Marks for sports.

I thank Marcusato for the topic and wish us luck.I will make a couple comparisons to my own country of America in this speech. We don't technically have marks, but we do have all kinds of exceptions, scholarships, and special admission grants that basically have the same effect (1). For all intents and purposes, consider us as a country that uses them.Pro case:C1: Marks generate revenueFor sports, colleges make money by selling tickets. But to sell tickets, you've got to put some great, exciting players on the field for the fans to see. Winning games helps too. In both cases, marks get great sports players out of high school and onto the college team. Without some kind of mechanism helping great players get into college, we would suffer from an extreme shortage of star players and great teams. This is true because, as should be obvious, a good percentage of strong athletes are unintelligent and do not meet the standard requirements for college admission. Marks get these great players onto the field and making money for the school.America's college football program is a billion dollar industry. We would suffer enormously if we did not give exceptions for sports players to get admitted. We would have very few star players left and thus, would draw less spectators and ticket sales. Less money from sports revenue also means less money for top professors and academic scholarships. But since we do have marks, we have an industry generating millions for colleges across the country. Expect Indian colleges to profit as well if these marks can get more great players on the field.4000 character limit, so that's the only argument I have space to run.Con caseC1: Con says that in India, only the elite can afford adequate training, so if people from different social classes are all admitted into college for sports, the elite will have an unfair advantage.However, even if the poor may not have access to sports training due to their own misfortune, that's not a reason to shut them out of college wholesale. Some athletes are naturally talented, and can succeed without the best gyms in the world.Second, this is only a short term harm. Remember that colleges will make more money in the long run due to selling more tickets. The school can use this money to GET better training facilities. So in the long run, everyone will have access to training, not just the wealthy.Also, Con gives me some offense by pointing out that college is instrumental in getting out of the lower class. Marks will put more high schoolers into college, which means more people have a chance at getting out of poverty.C2: Con doesn't like that we have to give an equal amount of marks to all sports, even though some are more popular than others. This isn't a problem with the concept of sporting marks. If this is how his country is implementing the system, then they are just doing it in a bad way. American colleges can give 25 full-ride scholarships a year for football players, but only 16 for baseball. This is still a system similar to marks, but doesn't have the disadvantage of having to distribute them all equally. So the marks for sports concept is still valid.C3: Con is afraid that sports players will crowd out the intelligent students who would otherwise have a spot in a top college. However, unintelligent players won't last in top colleges anyway. Here in the States, we can get dumb football players into a university, but they have to be passing all classes in order to play. If they're failing, they become ineligible. This is why our top colleges generally have crappy teams; they only accept the players who can pass their difficult classes. That's a small minority. India can adopt a similar "No pass no play" policy. This will ensure that smart students aren't being unfairly crowded out by football players, because the players themselves have to be smart. So this won't be a problem.1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...