College athletes should not be paid.

First, I will defend my statements, and then I will refute my opponent's cases. My opponent says that just because sports are a way to advertise for a school, that they are just as important as academics. I would like to remind him of something he still hasn't responded to. Sports ultimately don't matter. At the end of the day, all that matters is what contributions the college makes to the world. Additionally, my opponent's argument against paying the "students that are making a difference" is that they are otherwise benefiting because of the money the sports programs bring in, but that is not a fair statement. For starters, I have already showed con that 90% of athletic programs lose money, which I will certainly come back to later in the my statement. Also, con has no evidence that other students are "benefiting from this pay" the way that they should be. My opponent maintains that athletes have the tougher time because they have to juggle academics and sports and that they cannot get a full time job, so they should get paid. I remind con that OTHER sports, whose athletes WOULDN'T get paid, also have to do this! And added to that, students that are on scholarship have tutors and other resources available to them for free that other non-athlete students, and athletes that are not a part of football or basketball, would not have. I contend that the argument that says "athletes should get paid because they don't have time to have a job" has been completely disproven at this point for a few reasons. -If you are going to give SOME athletes compensation for the fact that they can't get a job, you have to give it to ALL of the hard working athletes with long hours, ie swimmers, volleyball players, etc. My opponent needs to respond in respect to the fact that other sports require grueling hours, and that they would not be compensated AT ALL in many cases. I understand that you think that they would get less money, but often they would get absolutely none. -Athletes that would get paid (football, basketball players) are provided with tutors and stuff of the sort for free if they are on scholarship, and if they need it. Swimmers, because they are likely not given as much scholarship money, do not have that luxury, and as STUDENT ATHLETES THAT JUGGLE BOTH SCHOOL WORK AND THEIR SPORT, they wouldn't be getting compensated. Also, non-athletes would not be provided with the free tutoring that "major" athletes are given. -Scholarships. I will give specifics on this later. -My opponent doesn't address the fact that, with con's logic, because they are unable to get jobs, students should ALSO be compensated. -The fact that because high school students are also forfeiting the opportunity to get a job, under con's logic, they would additionally need to be compensated. I will come back to this later in my argument. Because of all these reasons, the argument that the athletes in big sports (football, basketball) should be paid on basis of the fact that they cannot get a job does not hold any weight. There are plenty of others in the same situation that wouldn't be getting compensated for their lack of a job, so this argument does not make sense. My opponent also concedes the fact that it doesn't matter what percentage of students are getting athletic scholarships, because we are only talking about athletes. My opponent says that just because writing for the school newspaper doesn't make as much money, that students shouldn't be paid for it in his scenario. However, they ARE making money for the school, and by the logic of his argument that "they make revenue for the school, so they deserve a cut," other students should be paid all the same. Academics are important too. I'd like to point out that my opponent did not once use the word "scholarship" in the last round, even though I provided substantial evidence that the students in football and basketball and other sports where the students would get paid ALREADY are compensated in their scholarships. And in addition to that, because they are getting compensated and swimmers are not, why should football players deserve more money in replacement for a job? They are already essentially getting paid. Because I have used trusted sources to show that students that would be getting paid under con's plan (football and basketball players) are already getting paid, it is necessary for my opponent to provide a counter argument, or the point goes to pro. I am quite confused what con means when he says that high school students cannot maintain jobs! It is a FACT that many high school students have part time jobs. Because high school athlete's inability to get one of these jobs, shouldn't they TOO be compensated? If they bring in money, they deserve a piece of the pie. My opponent says that my statistics fail to take into account the advertising the athletic departments bring in, but uses no evidence to back up the claim. Additionally, because that theoretical money would be coming in from advertising, they could not have it specifically earmarked to pay athletes. If there were money there, the money would be going back into the school somehow, and it is quite doubtful that the athletes would ever get any of it anyway. Now that I have defended my cases, I shall refute my opponent's. My opponent does not address my assertion that it is not an illegal boycott being made, and that it is just a rule. Also, con does not address the fact that because sports are an extracurricular, it is the athlete's choice to do it or not. They go into the season not expecting to be paid, and because of that, it shouldn't be considered a job. My opponent then uses an EXTREME hyperbolic statement that I do not appreciate. "However if a serial killer where to kill someone and not be caught would that change the fact that it is not illegal? Absolutely not! Just because something is happening that is illegal doesn't mean that it should continue happening!" And I'm not doing this to correct con's spelling, but just to clarify, the statement should read "However if a serial killer [were] to kill someone..." His argument that compares a serial killer to the NCAA is preposterous. Obviously, if we knew where the serial killer was, we would arrest them! You cannot compare a serial killer to the current status of not paying student athletes. OBVIOUSLY, it would be wrong to not imprison a serial killer, con... but you cannot make a comparison between the two situations. The NCAA has made this rule in broad daylight, and it is widely accepted as an approved practice. So please, refrain from comparing "A person who attacks and kills victims one by one in a series of incidents"(1) to the people that monitor college sports. Because of all these reasons, I urge a vote for pro. (1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...