Resolved: On balance, public subsidies for professional athletic organizations in the United States benefit their local communities.
The last turn I discussed was under the gentrification/revitalization debate. But there is another type of argument lurking on the CON side that sounds a bit like a Kritik.
“In policy debate and becoming increasingly common in Lincoln–Douglas debates, generally speaking, a kritik usually challenges a certain mindset, assumption, or discursive element that exists within the advocacy of the opposing team, often from the perspective of critical theory.” (thank you Wikipedia).
So no matter what the PRO argues, the CON can get at some basic assumptions behind this resolution, namely that professional athletic organizations are promoting values we want in our society. If not, should they be publicly funded? Can they overcome this detriment to provide a benefit to the local community.
Some basic characteristics of professional athletic organizations that can be kritiked can be seen by looking at the NFL:
what about promoting violence?
what about discrimination based on sexuality?
See the case of Michael Sam and others.
what about policies regarding domestic violence and women?
See the recent failure of the NFL to respond to Ray Rice’s domestic violence.
Don’t confine yourself to arguments about the explicit impacts of professional athletic organizations. You can attack at the foundation of what these organizations stand for to find more far-reaching and perhaps even more compelling arguments to make.