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

The Olympic Games should be abolished

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2012 Category: Sports
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,336 times Debate No: 21350
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)




Today I am interested to debate on why the Olympic Games should not continue. I hope for a knowledgeable opponent.

First: Accept

Second: Argument

Third: Argument

Fourth: Rebuttal

Fifth: Closing

Thanks and Good Luck!


Thanks for starting this debate!
I haven't debated in a while, at least on here, so I feel like I should.

Hope this turns out to be a great debate.
Debate Round No. 1


LiberalJoe forfeited this round.


Hm, I don't really want to waste my time writing an argument if the Pro won't respond...
So I'll just wait for the next round in hopes that he will formulate a case.
Debate Round No. 2


Really sorry about that! Didn't realize I'd be in MD over night. So here we go with my opening arguement.

The Olympic games, to many, are a patriotic exercise in international bonding between nations and good old fashion American fun. However, if you look deeply at the root of these games, they are an utter abomination to our nation, inspiring a plethora of fiscal issues, forming national hatred through competition between nations, creating pointless pollution / human traffic, and causing an ever present threat of terrorism.

Point A) During these downtrodden economic days, wasteful and unnecessary expenditures can really add up and in turn, create colossal problems. Let's start with the median base cost of the Winter Olympics (hereon referred to MBC), approx. 6.95 billion US dollars. This number entails planning, opening ceremony development, architectural funds, minor construction, additional supplies needed for athletes, and so on. But you may be thinking, "Hey, I bet all of the tickets they sell makes up for it, Right?" Wrong. While many recent figures, such as ones from the '84 Olympics, claim a profit was made, they do not consider employment funding for the estimated 30,000 miscellaneous workers, which is separate from the MBC and obviously increases costs SIGNIFICANTLY. So as you can see, the Olympic Games are an unnecessary economic burden on the world.

Point B) When you have 190 million people visiting one small, confined area all at the same time, serious pollution and traffic issues arise. In terms of pollution, all of these cars pose legitimate carbon emission threats considering they can be on for hours and hours during commutes. Not only that, but the emissions can stay in the air for months, risking the cardiac and pulmonary health of all inhabitants. With human traffic, we see other dangers, resulting in gigantic waiting times for not only tourists, but also residents, which seems hardly fair to me. This can possibly be fixed by improvements in infrastructure and public transportation BEFORE the games, but that will clearly bump up prep costs by big numbers, making a virtual loose-loose situation for all.

Point C) Terrorism. It is a word that is thrown around a lot these days, but what risk does it actually present? At the Olympics, an "ideal" location for an extremist due to its huge population density, it presents a risk greater than most could comprehend. During the 1972 Munich Massacre at the games, which was one of the least professionally executed terrorist attacks in history, 17 died. Worse, what if someone were to simply fly a plane into an Olympic stadium similar to the 9/11 attacks? It could be catastrophic, considering 3,000 died in September, and considering the 80,000 that will be able to fit into a single stadium this summer. And to bump up security will, again, cost a large, large amount of taxpayer money.

So tell me. Who benefits from all of this?


Thanks for the response, Pro.
Onto the debate...


1. The Olympics hurt the economy.

This is basically what the point is all about. I will refute this in two ways.

A) Logically Flawed
If these Olympics were so costly as my opponent suggests, why would cities even bother hosting them? If they could not create significant revenue, then why do cities in countries vie and fight to be the hosting city? At a logical standpoint, this seems to make no sense.

B) Lack of Credible Evidence
My opponent claims to offer "recent figures." Shortly after, he states figures from the 1984 Olympics with no sources for this argument. With no source, please disregard this "recent" evidence.
Furthermore, the 1984 Olympics was actually an interesting sports event to mention.
It is true that before 1984, the Olympics were known for serious economic issues, economic issues that no longer existed past that year.

"After the serious economic problems caused by the 1976 Olympics in Montreal, the 1984 Olympic Games saw, for the first time ever, corporate sponsors for the Games. In this first year, the Games had 43 companies who were licensed to sell "official" Olympic products. Allowing corporate sponsors caused the 1984 Olympic Games to be the first Games to turn a profit ($225 million) since 1932." [1] (also mentioned but not quoted in [2])

So, in actuality, the Olympics of 1984 were the first Olympics to generate a profit by having corporate sponsors.

Now, I'd like to further refute this point with even more evidence. I'm not going to cite a recent event but site something that hasn't even happened. Let's take a look at the 2012 Olympics which will be hosted in London.

"Pundits predict a peak in labour demand in 2011. There will be a need for 2.8m people who work in the construction industry across the UK." [2]

2,800,000 jobs willbe created as a result of the 2012 Olympics. Just imagine America getting all those jobs!

