The Instigator
hghppjfan
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Chicken
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

The NCAA punishments for Penn State were too harsh

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Chicken
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/10/2012 Category: News
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,439 times Debate No: 25524
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

hghppjfan

Pro

Hello everyone,
This is an arguement when the NCAA punished the Penn state coaches.

My arguement: They were unjust

Opponent's arguement: They were just or they wanted more.

Opponent will make the rules.
Chicken

Con

I accept! I wish the best of luck to my opponent in what I hope will be an intellectually stimulating debate.

Rules:

The BOP is on Pro, meaning that Con must simply disprove Pro's points to win.

No semantics/trolling

Evidence is needed to backup claims that are ambiguous or extremely specific (Statistics etc.) No evidence= no argument

Sources must be cited at the end of each speech

Philosophy may be brought into the debate as a means of counteracting another side (meaning Con can bring in morality to counteract a Pro arg or vice versa)

Be Polite, any Forfeits in the round will mean an automatic loss and all 7 points going to the opposite side.

Pro must prove why the sanctions placed upon Penn State are UNJUST rather than wrong. He must prove they are immoral or opposing justice. (Simply saying something is too harsh isn't enough, backup a claim with why it is too harsh etc. prove that it is inherently undermining justice)

Justice- the administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity[1]

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

I open the debate to Pro's case.
Debate Round No. 1
hghppjfan

Pro

I was watching the TV for if they were going to punish Penn state or not, which I found out they did on the Internet.

The punishments for the Penn State university punishments are a four year postseason ban, $60 million fine, loss of scholarships, and wins not counting from 1998-2011. (1)

"No degree of punishment is enough for those involved in the sick behavior which occurred at Penn State. However, it makes me angry that the sanctions issued punish the wrong people: the kids currently attending the school, the alumni, members of the football team and the members of those winning teams of yesterday. They are being punished for something that they had nothing whatsoever to do with. What"s fair about that?" says Carolyn Carpenter in Carrollton, Texas. (2)

I agree with this statement. The only good punishment that could of been good by itself was the sixty million dollar fine, but the rest by themselves were unbearable, especially for the people who were innocent in this.

I do not know about my opponent, but the punishments were unjust.

1. http://www.theonlycolors.com...
2.http://letterstotheeditorblog.dallasnews.com...
Chicken

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for a speedy response. As Con i will now proceed to refute any and all argumentation by pro. Con attacks will be located underneath Pro's quotes.

Order- Summary of Pro's case in quotes, followed by a short Con case that combats any future claims by pro.

Pro's Case

"The punishments for the Penn State university punishments are a four year postseason ban, $60 million fine, loss of scholarships, and wins not counting from 1998-2011."

This information will be the statistical evidence for both sides in the round (So i don't have to requote this). Not an attack, rather information clarifying the debate.

""No degree of punishment is enough for those involved in the sick behavior which occurred at Penn State. However, it makes me angry that the sanctions issued punish the wrong people: the kids currently attending the school, the alumni, members of the football team and the members of those winning teams of yesterday. They are being punished for something that they had nothing whatsoever to do with. What"s fair about that?" says Carolyn Carpenter in Carrollton, Texas."

You quoted a person and used him/her as a source. There needs to be insight given by you as pro, an entire argument cannot be copied and pasted.

I agree with this statement. The only good punishment that could of been good by itself was the sixty million dollar fine, but the rest by themselves were unbearable, especially for the people who were innocent in this.

2 things,

1) THIS IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. "I agree" is not an argument, nor is summarizing a quote. This is still plagiarism, there is no substantial evidence nor is there any insight given by Pro past simply saying "I Agree".

2) Opinions. Even if the judges were to accept the plagiarized argument, Carolyn Carpenter fails to account for the true victims (meaning the one's who actually TESTIFIED IN COURT AGAINST JERRY SANDUSKY), those poor adolescents (10 boys to be exact, including one of Sandusky's 6 adopted children) who were sexually abused over the course of 15 years [1]. Carpenter is valuing a football program over the lives of the 10 boys who may never have a normal life, who's childhoods had been stripped from them. Carpenter's quote undermines the whole reason the NCAA gave Penn State those sanctions in the first place, they wanted to teach a lesson to ALL OF COLLEGE FOOTBALL, to show that allowing someone to play football is not nearly as important as saving children's lives, and putting football ahead of a child's life is inhumane. The people who were "innocent" should not be given priority over those who were victimized. This in no way is just.

