Beijing Olympics 2008 will not change India....

My opponent argues that the 2008 Beijing Olympics will not change India.I negate this. Let me start by responding to my opponent's claims. My opponent first points out that he doubts that India will ever perform as well as the US or China. This is mere speculation, and I believe I will address it properly by addressing the numbered points my opponent lists. My opponent's first numbered claim is that most people from India are only interested in cricket. This is currently true, but the success of India in some Olympic sports has opened up new avenues. Cricket is currently still largely thought to be the only sport that is worth the time in India. Being able to perform well on the world stage at the Olympics, however, has now been shown to be quite possible for Indians. This is proof that these other sports are not a waste of time, and it serves as a heavy incentive for people to take up these new sports. As a cricketer, one can only gain national acclaim. However, in these Olympic sports, an athlete can gain the admiration of the world. Knowing that this is not out of reach for Indians as it was once thought to be, more Indians are and will be taking up new sports. While Cricket may remain the dominant sport of India, it follows logically that the people thereof will become more interested in other sports. My opponent's second listed claim is that the Indian government does not support other sports. While this may be true, the people's views about other sports will trickle up to the government. Even if not, the government need not change for the country to change - a change on the individual level is sufficient to negate the resolution. Third on my opponent's list of points is that even talented athletes often do not take up sports due to the insecurity of sports. However, some athletes do take up careers in sports. I am not charged with showing that a large variety of sports will all of a sudden become massively popular. I am charged with showing that some amount of change will occur due to the 2008 Olympic Games and India's success therein. While most people who have talent in sports won't seek a career in sports, some will, and some will seek a career in Olympic sports due to India's recent success. We're not talking about a complete transformation, we're talking about just a little change. The change will propagate itself and have more and more of an effect over time. A little change now has huge effects in the long run - this is known as the butterfly effect. Fourth, my opponent brings up 'financial crisis.' Literally, all he says is "Financial crisis is yet another important factor." Financial crisis seems to be the reason people don't take up sports all that often, which was covered in point 3. This is not a new point. Even if it were, it is stated as a mere observation, with no conclusion to support my opponent's argument. Fifth, and last, my opponent notes that education [productivity] is the main focus of a child's upbringing, rather than sports or the arts [entertainment]. This is simply another premise from which point #3 was born. For the same reasons I stated in response to point 3, kids will still be more interested in these Olympic sports, and at least a few people will take up these sports seeking the Olympic glory their fellow countrymen have achieved. I am not claiming that sports will instantly become wildly popular, but a wider array of sports will become SLIGHTLY more popular. This small change today could shape the entire future of India, just as a butterfly fluttering its wings can affect the weather in huge ways. My opponent closes by saying that India can NEVER prosper in sports besides cricket. This is assuming people with static minds and a government with fixed ideals. Both have the capability to be changed, and even a small change due to Beijing Olympics 2008 negates the resolution. And like I said, a small change can lead to much bigger changes as well.