THW prosecute violent fouls in sports as a criminal offense

Responses
1. slappin can be foul
2. the org will assist the state
3. why state is justified to intervene

Burden - to prove why the state is not justified to intervene in this NCAA
responsibility and clearly I will invalidate al args from gov

Intention of this athlete is to play the sport and not to hurt other people
a. as we seen in the sq whose athletes who gets injured or what not cried maybe
because not because of the injury but with the fact that they cant play and cant
help with their team right?
b.if their intention is to hurt other players, there is a existing rules in NCAA on
the possible consequences like suspension, reparation or what not.

Criminal offense looks like

1. it levels in murder, attempted murder or what not.
2. those people with criminal offense prolly need to go to jail or to bail out
3. it will be put in to their record that they made criminal offenses that will
result to harm to their record right?
4. the victims are the one who will submit crime report for example because in
every crime there is aggressor and the victim, if there is no victim, no one will
submit report.
5. it is whole accordance of the state, because the org already was not able to
mitigate the harm so meaning assisting from org will not do anything because they
already failed in first hand.

We have differentiate violent foul and direct assault

- violet foul has no direct foul of hurting people, at times foul is intended but
violent foul is most likely to be unintended
a. No one wants to assault another player anyways, that's against the rules.it has
many consequences just like leaving the game, suspension in the season etc.
b. athletes can't always accurately measure the inertia and forms of other player's
body to understand how much damage is done so meaning these act of action by these
athletes can't be always controlled because of the momentum, adrenaline or muscle
for example right.
c. Because by intentionally assaulting, this ruins the reputation of the team,
franchise and player. Meaning they an incentive to protect these clamour and
reputation because if this specific athlete go to that specific sport by an org,
that specific athlete represemnt that org so anything that he/she does will affect
the org right?
d. because if their intention is to actually hurt, we already have existing safety
nets to hold the accountable this looks like:
- the intent of harm is obvious, meaning if there obvious motive then it's easy to
file a case against them
- even if the intent is not obvious, there are still safety nets that hold this
athletes accountable, like being no longer able to be allowed to play, suspension
bail out.

while Direct assault can be considered if it is intentional and it has intentions

of hurting, for example this looks like having a fist fight against the other
basket ball team. That's no longer a violent foul.

-------
1st arg why violent fouls should not be considered as a criminal offense
what is the metrics to be considered as crime offense or assault right

1. Even if there is harm, the reason why this is fine is because these are usually
unintentional and its main purpose is for sports anyways in winning. Minor fouls
can literally be considered battery, but the reason we don't consider them as
crimes is because its intent is never to hurt, even if it does, but because it's
intent is to win the game.
2. Because athletes when they compete, they understand the risks already of fouls,
even minor fouls being very deadly it is very subjevctive on how the receiver
perceive it right because prolly adrenaline boost or like momentum. Why is this the
case? Because contact sports is very risky in health in nature, for example, even
in boxing you cannot assure that you will live healthily, notice how most boxing
players die yougner than usual because of health complications, meaning they
already consent to harm. Why is violent foul part of this consent? Because these
violent fouls are parts of risks that are unintentional. They are allowed to
consent to this anyways because violent fouls allow the foul maker to be put in the
bench immediately, be held accountable, and they have health safety nets anyways to
back up these risks like their medics and etc.

Why is this important?

Because these are put into place to make sure sports is still fun and competitive.
Because the moment you scare athletes for unintentional violent fouls, it is will
make athletes feel very paranoid of contact therefore they are likely to play less
in their comfort zones like you can compare them to robot right?. Instead of
thinking about winning the game, they think about not doing violent fouls that is
hard to avoid sometimes and hard to calculate.

What is the impact?

1. it will make those contact sport less fun and competitive because of the caution
that they might do it unintentional
2. The reason on why we wnat to maintain fun and competence in the sports is
because that is the nature of sports specially in contact sports like basketball,
boxing and et.
3. so if we remove those nature of the sports on the sport, can you imagine the
decrease in the support of the sport because people will watch players with very
caution, how can you defend a forward for example with the thing you can if you are
very cautin right and how will you do lay ups and cross fade if you are so worried
that you might step on someone that can be considered as crime because again tha
assault is very subjective in its nature, no assurance of prevention of it in the
thing with physical contact, have adrenaline and momentum such as sport.

--------
2nd argument Accountability - this will counter the state responsibility that the
gov is so very lenient
1. Allowing to sue these kinds of violent fouls puts the responsibility of
accountability towards the victim. We say this is bad because allows sports
institutions to be lenient in holding individual athletes accountable because they
already have existing accountability outside the institution.They have an alibi to
be negligent.

we say this is bad because the sports institutions should be the primary entity to
be held accountable because
a. They are the ones in direct proximity of these players
b. They have more specialize in fouls and sports, they have referee, they have
continously update manual and rules, they specialized professionals to look in to
this. but if we let the outside factor to assess the lvl of harm, they might
overestimate it because ofmlacks of specialization right?
c. They are supposed to be the ones protecting the players primarily because that
is their org, they have and legal and moral contract to atleast put a safety net
for those people but if we impose this motion, all the responsibility of the org
will be put towards the state and athletes.

