That the Olympics are overrated.
Debate Rounds (3)
As for drug-enhancers, it is hard to smuggle drugs as it is, and if the authorities detect it you are disqualified. And this can happen in any sports event expect the Olympics.
Surely you don't mean to discriminate over the rich (professional) and the poor (dirt road runner) athletes? A dirt road runner has ran on uneven roads, without proper equipment for their entire life. Surely professionals with all their luxury would have tough competition with them. A thief would be the best athlete, and you can't blame corruption for that.
Traffic problems and pollution are caused by any grand event, whether it be a music concert, opening of a new mall, or the cricket world cup. Doesn't mean that the event isn't good.
I haven't saw the Olympics and I am not into sports, but it is a grand sports event and requires viewing for all athletic fans.
Secondly, athletes who take drugs have a negative effect on other people, especially children. When you look at the messages that is give young people about drugs they are usually negative, warning about the potential risks associated with their use. Drugs destroy lives " people who use them lose their jobs, their families and are very unhealthy not to mention illegal. This just doesn"t match up to what is seen when they see a story on an athlete telling all on a TV chat show, or a famous sportsman who has been caught doing the 'wrong thing'. Mixed messages are extremely dangerous when it comes to providing drug information to young people. They learn when a consistent message is given to them and unfortunately celebrity drug use, particularly the way it is represented in the media, often contradicts everything they are taught by everyone else. Although many would imagine that stories of famous people using drugs and experiencing a range of problems would discourage teenagers from going down the same path, in fact, in many cases just the opposite happens. Unfortunately, the only message that some young people pick up is that these athletes have 'made it through to the other side' and continue to lead very glamorous and successful lives.
And for your claimed drug usage, tell me one athlete who uses illegal drugs, there is hard evidence to prove that he does and still hasn't been caught. Parents often control what their children watch, therefore drug interviews won't reach them. And children are not like sponges. More often than not, the reporter gives some information about how drug usage is bad after the interview. If you think they would easily follow the footsteps of the celebrities, why won't they listen to their parents and drug enforcement agencies? Children are NOT retarded.
And Sherlock Holmes took cocaine, but I don't see Holmes' fans taking cocaine. Holmes counts as a celebrity.
Olympics seems a good event. The music, the anticipation, the visuals; and on top of that a platform to give credits to talented sportspersons. It is a platform for nations to show-off their sports' pride. Olympics has so many events, if there was no olympics what would happen to these athletic fields? Long Jump, Javelin throw, discuss, these platforms don't have many fans, how would their athletes show their mettle?
Basically, pro hasn't rebutted any of my arguments for his own reasons. I state the olympics are not overrated as they are the greatest sporting event of all time, have no evidence of drug usage, and no evident corruption. I already stated traffic problems come due to any event, but pro doesn't counter. I state that how can pro prove corruption has grown in the corruption, but pro doesn't counter. I asked for pro's source as to 190 million being associated with olympics, there is no source. Therefore I think you must vote for con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Udel 4 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Con says the Olympics are the biggest sporting events every 4 years and despite the problems (drugs, pollution, economic impact) they still bring people together for a good cause. Pro argues that the traffic and pollution are not worth it. He says there is noise pollution too and the athletes are bad role models for kids when they do drugs. Con says a lot of things have traffic and noise, are they all overrated? Pro has to prove yes. And Con says drug taking is exaggerated and not that bad. In the last round they just repeat their arguments and sound like the same person writing both sides because they just repeat themselves. Con's arguments are not that great but Pro did not respond to them such as whether all things with traffic and noise are overrated. Pro also did not respond to Con's questions on why drug use is definitely bad. I will give points to Con I guess since Pro did not answer Con or fulfill his burden since he dropped Con's rebuttals.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.