# data[].attributes.body
Pro side states that the  college athletes are on broadcasted in almost all homes and should get a portion of funding for this. Many think they should get paid as they are combining school with sports.

Con side states that they are still in college and if they are good enough to get paid, they will play professionally. Many also think that it would cost the college way too much money that some schools don't even have.

I am with the con side as not only can schools not afford it but also they are in college and if they are good enough then they will get scholarship money.

# data[].attributes.headline
Should Women be aloud to compete against men?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should Women be aloud to compete against men?

# data[].attributes.body
Pro side states that it isn't fair that the best athletes aren't allowed to face one another because of their gender. There is no justifiable reason to separate men and women in competition. Also, biological advantages and disadvantages are a reality for everyone, male or female.

Con side states that men’s results in strength demanding sports are higher. By letting men and women compete against each other it could and would cause a lot of tension that isn't needed. It also wouldn't be fair to most women because most are much smaller than men.

I don't think men and women should be able to compete against each other because men are usually stronger than women and not to many guys would want to have a girl on the team.

# data[].attributes.body
My debate topic is, whether athletes are overpaid.

People on the affirmative side of this topic say, that the money we pay athletes could be used for better causes. They say that doctors and teachers should be paid more than athletes, because they are actually changing/saving lives.

People of the negative side of this topic say, that athletes give a lot back to communities. They also say that we are the ones aiding their success. We as a society buy into their franchises by watching their games, buying jerseys, etc.

After considering multiple views regarding both sides of the topic, I would say that I am on the affirmative side. The money we pay athletes could be used for many other productive purposes.

http://www.debate.org/opinions/are-most-professional-athletes-overpaid

# data[].attributes.body
Is bull riding a sport?? Well the affirmative side like me say yes it is a sport. It's said to be the hardest sport on dirt. Ty Murray is an announcer for the Professional Bull Riding  and according to him he says yes it is a sport and the hardest if you don't believe it then try it. It's all about up'er body strength and your legs and hips. Your legs lock you in and your up'er body moves you with the with your free hand. Proses making a lot of money in 3 rides having fun. They don't have it in Iowa yet for High school because nobody got up and spoke about it but my goal is by the time I graduate it will be in Iowa I had the chance to get it started once but I had an accident my self.

Cons about this are dyeing, getting hurt, rude to the animals. The negative side says no its not a sport they don't have it at our school but its not every where yet they don't have bulls all over and it cost money and stuff to put on a good show.

soarse is me Braxsten Jones

# data[].attributes.body
Affirmative: golf was selected by the International Olympic Committee for inclusion starting in 2016. Golfers use 17 different muscle groups. Golf is a competitive sport.

Negative: Burning 360 calories per hour without a cart or caddie is  less than the number of calories burned per hour in competitive sports: 900 in soccer, and 727 in football, basketball, and tennis. Many people golf leisurely.

I think golf can be a sport. Some people play golf competitively and others do not.
http://golf.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.body
Affirmative side states that yes, it is,  because youre getting all the excersise and it is competitive.
Opposing side states that no, it isnt, because it is doing something active, yet not using your voice, and youre telling a story, not playing a sport. I am more towards the opposing side, because you dont really play, you do just tell a story with your voice. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jenna-garecht/is-dance-a-sport-or-an-ar_b_2681008.html

# data[].attributes.body
Golfers burn more calories than gymnasts. Golfing without a cart burns an average of 360 calories per hour. golf usually takes 1 to 2 hours to get done when walking.
Golf requires coordination and muscle use. The golf swing uses at least 17 muscle groups. like hands, wrists, arms, abdomen, and legs.

Cons Professional golfers are sometimes overweight, old, or out of shape. There caddies carry the equipment for them. There is no running, jumping, or activity in golf. Many pro golfers smoked while playing or and drank while playing.

Burning 360 calories per hour playing golf without a cart or caddie is far less than the number of calories burned per hour in sports: 900 in soccer and 727 in football.

# data[].attributes.body
The affirmative side states that running spikes can enhance your performance. Spikes are designed to make you faster with the minimal weight and its aggressive traction. Spikes can be worn for sprints, middle distance, long distance and as well as the cross country course. According to the distance the spike is designed differently.
The opposing side states that it can cause injuries. With less cushion and stability your feet are not as protected as with a regular running shoe. As your foot strikes it is putting 3 to 4 times your body weight on impact. Getting used to spikes may take awhile because of the lack of cushion along with the sharp spikes.
I am on the affirmative side. Because of the less bulkiness and lighter shoe you can get more grip and run faster. However I don't run sprits. With the continuous pounding on my feet for a longer distance I prefer not to wear spikes.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/139900-why-are-running-spikes-better-than-regular-running-shoes/

# data[].attributes.body
Pros: The DH allows for one extra solid batter to enter the lineup, as opposed to a player who usually isn’t the best hitting.The DH gives veteran players who can no longer play the field a great opportunity to extend their careers.

