In Defense of High School Sports

[CarsonPalmer]

Miningo, why are you so vindictive? Because a group of athletes in your school were jerks, do you feel that all high school athletes everywhere should pay the price? And many of the athletes on teams I have been on are in National Honor Society.

Surlethe, arguing whether God exists or not is different, because that involves Occam's Razor. In this case, you are advocating a procedural change that would cause some rather jarring changes in schools across the country. Doesn't that mean you must justify your claim?

[Big Phil]

Except that you're wrong here. The default position is sports in school, not the other way around. The only way the default position is no sports is by playing rhetorical games. Sports in school is the default - that's reality.

You're so full of sophistry it's oozing out your motherfucking ears. Is it possible you're stupid enough not to understand the difference between the status quo and the burden of proof in an argument, you gibbering retard? If you went back in time to the Middle Ages, would you argue that I needed to prove God didn't exist, since the status quo assumption was that God existed, jackass?

Besides being a lazy fucker you also seem to enjoy bringing in all sorts of extraneous arguments. The existence of god compared with sports in high school? Jeebus you're reaching here.

Furthermore, you want a cost-benefit analysis that doesn't exist. In other words, unless I provide non-existent evidence (cost-benefit analysis) to support a position that already exists, I lose, because it's easier for you to take the lazy man's debating position and ask me to provide all the evidence, none of which you will accept because it doesn't meet your undefined standard of acceptible evidence?

If you can't provide a decent cost-benefit analysis of football, then have you considered conceding the point? For any activity, there are costs, and there are benefits; the rational way to make a decision -- obviously a method which which you have little acquaintance -- is to evaluate the costs and benefits, and decide whether the benefits outweigh the costs. Admitting no analysis exists is tacitly admitting you have no evidence for your assertion.

No I haven't considered conceding - have you considering actually making an argument? Quite frankly, I'd like you to show me a cost-benefit analysis showing that the money spent on sports could be better spent elsewhere, and how that would benefit students. You want to change the current situation - the burden of proof is on you to show why.

[theski]

Surlethe, has been ignoring my data throughout this whole thread.. He isnt going to stop now.

[That NOS Guy]

I should find complaints of ignoring points humorous, but there's only so much irony one can laugh at.

I'll address your oft-humped point that there's a correlation between sports and grades. This is correct, but of course you miss the entire picture

A myriad of components contribute to the reasons why extracurricular activities benefit students academically. One of these reasons is that students learn character-building lessons that they can apply to their study habits and to their lives. Activities such as athletics, music, theater, and organizations teach students how to discipline themselves through drills, practices, or rehearsals (Rombokas . The students have a responsibility to the activity and must perform the tasks assigned to them whether it be to run, sing, act, or organize an event. By participating and persevering in any of these activities, the students gain a sense of self-respect, self-esteem, and self-confidence (Rombokas 23). Extracurricular activities give them pride in their accomplishments, and they learn that if an activity is worth doing, it is worth doing well (Rombokas 11). Students echoed Rombokas’ conclusions because on her survey 74.6% reported that they felt team sports are an excellent way to build character (Rombokas 18).

I bolded the part I want to hit on. All activites contribute to that sort of behavior.

Additionally you ignore that many student atheletes must have a certain GPA, either forcing them to be better or allowing for the possibility of things like grade fixing to be brought in. While I admit the latter is an extreme circumstance the desire to let little Timy go out and win the big one for his team, tests be damned, are known to happen.

I find it odd that you can sit there and harp on sports as being t3h awesome when the very same responses can be induced cheaper and to a greater portion of the student body with things like theather, debate, and the fucking chess club.

We've all heard the horror stories (like Gil Hamiltons) or experienced them ourselves, why are you intent on deluding yourself that the hazy benefits for the few outweigh the clear and pressing needs of the many? Call me crazy, but if we cut our sports budgets and put it into science I can see a pretty big reduction in the absolute ignorance of people in America in regards to things like say, evolution.

