The Redskins ought to lose games and play for a 1st round draft pick.

We are debating "The Redskins ought to lose games and play for a 1st round draft pick." My opponent seems to go off-topic frequently into debates of whether the Redskins are good or bad as a team. ===== His Case ===== C1: Jim Zorn A. Jim Zorn hasn't done bad like PRO claims he has. His 1st season they went 8 and 8 which, statistically is what would be expected from the average coach. His 2nd season isn't even half over and PRO concedes this is because of the offensive line. I don't know what he is basing this idea that Zorn should be fired on. Just extend the evidence I gave showing that Jim Zorn looks to be a good coach in the future. B. It doesn't matter. Jim Zorn getting fired has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. --- C2: Record His evidence only goes to further my claim that, while they have had a poor season thus far, it isn't abysmal and without hope. They are at the 33rd percentile and 23rd of over 30 teams. This means that while they are below average, that they aren't abysmal and beyond hope. You can also apply the same argument as on the above contention. Just the fact that their record is bad, even if he won the argument, has no bearing on the case. Every year some teams necessarily do bad. If we believed that this argument is true, then all of the bottom 10 or so teams would be vying for last. There is no reason that having a bad record justifies on its own playing to lose the rest of the games. --- "By finishing at bottom, the Redskins are assured of getting young talent that they desperately need. Many of the current players are past their prime and struggle to produce even mediocre results." This is nonresponsive to the multiple arguments I've made that it would be wrong to lose intentionally even if it leads to getting younger talent. You can deconstruct his flawed logic with a simple syllogism. Getting money benefits us - - - - - - - (Getting better players benefits us) I can get money by robbing people - -(I can get better players by losing games on purpose) Robbing people is a good idea - - - - -(Losing games is a good idea) The first two claims being true do not necessarily make the 3rd true, as is seen with the analogy to robbing. Look at his case, he proves absolutely nothing beyond those 1st two claims, which means he can't conclude the 3rd claim that enacting the resolution would be a good idea. ===== My Case ===== C1: Sportsmanship Every sentence of his attack on this case can easily be proven false. --- "It was inferred, not implied, that the Redskins would be sore losers." Regardless of if they have the 'sore loser' mindset, affirming is still a 'sore loser' action, as they simply give up when they are losing rather than trying hard to bounce back. I am not saying that the Redskins will probably be sore losers if we enact this resolution. I am saying that the resolution is inherently the action of an unsportsmanlike person, or to use his term, a sore loser. --- "By playing, they would still be participating." They are not participating in a way that is becoming of a sportsmanlike player. If I were the quarterback and instead of passing the football, I pegged an offensive line man in the back, I couldn't defend my actions by saying "I was still participating." Participation does not equal sportsmanship. --- "Since they can't seem to beat the weaker teams in league, losing on purpose may be a moot point." Where does my opponent get this idea? If the Redskins are at about the 33rd percentile in all stats, as both my opponent and I give evidence to support, then from where do we get "they can't seam to beat the weaker teams in league"? Statistics and all factual evidence say that they can beat about 1/3 of teams. I'd need more than my opponent's gut feeling to prove to me otherwise. === C2: Draft "Teams often TRADE players, cash, and draft picks up and down the draft which also alters the draft." Correct, they TRADE, meaning the other teams would receive something in return. Trading is, in general, fine. The problem here is that the Redskins aren't trading anything; they are shortchanging the other teams of a draft pick. "Strategic decisions are made in every business including football." Just because other "strategic decisions" (in actuality, cheating) may occur does not make them right. C3: Fans My opponent assumes that the fans will be happy simply because the team may start winning again next year. I, for one, wouldn't be, knowing my team was cheating, but that isn't what I was talking about. What about the other teams? The fans of every other team are shortchanged by the Redskins' unfair rise in power. Why should we appease the fans of one team and not the rest? ================= Summary of Voting Issues ================= 1. My opponent's burden is to prove the resolution true, which he clearly has not. Look to my above analogy for why. 2. My opponent stated, "I concur that good sportsmanship demands that every player give 100% on every play." In so far as this is true, my opponent is negating because he doesn't deny that to vote PRO would be unsportsmanlike. 3. The competitive equity of NFL football will be harmed by draft altering. 4. The fast majority of those who watch the NFL will be angered.