Should college athletes be paid? So as the affirmative I think that college athletes should be paid for like two major reasons firstly, theyre representing the college in games which increases the colleges' publicity so we think then that the college has the obligation or like incentive to pay them or reward them for their input. We think this is important as it benefits both the athlete and the college strengthening their relationship. Secondly we think it just betters the performance of these athletes as this incentivises them to perform better as this is something that they're getting paid for. We think that within the status quo today college athletes aren't really given the opportunities and like resources they could be given and that they essentially work hard to represent the college yet sometimes don't feel validated for the hardxork so we think we get them to feel validated, continue playing for the college and better their performance overall Yeah...

OK so firstly for charitablities sake I do concede that like colleges are academically driven but let us not forget that the basis of these athletes role at the school are mostly based on their excellent skills within the specific sports field that their on so we see within status quo sports scholarships etc so although these colleges are academic institutions they still have the incentives to development themselves enough to produce master athletes, even like with things such as debating unions, mathletes etc all of these are to give students a chance to better themselves and the reputation of the college as like a oh we produce a level debators who seem to have a bright future ahead of them so we think then to ultimately better that they would then have to pay these athletes because of our previous analysis on how this betters their overall performance and their continuous contribution to the college 1. We think then the mechanism looks like an athlete being paid - them ultimately feelibg incentivised to train more to better their performance - they perform better - they are rewarded for their performance - the college ultimately gets recognition for producing a level athletes - this creates a huge impact on the level if athletes colleges produce in future and THE ALUMNI they are left with as these athletes ultimately then feel incentivised to give back to the college which catalysed their career. We think this is something we don't get AS MUCH from your side Yeh we win this debate solely on actor analysis, incentives, trade off (short term durden for long term benefits ) and the ability to better the career of the athlete and situation of the college

Okay, so purely response 1. We don't think that we don't get less schooling on our side we might even be able to say we get a better quality of schooling I mean look at it we get more revenue in on our side which gives the college the agency to actively better their infrastructure for both academics and sports. 2. We think then we give all students the type of inclusivity they might have otherwise not gotten from your side as they are given opportunities to better their skills et in a specific field whether sport or academics 3. We give the college better reputation which you've surprisingly conceded to so you see it? Colleges get back at the end of the day. Means to an end So we wine again I'll repeat myself on like incentives, actor analysis, counterfactual benefits, trade offs, long term and short term goals