Total Posts:1|Showing Posts:1-1
Jump to topic:

RFD for Football stadiums

Posts: 5,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2016 9:16:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My RFD will be posted here.

The debate is here:

BladeofTruth (Pro) v.s. Uniferous (Con)

The Burdens

The Burden of Proof will be on Pro and Con. For Con accepting the debate he accepted on the burden,

" As Pro, I will have the BOP to show that using American taxes to build American Football Stadiums is an unjustifiable use of our tax dollars.

Con's burden will be to negate my arguments and thus show that using these taxes on football stadiums are justifiable. "

Pro's arguments

I will first give the intro of Pro's arguments. Pro states that it is not justified. He shows in a report called, "Sacking Taxpayers: How NFL Stadium Subsidies Waste Money and Fall Short on Their Promises of Economic Development," "This report revealed that since 1995, a staggering 29 of the 31 stadiums that house NFL teams received public subsidies for construction, renovation or both."

Pro also states that A simple google search will reveal that a lot of major sports stadiums are now being funded with taxpayers money.

Con does not even say anything about this.

Now I will address Pro's one and only argument.

I. The Justification of Tax Spending on NFL Stadiums is Unsound.

Pro's argument is really good. He shows many different stadiums and they needed to follow these categories...

Poverty Rate before Stadium:
Poverty Rate after Stadium:
Median Income before New Stadium:
Median Income after New Stadium:
Cost to Taxpayers:

Pro gives many examples, and the examples Pro gave, after the stadium, the poverty rate got higher, median income got lower.

After Pro shows different stadiums, with math he comes to a conclusion

"How many benefited economically? 5

How many were moot reads due to a lack of data or non-funding? 5

How many were impacted negatively? 21

68% of these stadiums funded by tax-payers actually hurt the local economy of the surrounding area, while only 16% actually led to economic growth. "

This is a very good argument explaining that after football stadiums being made, 68% hurt the economy.

How does Con rebut this? He does not mention anything about this in his rounds, never mentioned the taxes, the things that Pro mentioned in his arguments.

In Pro's defense Pro states that Con never mentioned it, which is true. But Con says that the argument is useless and weightless that there is no need to mention it. This is a problem. You need to mention it to be a good debater. Its up to the voters of weighing the arguments, not the debater. I think that Pro's argument is very important and useful, and Con drops it.

Con's arguments

Con only made quotes about morality. He does nothing with them. He doesn't explain anything about football stadiums. He just gives many quotes, and says, "And so Brown concludes that morality is not defined. And this is what is leading to violence and chaos. Our moral values need to be "called into question". We need to reject morality until we can assess and confirm what we classify as intrinsic morals. Disagreed upon moral values means that key terminology cannot be defined and if this terminology is not intrinsically defined then this ultimately means that affirming is not possible."

Con doesn't actually make an argument here.

What else he does is making a kritik about Moral Nihilism Con states, "The K is effective since Pro's case rests upon the assumption that economic crisis for certain teams and for the country is bad. There are people that dislike other teams and want them to be in economic crisis (basic psychology tells us that people that are supportive of their own team are usually against other teams) [6]. There are people that hate other states [7] and want them to be in debt. There are people that hate the US [8] and want them to be in (more) debt. How can we determine who has the right perception of what is good and what is morally bad. In order to affirm we need a clear definition on what is good. No clear definition means that it can't be justified."

Despite on Con not making lots of arguments, he can't win unless his kritik suceeds.

Pro rebuts Con's kritik by giving many reasons, saying that, "it is not even an applicable Kritik to the debate at hand." He says that it is not on the topic, which is true: not saying anything about football stadiums and taxes as far as I knew, and gives many reasons, that his kritik failed. Pro rebuts this.

Con tries to defend this by rebutting the points of good and legimate, but thenn fails to rebut the part that he can't put a kritik. So this argument is rebutted, going to Pro's side.

As Pro does not touch anything about the quotes.


On Pro's side I have Con's failed kritik, Pro's argument about poverty, and the economy after and before making football stadiums. In Con's side, I have a bunch of quotes. Because Pro fills his burden more and has more weight in his side, Pro wins.

(I am sorry in the abrupt rush in the end.)

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.