Cons: The use of a DH gets away from the more traditional conceptions of baseball where everyone bats. The lack of pinch-hitting takes away from some of the strategy of the game.

I believe that there should be a DH because it keeps the game exciting. Having a good DH face off against a good pitcher is always fun to watch.

# data[].attributes.body
Affirmative side- People say cheerleaders do a lot of tumbling and coordination, making it a physical activity. They also think that since its in the olympics its a sport.
Negative side- people say anything that is judged or scored necessarily isn't a sport. They also think since cheerleaders stand around on the sidelines of other sports, cheerleading should not be considered a sport.

My opinion- I believe that
cheerleading is only a sport in some circumstances. For instance Cheerleading that is in the olympics is a sport. They compete and require practices as long as other sports but I also believe that most cheerleading in high school isn’t really a sport unless you compete.
http://www.dailyrepublic.com/features/youth/definition-statistics-proves-cheer-is-not-a-sport/

# data[].attributes.headline
Is golf a sportIs golf a sport Pro: Golfers burn more calories than gymnasts. Golfers who play a nine-hole course 2-2.5 miles without a cart while carrying their own clubs that weigh 30-50 burn 721 calories of clubs which weighs 30-50 pounds. The golf swing uses at least 17 muscle groups in the coordinated movement of the hands, wrists, arms, abdomen, and legs.Cons: Professional golfers are sometimes overweight, old, or out of shape, and their caddies carry the equipment for them. There is no running, jumping, or cardiovascular activity in golf. Athleticism does not correlate with performance when it comes to golf.Im with pro it may not be a physical game but it is a mental game 

# data[].attributes.subject
Is golf a sportIs golf a sport Pro: Golfers burn more calories than gymnasts. Golfers who play a nine-hole course 2-2.5 miles without a cart while carrying their own clubs that weigh 30-50 burn 721 calories of clubs which weighs 30-50 pounds. The golf swing uses at least 17 muscle groups in the coordinated movement of the hands, wrists, arms, abdomen, and legs.Cons: Professional golfers are sometimes overweight, old, or out of shape, and their caddies carry the equipment for them. There is no running, jumping, or cardiovascular activity in golf. Athleticism does not correlate with performance when it comes to golf.Im with pro it may not be a physical game but it is a mental game 

# data[].attributes.body
Pro: Golfers burn more calories than gymnasts. Golfers who play a nine-hole course 2-2.5 miles without a cart while carrying their own clubs that weigh 30-50 burn 721 calories of clubs which weighs 30-50 pounds. The golf swing uses at least 17 muscle groups in the coordinated movement of the hands, wrists, arms, abdomen, and legs.

Cons: Professional golfers are sometimes overweight, old, or out of shape, and their caddies carry the equipment for them. There is no running, jumping, or cardiovascular activity in golf. Athleticism does not correlate with performance when it comes to golf.

Im with pro it may not be a physical game but it is a mental game

# data[].attributes.body
The affirmative side states  that college, high schools and university classify golf as a sport. The athletic departments of colleges and universities treat golf as one of its sports to monitor and is subject to the authority of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). Also,  the media treats professional golfers as if they are true athletes. The Associated Press has named a golfer as its Female Athlete of the Year 24 times since the award began in 1931, meaning golfers account for 30 percent of the honorees.

The negative side states  that unlike a sport, golf does not require extreme physical activity. The calories burned playing golf without a cart or caddie is 360 calories per hour which is much less than the number of calories burned per hour in competitive sports: 900 in soccer, and 727 in football, basketball, and tennis. Many sports experts feel that golf does not require the athletic rigor needed to be a real sport. The panel determined that the level of athleticism in golf ranked lower than ping pong and just ahead of roller skating.

I am in favor of the affirmative side.  The Olympics are the ultimate worldwide sporting event, and golf was selected by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) for inclusion starting in 2016. Also it takes a lot of practice and skills to play golf. Golf is not something you play only one time and you become good at it. It takes many times and a lot of efforts to become great.

# data[].attributes.body
Pro- There is phisical activity involved

# data[].attributes.headline
Should Youth Sports Teams Be Competitive?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should Youth Sports Teams Be Competitive?

# data[].attributes.body
Pros:

1. It Builds Character
If a young athlete has the talent to be on a travel team. Moving to a new level of competition means the kids will have to work harder to be the best. You have to learn how to lose and make yourself better.
2. It's healthier lifestyle.
If kids want to be a competitive athlete, then they need to be in the best shape possible. You have to eat right and keep hydrated or you can't preform at your best. Those eating habits will hopefully move on as you grow up.

