appfree

image

Resolved: Spain should grant Catalonia its independence

Arguments from Blake Updates  Introduction The January Public Forum resolution asks the question of whether or not Spain should grant Catalonia it independence. In this essay, I will review the key terms in the resolution, provide important background information, and discuss both Pro and Con arguments. The Resolution The resolution is very straightforward and I think there are only two potential controversies related to the wording. Spain. Spain simply refers to a well-known country in Europe. Catalonia. Catalonia is a region in the Northeast corner of Spain that has a degree of autonomy within the Spanish Constitution but is also part of Spain. On October 1, 2017, Catalonia voted in a referendum to declare its independence. This will be discussed in more detail in the background section. Independence. The term “independence” could arguably have a couple different meanings – more “independence” from the central government of Spain without becoming an independent country and complete independence – establishing its own country. The latter interpretation is more common and since that is what Catalonia voted to do in the referendum, I think it makes the most sense to define it this way for your debates. The only point that I think is worth making here, however, is that there is a lot of strong evidence that claims Catalonia would be better off with more regional autonomy instead of full independence. There is even evidence that says this is what a majority of Catalonians support. As long as the Con wins that independence has to refer to forming a brand new country, and the Con can get away with suggesting an alternative, this will be a strong Con argument. Grant. The term “grant” means to “give or allow” (Google Definitions) . The choice of this word in the resolution is interesting because the literature related to Catalonian independence is about whether or not Catalonia should declare its independence. There aren’t articles that debate the question of whether or not Spain should grant Catalonia its independence because Spain would never even remotely consider doing such a thing. But, if Spain, grants Catalonia its independence that really changes the context of the arguments because it would obviously less strife is Spain agreed to grant this independence. Some coaches think that the resolution will not get debated as it is written, which is possible They think that debaters will simply argue whether or not it is good for Catalonia to declare its independence. This may happen. What is important to understand, however, is that these are not identical questions, though some of the issues obviously overlap. Background As just noted, on October 1, 2017, Catalonia held a referendum in which it voted to secede from Spain – to create its own country. Why did Catalonia vote to secede? There are three basic explanations as to why Spain voted to secede. First, Spain was ruled by a fascist — Francisco Franko — from 1939 to 1975 and the King largely oppressed the region. Although Catalonians do have

image

Answering the International Athletes, F-1 Visa Argument (And a new spending answer)

[Millennial Speech & Debate Summer Workshops] [Millennial Online Training] [All Millennial PF Resources] Do you need more answers to arguments? Submit a request I heard that some debaters ate the Yale tournament are making the argument that if student athletes are treated as employees that foreign student athletes will not be able to play because foreign students are not allowed to work more than 20 hours per week and athletics requires more time than that. They impact the argument by claiming that foreign athletes are poor and they need a quality education. This is a reasonable argument, but there are a few problems with it. First, under NCAA rules, athletes are only allowed to be involved with athletics for 20 hours a week under NCAA rules. So, foreign athletes could play/practice twenty hours per week, just like everyone else. Of course, some argue that college athletic programs exploit this loophole and require players to practice more than 20 hours per week, but if they are going to chat the law, they can cheat for international player as well. Second, it seems odd to suggest that there would be a net increase in poverty, even if the Con argument is true. Why? Because if those international athletes are recruited then more US athletes would be recruited. Chances are, those US athletes are also poor, and now they would receive scholarships. Pro teams could even put an “America First” spin on this, arguing that we should prioritize helping poor athletes in the US. Third, US universities could still provide full scholarships and 20 hours a week of work. Even if it means the international athletes practice a little less, the schools would still take them if they are really great athletes.  And since schools would now have to pay athletes on at least a per hour basis, they would probably cap working hours for everyone at 20 hours. Fourth, this argument ignores subsequent legal changes that would very likely occur if athletes were treated as employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  For example, if student athletes were paid and worked more than 20  hours per week, it is likely that legislative change would occur that would allow at least student athletes to work more than 20 hours per week Also, when thinking of answers to this argument, I had a related thought: International students in the US pay full tuition and additional international fees.  The tuition and fees from these students help to keep US universities afloat financially.  Pro teams can potentially use this idea to respond to general concerns about cost by arguing that universities could absorb any cost increases by simply admitting more students and raising international fees. TC News, June 19, 2016, How international students are keeping US colleges afloat and powering the tech industry, https://r-login.wordpress.com/remote-login.php?action=auth&host=techcrunch.com&id=24588526&back=https%3A%2F%2Ftechcrunch.com%2F2016%2F07%2F19%2Fhow-international-students-are-keeping-us-colleges-afloat-and-powering-the-tech-industry%2F&h= Think back on your college experience and you may recall the presence of the International House, an on-campus residence set aside for international students. The fact that there was likely only a single

image

Answers To Blocks you will need for NCAA sports topic

This is a list of “Answers To/A2” Blocks that you will need to be able to Con A2 Blocks A2: Exploitation/Students deserve payment A2: Students don’t graduate A2: Racism A2: Collective Bargaining good/labor movements A2: Health care A2: Corruption A2: Injury protection A2: Poverty A2: Economic autonomy/entrepreneurship A2 Sports Bad (Pro collapses sports J) A2: Entrepreneurship/Financial Literacy A2: Graduation rates low/graduation good A2: Relationship between universities and students primarily economic A2: Universities have the money to pay/large endowments A2; Paying students makes the college athletic programs stronger A2: NRLB already recognizes as employees A2: Student athletes work more than 40 hours per week A2: Institutional trust A2: Spills-over to high school sports   Pro A2 Blocks   A2: College athletics will become professional A2: Scholarships Solve A2: They are amateurs/amateurism better A2: Title IX undermines solvency A2: Paying kills Title IX, Title IX good A2: Too expensive for universities A2: Scholarship cuts, A2: university cuts A2: Tuition increases A2: Causes cuts in non-revenue sports A2: Causes many sports to be cut A2 Creates inequity with non-athletes A2: Naming/image rights solve A2: Literal legal arguments A2: Students would have to pay taxes A2: Action at state level better

image

Resolved: NCAA student athletes ought to be recognized as employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (introduction)