They are less likely to put accountability measures when the court exist
a. Putting accountability measures takes resources and process. This can be
inefficient for their resources.
b. Because it takes intellectual labor to asses the players and outside conditions
that may affect the audience. If they alraedy have outside accoutnability measures,
they give responsibility to the court.

Pre empt - they may say from gov that it may create a intentional foul because of
anger for example but because of this rules in NCAA those aggresor will not be
considered as crime.
1. we say that is aint true, because it may not be intentional most of the time but
because we bite them that it may sometimes happen and we consider those minority of
doers right?

2. we say that NCAA is a long term running athlete org, they have the
accountability to atleast regulate inside there organization, it is trhe
responsibility of this org to keep the peace inside the org the outside legal must
not be included right? but if we impose this motion, those org will have an aliby
to negligent on the possible harms inside the org that will result to the more harm
of these athletes. it basically result to the negligence of the org in
accountability.

Reply - intentional foul is not sending people to die, we just saying is harm is
natural in sports and we have safety nets anyways
the moment that gov pursue their argument on the responsibility of state must
intervene in the org without weigning is the moment they loose in this debate
Opp stated
1. all the regulations can't mitigate the harms, so we say from opp that what is
the purpose of the regulation, what is the purpose of orgs implementing the
athletes so if this regulations is not working, we told you that it is their
responsibility to implement it so if they wasn't able, the state only choice is
close the org that implementing harm sports that the gov side saying right?
2. we told you on how this responsibility will put in to these athletes instead of
the state if we imposed this motion because in every crime, there is a aggressor
and victim, the victime must file the report to make it valid right so like it
looks like you decrease the resources of those athletes but maybe consuming their
time rather than putting the responsibility to the state,
3. but even if the state can be the one who can impose the crime, we say from opp
that there is no assurance that the state will implement the proper punishment for
example because the org can't support them because those org failed those harm in
the first hand right so if you go with gov those unintentional foul from athletes
can be over assed by the state that can lead to more harm for the athletes and if
the gov side is very concerned on the safety of this athletes, they must also
consider the possible consequences over assessing of that unintentional foul for
example, it will certainly harm there records unintentionally, there may over
estimated jail time which will harm the growth of the athlete so the safety of the
athles is symmetric for both sides

3 standards in this debate exclusivity of argument, engagement and fulfilling the

burden that each side faucet in this debate

on to the exclusivity of argument

1. clearly the argument of gov on the safety of this athlets is not exclusive on
their side, we tell you that those people that gov side was to cater is very
inclusive, they wasn't able to cater for those possible athletes that may sentence
falsely but on our side we told you that we cater for those athletes as the org
will put the proper punishment depending on the criteria, and we are able to cater
to the gov of the victims because on our side, we have safety nets of incentives or
like bailing for the victims depending on the lvl of foul right, so we still cater
for those victim.

on to the engagement
1. clearly we took it over gov when it comes to engagement because the best case
you got from opp on accountability of the org and why it is not justified for the
state to intervene was a direct clash on the arg of the case of gov the state's
intervention because again again we told you that the state has no capability has
no enough capability to assess properly the lvl of crime, they told us that they
have due process but yet no framing on how due process will be conduct on their
side so what is the assurance that still gov and the state will cater for thos who
commited unintentional fouls for example. but even if we bite that there is a due
process on their side, we told you from opp that those action by the victim is
subjective no one can know what you really feel, you can just simply manipulate
that will result to more harm of the one create unintentional foul
2. it looks like that gov that they arguing in the world that offensive foul is
automatic intentional because we told you from whip that they want to pursue that
they must consider the sq. offensive foul by its definition from lo is foul can be
intentional or unintentional maybe because of adrenaline or inertia
3. the whole arg of gov on the intervening of state will only lead to more harm
that the opp whip told us right, if you dont belive for whip with more than 10
reason i dont know.

on to the burden fulfillment

1. clearluy gov wasnt able to fulfill their burden on justified why for state to
intervene because no charac of due process and it came from the whip anyways so it
cant be creditted
2. there is no weighning on gov on what is the most important accountability of
state and org because they are just very lenient on the prep case on the
responsibility of the state which we clearly prove to you why the org must have a
first hand responsibility and how the state will misrepresent those possible
suspect that can eventually turned to be victim because of the failure of the state
to impose proper consequences because of lacking of specialization meaning the
possible alternative of gov is not feasible for all but the thing you got from opp
is feasible for all the stakeholder of the org, victim and the one created
unintentinal violent fouls right.