The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Should the state intervene in the increasing cost of gym fees?

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 883 times Debate No: 22329
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




Across America people of all ages are suffering from major health problems from obesity to heart disease. Health advocates encourage people to attend to the gym and exercise. Exercising has been most influential and creates a positive outcome in people health, especially it reduces the number of health problems. Gym is seen as a group of people of the similar interest of staying healthy and fit. It is not only seen as a place to exercise, but a place to meet new people. Unfortunately, gym fees are on the rise and it has been harder for people pay for membership fees. My argument is that should the state intervene in the increasing cost of gym fees?


I accept.......because there's no structure set here and this debate will be extremely short I will set what I'm going to do

First round-state my position,
third-summary and further rebutting

I reject

1. gyms don't cure health problems solely.

Just because you go to a gym doesn't mean one will become healthy. You need to have a plan all together and not just a single factor. You need a takes diet, exercise, self motivation, and a certain state of mind to genuinely become healthy. I'm not saying gyms are bad but I saying that since gyms don't directly cause a person to be healthy, then no one should change anything because the majority of people don't even use gyms and therefore majority of people arnt in jeopardy of becoming unhealthy if they don't go to a gym. because gyms although gyms have the potential of being used to further healthiness it doesn't cause it. There are other cheaper ways to become healthy. People arnt require to use gyms and don't need theres no reason for the state to get involved

2.state intervention will subsidise increasing costs, contradicting its purpose.

well my opponent didn't make it clear how the state will intervene. So I am forced to use reasonable logic.
if the state was to get involved( and this is the only way I could see states being of any help) then they would just fund the fees for those who couldn't. sort of like a college grant somewhat. and just like college prices rising like crazy over the years due to government or state subsidies, the same would happen if states interfere. thus contradicting the suggested purpose of making gyms ore affordable.

3. not justifiable

80% of amerians actually dont use their memberships......

since people are wasting memberships, if states were to get involved they would be wasting taxpayer money.
Also states dont get involved unless it harms majority of society. gyms dont so obviously this should be negated.

Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for responding to my posting...
Sure, I would agree that gyms dont totally cause a person to be healthy or any risk of not being healthy. The state should intervene the cost of rising gym fees to those who are in disadvantage who cant afford. Give the people who have strong interest in getting back to shape and trying to better or improve their health. I know that you had mentioned that there are other alternatives in being healthy. Being healthy might be one of primary reason in my argument, but I would include younger kids or teenagers who are need in using gym. States like New York had recently cut down after school programs. Such after school consist of interactive activities such as basket ball, ping-pong, volley ball and etc. Cutting down those programs will endanger the welfare of these kids. Children or teenagers will engage in a non-eventful activities such as engaging illegal activities. Some parents cant afford to put their children in after school programs that would have eventful sports related activities or have the children play in the their local playground that are infested with violence. I urge the state to try to subsidise the cost of gyms such as YMCA..


so my opponent didn't effectively tackle any of my contentions. Silence equals concurrence.

I will tear down his points and reintroduce my case here

My opponent has agreed with my first contention witch explains that gyms don't cure health problems. with that being said there's no reason for the state to get involved, or to subsidize gyms witch is what will happen if the sates get involved witch will be extremely stupid on states part with there already narrow budget..

my opponent states that states should intervene to help the disadvantaged.
going along with this logic should states also help pay taxi bills? should states also give money for doggies daycare?, you see my point here?.......there are alternatives. why should states intervene if there is an alternative that costs nothing.

my opponent also states being healthy is his prime reason.

As I've proven in my case gyms dont directly produce fit individuals . gym memberships dont make people healthy. 80% of gym memberships are wasted..........

if states intervene states will be wasting everyone money. And the taxpayer wouldn't silently tuck there tails between there legs and submit.

my opponent uses the example of program cuts in New York.

Ummm last I checked this is about gyms and not about schools cutting programs. This has nothing to do with the resolution and thus should be ignored. Also he states because people dot go to gyms then there going to become involved in criminal activity. I want the voters to really think about this. lack of gyms don't constitute gang are many factors that goes into crime and the absence of a gym membership is not a valid factor...........oh and by the way there's no sources to prove this.

My case

1. gyms don't cure health problems solely
2.state intervention will subsidise increasing costs, contradicting its purpose.
3. not justifiable

Debate Round No. 2


CTNYC forfeited this round.


so it seems my opponent has forfeited and has also failed to effectively counter any of my case .

Now I have proven that gyms don't cure health problems solely.( The state would only get involved if it involved the majority of people. Witch it doesnt),state intervention will subsidize costs contradicting its purpose( this will be just like the government subsidizing increasing college costs.), Lastly it just isn't justifiable( a huge majority of those with memberships don't even use them. If states were to get involved it would waste taxpayer money).

My arguments still stand strong, and they face no contentiousness from my opponent Thus, con should win this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by frozen_eclipse 4 years ago
wow 2,000 word limit this is going to be extremely short and extremly narrow in scope.
Posted by CTNYC 4 years ago
I might have to edit..
My question is ...rather than my argument.
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
"My argument is that should the state intervene in the increasing cost of gym fees?"

Your argument is a question? huh?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Multi_Pyrocytophage 4 years ago
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 Checkmark1 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: Con gets conduct for not forfeiting. Con also gets arguments since he rebutted his opponent better than the opponent could to him. Also gets sources for using sources.