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

Teachers serve to maintain the status quo, ergo athletes aren't paid more than teachers for that reason. CON(me): If my opponent's claim is true, teachers and athletes both serve to maintain the status quo. Since this point is shared, it cannot be the source of differentiation. PRO: "As I detailed other reasons for the salary gap and included doctors (who include herbalists and other non-traditional forms of medication), I do not agree that a negation exists. ”CON: Whether or not you agree with the negation is irrelevant, the negation is still valid as per the resolution. Also, the other professions simply produce less overall revenue per capita employee. PRO: “I also stated that professional athletes are considered to be MORE valuable as distractions and outlets for escapism promoted to the masses. By stating it thusly, I alluded to the fact that teachers can also be viewed as maintainers of the status quo. " CON: Pro athletes’ being a better distraction and/or escapism outlet has nothing to do with higher salaries or maintenance of social norms (the status quo). Drugs and video games are immense industries (the former less legal) of distraction. In fact, video games are more distracting than pro sports are[1], yet pro video game players are paid a pittance if at all (most pay to play). I will tie this in to my other premise later. My opponent is trying to move the goal post: a fallacy at best, and a misconduct at worst. Please refrain from doing so in the future. Even if we accept your refutation:For the sake of discussion, I will contend my opponent’s point. My opponent is saying that professional athletes serve to maintain the status quo more than teachers do, and are consequently paid higher salaries. I argue that this is simply not true. Teachers are arguably the most important agents in a system of education. Every society’s system of education serve to indoctrinate the masses, from an early age, to the system. For example, in U. S. society, we are taught that school is important, that our grades matter. The system encourages us to go to college and to find jobs to fulfill labor demands. School systems are also used to indoctrinate some level of patriotism. U. S. history courses, for example, justify its American revolution. Essays written on the subject generally portray American Revolutionaries in the right (proclaimed heroes) [2]. This is a uniquely American perspective taught to Americans by teachers as part of the curriculum of education. The opposing point of view is implicitly ignored and contradicted. However, this does not mean that the opposition is not perhaps more in the right nor does it mean that it does not exist[3]. Americans’ views of the American revolution being propagandized by the educational system perpetuated by teachers is only one of a myriad of subliminal indoctrination of the status quo. An even more relevant example would be the existence of economics courses (micro/macro and required economics courses in high school) which serve to enforce capitalism. [4] Ironically, by berating the self-promoting system education system of capitalist society, the article in source [4], as part of an educational communist text, implicitly condones the educational promotion of communist society. Education is the most important medium in maintaining the status quo no matter what the status quo may be (capitalism, corporatism, elitism, communism, socialism, etc. ), and spreads ideals via teachers. Thus I argue that teachers not only maintain the status quo, but that they are the most significant group in society in maintaining the status quo. If maintaining the status quo determined salary, then teachers’ salaries would be vastly greater than those of professional sports players. It doesn’t matter that different media of education exist. It doesn’t refute the fact that the central, propagandized system of education is self-promoting, even mandatory[5]. Furthermore, the medium may change, but the educational standards generally remain the same. Even with the goal-post pushed 20 feet to the left, my opponent’s arguments are still very much invalidated (score! ). Supply and DemandI believe my opponent’s response basically accepts the role of supply and demand in professional players’ salaries. In addition, however, my opponent points out the fact that demand is bred by corporations. My opponent then concludes that the purpose that this demand is bred is to maintain the status quo. In more structural form, my opponent’s argument runs thus: P1) Supply and demand are the cause of professional players’ salaries P2) Demand (and consequently the level of supply) is fomented by corporate interests (i. e. ads) C) Corporate interests foment demand in order to maintain capitalism (the status quo). So here’s my point of contention: Capitalism may or may not be a status quo (I accept my opponent’s late definition of status quo), and I do not dispute that corporations and corporate interests exist only within some capitalistic frame (result from capitalism). However, none of this helps to logically conclude that corporations sponsor athletic events and interests in order to maintain the status quo. I assert that the reason corporations foment demand is to gain monetary profit. Maintaining capitalism has nothing to do with it. I argue that if the demand wasn’t existent in the first place, then no matter how much advertising is done, corporatism cannot draw profit. Pretend, for example, that I began to try to sell pieces of dead leaves. I could spend millions advertising for dead leaves, but ultimately, my return would probably be in the negative. I’d probably go into debt. There simply isn’t enough of a demand for dead leaves to merit investment & marketing in the first place. Thus I argue that demand for athletics exists at some level individual from corporatism. I could probably even theorize and argue some evolutionary tie to this demand (athletic people are valuable in hunting-gathering, primeval society). My opponent’s bringing up the olympics only serves to further my point: there is a demand for athletics regardless of nationality or political system. Nations are willing to host the olympics even if it means running means running a net loss in revenues[6]. Thus demand & supply exist outside of the capitalist status quo. WagesNow let me address my opponent’s point. He is saying that supply and demand cannot be the cause of athletes’ salaries because olympic athletes are paid less than certain other non-olympic athletes. So does my opponent concede S&D or not? I argue that olympic athletes’ salaries are less than those of, say, professional NBA players precisely due to supply & demand. The IOC reported a net revenue of $5 billion from 2009-2012. [7] The NBA, on the other hand, netted the same $5 billion over the course of the 2011-2012 season. That is 4x the IOC’s revenue (since the IOC’s revenue is cumulative over 4 years). In fact, the NBA league’s revenue trails behind those of the NFL($7.5b) and Major League Baseball($9.9b)[11]. My opponent’s source on olympic revenue writes of olympic athletes being paid less, and takes up track and field olympians as an example. I argue that track and field demands are lower than that of other sports (TV viewership of only about half a million in a world championship[10], about 3% of NBA viewership in a season game). Track and field athletes are paid less regardless of olympic affiliations. None of this really matters, however, because the olympic games and games such as those hosted by the NBA, NFL, etc. are completely different. The organizations follow different business models, resulting in some earning more revenue than others. The end motive is always profit. Organizations with more money are obviously able to pay more money than organizations with less money. The IOC’s business model is more geared toward the worldwide promotion of sports[8]. 90% of the IOC’s revenue is redistributed in order to host and promote the olympics while only 10% is paid to its operatives. [8] I assert that, contrary to my opponent’s claim, some athletes are paid more than others because they bring more profit in a profit-driven organization, and not in order to maintain some status quo. The nature of the totality of Olympic games and that of sports such as basketball contain many differing elements (i. e. the specialization and game element is more prominent in one over the other). Furthermore, that the Olympics exist is sufficient proof that athletes are valued outside of my opponent’s idea of a corporate/capitalist status quo; evidence of demand that is irrelevant to my opponent's claim. The Nutshell1) The incentive for organizations paying athletes more is profit and revenue created by supply and demand. It has nothing to do with a status quo. -supported by the fact that athletes are valued outside of this ‘status quo’ 2) Logically, the resolution is negated because teachers (and educational organizations) not only serve to maintain a society’s status quo, but in fact are more significant agents than athletes and athletic organizations. Sources[1] . http://na.leagueoflegends.com...[2] . http://revolution.h-net.msu.edu...[3] . http://www.redcoat.me.uk...[4] . https://www.marxists.org...[5]http://education.findlaw.com...[6] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[7] . http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com...[8] . http://www.olympic.org...[9] . http://espn.go.com...[10] . http://www.letsrun.com...[11] . http://espn.go.com...;