In short wouldn't it be better for the student body to focus on it instead it's vastly smaller proportional student atheletes? If there were a budget surplus, maybe we'd be talking different things but America's educational budgeting must take prescidence over all else.[/url]

[CarsonPalmer]

You've heard the horror stories and use them as evidence. But what about the dream stories about people who learned, and used what they learned? What about the high school basketball team that learns discipline from their coach, and so stays out of crime? What about the kid on the football team who is ready to drop out, thinks nobody cares, but his coach takes care of him? What about the kid who never thought he could make friends, but survives summer camp with the rest of the football team, and finds that there are people who like him? What about the unpopular kid, bullied by everyone, who makes friends through track?

Also, our argument continues to be that chess works for some kids, drama for others, and sports for others. Why eliminate sports if a good, effective program can be run, without detriment to the school, which we have shown can be done?

[Big Phil]

In short wouldn't it be better for the student body to focus on it instead it's vastly smaller proportional student atheletes? If there were a budget surplus, maybe we'd be talking different things but America's educational budgeting must take prescidence over all else.[/url]

I snipped most of this because this is the section that I think is most relevant.

First, nobody who has called for the elimination of sports has shown exactly how much money is spent (as a percentage, in actual dollars, etc.) on high school athletics by school districts. People have thrown out items like coach's salaries and equipment costs, but nobody's produced a budget from a school district to show exactly how much is being spent. Can you show me how much money is actually being spent on athletics that could be spent on academics?

Second, nobody has proven that money being spent on high school athletics is money that is being diverted from academics, or that could be spent on academics instead of athletics. I believe an example was produced that indicated that the athletes are responsible for paying for most of their equipment and uniforms costs themselves. In other words, although we have a lot of people complaining about the high cost of running an athletic department, nobody has shown how much those costs are.

Third, it would be nice if somebody could show exactly what money is being spent on coaches salaries that could be eliminated. Keep in mind that in most schools, the coaches are teachers first and coaches second; in many cases they are unpaid volunteers. You can't suggest eliminating a coach's salary unless you know that their salary is actually for coaching and not teaching classes.

Fourth, can you prove that the teachers who are also coaches are less competent than other teachers? Can you prove that as a group they allow athletes to pass classes they shouldn't have? Can you prove that they have a negative effect on the other students?

Finally, can you prove that athletics have a negative effect on the students who do not participate? Individual cases of kids being made fun of are not proper proof - kids will get made fun of regardless and for a variety of reasons, not just by the jocks.

[That NOS Guy]

You've heard the horror stories and use them as evidence. But what about the dream stories about people who learned, and used what they learned? What about the high school basketball team that learns discipline from their coach, and so stays out of crime? What about the kid on the football team who is ready to drop out, thinks nobody cares, but his coach takes care of him? What about the kid who never thought he could make friends, but survives summer camp with the rest of the football team, and finds that there are people who like him? What about the unpopular kid, bullied by everyone, who makes friends through track?

If I wanted that one and a million bullshit I'd go and watch "Coach Carter"

I can guarantee you a crushing majority of this board knows the pinch of poor educational budgets or teachers that are more then lacking.

How many of those vaunted stories can you recall offhand in personal experience or at the least close to home? Do you honestly think that money can't be better spent elsewhere?

Needs of many > few.

Also, our argument continues to be that chess works for some kids, drama for others, and sports for others. Why eliminate sports if a good, effective program can be run, without detriment to the school, which we have shown can be done?

Because the others more inclusive, and most of all vastly cheaper. What makes you think there's only one way to produce the results your looking for?

Even at that, they should come dead last on a budget after adepute facilites and supplies for students and decent teachers. I find it dead humorus that people say sports should stay and think that the funding that goes into there shouldn't be spent on America's failing educational resources. You want to stop the spread of fundies? Teach the damn kids, and God knows you can't get a decent education these days without spending a pretty penny.

[theski]

Nos wrote:

I should find complaints of ignoring points humorous, but there's only so much irony one can laugh at.

Show me one post I ignored... Please...

[Surlethe]

Except that you're wrong here. The default position is sports in school, not the other way around. The only way the default position is no sports is by playing rhetorical games. Sports in school is the default - that's reality.

