Concussions Will Lead To The Death Of The NFL and Football as We Know It

I want to start by thanking Pro for his previous round. ClarificationsFor this debate, the resolution is as follows: Concussions Will Lead To The Death Of The NFL and Football as We Know ItThere are two claims being made in this resolution: 1) Concussions will lead to the death of the NFL, and 2) Concussions will lead to the death of Football as we know it. These claims carry two separate burdens that Pro must fulfill in order to win this debate. This is because the National Football League and Football itself are two very different things, and Pro is affirming the motion that concussions will lead to the death of both. So if he only proves one or the other, but not both, he would fail to uphold his full burden and thus rightfully lose the debate. On the flip side, as Con, I must negate his arguments. It is not necessary for me to present my own counter-arguments since Pro is the one affirming the speculative claim, I must merely show the faults in his own claims and if I do so successfully, I rightfully win. Rebuttals I. The MediaPro stated:"If the information and research continues to trend negatively as concussions in football lead to very extreme health complications for athletes later in life then don"t be surprised if advertisers, investors and Networks slowly shy away from football out of concerns with being associated with a potentially dangerous and reckless organization."Essentially, Pro is arguing that poor press (such as concussions) is bad for business, and if something is bad for business, then it needs to change. The problem with this line of argumentation is that is it based on nothing more than speculation and unrelated occurrences. The key part of his argument here is "then don't be surprised if". Unless Pro can show that there are major advertisers *already* pulling out of the NFL due to the concussion issue, then this argument has no place in this debate, nor does it give any weight to Pro's position since it is nothing but speculation and "what ifs". Another issue I see is that Pro relied on examples of famous athletes who've lost sponsors like Nike due to bad press. The problem is that these examples are not applicable to the scope of our debate since we aren't talking about sponsor/player dynamics, but rather sponsor/league dynamics. I've yet to see any major reports of these top sponsors pulling out of the entire league, as a whole, for some concussion issue. Unless Pro can provide substantial evidence showing otherwise, these examples, like his main argument, have no place here in this debate, nor do they serve to strengthen his position regarding the league as a whole. Ultimately, the argument itself is based on nothing more than speculation, with the speculation itself being miscorrectly justified via sponsor/player dynamics rather than sponsor/league dynamics, and hence falls short of meeting the burden on Pro.II. Liability SuitsPro stated:"My prediction for the future is that as more information comes out and if it revels even more conclusively that football is directly related to health complication then future plaintiffs will look to see it threw the court system. If players start winning judgments it will put great pressure on the insurance industry."Again, Pro relies a "prediction", i.e., speculation. Since Pro wishes to turn his BOP into what is more likely to happen or not, then I'd simply argue that it's more likely than not that the NFL is already involved in reducing the occurrences of concussions. If you think for a second that a business that had to shell out a billion dollars isn't taking measure to avoid having to do that again, then you are mistaken...Not only has the NFL already created a new "return-to-play" policy for players who've suffered from concussions, which serves to protect the returning players even more, [1] but they've also got the National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment (NOCSAE) to approve a new testing standard for football helmets which specifically caters to concussion prevention. [2] What this means is that the NFL is *already* taking steps in the right direction, it's *already* changing the standards of practice it uses for both the equipment and health policies, and through it all, we've yet to see the death of the NFL or Football as we know it. We already saw the rules change to help better protect players in 2010, and yet nothing about that change gives off the slightest implication that the death of the NFL or Football as we know it is imminent. In regards specifically to Pro's insurance concerns, the NFL has it's own insurance benefit program for players. So it's not like all these "insurance companies" would even be part of the picture here. The benefits and coverage specifically includes: Long-term disability insurance, life insurance, and accidental death insurance, among the 20 other benefits which can all be seen here:http://www.nfl.com...What's even more important to note is that the key parts of those benefits, such as Long-term disability insurance, are actually paid in full by the NFL. Which can be seen at the bottom of the page in the link I shared next to the asterisk. So the entire insurance argument from Pro stands defeated since I've now given evidence which shows that such issues are actually not an issue at all in the NFL. III. Parent's don't let kids playI don't think this is a legitimate argument for several reasons. First off, a majority of the best players come from low-income living environments. From a socioeconomic point of view, sports can be seen as an opportunity for youth in ghettos to find success in life. I've rarely ever heard such concerns coming from the parents of those children. A majority of these fears manifest themselves in the parents of middle and upper-class sports players, who have the luxury of caring about such things. In regards to who makes it in the NFL, a vast majority aren't raised in those middle and upper class families. So, immediately we can see that this argument falls short of covering the entire scope of the parent/safety issue and actually just appeals to a certain demographic found within the scope of youth football. To a majority of the lower-class parents, they are more concerned with their little boy getting into the NFL and making millions.Secondly, I can't even find any studies which support your 90,000 brain injuries claim. I'd ask that you present some valid evidence supporting the truth value of this claim, otherwise, it's nothing more than a made-up number you just felt like sharing to drive your point home. In another football debate I did, which can be seen here: http://www.debate.org... showed how there are numerous pads and a vast range of protective gear that are specifically tailored for the defensive needs of children. At the end of the day, Pro can share as many horror stories as he wants to, in regards to sporting injuries, autopsy findings, etc., but none of it serves to prove what he needs to prove to win this debate, which is that concussions will lead to the death of the NFL and Football as we know it. In closing, Up to this point of the debate, Pro has done nothing but rely on speculation, predictions, emotional appeals, unsourced studies, and misplaced examples. All of which serves no purpose in helping him meet the Burden of Proof that comes with the resolution he's affirming. I've not only rebutted each of the three arguments raised by Pro, but I additionally showed how the NFL is already changing to help protect players from concussions, and how such changes have not led, nor will lead, to the death of either the NFL or Football as we know it. As it stands now, the resolution is negated. I now return the floor to Pro. Thank you. Sources[1] http://static.nfl.com...[2] http://www.usatoday.com...