Topic #4, Group #1: Olympics vs. World Cup

[klunderbunker]

This thread is to be used by those in Group #1 (see the stickied thread for rosters if you're unsure of where you are). Any other posts in here will be flagged for spam and deleted. You have four days from the time this is posted to post (as in the time this is posted on Wednesday, which is approximately when the new topic will go up. Note that I mean 96 hours after MY initial post, not the lead off debater.) your arguments, rebuttals and anything else you want. Best overall debater in that time period receives 10 points, second receives 9, third receives 8, all others receive 7.

Hitting Lead-Off in this debate is Becker. He has 24 hours to reply and if he doesn't then it's open season.

Again: 4 days, best overall poster gets first place points.

Topic: Which event means more to the world: the Summer Olympics or the Soccer/Football World Cup?

Scores will be posted as soon as the three judges give their scores.

Go.

 

[Big Sexy]

Open​

This is by far the easiest choice of all the topics thus far. The Summer Olympics means far more then the World Cup. The Olympics have the history, far more countries are involved, and it's nearly impossible for viewers to not find at least one thing that they like.

World Cup Has No Major Positives Over the Olympics​

The World Cup revolves all around the world's most popular sport, football/soccer. However, the Summer Olympics also include soccer/football. Not only that but unlike the World Cup, the Summer Olympics includes both men and women's football. Over 200 countries compete in the Olympics as opposed to just the 32 that compete in the World Cup. Like I said the world's most popular sport is included in the Summer Olympics, as is the second most popular sport of basketball which is much more competitive now then in the past. Tennis is another big international sport that is included in the Summer Olympics. I'll take an event that revolves around many of the world's most popular sports over an event that focuses on just one any day.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

The FIFA World Cup means more to the world than the Summer Olympics. Two related reasons support this argument:

1) People are more passionate and responsive to World Cup football than they are to Olympic competition: You want proof? Look no further than the ceasefire brought about in Cote d'Ivoire as the result of the country's qualification for the 2006 World Cup. Furthermore, on the other end of the spectrum, look no further than the murder of Andre Escobar, a Colombian footballer gunned down in Medellín shortly after a critical defending mistake sent his team home in the 1994 World Cup.

No other sport in the world, individual or team, is as evocative as football. While the feeling of national pride that results from Olympic medals is nice, the possibility of a gold medal in archery or shot put is nowhere near as thrilling (or agonizing) as the possibility of bringing a World Cup back home. No Olympic event will ever be able to effect peace (and sometimes pointless violence) quite like World Cup football.

2) While football is an Olympic event, it is no way, shape, or form comparable to World Cup football: In International Olympic Committee lingo, football is a U23 (under-23) event, meaning that, with the exception of three players, any team that a country fields in football must consist of players aged 23 or under. While this does bring parity between developed and developing countries, it also results in inconsistent performance from some of the countries that usually dominate the international football scene (e.g., the Netherlands, Argentina, and Brazil). It should come as no surprise then that these restrictions have prevented Olympic football from becoming the pinnacle of the sport. Although some of the culpability for the relative unimportance of Olympic football lies within FIFA's attempts to limit its potential, the fact still remains that the amount of fan interest it garners is comparison to the World Cup is laughable.

To the majority of the world, nothing is more important than the World Cup. While the Summer Olympics are undoubtedly the more thorough of the two when it comes to the general celebration of sport, the World Cup is an equally sizable celebration that's more eventful, passionate, and enjoyable.

 

[I Suck Ass]

This one's easy. Olympics by far. The Summer Olympics mean so much more to the world than the World Cup. Hell, the Summer Olympics even have soccer, and every country that has a team plays, not like the World Cup where there are only 32 teams. The Beijing Summer Olympics had 204 countries, even if some of them had one athlete. The World Cup is just one sport. The Olympics encompass all sports, and winning an event is the highest honor for an athlete. Winning the World Cup? Sure, it's great, but for a decent number of countries, it doesn't mean much. Winning an Olympic Medal for your country? You become famous. Even if it's for a little bit of time, you are still on top of the world. The Summer Olympics mean so much more to the world just because of how more encompassing they are.

 

[Big Sexy]

1) People are more passionate and responsive to World Cup football than they are to Olympic competition: You want proof? Look no further than the ceasefire brought about in Cote d'Ivoire as the result of the country's qualification for the 2006 World Cup. Furthermore, on the other end of the spectrum, look no further than the murder of Andre Escobar, a Colombian footballer gunned down in Medellín shortly after a critical defending mistake sent his team home in the 1994 World Cup.

