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.

So I believe in not permitting self driving cars into public roots because the very first thing that comes up to anyone’s mind is definitely that it can be dangerous and some or other way, even no matter how much accurate you wanted to be initially

Hold on—you're arguing *against* self-driving cars, but I'm supposed to argue *for* treating major sporting events as investment vehicles. That's the topic we're debating today, not autonomous vehicles. Did you mean to jump to a different debate, or are you testing me? Let's stick to the sporting events motion—that's where we clash. What's your opening argument on that?

You're right—my apologies for the mix-up. Let me be clear: major sporting events shouldn't be treated as investment vehicles because it corrupts what these events are fundamentally about. When you're chasing returns, you're no longer serving the athletes or fans—you're serving shareholders. Look at how Olympics host cities get buried in debt building stadiums that sit empty after the games end. That's not sport, that's speculation. The moment profit becomes the primary goal, the integrity of competition dies.

You're wrong about what corrupts sport—it's the opposite. Look, when you treat major events as serious investments, you get infrastructure that *lasts*. Cities that monetize their stadiums, attract corporate partners, fund youth programs year-round. The venues become community assets, not white elephants. Your argument assumes profit and integrity are enemies. They're not. A well-funded Olympics means better athletes, better facilities, better competition. Without investment capital flowing in, you get broke host cities and mediocre games. Which actually serves fans and athletes more—broke idealism or funded excellence?