Con's Case

1) Rules

"Pro must prove why the sanctions placed upon Penn State are UNJUST rather than wrong. He must prove they are immoral or opposing justice. (Simply saying something is too harsh isn't enough, backup a claim with why it is too harsh etc. prove that it is inherently undermining justice)

Justice- the administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity[1]"

Pro has failed to abide by the most important rule of the debate, the resolution. Con was given the opportunity to make the rules, which pro accepted. As such, the above rule is the biggest deciding factor in the round. Pro never states WHY PENN STATE SANCTIONS ARE UNJUST. Pro gives a quote, followed by a general statement. Pro fails to elaborte on the claim that the sanctions are unjust, and simply shoves aside the definition of Justice.

2) Morality

Selfishness and greed guide the motivations of Jerry Sandusky. As an old Penn State fan myself, it saddens me to have to say this, but Joe Paterno's actions were immoral and inhumane, to allow the young boys to be tortured (sexually abused) by Sandusky, for years and years. Paterno was much more worried about his football team than he was about the boys. He valued a football team over a life, and deserved the punishments placed upon his record. The NCAA was justified in enacting it's own administration of law (justice), showing that life is far more important than football. The NCAA gave the least harsh sanctions possible to make a moral statement, to show other schools that their priorities are not in football, but rather in their students and youth. Pro is completely unjust, undermining set rules and regulations by the NCAA and immoral, putting a football program above the value of life. [2]


3) Justice

This was not just a College Football scandal, it was a CRIMINAL CASE. [3] Justice was to be enacted in some way or another. The problem with the court system was that only Jerry Sandusky was held accountable. Clearly other's were to be held accountable as well, but unfortunately were not given any punishment. The NCAA made a statement when it slammed Penn State with it's punishments. It proved that justice stretched outside of the court system, and that college football was just. College football follows rules and regulations, has it's own administration of law, and abides by them, creating a just society. By simply punishing Sandusky, or by even minimizing the NCAA punishments, no justice would be given. These punishments are SET punishments, given because they are deserved. The NCAA was following it's own book of law when it gave these sanctions to Penn State. [4]


[1] http://espn.go.com...

[2] http://bleacherreport.com...

[3] http://espn.go.com...

[4] http://espn.go.com...


I now open it back up to Pro.



















Debate Round No. 2
hghppjfan

Pro

I will use the rebuttals to use on my side.

A:
Pro:""No degree of punishment is enough for those involved in the sick behavior which occurred at Penn State. However, it makes me angry that the sanctions issued punish the wrong people: the kids currently attending the school, the alumni, members of the football team and the members of those winning teams of yesterday. They are being punished for something that they had nothing whatsoever to do with. What"s fair about that?" says Carolyn Carpenter in Carrollton, Texas."

Con: You quoted a person and used him/her as a source. There needs to be insight given by you as pro, an entire argument cannot be copied and pasted.

Pro: I was using this source to prove that I am not the only one who thinks of this.

B.
Pro: I agree with this statement. The only good punishment that could of been good by itself was the sixty million dollar fine, but the rest by themselves were unbearable, especially for the people who were innocent in this.

Con:2 things,

1) THIS IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. "I agree" is not an argument, nor is summarizing a quote. This is still plagiarism, there is no substantial evidence nor is there any insight given by Pro past simply saying "I Agree".

2) Opinions. Even if the judges were to accept the plagiarized argument, Carolyn Carpenter fails to account for the true victims (meaning the one's who actually TESTIFIED IN COURT AGAINST JERRY SANDUSKY), those poor adolescents (10 boys to be exact, including one of Sandusky's 6 adopted children) who were sexually abused over the course of 15 years [1]. Carpenter is valuing a football program over the lives of the 10 boys who may never have a normal life, who's childhoods had been stripped from them. Carpenter's quote undermines the whole reason the NCAA gave Penn State those sanctions in the first place, they wanted to teach a lesson to ALL OF COLLEGE FOOTBALL, to show that allowing someone to play football is not nearly as important as saving children's lives, and putting football ahead of a child's life is inhumane. The people who were "innocent" should not be given priority over those who were victimized. This in no way is just.

Pro: I am agreeing with the quote. Of course she is not a representative of the people who were raped, but she is still a person and she can voice her opinion.

Now for the unjust part of my debate (yes, I saved it at the end for everyone to remember.)

Dave Sirin says " Take a step back from the hysteria and just think about what took place: Penn State committed no violations of any NCAA bylaws. There were no improper payments of "student athletes," no cheating on tests, no improper phone calls, no using cream cheese instead of butter on a recruit's bagel, or any of the Byzantine minutiae that fills the time sheets that justify Mark Emmert's $1.6m salary.

What Penn State did was commit horrific violations of criminal and civil laws, and they should pay every possible price for shielding Sandusky. This is why we have a society with civil and criminal courts. Instead we have Mark Emmert inserting himself in a criminal matter and acting as judge, jury and executioner, in the style of NFL commissioner Roger Goodell".
(1)

Joe Paterno gets punished for protecting someone from getting hurt and Mark Emmert is acting like he is God. You might as well prosecute Batman.