Annotated Bibliography  The Prohibitive Costs of Paying Student Athletes , “Answers to” Blocks You’ll Need, Answering the Pro’s Exploitation Argument, College Athletics as a Plantation System, *Introduction This resolution asks two questions – Should NCAA athletes (SA) be treated as employees and should they be treated as such under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)? The two questions are obviously related, but they are somewhat distinct, as athletes could be recognized as employees in many different ways, not just under the FLSA.  When you are researching the topic you will be able to find articles in all of these categories — Should SA be paid? Should SA be considered employees? Should SA be considered employees under the FLSA? These questions obviously overlap and there is some literature that covers all three, but you can find many unique articles in each area. In this essay I will review the basic terminology of the resolution, provide important background information, review the arguments on both sides, and suggest some arguments about whether or not they should be recognized under the FLSA. Let’s begin with the terminology. *Definitions NCAA. The NCAA is the National College Athletic Association (NCAA), the governing body of college sports. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Collegiate_Athletic_Association The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)[a] is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,281 institutions, conferences, and individuals. It also organizes the athletic programs of many colleges and universities in the United States and Canada, and helps more than 450,000 college student-athletes who compete annually in college sports. The organization is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana. In 2014, the NCAA generated almost a billion dollars in revenue. 80 to 90% of this revenue was due to the Division I Men’s Basketball Tournament. This revenue is then distributed back into various organizations and institutions across the United States.[3] In August 1973, the current three-division system of Division I, Division II, and Division III was adopted by the NCAA membership in a special convention. Under NCAA rules, Division I and Division II schools can offer scholarships to athletes for playing a sport. Division III schools may not offer any athletic scholarships Within this basic explanation from Wikipedia, there are a few facts worth highlighting – (a) It regulates how college sports operate, though it is worth noting that this is through a voluntary agreement by the schools that are members of the NCAA. The NCAA, as a non-profit organization, has no independent regulatory authority beyond what is granted by the member institutions. (b) Students who play in all divisions do not receive scholarships. This is important to emphasize because the literature on the question of whether or not students should be recognized as employees is generally about scholarship athletes – those with who receive a full scholarship to a school in exchange for participating in sports and can lose their scholarships if they do not fulfill the often time consuming obligations the coaches place on them. The literature is really not about recognizing all student athletes as employees. Student athletes. “Student athletes” are athletes who are both students at a college or university and athletes at the same time.   Since the resolution refers to “NCAA student

image

Students Athletes as Employees: The Best Racism Card on the Topic?

McCormick & McCormick, 2010, Robert A. McCormick, Professor of Law, Michigan State University College of Law, B.A., Michigan State University, 1969; J.D., University of Michigan, 1973, Amy Christian McCormick, Professor of Law, Michigan State University College of Law, B.S.B.A., Georgetown University, 1988; J.D., Harvard Law School, 1Texas Review of Entertainment & Sports Law, Major College Sports: A Modern Apartheid, https://digitalcommons.law.msu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1408&context=facpubs Major college sports in the United States flourish on the basis of an apartheid system so plain that although it may be (and is) ignored, it cannot be denied. This system, made up of numerous NCAA rules, effectively sanctions the exploitation of mostly African-American young men 3 for the enormous pecuniary gain of mostly European Americans associated with major universities, athletic organizations, and corporations, as well as for the great entertainment of millions of mostly European Americans. 4 The central principle upon which this system rests is “amateurism,” 5 and it is upon the amateur ideal that U.S. universities, through the NCAA, seek to justify this regime. Major college sports, however, are amateur only in the pernicious sense that the very persons who are most responsible for creating this product are denied all but a sliver of the great wealth they create. 6 In every other way, major college sports have become a sophisticated, visible, and highly lucrative commercial enterprise. 7 Put differently, although college football and men’s basketball players, who are disproportionately African American, 8 generate fantastic sums of money for a wide array of others, they themselves are forbidden from sharing in those riches. Instead, while NCAA rules obligate players to live by a code of amateurism that forecloses any real opportunity to earn compensation for their labor, 9 that precept does not apply to university officers, coaches, athletic directors, conference commissioners, corporations, or NCAA officials, who are predominantly of European descent, 10 and who alone may enjoy the bounteous wealth created in substantial part by the players. 11 The regime that keeps a young athlete in this modern form of servitude has several legal components and begins even before he enrolls in college. 12 A football or men’s basketball player who has signed a National Letter of Intent and matriculated at an NCAA institution may not transfer to another school except under conditions not imposed upon any other university student. 13 Then, once enrolled, the amount of financial aid he may earn, or even receive by way of gift, 14 is limited to tuition, room, board and books. 15 At the same time, he is forbidden from receiving compensation for the only things that could likely bring him real value – his athletic skill and fame. 16 His scholarship may be granted only on a semester-to-semester or a year-to-year basis, 17 and its renewal may be denied at the sole discretion of the coach. 18 Indeed, unlike any other person at the university, he may not even hire a lawyer to help him navigate a future career. 19 These rules, like Gulliver’s restraints, 20 effectively hold these