Check out the Tournament Ladder

avatar
80 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago

    @chandlebrowning @the_peoples_champ

    Thanks a for a great debate! Please note the the winner for this round will be determined based on the best out of 5 votes i.e. community +4 judges. Your confirmed judges so far: @tara_kade @singalport @benmouse42

  • 2 years ago
    • 2 years ago

      @singalport Thank you for the feedback!

    • 2 years ago

      @singalport

      @singalport: I have never been so upset by a Judges deliberation. Plain and simple I hated it. The resolution is “College Athletes Should Be Paid” the resolution was not “Division I Football Players In Top Conferences should be Paid” the resolution was not “Some college football players should be paid”

      On Three different times I mentioned how the resolution calls for “All College Athletes in All College Sports to be paid”. In the debate and in this chat room the “Pro” mentioned his course of action was just for football players. So I ask you what about the rest of the sports??

      He mentioned Division I schools. What about the rest of the schools? What about the fact that I brought up evidence that most schools are not making gains in finances?

      What was his rebuttal about smaller schools?

      What was his rebuttal about other art programs and other programs needing to close down?

      I literally showed that by paying athletes they would make less and would not have as much money because the scholarships provides them with more.

      You said my strongest point that only 23 schools out of 300 could pay athletes. Then you mention how Pro never addressed that point. So if only 23 colleges in the United States can afford to pay their students…..how does any of the “Pro’s” points matter?

      Now let’s talk about the resolution some more.

      College Athletes – If there is no word existing that narrows it then it has too mean all. If the resolution was “Americans should pay taxes” and the pro only addressed people in California how would he win when there are 49 other states??

      How did the “Pro” show how scholarships and a minimum wage can exist in schools that are not Division I football schools??

      You said you don’t see how paying a small fee would impact the schools yet you quoted the fact that my biggest point was that only 23 schools make money…So what about the other schools?? So you’re saying that a junior college would have no impact by needing to pay their athletes minimum wage on top of scholarships??

      I am heated. You just gave him the “pro” this decision because he convinced you that some division I football programs might be able to pay their athletes.

      Please tell me how the resolution allows for only Division I football schools to encompass what the resolution calls for.

    • 2 years ago

      @the_peoples_champ This all comes down to how we interpret the resolution. The resolution does not say "all college athletes should be paid" if it did than I would have no backing for my interpretation being different than yours.

    • 2 years ago

      How does the resolution allow for you to narrow it down to the football programs of only about 20 schools? Explain that to me Mr. Resolution.

    • 2 years ago

      @singalport If the Pro is allowed to only need to prove that only 15 schools can pay just their football players....how can I ever win that debate. It is an impossible thing for me to prove.

      By your reasoning if he was able to prove that Harvard can pay their rowing team then he would win the debate. It is ridiculous.

      He didn't even meet the burden that he put on himself in the beginning of the debate. The three things he said he would prove.

    • 2 years ago

      @the_peoples_champ Okay so basically. Colleges in their current form can only offer so much to their athletes (a full ride) and so that acts as a cap since they are all at that same scholarship. So like I said in my argument someone who is a quarter back and risks injury and makes millions gets the same deal as a student with good grades. So the option to pay athletes relives the cap and would mostly only apply to these top level and skilled players. Not everyone on a football team or everyone in college athletics has a full ride scholarship and so for those people who are just getting a portion paid for a scholarship is reasonable, however those who are capped at the price of tuition and have no other way to get income deserve for their schools to at least have the option to compensate them.

    • 2 years ago
    • 2 years ago

      @the_peoples_champ @chandlebrowning

      This is not an judgement, just a comment on the burdens in this debate and how I think both sides have erred.

      Am v happy to talk about this :)

    • 2 years ago

      @chandlebrowning now tell me how that fits into the resolution

    • 2 years ago

      @liamm how both sides have erred? All you did was justify what "Pro" did and call everything I said as wrong. Your comment offered nothing.

    • 2 years ago

      @the_peoples_champ As I made clear in the video - pro erred in case construction, you erred in focusing on that; your arguments were exceptionally niche.