So people can get a picture of what this situation is like, I'll use an example.

Lets say a big sport at your high school is basketball. It would be like if your basketball player shot ten people in fifteen years and some of the gym teachers don't peep. The basketball coach is finally prosecuted and so are the other teachers.

Now, you're fines are a four year season ban, $60 million dollar fine, loss of scholarships to go to college, and the basketball coach has a no win streak. The governor decides this. Your basketball coach can't stand up to himself because he is dead of cancer. It affects you and many, many more people.
Chicken

Con

(For Koopin)


Final round, i'll skip all the formalities and just begin.



"Pro: I am agreeing with the quote. Of course she is not a representative of the people who were raped, but she is still a person and she can voice her opinion."

My attack is not on the quote, it is on the quote's use. Pro even states it's HER OPINION. He never gives any insight past the two words "I agree" and simply uses the quote as an argument. So what if one person dislikes a punishment? An opinion isn't relevant in this debate unless it is a substantial overview of the punishments, which in this case, it is not.


"Now for the unjust part of my debate (yes, I saved it at the end for everyone to remember.)"

The final round is the round for rebuttals, not new argumentation, sorry but anything you say past this point shouldn't be counted as it violates the rules of debate on DDO.

"Dave Sirin says " Take a step back from the hysteria and just think about what took place: Penn State committed no violations of any NCAA bylaws. There were no improper payments of "student athletes," no cheating on tests, no improper phone calls, no using cream cheese instead of butter on a recruit's bagel, or any of the Byzantine minutiae that fills the time sheets that justify Mark Emmert's $1.6m salary.
"What Penn State did was commit horrific violations of criminal and civil laws, and they should pay every possible price for shielding Sandusky. This is why we have a society with civil and criminal courts. Instead we have Mark Emmert inserting himself in a criminal matter and acting as judge, jury and executioner, in the style of NFL commissioner Roger Goodell"."

Not your voice, no insight to the argument, and no justification of the quote. So your telling me rape is not against NCAA rules? I'm pretty sure if a college player (or coach) raped someone they would be expelled at the very minimum. Are you telling the judges the NCAA allows for sexual abuse and rape? Also, on a side note, this in no way is the NCAA taking the case into their own hands, as con stated, the case is already underway in a CRIMINAL JUSTICE COURT. The NCAA must punish the school involved however for it's mishandling of the situation.

Joe Paterno gets punished for protecting someone from getting hurt and Mark Emmert is acting like he is God. You might as well prosecute Batman.

A weak argument, my opponent is saying Paterno is protecting someone from getting hurt? HE LIED AND COVERED UP THE ABUSE FOR OVER 20 YEARS (Over 5 years after Sandusky left) Read Cons case.


"Lets say a big sport at your high school is basketball. It would be like if your basketball player shot ten people in fifteen years and some of the gym teachers don't peep. The basketball coach is finally prosecuted and so are the other teachers.

Now, you're fines are a four year season ban, $60 million dollar fine, loss of scholarships to go to college, and the basketball coach has a no win streak. The governor decides this. Your basketball coach can't stand up to himself because he is dead of cancer. It affects you and many, many more people."

An example with no justification, no relatability, and no insight by my opponent (meaning correlation).

But, let's go ahead and refute this entire "argument".

1) The NCAA ISNT PUNISHING AN INDIVIDUAL STUDENT, RATHER A UNIVERSITY
2) The Punishment is completely justified, as the school DID violate NCAA rules and regulatios
3) The evidence against Joe Paterno and all of Penn State is massive, nothing could change it, he knew, yet he kept quiet.
4) THE FOOTBALL PLAYERS AT PENN STATE CAN LEAVE AND GO TO ANOTHER COLLEGE. Seriously, what is stopping them? In fact, many Football players have already left Penn State. [1]


CONCLUSION

Pro fails to uphold his burden of proof, rather contorting the resolution to simply citing quotes from people of little relevance to the actual resolution. Pro fails to use the term Unjust in a meaningful way, and has failed to prove the punishments are unjust. Pro also fails to abide by the rules of the Debate, in no way using the definition of justice as stated in round 1.



[1] http://www.sbnation.com...



The Cow says to VOTE CON



Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Zaradi 2 years ago
Zaradi
This debate....is so fvcking terrible....
Posted by Koopin 2 years ago
Koopin
kfc
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 2 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
In what way does this affect KFC's earnings report? What's the bottom line? Talk to me straight.
Posted by Zaradi 2 years ago
Zaradi
Do you have to prove that all the sanctions were unjust or that just a specific sanction was unjust?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by yoda878 2 years ago
yoda878
hghppjfanChickenTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct went to pro for cons KFC- arguments went to con pro had burden of proof b/c this is an opinion.