Cons:

1. Cost can be extremely high.
When your child is on a competitive team. It can cost a lot of money to travel around and pay for the practices. It can also cost a lot to buy their uniforms and pay for hotels and gas.

2. Kids have a lot of pressure on the to be the best.
Kids can feel pressured to be the best and put to much weight on their shoulders. If they didn't get a certain placing or spot they wanted it would make them feel like a loser and could ruin the self a steam.  Which could go into a long term effect of self hatred.

Opinion: I agree with the affirmative side. I think it builds a lot of character and pushes kids to want to be the best they can. It puts effort in their life and makes them work for something.

http://www.sportssignup.com/blog/bid/117417/The-Pros-and-Cons-of-Being-on-a-Competitive-Youth-Sports-Team

# data[].attributes.body
The affirmative side states that golf meets the definition of "sport" found in the dictionary, requires physical exertion and coordination, and is recognized as a sport by sporting goods companies, athletic associations, fans, the media, and more. Adding to the point of golf's inclusion in the Olympics starting in 2016 as more evidence of its qualification as a sport. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines sport as "physical activity engaged in for pleasure; a particular activity (as an athletic game) so engaged in."

The opposing side states that nay sayers say that golf meets the definition of "game" more than "sport," and does not require expansive physical activity, and can be played professionally by people who are overweight, injured, or non-athletic. They argue that golf is a game or leisure activity, saying golf's 112-year absence from the Olympics as proof that it is not a sport.

I am on the affirmative side. If you golf the correct way, on a team or competition, a person will see how strenuous it really is. Did you know in 2009, Golfer Tiger Woods  became the first athlete to surpass one billion dollars in career earnings, making him the richest athlete of all time? You can't tell me he made that much by not playing a sport.

http://golf.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.body
Pros- People on the affirmative side say that dancers spend an extreme amount of time practicing and work extremely hard, especially competition dance teams. People have no idea the skill that is required to do this. They say other sports require you to have strong arms, or legs, or core but dance requires all of the above.
Cons- People on the negative side say that there is no physical action and that it's just an art. They say that all dancers do is walk in circles and wear makeup. They also say that all it is is a game of memory.
Opinion- I think dance is definitely a sport. Dancers practice constantly during practices and the practices aren't short. Dancers move a lot, and we definitely do sweat. We aren't walking in circles and only caring about makeup. Also, for the MFL Mar Mac Dance Team, we need physicals. So why would we need physicals if dance isn't a sport?
http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-dance-a-sport

# data[].attributes.body
Affirmative-
Trophies get kids motivated.
It makes them feel like their worth something.
Negate-
Not beneficial to the kids in the long run.
Because everyone gets one.
I don't think that there shouldn't be participation trophies because that doesn't motivate kids.

# data[].attributes.headline
Should College Football Replace the Bowl Championship Series (BCS)with a Playoff System?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should College Football Replace the Bowl Championship Series (BCS)with a Playoff System?

# data[].attributes.body
Affirmative- They say that it is the fair way to determine a national champion and that the BCS method is  profit-motivated, and sometimes leaves the best teams out of the championship game.

Negate - Say that the BCS system is in the best interest of the athletes, fans, and sponsors. The bowl games generate huge profits for schools and their local economies, keep the season shorter for student athletes, and almost always have the two best teams playing each other for the national title.

I am with the affirmative side as I see any team can contend with any team regardless of their record.

# data[].attributes.body
The people on the affirmative side say that it meets the full requirements to be considered a sport. Cheerleading involves physical activity like tumbling, stunting, and coordination. They also consider it a sport because they have competitions like all other sports.

People on the negative side say that cheerleading lacks physical activity. They also say its not a sport because some cheer squads don’t go to competitions. People say that all cheerleaders do is cheer on people that actually play sports.

I believe Cheerleading is a sport and in 2016 it was pronounced a official sport by the Olympics. Cheerleading is more than just smiling and being very cheery. You have to be Flexible, strong, and have trust in other people.
http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-cheerleading-a-sport

# data[].attributes.body
People on the affirmative side say that it meets the requirements to be considered a sport. Like practices, competitions,  and more. You need to have coordination and be strong. You are required to have a SPORTS physical.
People on the negative side say that you don't get scores for cheerleading. All cheerleaders do is 'jump around and kick their legs'. Cheerleading is cheering on people who actually play sports.
I believe Cheerleading is a sport. The definition of a sport is an activity involving physical effort and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. Cheerleading is more then just smiling at the crowd and being cheery, you have to be coordinated and strong and flexible, like most sports. It follows most, if not all, guidelines to be a sport. Must compete with an opponent (competitions) & more.
http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-cheerleading-a-sport

