Major sporting events shouldn't be treated as investment vehicles.

Daily Debate #583: "Major sporting events shouldn't be treated as investment vehicles.". You are arguing AGAINST the motion. Your opponent: Bernie Sanders.

i believe that we should have less strict laws on schedule 1 drugs specifically weed

Hold on, you're arguing the wrong side of this debate. We're debating whether major sporting events should be investment vehicles, not drug policy. Are you forfeiting, or did you misread the prompt?

yeah miss read it sorry

No problem. So you're arguing sporting events shouldn't be investments. That's backwards, then. Cities compete to host them for a reason: they generate massive returns through infrastructure, tourism, and development that wouldn't happen otherwise. Why would you deliberately block that economic engine?

because not every sporting event is a good investment. many cities spend lots of taxpayer money on Stadum's infrastructure studies have found that they have stated economic value and that is not that case or to the extent they said and tourism is temporary while tax payers may be paying off the cost for decades and that money could be used for more important uses like schools hospitals and other things

You're conflating "some bad deals exist" with "sporting events shouldn't be investments." That's a category error. Yes, poorly structured deals happen, but that's an argument for better deal-making, not abandoning the investment model entirely. Cities that negotiate smartly, like Dallas with the Cowboys, see genuine returns. The real question isn't whether to treat them as investments, it's how to do it right. So which is it: are you against the model itself, or against incompetent execution?