At a a more monetary outlook...

"Londoners will contribute £625m to the Olympic and Paralympic Games." [2]
The government doesn't have to pay for all the money for the games. The public helps support the event, too.

"Revenue from tourists attracted by the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games are forecast to add up to an additional £2.1bn." [2]

According to the London Councils 2012 Team (cited from source 2), 2.1 billion Euros will be the monetary gain for the 2012 Olympics. Easily, that's a lot of money.

"The London Olympics will generate £10bn in revenue for the British economy as a whole." [2]

Minus the labor costs, the construction, and everything else that goes into the Olympics, the total gain will still be a hefty sum. Of course the government will have to spend money to pay for the Olympics, but in the end, there will be a large economic gain.

2. It will hurt the environment.

Quick summary of the second assertion. This is flawed for several reasons.

A) Lack of Evidence

I doubt whether this actually happens. My doubts are not reassured due to my opponent's lack of credible evidence. He merely makes the assertion that pollution will occur, yet there is nothing to support this claim.

B) Never Actually Happened

Similar to A in the concept that this never occurred. However, there is evidence that polluted governments have taken steps to rid their cities of pollution. Let's examine the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

In China, a large number of cars were banned (3.3 million), construction was halted, and many dozens of factories were closed [3]. Soon, the Chinese citizens could see the sky, as their pollution efforts were helping, and their air levels were in line with Olympic rules. Furthermore, the Beijing government expanded its transportation program and was still able to generate revenue off the Olympics. [4]

C) Solutions

My opponent even offers solutions to the above problem. He states, however, that such efforts would cost the government even more money. As I have disproved his claim regarding a weakened economy, the monetary expenditures will not significantly harm the country so much as to turn a surplus in Olympic revenue into a deficit.

Let us also realize that many families don't drive in cars halfway across continents to view the Olympics. For example, no one will be able to drive to the London 2012 Olympics (if they don't live in England). This so-called "huge" carbon emission will be nonexistent, as the cars that come to view the Olympics won't burn a lot of fuel as they drive.

Locals can walk, but that's a miniature sidenote.

Let us mainly realize that not everyone in the world is going to be visiting the Olympics. Those that come on planes won't negatively affect the atmosphere as this pollution would occur regardless of the Olympics. Let's look at the 2008 Olympics.

"The competition venues received 2,975 athletes and 1,853 team officials from the 888 participating teams, as well as 2,087 technical officials, 186,037 spectators, 4,750 VIPS and 6,455 journalists. The Olympic Green received approximately 40,000 visitors yesterday." [5]

Not many people actually went to visit the Beijing Olympics. Well, not as many as my opponent would suggest. As you can see, there really won't be a huge environmental impact.


3. Terrorism.

Short and sweet. Terrorism.

Now, my opponent cites a credible event, but one that is not very recent. He cites the "aptly-named" 1972 Munich Massacre, a massacre in which 17 died.

With the advancements in technology and security, the chance of something like this ever occurring is miniscule.
An Israeli athletic team was taken hostage by the Palestinian group Black September and were later killed.

Let me shed light on this unfortunate event.

"The absence of armed security guards had worried Israeli delegation head Shmuel Lalkin even before his team arrived in Munich. In later interviews with journalists Serge Groussard and Aaron Klein, Lalkin said that he had also expressed concern with the relevant authorities about his team's lodgings. They were housed in a relatively isolated part of the Olympic Village, in a small building close to a gate, which he felt made his team particularly vulnerable to an outside assault." [6]

The likelihood of another Munich Massacre is next to nothing.

My opponent hypothetically suggest that 9/11 will occur but in an Olympic stadium. With an Olympic event, security will be heavily on duty, making sure to stop all potential threats. Few predicted 9/11 would happen and it came as a surpris. Even terrorists are smart enough to realize that attacking such an international event would be silly.

My opponent further offers a solution. Bump up security. But he believes there is again this issue with money. Security has been bumped up for years for the Olympic Games, and nations have still been able to make a profit, as I have shown.


So tell me. Who benefits from all of this?

Who benefits from these games? The spectators! The millions of people who either attend the actual venue or watch the games on television! The athletes! They flaunt their skills and compete in an international competition, one that bonds the world! The children! Children are motivated to attend the Olympic Games. For many, this is a lifelong dream. Everyone benefits.


Debate Round No. 3


LiberalJoe forfeited this round.


Extend all arguments. Hope for a reply in the last round!
Debate Round No. 4


LiberalJoe forfeited this round.


For the above refutations and arguments, please vote for the Opposition.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 6 years ago
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: Multiple forfeits by Pro.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 6 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Xerge 6 years ago
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeits, leaving Con's case unanswered.