# data[].attributes.body
Pros- If they don't want us running up the score, then why don't they try harder to stop us. Without a mercy rule it is kind of hard to figure out what running up the score is. Not everyone thinks the same about when to stop at a certain score.
Cons- Sportsmanship would be thrown out. Competitive athletes don't always just want to humiliate the opponents, they just want to win. If the team wins by so much, who comes out in the end looking like the bad one.
I don't think running up the score is a bad thing. If a team has their second or third string of athletes in and they are still scoring, then I believe that is the other teams fault. Some coaches won't even let their team run the score up.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2339584-15-most-divisive-issues-in-sports-right-now

# data[].attributes.body
pro: Golfers who play a nine-hole course 2-2.5 miles without a cart while carrying their own clubs burn 721 which weigh 30-50 pounds. The golf swing uses at least 17 muscle groups in the coordinated movement of the hands, wrists, arms, abdomen, and legs. Golf is more of a mental game than it is physical.

Cons: Golf involves competition, keeping score, and declaring a winner, but those qualities alone do not make it a sport.

# data[].attributes.headline
brandi alice Should college football payers get payed-Should college football payers get paid too?Pro- If they get paid for playing they won't have to get another job so they will have more time to focus on their school work.Cons- They may use that time to party and with the money they could earn they may spend more than what they have.Pro- they need more than a scholarship to be able to go through collage and when they play football all the time they should get paid for it.Cons- The school will lose a lot of money to pay the playersI think they should get paid because they put in a lot of time for the sport just like a job.http://www.cbssports.com/general/news/time-to-pay-college-football-players-changing-times-money-say-so/

# data[].attributes.subject
brandi alice Should college football payers get payed-Should college football payers get paid too?Pro- If they get paid for playing they won't have to get another job so they will have more time to focus on their school work.Cons- They may use that time to party and with the money they could earn they may spend more than what they have.Pro- they need more than a scholarship to be able to go through collage and when they play football all the time they should get paid for it.Cons- The school will lose a lot of money to pay the playersI think they should get paid because they put in a lot of time for the sport just like a job.http://www.cbssports.com/general/news/time-to-pay-college-football-players-changing-times-money-say-so/

# data[].attributes.body
Pro-  Golfers burn more calories that gymnasts so if you consider gymnasts a sport golf is one also. Golfing is in the olympics so it has to be a sport.
Con- Golf does not require physical activity and a sport does. In golf you can play it with a broken leg or drinking or smoking so that means it is not a sport just a game.
I would pick the side of the con because it does not require and physical activity.

http://golf.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.headline
Should Women be Allowed to Compete Against Men?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should Women be Allowed to Compete Against Men?

# data[].attributes.body
The affirmative side states that it isn't fair that the best athletes aren't allowed to face one another because of their gender. There is no justifiable reason to separate men and women in competition. Also, biological advantages and disadvantages are a reality for everyone, male or female.

The negative side states that men’s results in strength demanding sports are considerably higher. By letting men and women compete against each other it could and would cause a lot of tension that isn't needed. It also wouldn't be fair to most women because most are much smaller than men.

I'm in favor of the negative side because I don't see the reason for getting rid of gender separation. Men are considerably larger than most women and I don't think that would be fair in the long run.

# data[].attributes.headline
Should participation trophies be given out to losers?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should participation trophies be given out to losers?

# data[].attributes.body
The affirmative side states it boosts our confidence. People who lose often get down on themselves because they do not think they're good enough. Receiving an award can make us feel better about ourselves and make us forget about the outcome of the game. It is also something to play for.  We often don't keep scores at the youngest levels, because losing interest in a sport is easy. Just because you aren't the best, doesn't mean you shouldn't compete at all.
The negative side states we play to win the game. If we didn't have anything to play for, we may not give it our 110%. There is no participation award for life. When we grow old and live in the real world, we need to work for what we want. If we don't work hard in life, there is nothing there to reward you.
I agree with the negative side because I believe only winners deserve to be rewarded. If we were rewarded in all things, we wouldn't be able to make ourselves stronger. We need to do our best in everything we do.
http://www.gladiatorguards.com/_blog/our-blog/post/pros-and-cons-a-look-at-participation-trophies-for-youth-athletes/

# data[].attributes.headline
Should performance enhancing drugs be allowed in sports?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should performance enhancing drugs be allowed in sports?

# data[].attributes.body
Pro:
1. Athletes should be free to take risks that they think are worth taking. If athletes prefer the gains in performance allegedly provided by the use of steroids, they should be able to use them.
2. There is no reasonable argument to support the view that enhancing performance is unfair. If it were, we would ban coaching and training. Competition is only unfair if there is unequal access to particular enhancements, but equal access can be achieved more predictably by deregulation than by prohibition.

