Resolved: College athletes should be paid

Framework We need to look at this debate through the lives affected as well as the educational benefits associated with affirming or negating this resolution. OBV 1 We are talking specifically about the US in this resolution. Any other actor in another country is not important or relevant to the debate. OBV 2 While there are economic benefits to affirming the resolution, we need to see that lives and those affected overshadow economics. Remember, Lives > Economy. OBV 3 If my opponent does not provide another framework, then it is assumed they accept my net-benefit framework to the people who are effected under the resolution. Contention 1: No alternatives to pay Scholarships are not a good alternative to paying college athletes. This is because in the status quo, scholarships do not even provide enough to go to college. In fact, on average the pay from scholarships to student athletes is only $11,262 (1). This results in a shortfall of $3,222 on average for “full” scholarship athletes during the 2010-2011 school year (2). With the problems of underpaying for scholarships, we can see that this entire point falls. Not only this, but when we also facto in the total cost for college, we can see that not all college athletes receive scholarships to begin with. In fact, on average only 84% of students in the college athlete programs actually received scholarships to begin with (1). Thus, we leave some student athletes in the dust to fend off the growing cost of school. If we were to look at a recent Forbes article published in 2015, we would see that the average inflation for education is 5.2%, which would result in the price of 4-year, public university prices climbing to $65,590 for tuition and fees in the next 10 years (3). Not only this, but Pell grants are a bad alternative as well. My opponent may be aware that the maximum that can be given to a student as far as Pell grants go is $5,815 (8). This does not take into account the already inflating cost of higher education as described by Forbes to be $65,590 for tuition and fees in the next 10 years (3). Not only this, but it is not always certain that students receive the full grant. Even if it did, it is still important to know that the rate of poverty for those who are student athletes is high. In fact, the exact figure is 86% of athletes below the poverty line (2). What this means is that by not affirming, we see that student athletes do not get the support they need to succeed. Contention 2: Encourage health Currently, there is a huge amount of child obesity, specifically speaking the exact quantifiable amount is 3 out of 10 students, at least in 2005 (9). This is a problem because common symptoms associated with obesity include higher likeliness for hypertension, gallbladder disease, stroke, breathing problems and death to just name a few (10). Needless to say, this has to be mitigated for the good of the students who are suffering. Thankfully, there is a solution. The solution involves providing proper incentive to allow students to pick up a sport. By paying athletes we would be sending the message that physical activity pays, and that it is a viable option for those without mental prowess, yet a knack for athleticism. We would be seeing more students striving to become athletic. This would then result in less obesity in the future workforce, meaning more people eligible for important jobs, such as the army. This is necessary since more people in these jobs reap only net benefits. Contention 3: Incentivize education With raising prices and inflation as illustrated by the Forbes article I have cited (3), it is not surprising to see a decrease in college enrollment. According to the Washington Post in 2015, there has been a downward trend in enrollment, and they also cite a Census Bureau survey that determined that between 2008 and 2013, the enrollment rate dropped by 3%, while the bottom 20% of families by income had its enrollment drop by 10% (4). This is important, because 86% of student athletes live below the poverty line (2). Not only this, but those who live in poverty are less likely to succeed in school. In fact, we see that for children under three, there are crucial things that are needed, however, children living in poverty might not have a primary caregiver, or a stable environment to live in. In fact, they are much less likely to have this, which results in more volatile and problematic emotional issues that cut into learning (6). With this disadvantage, it is hard to succeed educationally. Ergo, if I were to show that education would be incentivized, we would see increases in educational achievement for those under the poverty line. Well, according to a Harvard study, we would be seeing increased input from students if we offered cash incentives (5). In fact, this graph describes it all. (5) While output incentives do not work, which means better achievement on tests, we would be seeing more students working toward a goal. Over time, this would result in better grades and more understanding on the student’s part. This is confirmed by the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, where it is shown that across five studies, students who did homework, a form of student input, had better test scores as a result of homework (11). This connects simply since there is a minimum GPA for participating in the athletic sport (12). What this means is that we would be seeing more people succeeding due to increased input into the classroom through money incentive, which would disappear if the student is failing due to the requirements of a certain GPA to participate in sports (12). Ergo, we see that we have a strong incentive of pay that only stays if students do well in their courses, which is identical to the input incentive model as given by the previously mentioned Harvard study which is shown to be effeective, which obviously warrants an affirmative vote. However, with more student input leading to better test scores, we would be seeing more educational success. What is the result of more educational success? We would be seeing more innovation in the private sector due to more educated and knowledgeable people. Not only this, but students are also more likely earn more money in the future (7). Also, we incentivize students to go to college due to the promise of money for those with athletic skill. Conclusion My opponent needs to prove that in the status quo, we see net harms to the people and the students if the resolution is passed. Unless he or she can do this, then we obviously see an affirmative vote. 1.(http://tinyurl.com...) 2. (http://tinyurl.com...) 3. (http://tinyurl.com...) 4. (http://tinyurl.com...) 5. (http://tinyurl.com...) 6. (http://tinyurl.com...) 7. (http://tinyurl.com...) 8. (http://tinyurl.com...) 9. (http://tinyurl.com...) 10. (http://tinyurl.com...) 11. (http://tinyurl.com...) 12. (http://tinyurl.com...)