You're so full of sophistry it's oozing out your motherfucking ears. Is it possible you're stupid enough not to understand the difference between the status quo and the burden of proof in an argument, you gibbering retard? If you went back in time to the Middle Ages, would you argue that I needed to prove God didn't exist, since the status quo assumption was that God existed, jackass?

Besides being a lazy fucker you also seem to enjoy bringing in all sorts of extraneous arguments. The existence of god compared with sports in high school? Jeebus you're reaching here.

Thank you for entirely ignoring my point, you shitlicking asshole.

Furthermore, you want a cost-benefit analysis that doesn't exist. In other words, unless I provide non-existent evidence (cost-benefit analysis) to support a position that already exists, I lose, because it's easier for you to take the lazy man's debating position and ask me to provide all the evidence, none of which you will accept because it doesn't meet your undefined standard of acceptible evidence?

If you can't provide a decent cost-benefit analysis of football, then have you considered conceding the point? For any activity, there are costs, and there are benefits; the rational way to make a decision -- obviously a method which which you have little acquaintance -- is to evaluate the costs and benefits, and decide whether the benefits outweigh the costs. Admitting no analysis exists is tacitly admitting you have no evidence for your assertion.

No I haven't considered conceding - have you considering actually making an argument? Quite frankly, I'd like you to show me a cost-benefit analysis showing that the money spent on sports could be better spent elsewhere, and how that would benefit students.

The government is cutting education, and not paying for mandated changes; meanwhile, United States children lag behind in science and other subjects.
Clearly, underfunded schools cannot educate as well as adequately funded schools; thus, sports remove money which could instead be utilized to enhance learning for the general student body. Meanwhile, the money spent on sports has no demonstrated benefit for the overall student body, and so favors the elite few in the school over the majority of students.

Remember, though, it is not my job to present a case against sports, however much you chafe yourself masturbating to the ridiculous notion of "status quo requires no burden of proof".

You want to change the current situation - the burden of proof is on you to show why.

This claim is bullshit of the highest order, as I've pointed out multiple times; you continue to ignore my statements, and continue to engage in broken-record behavior, repeating your claims time and time again.

[Surlethe]

Surlethe, arguing whether God exists or not is different, because that involves Occam's Razor. In this case, you are advocating a procedural change that would cause some rather jarring changes in schools across the country. Doesn't that mean you must justify your claim?

You missed my point; the analogy demonstrates the burden of proof is upon the positive claim, regardless of appeals to popularity.

[Surlethe]

Surlethe, has been ignoring my data throughout this whole thread.. He isnt going to stop now.

Why don't you demonstrate the correlation is actually causation?

[That NOS Guy]

Nos wrote:

Show me one post I ignored... Please...

One, it's NOS, read.

Two, what makes you think that statement was expressly meant for you, if anything it was meant in regards to Sanchez's continued avoiding of Surlethe and his whining that his points weren't being addressed in a proper manner.

[That NOS Guy]

First, nobody who has called for the elimination of sports has shown exactly how much money is spent (as a percentage, in actual dollars, etc.) on high school athletics by school districts. People have thrown out items like coach's salaries and equipment costs, but nobody's produced a budget from a school district to show exactly how much is being spent. Can you show me how much money is actually being spent on athletics that could be spent on academics?

You're telling me those thousands of dollars that are spent on uniforms, groundskeeping, coaches, assistants, and a fuckton of other costs don't add up? I don't know about you, but redirecting that amount of funding into academics is sure to make the difference. Look at the difference between suburb and inner-city schools. It's all in the funding.

Secondly, we assume peak effiency in our example. While that works better for your side that's not the way it works in real life. There will be cost overruns, that's a nearly guarenteed effect in beaucracies, like we have in the public school system.

Second, nobody has proven that money being spent on high school athletics is money that is being diverted from academics, or that could be spent on academics instead of athletics. I believe an example was produced that indicated that the athletes are responsible for paying for most of their equipment and uniforms costs themselves. In other words, although we have a lot of people complaining about the high cost of running an athletic department, nobody has shown how much those costs are.

Any money going to something other then classes is by default drawing away from educational budgets. Really, this is not that complicated.