    • 2 years ago

      @the_peoples_champ He mentioned Division I schools. What about the rest of the schools? What about the fact that I brought up evidence that most schools are not making gains in finances?

      Response: He gave 2 quality pieces of evidence that showed majority of schools were in profit by over $20M and the methodology of the one sources you provided (if you read it) says colleges are not in profit because they spend all their money by the end of the year because they are non-profit and wouldn't be able to carry the money over into the next year which is why the spend all of it. That changes when you pay athletes because schools are no longer non-profits and can roll money into the next year.

      What was his rebuttal about smaller schools?

      Response: Big schools already have the best programs, coaches, and facilities thats why they already attract the best players. Nothing changes in a world where you pay athletes.

      What was his rebuttal about other art programs and other programs needing to close down?

      Response: He said most schools can afford it anyway, but this argument is irrelevant anyway because athletic budgets are not allowed to spillover into academic budgets and even if they could most authors agree the way to supplement the increase in costs is to increase tuition.

      I literally showed that by paying athletes they would make less and would not have as much money because the scholarships provides them with more.

      Response: They would never make less because pro contends that even if they are taxed they still have a net sum gain and pro additionally contends that you can provide scholarships and pay them at the same time which you conveniently never address and continue your argument that you could only give a salary without a warrant/cited reason.

      You said my strongest point that only 23 schools out of 300 could pay athletes. Then you mention how Pro never addressed that point. So if only 23 colleges in the United States can afford to pay their students…..how does any of the “Pro’s” points matter?

      Response: Pro did address that point with 2 sources that say majority of programs have a surplus of funds. But if you read your source it only applies if you are paying a salary of >$65,000 but pro contends that you are going to pay a combination of scholarship and "minimum wage" which discredits the source as it is not applicable to pro's argument in this debate.

      Now let’s talk about the resolution some more.

      College Athletes – If there is no word existing that narrows it then it has too mean all. If the resolution was “Americans should pay taxes” and the pro only addressed people in California how would he win when there are 49 other states??

      Response: I came in with no preconceived notion as to if it meant every program. But again pro provided solid foundation that it you could pay a minimum wage and keep the scholarship and because you never addressed that argument it is pretty feasible to pay for every single sport in every school as your one source again talked about salaries over $65,000 and not a minimum wage argument which is far less expensive to implement.

      How did the “Pro” show how scholarships and a minimum wage can exist in schools that are not Division I football schools??

      He claimed it applies to the entire Division 1 and again this is refutation you never brought up in the debate, but an after the fact thought.

      You said you don’t see how paying a small fee would impact the schools yet you quoted the fact that my biggest point was that only 23 schools make money…So what about the other schools?? So you’re saying that a junior college would have no impact by needing to pay their athletes minimum wage on top of scholarships??

      Junior colleges were never mentioned by you or your opponent. I understand that you think D1 schools aren't representative of colleges in general, but you never substantiated this point ever in the debate. Just reading a source and saying only 23 schools don't make profit isn't effective refutation. You can't expect the judge or the audience to extrapolate your arguments for you.

      I am heated. You just gave him the “pro” this decision because he convinced you that some division I football programs might be able to pay their athletes.

      He didn't just do prove it for D1 football, he gave a legitimate system "minimum wage + scholarships" that you never addressed and continued to read your evidence about why $100,000 salaries don't work. Pro had a good case and you never effectively refuted it.

      Pro came with a much more substantiated case and was effectively able to explain why a system of paying athletes in general was feasible. You came prepared for a different case from the pro and unfortunately it didn't work out because he didn't advocate for a full salary. I've been in hundreds of high school debates and sometimes my opponents came better prepared and executed their strategy better. Hope this helps and provides a better perspective to my reasoning.

