Foundation Briefs Advanced Level September/October Brief Resolved



Download 0.68 Mb.
Page3/29
Date20.10.2016
Size0.68 Mb.
#6219
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   29

Definitions


On Balance Definition AMS

University of Cambridge. “Cambridge Dictionary.” Cambridge Dictionary Online. N.p., 2014. Web. 16 Aug 2014.

On balance: after considering the power or influence of both sides of a question.


Professional Sports Organization Definition AMS

U.S. Code 3701. USCS 3701 Article 3 Title 28 Judiciary and Judicial Procedure: Part 6. Particular Proceedings: Chapter 178. Professional and Amateur Sports Protection.

US Code 3701

(USCS 3701 Article 3 Title 28 Judiciary and Judicial Procedure: Part 6. Particular Proceedings: Chapter 178. Professional and Amateur Sports Protection)

a professional sports organization is

(A) a person or governmental entity that sponsors, organizes, schedules, or conducts a competitive game in which one or more professional athletes participate, or

(B) a league or association of persons or governmental entities described in subparagraph (A). above

Level of Public Subsidies Defined. ASF

Malanga, Steven. "The Public Dollars Fueling the NFL Dispute". Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. June 1, 2011. http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/miarticle.htm?id=7158#.VANBVrywLXR

With more owners clamoring for stadiums, the NFL then started a loan fund which has helped owners build or renovate another 12 venues. Still, taxpayers have borne about 40 percent of the nearly $8 billion in construction costs for these, though that number is largely skewed by the fact that the Giants and Jets privately financed their extremely expensive (some would say overpriced at $1.6 billion) new stadium. In other venues, including those in Indianapolis, Denver, and Chicago, financing from private sources amounted to less than one-third of the total cost, even with the NFL loan fund pitching in, Vrooman estimates.

“Public subsidy” definition DAT

“Defining Subsidies.” World Trade Organization. 2006. Web. http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/anrep_e/wtr06-2b_e.pdf

Depending on the context, a large number of government programmes may be considered subsidies. For simplicity, these programmes can be grouped into at least three categories: firstly, the government may transfer funds to producers or consumers, resulting in direct or potential budgetary expenditure, or use its power to instruct private entities to make a transfer. Direct transfers, like re-training grants or child allowances, would fall into this category….

Secondly, the government may provide goods or services at no cost or below market price, such as university education, public transport or food stamps. Such transfers also involve expenses for the government, with the difference being that beneficiaries receive in-kind contributions as opposed to funds they can freely dispose of….

Thirdly, regulatory policies may be seen as subsidies, if they create transfers from one group to another. Border protection, for example, allows for price discrimination and pooling of revenues to producers that are implicitly financed by domestic consumers (Schluep and De Gorter, 2000).



Public stadium funding deals typically fall into one of the first two categories. If a city partners with a team to fund a stadium, it would be the first category. If the city builds the stadium and leases it to the team, this would fall into the second category—stadium leases do not cover the total construction costs of the facility.

Topic Analysis One


Resolved: On balance, public subsidies for professional athletic organizations in the United States benefit their local communities.
At first glance this month’s topic appears fairly straightforward. But there are a few nuances teams can play on to make debates interesting. First, let’s discuss definitions:
“On balance” – Most PF teams will be familiar with this phrase. Remind your opponents that an “on balance” resolution requires the teams to carefully weigh the options. There are clear advantages and disadvantages to professional athletic organizations, but the final impact should be weighed above any small discrepancies. This gives the pro a slight advantage. The pro can use financial impacts, civic pride, or any other benefits that result from professional athletic organizations. The con on the other hand, must conclusively prove that there are no benefits from all professional athletic organizations.
“benefit” – The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines “benefit” as a “good or helpful result or effect.” This is a simple word that both teams can work to their advantage. Pro teams should use a weak definition like the Merriam Webster one because it lessens their burden—the Pro needs only to prove a few good or helpful results to win that debate. The Con should try to find a stronger definition. For example, the Oxford dictionary defines “benefit” as “an advantage or profit gained from something.” This can be a little harder to fulfill. The Con should use this definition to argue that professional athletic organizations must on balance provide a distinct advantage over any disadvantages these subsidies cause.
These two definitions show how each team can shift the burden in this debate. Pro teams should use a weak definition of “benefit” to claim that if there are even a couple slight good results from public subsidies for professional athletic organizations, they win the debate. Con should focus on the bigger picture, arguing that the advantages must overcome any problems with these subsidies.
“in the United States” – This part of the resolution is clear. Teams should make sure to use evidence from U.S. athletic organizations only. While Olympic Games held inside the United States are fair territory, be careful with this evidence and be sure to stay in scope. It is safer to use statistics from U.S. specific mega-events, like the Super Bowl. This evidence is best for Pro teams because mega-events provide a boost to the economy with advertisement, gained infrastructure, and the massive influx of tourism these huge events attract.
“local communities” – A local community can be reasonably defined as the same small community that paid taxes for the public subsidies in question. This smaller subset gives the Pro a slight advantage. Pro teams should focus on all benefits to the people close to professional athletic organizations. Larger outcomes, like the effects upon the United States federal budget are out of scope if the benefits to local communities are substantial. On the other hand, Con teams should frame local communities as a smaller piece of the United States in general. Thus, larger effects like the U.S. budget are definitely within the scope of this resolution. Although the difference may seem inconsequential, phrasing will be very important for this debate. Pro teams must focus almost exclusively on the smaller picture, the communities and families that will benefit from professional sports organizations. Conversely, con teams can focus on the bigger picture and emphasize larger impacts, like the overall cost of these public subsidies.
Next let’s consider the popular arguments for this debate. In terms of headline material, Con definitely has the advantage. There are countless articles with statistics demonstrating that public subsidies for sports are not all they were cracked up to be. Con teams should use this material at the very least as an introduction to the rest of their cases. However, all is not lost for Pro teams. There are many more subtle arguments available from this brief to create an interesting and well-developed Pro case. For example, track and field stadiums tend to produce a large economic benefit to their surrounding communities, as demonstrated in this brief.
Pro teams can also use less obvious benefits to win their debates. While numbers are definitely convincing from a judge’s perspective, there are other less obvious impacts from professional sports organizations in the United States. A few of these non-fiscal benefits are:

