The Olympic Games should be abolished

Thanks for the response, Pro.Onto the debate...Refutations1. The Olympics hurt the economy.This is basically what the point is all about. I will refute this in two ways.A) Logically FlawedIf these Olympics were so costly as my opponent suggests, why would cities even bother hosting them? If they could not create significant revenue, then why do cities in countries vie and fight to be the hosting city? At a logical standpoint, this seems to make no sense.B) Lack of Credible EvidenceMy opponent claims to offer "recent figures." Shortly after, he states figures from the 1984 Olympics with no sources for this argument. With no source, please disregard this "recent" evidence.Furthermore, the 1984 Olympics was actually an interesting sports event to mention.It is true that before 1984, the Olympics were known for serious economic issues, economic issues that no longer existed past that year. "After the serious economic problems caused by the 1976 Olympics in Montreal, the 1984 Olympic Games saw, for the first time ever, corporate sponsors for the Games. In this first year, the Games had 43 companies who were licensed to sell "official" Olympic products. Allowing corporate sponsors caused the 1984 Olympic Games to be the first Games to turn a profit ($225 million) since 1932." [1] (also mentioned but not quoted in [2])So, in actuality, the Olympics of 1984 were the first Olympics to generate a profit by having corporate sponsors. Now, I'd like to further refute this point with even more evidence. I'm not going to cite a recent event but site something that hasn't even happened. Let's take a look at the 2012 Olympics which will be hosted in London. "Pundits predict a peak in labour demand in 2011. There will be a need for 2.8m people who work in the construction industry across the UK." [2]2,800,000 jobs willbe created as a result of the 2012 Olympics. Just imagine America getting all those jobs!At a a more monetary outlook..."Londoners will contribute £625m to the Olympic and Paralympic Games." [2]The government doesn't have to pay for all the money for the games. The public helps support the event, too."Revenue from tourists attracted by the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games are forecast to add up to an additional £2.1bn." [2]According to the London Councils 2012 Team (cited from source 2), 2.1 billion Euros will be the monetary gain for the 2012 Olympics. Easily, that's a lot of money."The London Olympics will generate £10bn in revenue for the British economy as a whole." [2]Minus the labor costs, the construction, and everything else that goes into the Olympics, the total gain will still be a hefty sum. Of course the government will have to spend money to pay for the Olympics, but in the end, there will be a large economic gain.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2. It will hurt the environment.Quick summary of the second assertion. This is flawed for several reasons.A) Lack of EvidenceI doubt whether this actually happens. My doubts are not reassured due to my opponent's lack of credible evidence. He merely makes the assertion that pollution will occur, yet there is nothing to support this claim.B) Never Actually HappenedSimilar to A in the concept that this never occurred. However, there is evidence that polluted governments have taken steps to rid their cities of pollution. Let's examine the 2008 Beijing Olympics.In China, a large number of cars were banned (3.3 million), construction was halted, and many dozens of factories were closed [3]. Soon, the Chinese citizens could see the sky, as their pollution efforts were helping, and their air levels were in line with Olympic rules. Furthermore, the Beijing government expanded its transportation program and was still able to generate revenue off the Olympics. [4]C) SolutionsMy opponent even offers solutions to the above problem. He states, however, that such efforts would cost the government even more money. As I have disproved his claim regarding a weakened economy, the monetary expenditures will not significantly harm the country so much as to turn a surplus in Olympic revenue into a deficit. Let us also realize that many families don't drive in cars halfway across continents to view the Olympics. For example, no one will be able to drive to the London 2012 Olympics (if they don't live in England). This so-called "huge" carbon emission will be nonexistent, as the cars that come to view the Olympics won't burn a lot of fuel as they drive.Locals can walk, but that's a miniature sidenote.Let us mainly realize that not everyone in the world is going to be visiting the Olympics. Those that come on planes won't negatively affect the atmosphere as this pollution would occur regardless of the Olympics. Let's look at the 2008 Olympics."The competition venues received 2,975 athletes and 1,853 team officials from the 888 participating teams, as well as 2,087 technical officials, 186,037 spectators, 4,750 VIPS and 6,455 journalists. The Olympic Green received approximately 40,000 visitors yesterday." [5]Not many people actually went to visit the Beijing Olympics. Well, not as many as my opponent would suggest. As you can see, there really won't be a huge environmental impact.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3. Terrorism.Short and sweet. Terrorism. Now, my opponent cites a credible event, but one that is not very recent. He cites the "aptly-named" 1972 Munich Massacre, a massacre in which 17 died.With the advancements in technology and security, the chance of something like this ever occurring is miniscule.An Israeli athletic team was taken hostage by the Palestinian group Black September and were later killed.Let me shed light on this unfortunate event."The absence of armed security guards had worried Israeli delegation head Shmuel Lalkin even before his team arrived in Munich. In later interviews with journalists Serge Groussard and Aaron Klein, Lalkin said that he had also expressed concern with the relevant authorities about his team's lodgings. They were housed in a relatively isolated part of the Olympic Village, in a small building close to a gate, which he felt made his team particularly vulnerable to an outside assault." [6]The likelihood of another Munich Massacre is next to nothing. My opponent hypothetically suggest that 9/11 will occur but in an Olympic stadium. With an Olympic event, security will be heavily on duty, making sure to stop all potential threats. Few predicted 9/11 would happen and it came as a surpris. Even terrorists are smart enough to realize that attacking such an international event would be silly.My opponent further offers a solution. Bump up security. But he believes there is again this issue with money. Security has been bumped up for years for the Olympic Games, and nations have still been able to make a profit, as I have shown.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------So tell me. Who benefits from all of this?Who benefits from these games? The spectators! The millions of people who either attend the actual venue or watch the games on television! The athletes! They flaunt their skills and compete in an international competition, one that bonds the world! The children! Children are motivated to attend the Olympic Games. For many, this is a lifelong dream. Everyone benefits.Sources:1. http://history1900s.about.com...2. http://www.londonoutloud.co.uk...3. http://www.treehugger.com...4. http://en.wikipedia.org...5. http://en.beijing2008.cn...6. http://en.wikipedia.org...