The NCAA punishments for Penn State were too harsh

I will use the rebuttals to use on my side. A: Pro:""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." Con: 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. Pro: I was using this source to prove that I am not the only one who thinks of this. B. Pro: 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. Con: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. Pro: I am agreeing with the quote. Of course she is not a representative of the people who were raped, but she is still a person and she can voice her opinion. Now for the unjust part of my debate (yes, I saved it at the end for everyone to remember.) Dave Sirin says " Take a step back from the hysteria and just think about what took place: Penn State committed no violations of any NCAA bylaws. There were no improper payments of "student athletes," no cheating on tests, no improper phone calls, no using cream cheese instead of butter on a recruit's bagel, or any of the Byzantine minutiae that fills the time sheets that justify Mark Emmert's $1.6m salary. What Penn State did was commit horrific violations of criminal and civil laws, and they should pay every possible price for shielding Sandusky. This is why we have a society with civil and criminal courts. Instead we have Mark Emmert inserting himself in a criminal matter and acting as judge, jury and executioner, in the style of NFL commissioner Roger Goodell". (1) Joe Paterno gets punished for protecting someone from getting hurt and Mark Emmert is acting like he is God. You might as well prosecute Batman. So people can get a picture of what this situation is like, I'll use an example. Lets say a big sport at your high school is basketball. It would be like if your basketball player shot ten people in fifteen years and some of the gym teachers don't peep. The basketball coach is finally prosecuted and so are the other teachers. Now, you're fines are a four year season ban, $60 million dollar fine, loss of scholarships to go to college, and the basketball coach has a no win streak. The governor decides this. Your basketball coach can't stand up to himself because he is dead of cancer. It affects you and many, many more people.