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

Once again, thanks to my opponent for his response.SQ = status quo or my opponent’s idea of a classist, self-serving, capitalist status quo. The Soccer War My opponent believes my point on teachers being more influential in maintaining the SQ to be trivial. It is not trivial at all, and my opponent agrees to that in his attempting to argue that athletes contribute more to status quo maintenance than teachers. It is a necessary component in order for the resolution to hold true. Organization vs. Agent I’ve described the way teachers are direct agents of spreading & maintaining SQ. My opponent does not dispute this description. Rather, my opponent tries to claim that it is the organization (the creators of the educational standards) that is proportionally more responsible than the body of teachers in serving the status quo. I argue this to be false. While organizations do set standards, the totality of teachers are directly responsible for communicating indoctrination of SQ. Without teachers of any kind, the organization of education as it is would not be able to communicate or maintain any ideas let alone SQ. Thus the ones who set the standards are much less influential than the millions of teachers who, as indoctrinated agents, are necessary to fuse SQ into the psyche of each successive generation. In fact, teachers can function regardless of whether or not there is an organization. Anyone who teaches SQ helps to maintain SQ. On the other hand, my opponent’s assault on teacher’s role in SQ actually applies more to sports than to education. Athletes do nothing in terms of SQ because athletics is valued outside of SQ trappings. Similarly, escapism, or leisure, exists independent of SQ, and therefore cannot, alone, serve SQ. This leads into my opponent’s following assertions: “Their roles are considered to be more valuable in that they serve as distractions and offer escapism to the masses...I assert that these athletes are paid more because they are deemed by the corporatocracy to be more valuable to the preservation of the capitalistic structure and the promotion of a materialistic way of life." My opponent’s assertions are that sports are escapist distractions, that the purpose of marketing sports is to provide escapist distractions, and that escapist distractions serve to maintain SQ. Escapist Distraction from what?Distraction from what matters? What does matter? I have the distinct impression that my opponent implicitly considers any and all activity that doesn’t contradict SQ to be a distraction (waste of time, escapism). So what isn’t escapist? Productive work under SQ (classist capitalism or something) only serves to run the gears of SQ. Watching TV does so too. Jogging, exercising, having a relationship, making babies: all activities that doesn’t contradict SQ within a system that runs SQ implicitly condones SQ by allowing SQ to run. Escapism from what?And how does escapism correlate with maintaining SQ? Marketing sports in order to maintain SQ My opponent cannot read minds. Therefore he cannot know what the corporate leaders are thinking. Therefore he cannot know whether or not these people market sports in order to maintain SQ. He can only guess inductively and assert himself to be right. I will attempt to show why the premises leading up to his inductive conclusion has little to do with said conclusion, and are based solely on non-correlating ideas. I think this part of the debate is significant enough for further discussion. Escapism serves to maintain SQ Does it? Again, what is escapism? If it includes any and all activities not anti-SQ, then nearly everything serves to maintain SQ. That is simply ridiculous. Does my opponent mean escapism to mean only non-productive activity? What is productive then? I assert that non-productivity, or leisure, can occur outside of a system with SQ therefore cannot serve to maintain SQ. Hitting each other with baseball bats Even if sports under which athletes play serve as escapist medium (somewhat questioned, but willing to concede) and even if the escapism is the goal (I contest this, but even if we accept it, I could argue that leisure is good), there is no reason to believe that escapism serves to maintain SQ. Butting heads with rebuttals “my opponent has focused on one component of the arguing points in the resolution.” Sure, but it is a component which you’ve been arguing: that athletes serve the status quo more so than teachers. This component may be singular, but it is significant for the purposes of this resolution. Again, as I contended above, your points against teachers’ utility in terms of serving the status quo apply more correctly to athletes. No one tells athletes to spread ideas which correlate with SQ. Athletes alone do not spread SQ because athletes exist outside of SQ. So I don’t see how you’re negating teachers’ SQ utility relative to that of athletes at all. CON(me): "If maintaining the status quo determined salary[, then teachers would be paid more]" PRO: “Limited in scope of complete argument.” It still communicates my point. I think snipers are more efficient than semi-automatics. “My response stated both supply and demand were 'fomented' or manipulated, mainly to dispute the opponents contention that unadulterated S&D was the cause of the professional athletes salaries.” My opponent accepts S&D. However, my arguments still contend the maintenance of SQ, so whether or not there is S&D, SQ maintenance is still disputed. “monetary profit is the goal of capitalism.” I cry assertion! Here is a relevant quote.“The real goal of economics, of course, is the enrichment of everyone. Just like the ultimate goal of medicine is the ultimate immortality of everyone; the ultimate goal of psychology is the creation of perfect sanity for everyone, and the ultimate goal of political science is the creation of a state which creates the conditions for the maximum enjoyment of life, for everyone.”[2] Capitalism, like any other economic system, is proposed and implemented not with the purpose of inequality, but, contrarily, actually for the expressed purpose of maximal equality. Analagously, political systems aren’t built with the purpose of injustice, the intent of political systems is ultimately societal justice. Just because injustice and inequality appears in the system, doesn’t mean it is intended. My opponent mistakes intent with results. Maybe athletics and athletes indirectly serve to maintain SQ. Maybe initially popular political systems were agreed to and implemented with the expectation of good results, but that doesn’t mean the intended result and the actual result will be the same. Actual results and intended results are not the same thing. A thing’s intended consequence and a thing’s actual consequence can be and often are at odds. My opponent seems to equivocate athletes’ and sports’ perceived effect on society with their intended effect. Correlation != Causation. “there is a difference between interest in athletics and commercialization.” Interest in athletics is necessarily responsible for the success of athletics in the commercial field and thus athletes’ salaries. Again, I could try to commercialize dead leaves, and most likely receive a net loss. Thus, if the intent of commercialization is to maintain the SQ, then anything and everything that can be commercialized (even if unprofitable) should logically be commercialized. Thus profit is more inductively likely because most anything that is profitable is commercialized (even if it’s immoral or illegal; arguably prostitution and drugs). Thus, even if my opponent’s claim on SQ maintenance is true, it is empirically overshadowed by the profit incentive to the point that any other incentive can only be conspiratorially guessed at. “Preservation of capital[ism and classism]” Correlation is not causation. Even I can point out manifestations of capitalism, but they do not necessarily (not even close) result from some drive to maintain your SQ. There are an infinite number of reasons people value sports and are willing to pay money to sports, consequently upping athletes’ wages. Instead of addressing each point: Everything under “Here’s How” fails under my opponent’s equivocation. Counting Casualties My opponent has no reason to believe SQ maintenance is a goal. He equivocates correlation (what may or may not have happened) with causation (it happened because that’s what it was intended). Teachers serve to maintain SQ more, if at all. I have shown direct causation. My opponent has made nought but haphazard guesses and connections. My opponent's assertion is just that. His reasoning is based on evidence which are irrelevant to proving his claims.My opponent concedes S&DMy opponent does not dispute that athletes' wages are caused by non-SQ-maintaining factors (interest in athletics, S&D, etc.)Intent != Results; Causation != Correlation. Sources[1] http://www.ibtimes.com... [2] http://triviumquadrivium.wordpress.com...