Con:
1. Performance enhancers, like steroids, have a negative effect on long-term health.
2. Athletes don't take performance enhancing drugs to level the playing field, they do it to get an advantage over other players. If players are allowed to start taking these drugs, they might start taking them in higher amounts to get an even higher advantage.

Opinion: I am on the con side. They have bad long-term effects on health and it is unfair to other athletes who have a lower advantage than those who use performance enhancing drugs.
http://sportsanddrugs.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002352

# data[].attributes.headline
Should steroids or other drugs be accepted in sports? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Should steroids or other drugs be accepted in sports? 

# data[].attributes.body
The affirmative side states that the health risks are up to the athlete. They make their own decisions of the use of drugs. Athletes use they drugs to help them improve on their skills and other hard training that they part take in.

The negative side states that steroids and other drugs to help the athlete improve can be very harmful and can lead to serious problems with just a matter of time. The users are just cheating themselves to an advantage that others may not be able to reach. It send the wrong message to other children and disobeys the thought or idea of competition. The users won't be able to clam themselves as clean athletes.

I am with the negative side because you shouldn't have to feel the need to use drugs to make yourself better in sports. If you want to be better than work harder. When using drugs you are just putting yourself in danger of your body.
http://sportsanddrugs.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.body
Pros - Golfers burn more calories than gymnasts.
Golf requires coordinated muscle use.
The International Olympic Committee considers golf a sport.

cons-Unlike a sport, golf does not require rigorous physical activity.
Athleticism does not correlate with performance when it comes to golf.

I think golf is not a sport

http://golf.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.body
Pros- College athletes have it tougher compared to pros they have to balance school and practice. Pros only have to do one thing. Also, student athletes can't get side jobs for spending money with their schedule.
Cons-  Most fans are not in favor of paying players. This is primarily because many still buy into the myth of amateur athletics.
my side- they should not be paid they can get scholarships
http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-college-athletes-be-paid

# data[].attributes.body
Affirmative: Participation awards are typically given out to children. By giving children awards for participation in an activity or sport may boost their confidence or interest in the sport for the future.

Negatives: Although they can be a confidence booster, it's awarding a individual or team who didn't earn the actual award. Teaching kids to accept a loss is important, and giving out awards for losing at an activity could affect them in the future and how they deal with other losses through life.
-----------------------------------------------------

My side: I agree with the negative sides.

# data[].attributes.body
The affirmative side states that the call is what matters, instant replay would help to make sure every call is called correctly. Refs make mistakes that could be costly, possibly altering the end results of a game. Applying instant replay more would help assist in determining if penalties were called fairly or not. Brining instant replay into more sports at a high school would improve sportsmanship, as you can't argue with solid proof.

The negative side states that the human factor in the game should not be taken out. Around 99% of the calls a ref makes are accurate and an instant replay wouldn't change it. Games are long enough, adding the factor of having to re-watch multiple parts of the game would only increase time, and that would bring down ratings.

I am on the affirmative side for many reasons. In one of the many softball games we played in, the refs greatly impacted the game more than once. Chaun'te clearly caught a ball and held onto it in the outfield, the ref said he had seen the ball hit the ground, when in fact there is photographic evidence she did not drop the ball. As it always is, the refs are right, and you're not supposed to argue. In this case instant replay would have proved the ball stayed in her glove. I believe instant replay should be brought into more sports, starting at the high school level. I do not believe 99% of the time refs get the call right

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2339584-15-most-divisive-issues-in-sports-right-now

# data[].attributes.body
The affirmative side states that sports drinks are to enhance levels of electrolytes, because they can decrease drastically during  physical exertion . Athletes need extra electrolytes, because they play an important factor in hydration within peoples' bodies. Sports drinks are also designed with high levels of carbohydrates, which are needed to give the body energy. These are also lost measurably during physical exertion.
The negative side states that sports drinks are overly promoted. Most sports drinks show that when you take a drink, it will "quench your thirst,'' which many people practice and believe. Studies have show that this is a false statement. This misguided hydration practice, leads to an increase in hyponatremia(a condition when your sodium level in your blood is abnormally low.) Another point to the negative side is that manufacturers add many sweetness to make the taste appealing. With adding sweeteners, they also have to add acidic compounds that counter the sweetness of the beverage. Adding acid increases dental erosion, which can occur right after taking a drink.
I am on the affirmative side, because athletes need sports drinks to keep their energy levels up. There may be negatives to drinking them, but there's always ways to help lower the negatives. Athletes can try not drinking as many or having a better hydration practice. Athletes can also brush their teeth after consumption, to help fight the acid.
http://superhumancoach.com/pros-and-cons-of-sports-drinks/

# data[].attributes.body
The affirmative side states that college athletes should get paid because they are the ones that are going on the field/court and playing the games, not the college, promoters, or sponsors. Athletes getting paid would be a needed source of income for these players because with practices and their studies, a good majority of athletes will not have time to get a job.

