My team is saying that: The Government SHOULD fund major sporting events.
We're anticipating that the opposition, saying: the government should NOT fund major sporting events, is going to bring up the following points:
1) The government should spend money on more important things such as finding cures for diseases.
2) The government will make us pay for the money they used on funding the elite sports through tax
3) The elite sports already have sponsors.
4) The money should go toward unprivliged sporting events in communities.
5) We need to deal with childhood obesity in the unprivliged- not everybody has a chance to be part of elite sports.
6) Advantages to communities from having good sporting organisations.
What can we say to rebut these points?
Thank you so much
We're anticipating that the opposition, saying: the government should NOT fund major sporting events, is going to bring up the following points:
1) The government should spend money on more important things such as finding cures for diseases.
2) The government will make us pay for the money they used on funding the elite sports through tax
3) The elite sports already have sponsors.
4) The money should go toward unprivliged sporting events in communities.
5) We need to deal with childhood obesity in the unprivliged- not everybody has a chance to be part of elite sports.
6) Advantages to communities from having good sporting organisations.
What can we say to rebut these points?
Thank you so much