Third, it would be nice if somebody could show exactly what money is being spent on coaches salaries that could be eliminated. Keep in mind that in most schools, the coaches are teachers first and coaches second; in many cases they are unpaid volunteers. You can't suggest eliminating a coach's salary unless you know that their salary is actually for coaching and not teaching classes.

Now this is getting interesting. Do you think additional coaches just come in for free? I think not. Add to that that teachers routinely get additional pay for taking on coaching positions. Can you point out where I said we'll cut teachers? PE teachers are needed, however in the face of budgetary contraints sports should be the first on the choping block in favor of cheaper alternatives.

Fourth, can you prove that the teachers who are also coaches are less competent than other teachers? Can you prove that as a group they allow athletes to pass classes they shouldn't have? Can you prove that they have a negative effect on the other students?

Where the fuck are you pulling this from? I'd accuse you of putting words in my mouth, but that would require actual thought into the matter.

Finally, can you prove that athletics have a negative effect on the students who do not participate? Individual cases of kids being made fun of are not proper proof - kids will get made fun of regardless and for a variety of reasons, not just by the jocks.

Diverting funding that can produce the same effects elsewhere for cheaper costs (the savings can then be funneled into other things) from students isn't hurting them in the long run?[/i]

[Big Phil]

snip

no numbers

[That NOS Guy]

no numbers

Wow, what a scathing rebuttal of my points. I do say I bow to you.

Do you read? An honest question, because illeteracy is the only way I can rationalize your stupidity. I wouldn't think it an incredible leap of logic to think that sports programs are expensive.

Here's one example

Here's another

That's quite a chunk of change, and these are fairly typical examples so far as I can surmise. Of course, you'll find some way to rationalize that away. There's also the fact that averages are very difficult to get since it varies quite literally from county to county.

The numbers can vary wildly, which is why I'm hesistant to start throwing around "this is the average" since I cannot find such things anywhere. Poke around on the department of education site if you don't believe me.

This would be an entirely different debate if America's schools weren't falling behind universally and there were no other methods to acheive to results you've been humping so thoroughly. If wishes were horses as it were.

With that in mind we can and should cut all fat out of the budgets to go towards the sciences and math. That fat so happens to fall on sports.

[CarsonPalmer]

Surlethe, this is not an appeal to popularity. Doesn't advocating a change mean that you must satisfy the burden of proof? I'm pretty new to debating, so if I'm wrong, please correct me, but I feel like I'm missing your point here, and your missing mine.

NOS, I'm arguing that high school sports are not without benefit. If you are accepting without question the horror stories, then why do you not accept the positive stories. Using Texas-type football programs to attack High School sports is like using Albania to attack secular government. Also, what about history education? Science and math are not the only important subjects in school, but that is another tangent, that would probably spawn a thread just as big as this one.

PS
EIGHT pages for my second thread ever, and still going strong. I'm glad we've been able to debate this with civility. It seems both sides are arguing sincerely. I've been enlightened in this thread, and I hope others have been too.

[SCRawl]

Surlethe, this is not an appeal to popularity. Doesn't advocating a change mean that you must satisfy the burden of proof? I'm pretty new to debating, so if I'm wrong, please correct me, but I feel like I'm missing your point here, and your missing mine.

I believe that the reason your position requires the burden of proof can be shown by answering this question: what purpose are schools intended to serve? Once you have arrived at the correct answer -- to educate our young people so that (among other things) they can be made ready for careers -- you then have to ask where the money which is spent by the state would be best allocated. Again, having arrived at the correct answer to that question -- the actual educating part -- you can see why it's necessary for you to show why diverting money from that education into things like football, or tennis, etc. The fact that this is currently being done is irrelevant. The fact that going from a school model which incorporates intramural athletics paid for by the state to one which does not constitutes a change is irrelevant. (Sorry, that last sentence was a bit of a mouthful.)

Since here in North America (and particularly in the U.S.) there just isn't enough money floating around to do absolutely everything we want to do with our education system, we have to make choices: do we fix the roof or hire a new coach? do we replace the 1960s history textbooks or do we put down some really keen field turf? do we give our students the best education we can for the money, or do we give them something less with some extras thrown in?

