The Instigator
weallfree
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
rollinginmoney
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

TH supports athletes making political and religious expressions at international sporting events.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/28/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,667 times Debate No: 64070
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

weallfree

Con

Hello Guys this is my first debate .
I would really thanks to the one who taking this debate!

Structure

R1. Acceptance
R2. Constructive Cases are Presented
R3. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's Case
R4. Pro defends Pro's Case, Con defends Con's Case, both Crystallize
rollinginmoney

Pro

hello everyone ..this is my first debate as well and I hope it goes all in the manner ,con identified .
So moving onto the motion and the key terms . Under religious and political expressions I would inherently be arguing it in terms of *personnel political thinking and religious beliefs regardless of their current religious and political condition in their region * . Other then that I feel that the topic is self explanatory in its own essence
So I will be arguing about it on two different perspectives (1) : How an individual reserves the right to express his own beliefs and perspective in relation to both religion and politics (2) How it would further provide incentive for individuals to come to public forums and counter extremist individuals with opposing believes .
so what needs to be understood before hand is the fact that all individuals reserve a right to voice out their opinions to the general public . This is as we all know the right to free speech. However as per the various criticisms this right has received , a general criteria is used to qualify such a right i.e that it should not effect the right of an other individual . This means that individuals (in this context athletes ) have the right , like all other citizens to exercise free speech in the society including forums and all other places . This just goes onto show how despite the harms (which tend to be acting simultaneously with this free speech ) the society realizes the need of such a right . So now the government is only bound to make sure that these expressions don't infringe upon the rights of others such as the right of information (manipulation) and hate speech etc . Moving on lets come to both the ideas (mentioned in the motion ) individually and show how exactly does allowing athletes, do not cross the line drawn by the government. if we talk about a political point of view of an individual it is as we all know subjective from person to person . The problem is that in the status quo the problem is that your general public is currently given the right to exercise their freedom of thought at public forums on news channels and all other platforms which the international arena could approach . The question then becomes that if current governments allow individuals to exercise these rights why is it that athletes should be marginalized as different, from normal citizens and not allowed to do so even though local news as well can be approached by the world ? . The same also applies to religion , but taking a hard line stance results in being punished for blasphemy . so even though such deterrents are existent why is it that the government needs to take further initiative onto this
Debate Round No. 1
weallfree

Con

Thanks for Rollinginmoney first to take this debate as a first time as well.
we are going to call proposition side as a 'Government' ,cons side as a 'Opponent goverment'
Before move on my argument , i rebut points of pro's .
As my opponent says normal people speak out what they want in public space then why not athletes ?
I don't think this 21th world there is limitation to speak out as a human right we recognised . If it is true what government expressed in concern somehow athletes right to speak out was infringed , there might no case that aggravated national relationship by one athletes saying in international sporting events. But as we can see , it happens quite often so that we can't agree with that athletes are limited to their right.
I will make this point up as i started my point. Briefly i convey two assertion .
1.Athletes who participating in international event is stands for nation not only individual.
2.Since government don't suppress any right to speak out to athletes so if government start to make athletes to speak out their perspective of political and religious , we are not sure is that from their own perspective or fostered by government side and reversely infringe to their right to keep silent when they don't have any comment on it but third party keep asking to answer with fact that government support these things.
First my argument athletes have a nation stance not only individual stance in international event.
To help understand of point, lets say we are watching national football game between Portugal and Brazil.Then we easy to agree that Cristiano Ronaldo stands for Portugal and himself . We assume that after Portugal won the game and Ronaldo has a interview. What if Ronaldo says 'Once Brazil was colonised by the portuguese ,its reasonable result that we won the game today' . Even if that is not public opinion of Portugal , its obvious that his comment has a huge possibility to foster international conflict after that. What i assert is that public figure must have a responsibility what effect comes out later from their speech to their country. I am not limiting that personal right to speak. He can speak whatever he wants but its easy to be misinformed in the national event. Ronaldo never has a limitation using on Twitter , Facebook to express his own opinion . If there is more possibility to have miscommunicate not only from individually but also whole nation , its better not to mention their opinion in international event.
Second ,Since government don't limit athletes to speak out ,if they start to make athletes speak their perspective of politics and religion , its going to make some problems. Firstly we are not sure is that from their own perspective or fostered by government side. As we were talking at my first argument , athletes speaking has a power to give meaning of nation stance. So probably government intervene in personal opinion to speak out by adding their own stance. Even though its obvious that different perspective existence from government side , athletes might take their opinion to avoid risk of his life .This one has more possibility to infringe personal right to speak. Secondly , If government start to make athletes to express their opinion on politics and religion , Its not easy to reject to do express their opinion event though they don't want since most of athletes does and audience expect some speech. Its also infringe right to keep silent on . In this reason , i think government better not to make athletes religious and political expression on international event.
rollinginmoney

Pro

thank you con. So before moving on lets break down (for the voter ease ) about what side opposition really wanted to say as part of his positive case
(a) Individual perspective could be actually be the governments's .
(b) the second argument was actually the same as his first . Also the only rebuttal coming from the opp was about how there are examples of government involvement ( none given ) ,although i expected more of it for a better debate
coming down to opp's first argument about how there could be a government perspective reflected within an athletes point of view . Firstly that is a sweeping statement , as never was it shown by opp that there is currently government involvement in the sporting arena . Furthermore , its also an assumption to consider a government do that because sports have a high viewership which makes the government double check that there is no involvement for if caught the matter could easily be exposed which would portray a government in negative light . Many governments also do not get involved because they want to improve relations with other countries where sports are a major platform to do so . so it all comes down to an athlete himself . Not only this Opp never tackled my point about local media (assuming government is involved ) is approachable by the world , his burden was to show that what is exactly so special about international events that raises this issue . He further argued and i quote * Even though its obvious that different perspective existence from government side , athletes might take their opinion to avoid risk of his life . * . Exactly !. Deterrents like career being at stake , international accountability ICC (CRICKET) , Bans and fines are all which stop athletes to use a government stance . so why not use these deterrents and if an individual goes all negative , be punished accordingly . hence a right should be given

Moving onto my argument international sports events attract a great number of people . Even these athletes face performance issues in certain regions where the relations between governments are volatile . Hence , a highly viewed platform could be used e.g in the 2011 ICC world cup , Indian extremists in Mumbai threatened to attack the Pakistani cricket team if they qualified into the final and play in Mumbai ( http://www.siasat.pk... ) . However , indian cricketers stood up and gave their views as to how Pakistani team should be allowed to perform , despite the fact it was against the extremist group (as well as the government as many say ) . They mentioned their ideas about Islam as a religion and how fights should be ended based on earlier issues 1947 etc . This coerced sports fans to start propagating about Pakistani team's rights which in the end led to a safe semifinal .
Debate Round No. 2
weallfree

Con

weallfree forfeited this round.
rollinginmoney

Pro

Iam done with my arguments ,,,,,so lets start round 4 and the summary part
Debate Round No. 3
weallfree

Con

weallfree forfeited this round.
rollinginmoney

Pro

rollinginmoney forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Keils 2 years ago
Keils
Hai Guys , Please Give me a opinion about TH supports athletes making political and religious expressions at international sporting events
No votes have been placed for this debate.