On balance, public subsidies for professional athletic organizations in the United States benefit th

So my road map goes as followed: 1) I will review the attacks on my case 2) Second I will review why my opponent has failed to successfully defend their case 1) The PRO side attacked my contention one which is the fact that These subsidies create a lot of debt. Well my opponent seems to be absolutely fixated on the fact that the Dallas cowboys created 4000 jobs and that is why these subsidies are so fantastic, but lets keep in mind that only 72 of which are full time and have an average annual salary of $354,000 dollars. While the rest of the 3,928 are part time and only work about 26 days out of the year with an average salary of $400 while working for this organization. IN this contention I go onto use the very same organization "Dallas Cowboys" and state how the total debt that the new Cowboy's stadium caused is $321.5 million, and every single penny of that is the communities and in that same Contention I stated that according to Bloomberg this debt will only grow because stadiums require an average of another $146 million dollars annually in order to maintain these stadiums again coming from these tax payers. So it is for these reasons that in this aspect the CON has swept the debate because I have showed how only false positives are created with these Subsidized stadiums. Not to mention the debt that these subsidies create for an already weak economy. 2) moving on tho the attacks the pro made on CON's contention 2... which is: They don't bolster economies The PRO never directly attacks besides one indirect time saying "that these job loses that the CON brings up in his Contention 1 and 2 don't happen because sports players and teams pay extra taxes." Well this argument is pathetic because how can we really believe for example again i will use the "Dallas Cowboys", to fully payback a subsidy in which is three times their total payroll because they pay higher taxes. The answer, they wont because I guarantee you they are not charging their players 300% in taxes. So it is the real truth that these subsidies will not be paid back. And just to show the judge I would like to reiterate that these subsidies are directly correlated to job loss in the community by providing the following statistics that were mentioned in my Contention 2 that the pro never looked at. "An article on sfgate.com stated, "A $19 billion subsidy is planned to be paid...by cutting as many as 700 librarians and 300 police officers." An article on the Illinois News Bureau said that a study done by sports economist Brad Humphreys and his colleague Dennis Coates revealed the statistical negative impacts on the local economy. Some of these are an average net loss of 1,924 jobs and a reduction in wages at restaurants and bars." It is for the reason that CON wins this portion of the debate because it was not directly attacked (KEEP IN MIND PRO IF YOU DO ATTACK MY C2 IN THE THIRD AND FINAL ROUND YOUR POINT WILL NOT COUNT BECAUSE I CANNOT REBUT IT) And I brought up why the pro sides indirect attack was illogical therefore we cannot heavily weigh it in the outcome of the debate. 3) moving on to my contention 3 which is: Sports dont need subsidies. My opponent is critical of my evidence saying one of the teams I used "the Great lake Loons" was too small of an example because the cost for the team wasn't large enough. But it is simple logic that bigger teams have more money and are able to pay for themselves especially if the small teams can. And If a team cant pay for it's self why are we wasting millions and millions of dollars to foot the bill when we will not see any benefits. It is for that reason that my contention as well still flows throughout the round. Given that my opponent failed to sufficiently attack all three of my contentions and in this aspect I have one this debate. Moving on to my opponents rebuttals The PRO that my entire case is not topical because I designed it for privately funded stadiums. But it seems they does not understand the arguments purpose which is: to show The Fact That all of These stadium will produce the same results and that privately funded stadiums will produce even better results because they won't have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars back before earning profit. The PRO even concedes that all of his points are found and excel in privately funded stadiums. So why would we spend hundreds of millions of dollars in tax payer to receive benefits, when we can just let a company build a stadium themselves and receive the same benefits with out debt. (The Pro seems to agree with the point i'm making) Given that my Opponent concedes that his whole case will be better supported with privately stadiums litterally his WHOLE case turns into an advocate in the CON favor. Given this His contentions 1,2,3, and 4 (ALL of THEM) fall for his argumentative purpose and stand tall for mine. I will now move on to his point that: THE GOVERNMENT CAN TAKE LAND. Well we must look at the fact that they have to get permission from the owners of the land prior to taking it. And this is a liberty that private stadiums also have SO HIS ENTIRE CONTENTION 4 FALLS. And to respond to my opponent saying I didn't support why these subsidies are bad for a community. I would like to say You should read my case again because there are plenty of reasons provide throughout the case. *CONCLUSION* So to conclude my speech I would like to point out that I have pointed out that the only result of subsidies, are negative ones that result in Job loss, And large amounts of debt. All of which can be avoided when teams pay for their own stadiums. It is for the reasons that the PRO FAILED to attack my case in a sufficient manor and the fact that the PRO also CONCEDED their ENTIRE case to my point that if Privately funded stadiums can do it we should not subsidize. And last but not least My contentions 1,2, and 3 still stand and my opponents Contentions 1,2, and 3 fall to the CONs side of this debate that the only reasonable vote is in the negation VOTE NEG!!!