Get baseball out of my courts

To the voters: Before I begin my argument, I would like to point out the burdens that my opponent and I are burdened with. Pro (my opponent) is burdened with the burden of proof, that is, a rule indicating that the affirmative has the responsibility to establish the validity of the claim made by the resolution; the resolution is presumed invalid until the affirmative establishes otherwise. Example: Pro stating "the moon is not made of green cheese" would NOT fulfill the burden of proof despite the fact it is correct. Stating "the moon is not made of green cheese" and linking to a scientific article that proves this would Con (me) is burdened with the burden of refutation, that is, a rule establishing that the negative has the responsibility to prove that the arguments established in the affirmative case are inaccurate or invalid. Using the moon example this can range from "the moon does not exist and therefore you have no proof it is not made of things other than green cheese" to "the moon IS made of green cheese because…" Please keep this in mind as you read my argument. http://www.geocities.com... "First off I never said I wanted to take baseball away I just want it out of court." Sorry, that was a horrible use of the English language on my part. I meant to say "This is not a reason to take baseball away from (a.k.a. out of the) court." "Secondly this system hasn't always worked the system has had countless overhauls sense the days of slavery this would just be another one of those overhauls." This is where the burden of proof first comes in. Although my opponent claims that there have been "countless overhauls sense the days of slavery", he gives no proof that these overhauls have happened and just expects everyone to accept it as fact. As this is the last round, my opponent loses this point as he fails to fulfill his burden. Furthermore, the overhauls required are not the making of new laws (which I think my opponent is referring to) but structural changes in the government, which my understanding of U.S. history says, has not happened. Thus, my opponent loses on this point. "there are no unfair BUSINESS practices going on" Despite my earlier use of the English language, I do know that both "unfair" and "business" describe the noun "practice". According to the definition I gave earlier, (which my opponent agreed was correct) MLB must have business practices that are unfair for this to be "the government's business". Now, by not arguing against it my opponent has conceded that MLB is a business. Thus, any practice done in MLB is a practice of a business or a practice that affects a business (a.k.a. a business practice). My opponent also stated that there are unfair practices going on in MLB. Since it has been established that all MLB practices are business practices and that there are unfair practices in MLB, logic states that there ARE unfair business practices and MLB fits the definition (that my opponent agreed was right) of being government business. Essentially, by conceding that MLB is a business and that there are unfair practices in MLB, he has conceded this point. Furthermore, my opponent once again fails to fulfill his burden of proof as he gives no proof of there not being unfair business practices in MLB. "…the gov't didn't intervene own there own they were asked." Although burden of proof is once again applicable here(no proof that asking is required and no proof that no one asked), I have more reasons than that as to why this does not matter. If you look at this statement (and anywhere else in the argument), my opponent does not state WHO asks for the investigation. The most obvious answer is a U.S. citizen, which my opponent must agree with unless he intends on going against the system that he goes on to support later in his argument. However, government officials are still U.S. citizens and could of asked for the investigation. Thus, it is even possible that the Supreme Court asked itself to investigate. Thus, my opponent loses this point as it is left entirely possible that the government was asked (assuming that that is even a requirement) "This is completely wrong because you took that quote out of context steroids in court is what's out of hand." Sorry, I interpreted it as the steroid issue in baseball being out of hand. Perhaps punctuation and me thinking clearer would of gotten the correct point across. Voters, just note that Con should not be punished because Pro left their 1st round argument where there were multiple possible interpretations. "Now about the six billion did you happen to get that the U.S gov't only gets a part of that?" Yes, this is inherent as 1 out of the 30 teams is in Canada. Thus, if we assume that the Toronto Blue Jays make the average amount of money (which they don't), the U.S. gets $5.8 billion. Although I certainly cannot speak for your financial situation but $5.8 billion is still a big chunk of money. Although, taxes only gets a part of this the rest goes to the economy, which funds other salaries the government taxes. "And just about every fast food chain and every grocery chain makes more of that" Although once again you fail on the burden of proof category, this is not even related as that still does not change the fact that $5.8 billion is a lot of money. "...disappearance of baseball would have little effect on the economy even though that's not what this debate is about." This is redundant but once again, you fail to prove that the disappearance of 5.8 million dollars would have little effect on the economy. This is enhanced by the fact that I showed how it would have a big effect on the U.S. economy. Oh, and this is related as this is talking about the repercussions of following through with Pro's plan. "Also at least from what I've seen in my own community and what I've seen on the news this hasn't stopped anyone from going to the games and that includes the doubters fans may be disappointed but that doesn't stop them from loving the game." Sorry for repeating myself but once again you fail to uphold your burden of proof. You also make a big assumption that your community is just like the rest of America. Well, I say it is not as Houston, Texas is not the same as say Des Moines Iowa. And please don't try to argue that the news is not biased. "And as for the last part I'm ignoring that…" Thank you! Because you ignored it, you have conceded it and accepted as right. I will take what I can get. (And if you try to say that your "come on!!" statement refuted it, you fail on your burden of proof on that point.) Even if this chain of events was refuted, my opponent STILL has not given something that is more important than the steroids issue and loses this point. "Oh and the gov't seems to disagree with you…" However, voters are supposed to vote on who supported their case better, not who is "right". As I said in round 1 I am playing devil's advocate. Thus vote for Con as I have shown how Pro has failed to uphold his burden and how he is wrong otherwise. It seems the only thing we will be able to agree on is this statement "Go ‘Stros!"