    • 2 years ago

      @singalport
      @singalport:
      1. Colleges are Non-Profit organizations. Paying athletes would not change the non-profit status. As I outlined in my opening Universities are not sports franchises they are academic for learning. They cannot change to for profit organizations.
      2. Once again you are only talking about football. The top schools in football are not the top schools in basketball, the top schools in basketball are not the top schools in baseball. It is why making this debate only about football programs is ridiculous.
      3. How did he show that you can pay college athletes and give scholarships at the same time? Please tell me where in the debate this was?
      4. I literally on three different occasions that the debate called for all athletes in all sports all of which was never refuted by the Pro.
      5. Junior Colleges were mentioned by me because I literally said All Athletes in All Colleges and yes Junior Colleges does fall into the category of All Colleges.
      6. If I say 23 out of 300 schools. Show a profit. And the rest can’t afford to pay. You’re saying that I needed to.
      7. I continuously said this debate was not about certain top schools but all schools and each time it went unrefuted…..
      8. And one more time at what point was the co-existence of minimum wage and scholarship shown to be able to co-exist.

    • 2 years ago

      @singalport And just FTR you can't read his source and pull more out of his source than what he said. Two times now you have quoted from me from his source instead of what he said in the debate. And that's why I hate providing sources to judges prior to their decision. Because they read the source and pull more information than what was said in the debate. Which is illegal in debate judging.

    • 2 years ago

      @liamm true or false if I say the resolution calls for him to prove all colleges and all athletes three separate times in the debate including in opening comments and he doesn’t refute that, does that not mean it stands.

    • 2 years ago

      @the_peoples_champ

      True, it stands he needs to do it. I think he does do it, or atleast to a sufficent barrier of plausibility for me to vote pro.

      i'd refer you to the video comment - he functionally does that, if you remove the word 'choice' the proof is made BECAUSE has arugments don't rely on that characterisation.

    • 2 years ago

      You know what my sticking point is. He only talks about Division I schools for Football.

      What about Division I basketball? Because those are different schools.

      What about Division I baseball? Because those are different schools?

      Division I football colleges shut out about 70% of all other colleges.

      And how can you reconcile that with the resolution?

  • 2 years ago
    • 2 years ago
    • 2 years ago
    • 2 years ago

      @tara_kade Thank you for going into more depth on some of those points and thank you for your adjudication this round!

    • 2 years ago
    • 2 years ago

      @tara_kade

    • 2 years ago

      @singalport

      1. In what way was it shown that scholarships and a minimum wage could co-exist.

      2. In what way was it shown that top athletes only go to certain schools? I ask because that is not true of college football. A point I would’ve rebutted if it had been brought up before the “Pro”s last turn.

    • 2 years ago

      @chandlebrowning
      I appreciate your efforts in trying to clarify each point so as to grow as a debater and I think it speaks very well to your personal character in the debate world. Having said that, I want to make sure I spend about the same amount of time here that I do on all other rounds I judge. And I want to make sure the debate is not continued here in the comment section. I believe you did a great job in this debate however I found your opponents overall argument stronger. My judgement on individual points does not change as I always make sure to carefully consider each before posting my initial judgement but hopefully I was able to clarify my reasoning in more detail in my first response. Once again, great job in this debate, thank you for taking the time to ask for clarification, and good luck in future debates!

  • 2 years ago
    • 2 years ago

      @benmouse42 thank you for the adjudication and the feedback!

    • 2 years ago

      @benmouse42 I really think some of the presuppositions this debate worked off of were lost on you.

      No offense but I don’t think you’re familiar with the NCAA so my first opening means nothing to you.

      I don’t think you are familiar with what Division 1 schools are so those points are lost on you.

      I just think if you unfamiliar with the American Collegiate system and the NCAA then most of my argument would make no sense.

      Two of my three arguments are “toothless” if there is no baseline of knowledge of collegiate athletics and the NFL.

      Like for example this debate made no sense to my wife who is from Germany. Because there all colleges are free and their soccer clubs are independent from schools.

      Especially because in your adjudication you referred to "their clubs" which leads me to believe you think this debate is whether college football players should be paid. Which is not what the resolution stated.

    • 2 years ago
    • 2 years ago

      @benmouse42 Thank You. @singalport this is the way you respond to someone who questions your judgment.

      I just heard it Ben, I don’t agree with your decision but I understand your way of thinking.

