The NCAA punishments for Penn State were too harsh

As Con i will now proceed to refute any and all argumentation by pro. Con attacks will be located underneath Pro's quotes. Order- Summary of Pro's case in quotes, followed by a short Con case that combats any future claims by pro. Pro's Case "The punishments for the Penn State university punishments are a four year postseason ban, $60 million fine, loss of scholarships, and wins not counting from 1998-2011. "This information will be the statistical evidence for both sides in the round (So i don't have to requote this). Not an attack, rather information clarifying the debate. ""No degree of punishment is enough for those involved in the sick behavior which occurred at Penn State. However, it makes me angry that the sanctions issued punish the wrong people: the kids currently attending the school, the alumni, members of the football team and the members of those winning teams of yesterday. They are being punished for something that they had nothing whatsoever to do with. What"s fair about that? " says Carolyn Carpenter in Carrollton, Texas. "You quoted a person and used him/her as a source. There needs to be insight given by you as pro, an entire argument cannot be copied and pasted. I agree with this statement. The only good punishment that could of been good by itself was the sixty million dollar fine, but the rest by themselves were unbearable, especially for the people who were innocent in this.2 things,1) THIS IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. "I agree" is not an argument, nor is summarizing a quote. This is still plagiarism, there is no substantial evidence nor is there any insight given by Pro past simply saying "I Agree".2) Opinions. Even if the judges were to accept the plagiarized argument, Carolyn Carpenter fails to account for the true victims (meaning the one's who actually TESTIFIED IN COURT AGAINST JERRY SANDUSKY), those poor adolescents (10 boys to be exact, including one of Sandusky's 6 adopted children) who were sexually abused over the course of 15 years [1]. Carpenter is valuing a football program over the lives of the 10 boys who may never have a normal life, who's childhoods had been stripped from them. Carpenter's quote undermines the whole reason the NCAA gave Penn State those sanctions in the first place, they wanted to teach a lesson to ALL OF COLLEGE FOOTBALL, to show that allowing someone to play football is not nearly as important as saving children's lives, and putting football ahead of a child's life is inhumane. The people who were "innocent" should not be given priority over those who were victimized. This in no way is just. Con's Case1) Rules"Pro must prove why the sanctions placed upon Penn State are UNJUST rather than wrong. He must prove they are immoral or opposing justice. (Simply saying something is too harsh isn't enough, backup a claim with why it is too harsh etc. prove that it is inherently undermining justice)Justice- the administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity[1]"Pro has failed to abide by the most important rule of the debate, the resolution. Con was given the opportunity to make the rules, which pro accepted. As such, the above rule is the biggest deciding factor in the round. Pro never states WHY PENN STATE SANCTIONS ARE UNJUST. Pro gives a quote, followed by a general statement. Pro fails to elaborte on the claim that the sanctions are unjust, and simply shoves aside the definition of Justice.2) MoralitySelfishness and greed guide the motivations of Jerry Sandusky. As an old Penn State fan myself, it saddens me to have to say this, but Joe Paterno's actions were immoral and inhumane, to allow the young boys to be tortured (sexually abused) by Sandusky, for years and years. Paterno was much more worried about his football team than he was about the boys. He valued a football team over a life, and deserved the punishments placed upon his record. The NCAA was justified in enacting it's own administration of law (justice), showing that life is far more important than football. The NCAA gave the least harsh sanctions possible to make a moral statement, to show other schools that their priorities are not in football, but rather in their students and youth. Pro is completely unjust, undermining set rules and regulations by the NCAA and immoral, putting a football program above the value of life. [2]3) JusticeThis was not just a College Football scandal, it was a CRIMINAL CASE. [3] Justice was to be enacted in some way or another. The problem with the court system was that only Jerry Sandusky was held accountable. Clearly other's were to be held accountable as well, but unfortunately were not given any punishment. The NCAA made a statement when it slammed Penn State with it's punishments. It proved that justice stretched outside of the court system, and that college football was just. College football follows rules and regulations, has it's own administration of law, and abides by them, creating a just society. By simply punishing Sandusky, or by even minimizing the NCAA punishments, no justice would be given. These punishments are SET punishments, given because they are deserved. The NCAA was following it's own book of law when it gave these sanctions to Penn State. [4][1] . http://espn.go.com...[2] . http://bleacherreport.com...[3] . http://espn.go.com...[4] . http://espn.go.com...I now open it back up to Pro.