The negative side states that college programs might experience budget problems because many schools use their money from sports events for re-investments and balancing budgets and paying the athletes could cause other programs to suffer. Paying athletes might cause their studies to fall short as well because they are focusing on bettering themselves in the sport and they aren't focusing as much on their education.

I am with the negative side because even though good athletes bring in income for the college, they should focus on their studies more than athletics. College athletes already have most of their college education paid for, why would they need to get paid for being an athlete as well

http://greengarageblog.org/12-primary-pros-and-cons-of-paying-college-athletes

# data[].attributes.body
The affirmative side states that it is offensive to Native Americans and is a derogatory slur.

Those opposed say that it is tradition.

I believe that it should be changed because it is an old offensive comment.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2339584-15-most-divisive-issues-in-sports-right-now

# data[].attributes.headline
Should student athletes have different grading scale 

# data[].attributes.subject
Should student athletes have different grading scale 

# data[].attributes.body
pros- Experts say in many cases, raising the bar often translates into success. They want to raise the bar for student athletes, and make them go above and beyond.
Cons- There would be more athletes ineligible. There would also be less competition.
I don't think athletes should have a different grading scale. It seems to be working just fine.
http://www.nbc12.com/story/22081226/pros-cons-of-tougher-gpa-requirements-for-student-athletes

# data[].attributes.body
Should children & students play sports?

People on the affirmative side state that it is a great stress reliever for many. They find pleasure in playing their best and winning. Parents of these athletes also say that their children learn at a young age how important team work is. They easily learn how to share responsibly, and it gives them a great opportunity to meet new friends. They also learn to manage their time more wisely with everything they have going on.

People on the opposing side state that it causes more stress for them. A lot of athletes are focused more on the winning part, not about how they are playing. They sometimes are driven away from sports due to the pressure from coaches, parents, and even themselves. They are also easily susceptible to injuries & dehydration.

I personally think students playing a sports is a good thing; therefore, I am on the affirmative side. I know from others that they are fun and seem to be really enjoyable. It is a fantastic way to represent the school as well. It also is another way for teenagers to stay healthy and fit.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/134568-what-are-benefits-competitive-sports-youth/

# data[].attributes.headline
Should performance-enhancing drugs be used in sports?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should performance-enhancing drugs be used in sports?

# data[].attributes.body
Pro- The choice should be up to the athlete. It comes down to everyone having a choice of what goes into your own body. Many people state that the drugs are just like any other training strategies, and that they are used to improve performance. The drugs can bring the game to a new level and make it more interesting to watch. Some of these drugs have proven to help build damaged tissue and to reduce injury recovery time.
Con- There are long-term health problems that can occur due to these drugs.There are non-fatal effects like acne, balding, anger, and stunted growth. There are many serious health conditions as well, including liver disease, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and many more. The other aspect of the negative side is that it makes sports unfair. There are records that have been set by people who didn't use PEDs so those records could be broken easily if we allowed these drugs.
My opinion- I don't think these drugs should be allowed. The health effects are not worth it and it is not fair to athletes who have not been able to use them.
Drug Use in Sports - ProCon.org. (2017). Sportsanddrugs.procon.org. Retrieved 6 February 2017, from http://sportsanddrugs.procon.org/
Forbes Welcome. (2017). Forbes.com. Retrieved 6 February 2017, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2012/08/24/why-its-time-to-legalize-steroids-in-professional-sports/#60c043ed1c0d

# data[].attributes.body
Pro: It is the athlete's choice whether or not to do it. Using drugs has improved training techniques for years.

Con: They are potentially life threatening. It can give them an unfair advantage. It also ruins the spirit of it, and gives a bad message to children.

I personally am on the con side.. It could lead to future drug dependence. If we are trying to stop drug abuse, we shouldn't be promoting it in the things most people are a fan of.

http://sportsanddrugs.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.body
Is cheerleading a sport?
People on the affirmative side say cheerleaders do a lot of tumbling and coordination, making it a physical activity.  They also think since there are competitions, like all other sports.
People on the negative side say anything that is judged or scored necessarily isn't a sport. They also think since cheerleaders stand around on the sidelines of other sports, cheerleading should not be considered a sport.
I feel cheerleading is a sport. You can't have a weak and uncoordinated cheerleader. When stunting, you have to have lots of full body strength so the girl who is flying is not dropped. You also have to be ver hand-eye coordinated.
http://www.proconit.com/view/is-cheerleading-a-sport

# data[].attributes.body
Affirmative- Many athletes in college struggle to make money or have a stable job because their life depends on the sport they compete in. For example: Portland Trail Blazer's point guard Shabazz Napier said, "There were nights he couldn’t afford to feed himself and for someone who single-handedly made the NCAA a lot of money, that seems wrong." These players are devoting their lives to an organization that doesn't earn them any money and that seems extremely unfair
Negative-
These organizations need the money they earn to continue building on their foundation, making stadiums, commercials, or hiring coaches. If the players were famous enough they could star in commercials and earn money from fame. Smaller colleges may not be able support paying for their athletes. Also the students may lose focus on schoolwork, thinking that they can live off of the money that they are making for the sport they play.

