Athletes are paid higher salaries than teachers because they serve to maintain the status quo

Catapulting Carcasses - the Status QuoI'm not understanding my opponent's complaints. My opponent has not made explicit arguments as to whether or not the status quo is what he defines it to be, and I've made no arguments to reject his definition (given round 2). If anything, my opponent, having defined status quo in round 2, is the one guilty of late definition. Nowhere in my previous round or in any of my rounds after my opponent's definition have I made any premises against my opponent's asserted status quo. That my opponent even dares to try snipe the conduct point in such a way is extremely gross. I'll just put a lid on the matter and move on to refutations. Beheading the Hydra:My opponent attempts to refute my argument on teacher's SQ influence by claiming that my arguments only pertain to value:Pro: "are teachers deemed more valuable (not more influential) than athletes"He ignores that my argument actually pertains to teachers' influence on SQ, and then proceeds to make a value argument in favor of athletes: Pro: "The question of value, in regard to monetary worth, is made evident by the differentiation in salary. "Let us relate this back to the resolution. My opponent is basically saying that athletes are paid more than teachers in order to maintain SQ because of the large salaries of individual athletes versus those of teachers. In short. athletes are paid more because they are paid more. This argument is incredibly circular and is a poor attempt at refuting teachers' causing greater maintenance of SQ (it it exists ;)). The syllogism (the premise being argued simplified):P1: If teachers maintain SQ more than athletes, then the reason athletes have higher salaries cannot be to maintain SQ. P2: Teachers maintain SQ more than athletes (nothing to do with value, but everything to do with influence). C: Athletes do not have higher salaries in order to maintain SQ. I've proven P2, and my opponent, in an attempt to disprove it, resorts to an irrelevant and circular refutative argument. Unnecessary Riposte:In the United States, there is an estimate of about 3.7million teachers[1] paid to engage in classroom education in elementary and post-secondary schools (excludes other teachers, but let's ignore that for the sake of simplicity). The average teacher's salary in the United States is $44413.8571[2] (calculated by taking the average of the teachers' combined salaries). The total average salaryof teachers is $164.331271 billion dollars or about $164 billion (I rounded down, how generous! :D)Also in the United States, there are about 14,900 jobs for athletes and sports competitors[3] (includes the ones who aren't as successful as, say, Michael Jordan). Their average salary is $40,060[3] (that's even less than teachers'! !). Their total salary is $596,894,000 or about $600 million (I rounded up, how generous! :D)The total salary of athletes & sports competitors is a mere 0.36% of that of teachers. Even in terms of value (irrelevant), my opponent's argument fails. There are about 250 times more teaching jobs than athletes and sports competitor jobs in the U. S. , and the median salary of teachers is greater. You shouldn't have attempted that value argument. :DCatching Shotgun Bullets (like a boss! ):PRO: "athletes serve multi-faceted roles. "Response: As I've said in previous rounds, any facet other than S&D and profit are simply haphazard theories. Furthermore, as mentioned before, athletes may serve certain roles, but that is no indicative of these roles being intended. Intent ! = result. PRO: "Is it unreasonable for the focus of the public to be swayed in favor of those who can put a ball in a hoop, a puck in a net, or a golf ball in a hole moreso than toward the intention and ability of education and teacher's respectively? That is the crux of the debate and a question I will leave to be answered by the reader. "Response: Not at all good sir. It would be the crux of our debate if our debate were about leisure or escapism. It is not. The resolution can be affirmed or negated with or without a contention of leisure. Even if weighed, this point of contention holds little to no weight in this debate. PRO: [Some point on materialism]Response: Irrelevant to maintaining SQ, but I love semantics! ! The word 'materialistic' is defined to be "excessive concern with physical comforts or [. .]". Since nothing is inherently necessary (simple conclusion if you question a thing's importance unto the point of infinite regression), everything is excessive. Thus, any concern with physical comfort, no matter how minor, is excessive. Thus, all humans who try to make themselves feel more comfortable (i. e. even something as trivial as sitting down), is materialistic. Thus the conclusion that humans are generally materialistic. But as previously concluded, the definition