On balance, public subsidies for professional athletic organizations in the United States benefit th

A road map to the following round of debate. 1) I will counter points made by the side of the pro. 2) I will conclude my speech stating why the CON has won the debate. So lets dive into the points made by the affirmative sides. Affirmative Contention 1: New sports stadiums create a multitude of jobs. I am actually really glad you brought this up, however, I will have to point out that the fact that if the Dallas Cowboys AT&T stadium that you conveniently bring up, were built using private funds it would still provide the same 4,000 part time jobs. Same goes for every single other sports stadium because the fact of the matter is quoting the 1989 film Field of Dreams. .. "If You Build It They will Come". .. They being people looking for jobs at the stadium you built. That being said this PRO contention really works out best for the CON so that is why I aim turning it to support my side of the resolution and the argument that the Pro tried to make does not stand. Affirmative Contention 2: Professional Athletes and Leagues Pay an Exorbitant amount of Money in Taxes. Another great point made by the PRO side but unfortunately this contention supports the CON case as well meaning that it shall also be included towards a victory for the CON My reason again being that a team with private funding also would have this work out to be the same, So these subsidies are simply being put back having no effect. But since privately funded teams don't take the tax payer money in the first place from the community, all taxes generated will be consider a gain for a community. So it is for that reason that the tax revenue generated from privately funded teams is more beneficial to a community providing a clear gain, rather than a subsidized team who is taking money and often times not giving it back showing no gain or a negative loss for a community. It is for that reason that this argument falls to the CON Side in this debate. Affirmative Contention 3: Sport Stadiums Offer Uses I anticipated that this argument would be made. .. I am not impressed by the unoriginal nature of the argument. I guess this has become a trend in this debate, Another argument that will favor the CON side of the debate. The PRO's point again is not unique to subsidized stadiums, because a private funded stadium offers the same shelter that a subsidized one will. Meaning that there is no reason to publicly fund a stadium that offers no Unique benefits that a privately funded stadium wouldn't. And as I have stated time and time again these companies can fund them selves by why when you can get the government to do it for you. The PRO side has proven that these publicly funded stadium subsidies offer absolutely no different options that a privately funded stadium wouldn't offer. Affirmative Contention 4: Privately funded stadiums, considered an alternative to public stadiums, cannot be built in optimal locations. This argument is somewhat desperate. In their first point in this contention the PRO side is taking the stance that government can take away your business, going directly against the very constitution they set in place. *5th Amendment*. Their second point is that it is unique to private funded stadiums that they cant build on occupied spaces. .. DUH. .. nor can subsidized stadiums. So this is not a logical argument and shall not be heavily weighed in the out come of the debate. And their third point in this contention is benefits based on location. They pretty much are restating the resolution. And as I have stated repeatedly it doesn't matter if or where the stadium is they will generate the same amount of money but the money generated from publicly subsidized stadium will go right back to the government as opposed to the private stadiums revenue which goes straight to the community. *Conclusion* The Con has clearly won this debate for the simple reason that PRO failed to state any benefits that are unique to publicly subsidized stadiums. In fact I am able to take the PRO's contentions 1,2, and 3 and turn them to support my case the CON case in a more superior manor then they do the pros case itself. So I do thank the pro side for finding three Contentions that support my case. It is for the reasons stated above that the con has won the debate and I see no other ballot (or vote) that that on the Cons side.