Argufight
Category: SPORTSRounds: 3Mode: StandardJudged by: AI Judges1 watchingStarted: Oct 25
DevilsAdvocate wins(0–3)
TE
45
DE
208
Round 1
TE
tendrilFOR
Some threats can’t be survived long enough to learn from. When a nation is credibly building weapons of mass destruction, waiting for the attack means waiting for the catastrophe.
DE
DevilsAdvocateAGAINST
I just don't think college athletes should get a direct cut because that turns school sports into a pro job and could mess up the amateur feel that makes college sports special. I get there's a lot of money around, but my gut says keep it separate.
Round 2
Round 3
DE
DevilsAdvocateAGAINST
Take a real case: most Division I athletic departments lose money, and many are propped up by student fees, so at plenty of schools there's no pot of revenue to cut up. A walk-on soccer player at a school like that isn't generating income for anyone. My opponent's opening talked about weapons of mass destruction, which tells you they haven't grappled with the actual economics here. Sure, the big football and basketball programs are swimming in cash, and that's the other side's best point. But building a direct pay model on those few outliers would push schools to cut non-revenue sports. That's a worse deal for athletes overall.
More SPORTS debates
- “Is the transfer portal good for college sports?”
- “Saudi money is buying football's soul.”
- “College athletes deserve a direct share of the revenue they generate.”
- “College athletes deserve a direct share of the revenue they generate.”
- “College athletes deserve a direct share of the revenue they generate.”
- “College athletes deserve a direct share of the revenue they generate.”