still leaves them satisfied with there wealthy pay at the end of the year.

I'm not really sure what my opponent means here either.

f. Why in the other paragraph did you say the government when now you say it isn't it is the industry?


It's like I've described a few times during the debate. Income for the businesses and industries is different than income for the government. I have a better question, how do you think people get paid? Because I feel like you're not understanding me because you're not sure how people get paid (like as a general statement).

g. What happens if our soldiers need more than just 50,000 t o 60,000 because they need replacement arms or legs or anything else? How can you expect them to live on a low salary that doesn't cover it all?

Well, they can probably use this program http://www.benefits.gov...

If not, the fact that soldiers don't have to pay for housing or food at all would allow them to save up a lot of money to be able to pay for something like that. The only exception is if they have a family, but the spouse usually works another job anyway, leaving the soldiers pretty well off, especially at middle class pay.

4) Dropped points

My opponent dropped the argument that if the government was able to set a price ceiling and did that to the private sector in general, that our economy would literally just fall apart, and the workforce would stop 3 quarters of the way into the year. This needs to be taken into consideration.

5) The pay cut

My opponent misquoted me when I said "who could actually take a pay cut" just using it as another place to say soldiers can't take a pay cut. That's not even in question or relevant to anything I've said.

My opponent also sort of agrees that my plan would work (is that a concession?). I said the government officials wouldn't give themselves a pay cut, but my opponent asserts that I don't know what they would and wouldn't do. I feel like my opponent sort of agreed my plan would be a good idea and just kind of called me stupid in a way.

6) Sticking words in soldier's mouths

I'm mainly speaking from principle and experience. Soldiers fight for an ideal (as I've stated, they're obviously not in the job for the money). The ideal is democracy and freedom. We would literally just crumble democracy into a little ball and throw it in a fire if we gave the government the power to set an income ceiling for people and take the rest of the money for themselves.

I've also never met a soldier or aspiring soldier who would wany my opponent's plan. As far as my experience goes, they all want as free of an enterprise as possible.

Sorry that I didn't clarify the issue for my opponent last round. Hopefully this round makes it a little better.

Good luck in the next round.
Debate Round No. 3
FutureAirForceGirl

Pro

FutureAirForceGirl forfeited this round.
Jonbonbon

Con

Please carry on my arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
FutureAirForceGirl

Pro

FutureAirForceGirl forfeited this round.
Jonbonbon

Con

Thank you for reading. If you want, you guys can just treat this as a three round debate and forget about these last two rounds. It's up to the voters now.
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
Jonbonbon
Well there's still time to post a final argument.
Posted by FutureAirForceGirl 2 years ago
FutureAirForceGirl
I'm fine.
Posted by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
Jonbonbon
Hey future, hope you're doing alright.
Posted by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
Jonbonbon
So you say you're young. How young do you mean? Because if you're less than like 15 or 16 I understand you not understanding the economic principles I'm trying to convey.
Posted by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
Jonbonbon
Thanks for all the hate.
Posted by FutureAirForceGirl 2 years ago
FutureAirForceGirl
Thank you I_am_right9 for agreeing it means a lot.
Posted by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
Jonbonbon
I hope you understand what I mean in my arguments. I'm trying to be as reasonable as possible.
Posted by I_am_right9 2 years ago
I_am_right9
I think that they SHOULD be paid more than athletes, BUT there are 1.4 million soldiers currently serving. Right now the total amount that is used to pay US soldiers is $22,400,000,000. if they were paid the SAME amount as athletes, it would cost the US $224,000,000,000. That is a LOT more money!
Posted by FutureAirForceGirl 2 years ago
FutureAirForceGirl
Why do you think you think they shouldn't be paid more especial for all they do for this country? Sports players don't do anything to help our country in any way shape or form, the military does all of it.
Posted by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
Jonbonbon
I agree with the statement that soldiers are underpaid and underrecognized. I don't agree that they should be paid more than athletes.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
FutureAirForceGirlJonbonbonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a few rounds, so conduct to Con.