I'll be happy to admit that intramural athletics is not without its uses. Where the state has to pay for these activities instead of more essential tools of education is where, in my opinion, we must draw the line.

[CarsonPalmer]

But wouldn't the fact that thousands of students participate in them mean that such a jarring change must require proof? I'm just trying to get down the basics.

[Edi]

But wouldn't the fact that thousands of students participate in them mean that such a jarring change must require proof? I'm just trying to get down the basics.

If you're talking thousands of students out of the millions that go to school in America, that's still a staggeringly small proportion of the overall strudent body that is getting a huge extra chunk of cash allocated for its benefit and in a non-academic pursuit at that. The burden of proof for justifying such disproportonate spending stll rests with those who advocate such a position.

Edi

[theski]

But wouldn't the fact that thousands of students participate in them mean that such a jarring change must require proof? I'm just trying to get down the basics.

If you're talking thousands of students out of the millions that go to school in America, that's still a staggeringly small proportion of the overall strudent body that is getting a huge extra chunk of cash allocated for its benefit and in a non-academic pursuit at that. The burden of proof for justifying such disproportonate spending stll rests with those who advocate such a position.

Edi

Edi.. I have shown this already but here it is again...

Participation in School Athletics, 1991-2003
Is at 68% of all students..

IT IS NOT A SMALL MINORITY>>>
http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/tabl ... able_1.htm

THat is millions of student athletes.....

[ClaysGhost]

Participation in School Athletics, 1991-2003
Is at 68% of all students..

IT IS NOT A SMALL MINORITY>>>

THat is millions of student athletes.....

What is a student athlete? Is it someone who attends whatever P.E. is normally timetabled in the US system, or is it someone who receives extra funding for additional activities?

[SCRawl]

But wouldn't the fact that thousands of students participate in them mean that such a jarring change must require proof? I'm just trying to get down the basics.

The fact that such a change would require adjustment is irrelevant. The argument is whether or not student athletics programs justify their expense.

I will admit that for the people who make these decisions (as well as those who implement these decisions) the fact that there already exists significant participation is a meaningful one. On the topic of whether or not they are justified, though, it is completely without meaning.

[Surlethe]

Surlethe, this is not an appeal to popularity. Doesn't advocating a change mean that you must satisfy the burden of proof?

You are arguing for the claim "High school sports should be included in schools". This is a positive claim; since you're the one making it, the burden of proof lies with you. In citing the status quo, you imply I need to disprove your claim because it is the status quo; this ignores the fact status quo is merely an aggregate assessment, and is thus the cumulative behavior of the population. This means, of course, if an activity is the status quo, everybody is doing it. It's merely a sophisticated appeal to popularity.

I'm pretty new to debating, so if I'm wrong, please correct me, but I feel like I'm missing your point here, and your missing mine.

My point is this: you are making the positive claim; thus, you must prove your claim; furthermore, the status quo does not shift the burden of proof onto me, because it is, in essence, an appeal to popularity fallacy.

[theski]

Participation in School Athletics, 1991-2003
Is at 68% of all students..

IT IS NOT A SMALL MINORITY>>>

THat is millions of student athletes.....

What is a student athlete? Is it someone who attends whatever P.E. is normally timetabled in the US system, or is it someone who receives extra funding for additional activities?

It actually costs most Students to be a part of a sport in HS.. that includes Cheerleading and such.

A student athlete is someone who Participates in a sport while attending school... Not including PE

[mingo]

Miningo, why are you so vindictive? Because a group of athletes in your school were jerks, do you feel that all high school athletes everywhere should pay the price? And many of the athletes on teams I have been on are in National Honor Society.

Surlethe, arguing whether God exists or not is different, because that involves Occam's Razor. In this case, you are advocating a procedural change that would cause some rather jarring changes in schools across the country. Doesn't that mean you must justify your claim?

And why do you believe that because you enjoyed sports, your cash strapped local school system should spend ANY money providing a place for physically gifted students to strut stuff that will do 99.999999% of them NO good after school. When our nation decides to stop paying lip service to education, and actually FUND it, then we can all have our pet projects. When things are this tight, priorities have to be set, and reading, math, science ect.. beat football every time.