    • 2 years ago

      @the_peoples_champ don’t be ridiculous. I responded to every single question you posed. You lost the debate and it’s my job as a judge to provide a clear rational as to why. Privately messaging me or just reposting the same questions I already answered isn’t going to achieve anything. You got beat in this debate and the judges and audience agree on that.

    • 2 years ago

      @the_peoples_champ , I think you need to take a step back.

      @singalport's comments on this comment thread are exceptionally reasonable. I'm not one to critiscise hostility, but claiming that someone responded to your poorly, when ALL evidence identifies that they didn't - you should reconsider your actions.

    • 2 years ago

      @singalport I stand by my original statement you are the worse judge I’ve ever had and after this comment you left the most disrespectful.

    • 2 years ago

      @liamm you don’t know me, so please don’t talk to me like we’re cool or even acquaintances.

    • 2 years ago

      @the_peoples_champ I dont need to be 'cool' (lol) with you to identify that I think what you're saying in a QO forum is tbh, quite antisocial and needless. Like I said before, there's a difference between intensity and needlessly being rude.

      So, I'll see you around next time you comment like this - because, for as much as I dislike a lot of the judging styles on this site they dont deserve to lie about their conduct (disrespect, rudeness etc).

      :D

    • 2 years ago

      @liamm why are you doing injecting yourself into something that has nothing to do with you.

      Please mind your own business.

    • 2 years ago

      @the_peoples_champ Its discussion happening in a public forum - and I really like the QO community and don't understand why you're so upset, @singalport hasn't dont anything wrong.

      Either way, I'm done with this :))

    • 2 years ago

      @the_peoples_champ @qallout @yaz @gigi To be honest I take those comments pretty strongly. So if you are so confident you won this debate, I am willing to debate the exact same topic. You can have either side, doesn't matter to me. If you can beat me I will accept your criticism and apologize for my decision. If I win I would expect you apologize for your harsh critism. Sound fair in the QallOut spirit?

    • 2 years ago

      @singalport @the_peoples_champ I think this is a great way to settle this.

    • 2 years ago

      @chandlebrowning I don’t know how you settle that I feel he judged wrong by debating the same topic again.

      It’s not like if I win he can reverse his decision.

  • 2 years ago
  • 2 years ago

    That was so close.. it all came down to the community votes and completely divided the judges..

    @chandlebrowning Congrats for advancing to the Semi-Finals!

    @the_peoples_champ Soooo close...amazing debate!

    • 2 years ago

      A great debate @the_peoples_champ. I really enjoyed it!

      • 2 years ago

        @chandlebrowning it was a pleasure...

        • 2 years ago

          I want new standards for college athletes.

          They must be fully qualified college students taking college course work from DAY 1. If they need remedial math and English - they shouldn't be on a college sports team.

          If they are college students - they should be taking tough college classes - including tough college level math and science classes.

          A college should have the number of 'full ride scholarships' that they offer reduced for students that fail to get a college degree.

          There should be careful checks to make sure students are not taking easy/sleazy/no-show courses. There have been recent revelations that some colleges were 'pampering' basketball players with things like this - and worse! Discovery should result in severe sanctions, loss of ALL scholarships - effectively killing the ability of that college to compete in that sport for years!

          The model for the true Student Athlete - the service academies. Each student at West Point, the Naval or Air Force Academy has to meet the same basic academic standards to get in, and must graduate in 4 years (no Red-Shirt freshman and 5 years in college). Each student will take (or previously completed) 2 semesters of Calculus and 2 semesters of Chemistry in year 1, 2 semesters of Calculus and 2 semesters of Calculus based Physics in Year 2, 2 more 1 year classes in basic engineering fields....and this is required even of majors like English, Political Science, etc. Everyone gets a Bachelor of Science degree. I wonder how effective the other college teams would be if to compete - you had to meet that sort of REAL academic standard.

          Let the professional Basketball and Football teams run (and pay for) 'farm teams' - same as baseball. College athletes should be students first - athletes second.

        • 2 years ago

          CON's opening statement nails it, IMHO. If we pay student athletes - what will determine 'salaries'? Will men's sports get more money (after all, they have a bigger attendance draw)? What about sports other than the 'big draw' sports like football, basketball and baseball?