  • Civic Pride: Many politicians argue the benefits of increased civic pride. More positive citizens are more productive and generally more engaged.

  • City Marketing: Sporting events, especially mega-events like the Super Bowl are great advertising for cities. In particular, there are success stories from more famous stadiums demonstrating the effect these centers can have on an area. For example, Oriole Park in Camden Yard (Baltimore) and Jacobs Field (Cleveland) are hallmarks of redevelopment that some argue transformed these cities into thriving metropolitan hubs. Remind judges of these sentimental economic milestones to hit home the importance of drawing in tourists through ballparks.

  • Spin-Off Development: A big reason city marketing is important is because of the process it sets in motion for large cities. These establishments attract retail stores, restaurants, and parking structures.

  • Job Multipliers: This argument goes hand in hand with the spin-off development argument. New stores and restaurants require new employees, providing another boost to the host city economy.

Pro teams shouldn’t ignore statistics. There are several studies available in this brief that demonstrate the direct economic impacts of sports subsidies and provide statistics to counter Con teams. However, Pro teams should also stress the intangible benefits of professional athletic organizations in the United States to win this debate. These effects, civic pride in particular, are impossible to pinpoint and absolutely necessary for any developing economy.


Con teams also have a variety of intangible effects available to them. For example:


  • Substitution Effect: This is the argument that if the families, teams, and other game-goers were not spending their money at stadiums and ballparks, they would be spending it at other places in the same city. These sports developments are merely a replacement for existing alternatives and therefore no gain is achieved by constructing more stadiums.

  • Executive Payoff: A huge percentage of the economic benefits from sports subsidies don’t go to local communities at all. Instead this money pads the pockets of wealthy ballpark owners, sports team executives, and professional athletes. Many of these wealthy owners and athletes do not even live in their host team’s city, taking their earnings to a different community and not benefitting their local communities.

  • Eminent domain: In order to achieve the mass of land needed to construct a typical stadium or ballpark, many establishments must use the right to extract land from owners with the promise of compensation. Although landowners are compensated for this land, many still resent the force of the principle. Sometimes forcibly relocated businesses choose to move their establishments to another city, causing a loss of revenue for the host city through displacement.

  • Opportunity Costs: This argument can be used to deflect many Pro Team points. For example, if a Pro team argues that sporting events help to market their host cities for tourists, the con can counter by arguing that if the money that went into the sporting event went instead to better the city itself (public transportation, etc.) the city would be better off altogether.

These are a few of the most possible arguments for both sides of this month’s resolution. With this advice on definitions, framing, and popular arguments in mind, I have the following advice:

  1. Carefully frame the debate to your advantage. Subtle wording differences may make all the difference in this debate. Pro teams must focus on local communities and can use to their advantage by emphasizing intangible benefits. Con teams should focus on the straight numbers—the multiplicity of studies available showing the economic cost of public subsidies for professional athletic organizations in the United States.

  2. Don’t get caught up in numbers. It is easy to get into a game of statistics where both teams are countering with different studies. Focus instead on the actual arguments to avoid getting lost and dragging your judge into the weeds.

  3. Don’t limit yourself. Many teams find one favorite argument and focus too much on one particular benefit or disadvantage in an on balance debate. It is okay to have a secret weapon, but be sure to have all your bases covered. Focusing only on one aspect is dangerous if this particular argument does not resonate with your judge.

With this advice in mind, happy debating and see you next month!

--Amanda Sopkin




Download 0.68 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   29



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
methods used
hidden costs
london olympics