I am all for the affirmative side, these are people who do extra to entertain others and devote their life to a sport and most cannot maintain a stable job because of this. It is very unfair for them, I am sure many of them train like the big league players like NFL or NBA and they should be earning money for their loyalty to the sport.
http://www.thesportster.com/entertainment/top-20-biggest-debates-in-sports/3/

# data[].attributes.headline
Should performance-enhancing drugs be used?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should performance-enhancing drugs be used?

# data[].attributes.body
The affirmative side states that if athletes want to use drugs to enhance their performance then they have the right to. It's like telling someone who smokes that they can't smoke even though it is legal and they enjoy it.
The con side states that it can lead to many health issues and have a long term effect. It also gives some players an unfair advantage on the playing field.
I am with the con side because if you want to get better, you should practice to make yourself better. Performance-enhancing drugs can only make you good for a little bit but you're causing a lifetime of problems for yourself.
http://sportsanddrugs.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002352

# data[].attributes.body
The affirmative side states, that golf is a sport because it the Olympic committee considers golf a sport. Also golfers burn more calories actually then gymnasts.
The opposing side states golf does not contain the really hard competition between people so it should not be called a sport. It also states that golf does not have people playing defense against another person.
I think that golf should be considered a sport. And they are many sports that don't require defense like swimming and running.
http://www.golfdigest.com/story/is-golf-a-sport-and-the-answer-isit-depends

# data[].attributes.body
Pros- Benefits brain development. Promote healthy lifestyles. Helps them to have healthy minds. Gives them time to move around and have fun and not be in a desk all day.
Cons- Bullying possibility. Not all activities are suitable for everyone. Some kids may be too unhealthy and not able to run as many laps for example. The cost for the class and all of the toys and supplies is expensive.

I believe they should have PE. Students need to do some work and get out and move. It is good for your mind and body. It may be changeling to some at times but it should show them that they can overcome their challenges.
http://www.edubabbling.com/the-pros-and-cons-of-physical-education-in-schools/

# data[].attributes.body
Pro- Cheerleading involves physical activity by stunting and/or practicing jumps. Certain cheer squads do compete against others, and get scored points. 80% of cheerleaders get hurt during practices from so much activity, it was also pronounced an official sport in 2016 by the Olympics.

Cons- Some people say cheerleading lacks physical activity and because some cheer squads don’t do competitions its not a sport.People also say that sports are defined with competitions and that they have rules, and that cheerleaders are only their to motivate the crowd to get moving and into the game.

My side- (get ready) Cheerleading is a sport, being a cheerleader from last year taught me a lot about it. Just because we don’t go compete at state competitions and stuff does not mean we do not compete. We make sure we are louder than the other cheerleaders on the opposing team. Cheerleaders lack physical activity. Im sorry, you get up and try to do 10 toe touches in a row and I’ll ask you the next day if you’re sore. We sweat, a lot during practices. We do a lot of physical activity during cheer practice, we do so much that sometimes we can barely even climb the steps to go to our classes, and I personally know that. because it killed me…

http://www.dailyrepublic.com/features/youth/definition-statistics-proves-cheer-is-not-a-sport/
https://www.varsity.com/event/1262/being-a-cheerleader-sport

# data[].attributes.headline
Should high school wrestling be more like collegiate wrestling?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should high school wrestling be more like collegiate wrestling?

# data[].attributes.body
Pro- Yes, the out of bounds rule depends on the referee you have in high school. All the close calls come down to the referee. Wrestlers will wrestle harder on the edge of the mat
Con- Wrestlers might not work as hard. In the practice room.

I am on the pro side. High school wrestling rules should be more like college rules. We will wrestle harder on the edge of the mat.

http://www.nfhs.org/activities-sports/wrestling

# data[].attributes.body
My debate topic this week deals with the question: Should Amcerican Football be banned?

Pro- Those on the affirmative side say at least one person every season dies because of being injured in a football game. Continuous hits to the head can cause DTE. And many players suffer concussions.

Con- Those on the opposing side say football may be dangerous, but it is also a part of many people's daily lives. It is just like any other sport, all having certain consequences.