          PRO's statement about injuries might be a justification for ENDING sports in college, not paying students for participation.

          A number of big schools do make a lot of money on a few sports, but the vast number of colleges won't make large money and could not afford to pay the athletes.

          • 2 years ago

            @mvineyard it’s legitimately not possible to pay All college athletes unless a school cut every sport but their biggest draw.

            And the SEC would be the only conference who could pay their athletes.

          • 2 years ago

            @the_peoples_champ Yup....that is one of the reasons the resolution is ridiculous...and why I voted for your side.

            Lots of people are getting 'sported out' ....big expensive facilities, super high salaries for coaches, big focus on sports - and corruption rampant in how athletes are treated (and many 'graduate' without any real skills)....and this is at the collegate level.

            Then - add insult to injury - the pro sports - huge salaries, yet you have thugs and criminals, and those that disrespect our flag and national anthem - protesting what? (protesting stuff that is false?). And the cost to attend a NFL game is OUTRAGEOUS ...way beyond the ability of mere mortals to afford. Maybe it is time to give up watching lots of sports and spend more time with family, reading...even watching grass grow!

        • 2 years ago

          Both debaters are going great here. I'm going to keep my comments brief.

          Pro makes a decent ethical argument that students are deserving of pay. but Con gives us a wide range of practical problems that arise from doing that.

          Pro tries to limit the debate to top football schools, Con wants to broaden the debate to a wider definition. Neither really makes arguments why we should look at one or the other or a metric on how we decide who gets paid. that leaves me looking at this in a fairly broad way.

          And in that perspective, I think con's many disadvantages outweigh Pro's moral argument.

          I'd have liked to hear both sides spend some time responding to their opponent's claims, from pro, more rebuttal on the claimed harms and less minimization of scope. On Con, some response to pro's moral contention about all the effort and sacrifice students make as atheletes.

          • 2 years ago

            @sigfried I really was trying to keep the scope wide on this one, but with football being the largest college sport I tried to use it often due to its relateability. Also with my approach to this topic, the option to pay students would normally only apply to the larger sports like football in the first place.

        • 2 years ago

          Don't college athletes get scholarships? With the price of college today, not having to go into debt for the rest of your life is payment enough.

          • 2 years ago

            Hey guys. My name is Neal and I am a resident judge for QallOut. I thought this was a excellent debate, and your use of evidence was great. Before I post my final judgement I need to review a couple pieces of key evidence that was brought up throughout the debate.

            @chandlebrowning Could I please see the USA Today evidence that says 56% of D1 programs make a profit over $20M as well as Forbes saying the average profit for D1 school is $26M?

            @the_peoples_champ Could I please see that evidence that says only 23 schools are financially capable of paying athletes a salary?

            Thanks guys! I will post my verdict after both of you respond.

          • 2 years ago
            • 2 years ago

              @debateme13 Thank you so much for your response. I was about to write a response to @singalport but this video actually summed up the entire thing I was about to say, and for the record:

              - In my opening I identified the 16 different sports that LSU has that full under the term at LSU as “College Athletes”. I even went so far as to list out all 16 of the sports (2 minutes, 10 seconds into the debate). My exact words were, “So when the resolution calls for the paying of college athletes all students playing in these sports would be required to be paid. Not just the athletes of one or two sports”. After I said this the Pro did not debate me saying all college athletes in all college sports would need to be paid according to the resolution.

              At 24:07 I repeat again that his argument does not address the paying of the athletes of 16 sports.

              At 27:15 he brings up paying the football team.

              At 29:00 minutes in i once again bring up the resolution calls for All Student Athletes in All Sports to be paid.

            • 2 years ago

              @the_peoples_champ and just ftr, none of my comment is intended to influence the judges one way or the other. Each of the debaters had asked that I offer my thoughts so that’s all this was. I’m sure the judges will make excellent decisions whether they agree with my conclusion or not :)

            • 2 years ago

              @debateme13 I know, I know,

            • 2 years ago
          • 2 years ago

            @gigi looks like we are in need of some more judges :)