of SQ is irrelevant to whether or not there is an intended maintenance of SQ. PRO: ". . materialism. .caused by someone else's desire to maintain SQ? "Basically, my opponent is questioning whether maintenance and promotion of the statuis quo can cause or influence the adoption of materialistic qualities amongst the general public or 'masses'. Response: Wrong, I am questioning whether or not there is a desire to maintain SQ. As I've pointed out many times, the profit incentive and S&D are sufficient in explaining the rationale of those operating the gears of capitalism. PRO: "CompetitionI view this to be a concession as competition was one of the components detailed in the definition of SQ Accepted by my opponent. "Response: No concession at all. I did not contend your definition of status quo. I did not choose to as my premises do not depend on such a contention. PRO: "Self-serving Narcissism"Response:Are selfies absolute indicatives of narcissism? Is it narcissistic to take selfies? I have shown that the sports world very explicitly favors 'humble' players and derogatorily defames the 'cocky' players. That 'narcissism' and other such negatively connoted words are, by nature of their existence, powerful indicatives of society's disfavoring overbearance, but I'll leave that to the reader. PRO: "Can you imagine a college professor doing a “touchdown dance” after giving a particularly good lecture? "Response: Irrelevant, but funny to picture. PRO: "willingly sells his services to the highest bidder"Response: That's just how capitalism works. Manifestations of capitalism has nothing to do with the resolution. :)PRO: "To suggest that P. E. teachers impact student aspirations to be sports stars and and their desire to put sports ahead of education"Response: Ultimately irrelevant. There are many factors to sports aspirations (personal interest in athletics, innate athletic capabilities. personal interest in sports, the potential of wild success to name a few). To suggest that athletes only aspire to be athletes for money or to maintain SQ (the latter being more ridiculous) is suspect and disingenuous. :)PRO: " I have yet to see a little leaguer in an advertisement or endorsing wheaties. "Response: Little leaguers supply the game. They don't supply the athletics. Obviously little leaguers are less in demand athletically because they simply don't supply the athletics that pro-athletes can. S&D. As an analogy to your refutation: You might as well refute the demand for iPhones by referencing the disproportionately lower demand for these:. http://www.debate.org...;PRO: "My opponent seems to be arguing that athletes are marketed against their will or forced to give endorsements. This is not the case. "That is indeed not the case. I'm simply relating your spiel on marketing to the resolution: it does not refute any of my premises nor does it support the resolution in that it does not affirm the existence of an intent to maintain SQ. My opponent seems to be trying to affirm. It doesn't matter how well my opponent can show that athletes maintain SQ (if at all), if he cannot show that athletes are paid in order to maintain SQ, then he does not affirm the resolution. The resolution necessarily requires my opponent to establish that SQ maintenance is intended. He has not done so, and the marketing spiel does not do so either. PRO: "". .capitalist ideology. . "Actually, capitalism is an offshoot of feudalism. "Response: Cool. PRO: ". ."perceived. .. effect. . "I suppose that profit is why the athletes are required to wear formal attire and stand in support of the national anthem too. They could not be promoting the status quo. "Response: Wait, nationalism was part of SQ? That was not part of my opponent's definitions! Rejected! ;DPRO: "My opponent is attempting to relate early agrarian socities or the 'capitalist founding' to today's corporatocracy and emerging global economy. While their are some similarities, the strategies of control used by today's elite are much more far reaching. "Response: Actually, this reference to agrarian capitalism was a response to my opponent's assertion that "monetary profit is the goal of capitalism" (along with classism, self-serving narcissism, etc. . SQ in short). Only those who first implemented capitalism (agrarian societies) know why they did so. SummaryI believe I've shown that teachers serve to maintain SQ more so than athletes. Thus, I've proven that SQ maintenance cannot be the reason some athletes are paid way more than the average teacher as was required. I've shown that my opponent has not established intent. That is, even if athletes maintain SQ, their salaries haven't been shown to be high in order to maintain SQ. My opponent fails his burden of proof. Again, I extend thanks to my opponent for a stimulating debate. Vote CON! :D[1] . http://nces.ed.gov...;[2] . http://www.payscale.com...;[3] . http://www.bls.gov...;