The NCAA punishments for Penn State were too harsh

(For Koopin)Final round, i'll skip all the formalities and just begin. "Pro: I am agreeing with the quote. Of course she is not a representative of the people who were raped, but she is still a person and she can voice her opinion. "My attack is not on the quote, it is on the quote's use. Pro even states it's HER OPINION. He never gives any insight past the two words "I agree" and simply uses the quote as an argument. So what if one person dislikes a punishment? An opinion isn't relevant in this debate unless it is a substantial overview of the punishments, which in this case, it is not. "Now for the unjust part of my debate (yes, I saved it at the end for everyone to remember. )"The final round is the round for rebuttals, not new argumentation, sorry but anything you say past this point shouldn't be counted as it violates the rules of debate on DDO. "Dave Sirin says " Take a step back from the hysteria and just think about what took place: Penn State committed no violations of any NCAA bylaws. There were no improper payments of "student athletes," no cheating on tests, no improper phone calls, no using cream cheese instead of butter on a recruit's bagel, or any of the Byzantine minutiae that fills the time sheets that justify Mark Emmert's $1.6m salary. "What Penn State did was commit horrific violations of criminal and civil laws, and they should pay every possible price for shielding Sandusky. This is why we have a society with civil and criminal courts. Instead we have Mark Emmert inserting himself in a criminal matter and acting as judge, jury and executioner, in the style of NFL commissioner Roger Goodell". "Not your voice, no insight to the argument, and no justification of the quote. So your telling me rape is not against NCAA rules? I'm pretty sure if a college player (or coach) raped someone they would be expelled at the very minimum. Are you telling the judges the NCAA allows for sexual abuse and rape? Also, on a side note, this in no way is the NCAA taking the case into their own hands, as con stated, the case is already underway in a CRIMINAL JUSTICE COURT. The NCAA must punish the school involved however for it's mishandling of the situation. Joe Paterno gets punished for protecting someone from getting hurt and Mark Emmert is acting like he is God. You might as well prosecute Batman. A weak argument, my opponent is saying Paterno is protecting someone from getting hurt? HE LIED AND COVERED UP THE ABUSE FOR OVER 20 YEARS (Over 5 years after Sandusky left) Read Cons case. "Lets say a big sport at your high school is basketball. It would be like if your basketball player shot ten people in fifteen years and some of the gym teachers don't peep. The basketball coach is finally prosecuted and so are the other teachers. Now, you're fines are a four year season ban, $60 million dollar fine, loss of scholarships to go to college, and the basketball coach has a no win streak. The governor decides this. Your basketball coach can't stand up to himself because he is dead of cancer. It affects you and many, many more people. "An example with no justification, no relatability, and no insight by my opponent (meaning correlation). But, let's go ahead and refute this entire "argument".1) The NCAA ISNT PUNISHING AN INDIVIDUAL STUDENT, RATHER A UNIVERSITY2) The Punishment is completely justified, as the school DID violate NCAA rules and regulatios3) The evidence against Joe Paterno and all of Penn State is massive, nothing could change it, he knew, yet he kept quiet.4) THE FOOTBALL PLAYERS AT PENN STATE CAN LEAVE AND GO TO ANOTHER COLLEGE. Seriously, what is stopping them? In fact, many Football players have already left Penn State. [1]CONCLUSIONPro fails to uphold his burden of proof, rather contorting the resolution to simply citing quotes from people of little relevance to the actual resolution. Pro fails to use the term Unjust in a meaningful way, and has failed to prove the punishments are unjust. Pro also fails to abide by the rules of the Debate, in no way using the definition of justice as stated in round 1. [1] . http://www.sbnation.com...