My opinion- I am on the opposing side with this debate. All players know what they are getting themselves into when they sign up to play. They know what could and might happen. If we ban one sport because of injury, we might as well ban all sports.

Source(s):
http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-american-football-be-banned

# data[].attributes.headline
Should Women be able to Compete Against Men?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should Women be able to Compete Against Men?

# data[].attributes.body
Affirmative- Sexual differences in some ways have no affect
-If women played in men's league they would get paid more and be able to make a living out of it.
-If women have the correct training, they should be able to try out for men's as well.
Negative- In some sports, women will just not be able to compete with men. (Not very many men can block JJ Watt, let alone a women.)
-If women beat men at companions it could end up with violence responses from the men.
-Women completing with men could also discourage women as well.

My Opinion- I'm for the affirmative because even if it could discourage women, if they want to put themselves out there and beat and/or lose to men then let them.

https://prezi.com/ckakgpmytwko/should-woman-be-able-to-compete-against-men/

# data[].attributes.headline
Should Children be allowed to play sports? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Should Children be allowed to play sports? 

# data[].attributes.body
The affirmative side states that children playing sports is a way to stay healthy  by providing physical activity. Children will learn sportsmanship and it will increase children's social skills. They learn to work with teammates and build trust. Many kids find playing sports a stress relief.

The negative side states that some children actually feel more stress, rather than relieving it, while playing sports. Some parents put too much emphasis on winning, so the kid feels obligated to win, which can also be stressful for children. Another problem is that children don't acknowledge they need a break, which can lead to physical strains.

I'm in favor of the affirmative side because I feel kids should be able to have fun and express theirself on the field. Playing sports will help with their social skills later on in life.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/197831-pros-cons-of-children-in-sports/

# data[].attributes.headline
should guys be allowed to play volleyball.

# data[].attributes.subject
should guys be allowed to play volleyball.

# data[].attributes.body
Pros: more points scored, more skill, more sponsors.

Cons: women will get mad that they are getting out  played at their own sport
My side. Men should be allowed to play.

# data[].attributes.body
Pro: For a boost of confidence

Reason to play

Cons: Rewarding effort

Kid's wont grow up to be losers

I think if you lose you should get nothing.

http://www.gladiatorguards.com/_blog/our-blog/post/pros-and-cons-a-look-at-participation-trophies-for-youth-athletes/

# data[].attributes.headline
NBA/NFL Shouldn't Make College a Requirement 

# data[].attributes.subject
NBA/NFL Shouldn't Make College a Requirement 

# data[].attributes.body
Affirmative- Athletes should have the right to choose their later schooling on their own. Most of the fear is of an injury when playing a college sport. One wrong twist or turn and their chances of playing after college are all gone.

Negative- Most athletes coming out of high school, most are not at the maturity level to play professionally. Playing at a college level minimizes this problem by getting them ready to play at a professional level and giving them work ethic with schooling. Some do not make it throughout the pros so having this back up play of a college degree gives them wiggle room if things do not go as planned.

I personally believe that having a college degree in even the littlest of area is a good idea. This way you have a sense of comfort if things do not go as planned, but I also agree that it is this athletes choice whether or not s/he furthers their education.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/307746-college-vs-pros-should-athletes-be-allowed-to-leave-school-early

# data[].attributes.body
The affirmative side states that golf meets the definition of a sport in the dictionary. The requirements of a "sport" is physical exertion and coordination, and that is also recognized by companies, fans, athletic associations, and the media.
The negative side states that some people say that golf better meets the definition of a "game" than a "sport," it does not require hard physical activity, and can be played professionally by people who are overweight, injured, or non athletic. Some argue that golf is a game or leisure activity, and they cite golf's 112-year absence from the Olympics as proof that it is not a sport.
I am with the negative side because  golf to me is a small game some people play to get away from the physical activity, or just to play for something to do. I agree with Golf being a game, not a sport.

# data[].attributes.headline
Should performance enhancing drugs be allowed in professional sports?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should performance enhancing drugs be allowed in professional sports?

# data[].attributes.body
The affirmative side states

The negative side states

I'm for the

# data[].attributes.body
Affirmative- There is a huge deal of money around college sports, especially since the NCAA is a non-profit organization. It also helps student athletes who are so caught up in school and sports they don't have the time required to get a job to pay for schooling. It would also entice more athletes into playing. Corruption would be stopped because right now there are some athletes getting paid out of sight.

Negative-  If students were making money by playing sports they might start focusing less and less on school and more on sports, putting school last. This would also be unfair for smaller colleges who cannot pay their athletes as much as the bigger schools.

I am on the affirmative side. I think they should get paid because I imagine being a student athlete in college is busy, and I can't imagine trying to make enough time to work while playing sports.

http://greengarageblog.org/12-primary-pros-and-cons-of-paying-college-athletes