No other sport in the world, individual or team, is as evocative as football. While the feeling of national pride that results from Olympic medals is nice, the possibility of a gold medal in archery or shot put is nowhere near as thrilling (or agonizing) as the possibility of bringing a World Cup back home. No Olympic event will ever be able to effect peace (and sometimes pointless violence) quite like World Cup football.

The question is which is more important to the World? The World Cup consists of just 32 countries while the Summer Olympics has over 200. How can the World Cup be more important to the world when maybe only 1/7 of the world is involved? There are obviously still football fans that watch the World Cup even without their country being involved but the importance of who wins and the effect the event has on the person just isn't the same. The Olympics gives the entire world at least something to root for and look forward to.

2) While football is an Olympic event, it is no way, shape, or form comparable to World Cup football: In International Olympic Committee lingo, football is a U23 (under-23) event, meaning that, with the exception of three players, any team that a country fields in football must consist of players aged 23 or under. While this does bring parity between developed and developing countries, it also results in inconsistent performance from some of the countries that usually dominate the international football scene (e.g., the Netherlands, Argentina, and Brazil). It should come as no surprise then that these restrictions have prevented Olympic football from becoming the pinnacle of the sport. Although some of the culpability for the relative unimportance of Olympic football lies within FIFA's attempts to limit its potential, the fact still remains that the amount of fan interest it garners is comparison to the World Cup is laughable.

You are right that football in the Olympics isn't comparable to the World Cup as far as competition and fan attention goes but it is just one sport. It may be the most popular international sport but that doesn't mean that every country is a fan. Here in the US hardly anyone gives two shits about the game. There are an abundance of sports involved in the Olympics and it allows for everyone to be satisfied. If a country isn't big on football then there's the second most popular international sport, basketball. You also have tennis which is big around the world and you have all of the different track events etc...

While the World Cup is one dimensional and only allows for a handful of countries to really be emotionally invested, the Olympics offers something for everyone and gives every country the hope of bringing home a medal.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Open​

This is by far the easiest choice of all the topics thus far. The Summer Olympics means far more then the World Cup. The Olympics have the history, far more countries are involved, and it's nearly impossible for viewers to not find at least one thing that they like.

History should have no bearing in this debate precisely because the World Cup absolutely decimates the Olympics in viewership. Full cumulative figures haven't been released for the 2010 World Cup yet, but FIFA alleges that the 2006 World Cup attracted a cumulative viewership of 26.29 billion people. Even if we cut this number by two-thirds (this report from The Independent argues that the 2006 World Cup final had only about a third of the audience FIFA claimed it attracted, so we'll be conservative here and reduce the cumulative viewership by a third as well), that's still a cumulative viewership almost twice as large as that of the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, the most-watched Olympic event ever.

The Summer Olympics might have something for everyone, but it's obvious that not everyone's watching.

World Cup Has No Major Positives Over the Olympics​

The World Cup revolves all around the world's most popular sport, football/soccer. However, the Summer Olympics also include soccer/football. Not only that but unlike the World Cup, the Summer Olympics includes both men and women's football.

This is about what's more important to the world, not which event fields teams for both sexes.

Over 200 countries compete in the Olympics as opposed to just the 32 that compete in the World Cup.

Only 16 teams compete in football in the Olympics. Furthermore, while there are only 32 spots in the World Cup, 205 countries vied for them in the qualifying rounds leading up to the 2010 finals; that's one more country than the 204 represented at the 2008 Summer Olympics.

Like I said the world's most popular sport is included in the Summer Olympics, as is the second most popular sport of basketball which is much more competitive now then in the past. Tennis is another big international sport that is included in the Summer Olympics. I'll take an event that revolves around many of the world's most popular sports over an event that focuses on just one any day.

I'm happy that you'd take the Olympics over the World Cup, but it's evident that the majority of sports fans around the world definitely do not agree with you.

This one's easy. Olympics by far. The Summer Olympics mean so much more to the world than the World Cup. Hell, the Summer Olympics even have soccer, and every country that has a team plays, not like the World Cup where there are only 32 teams. The Beijing Summer Olympics had 204 countries, even if some of them had one athlete. The World Cup is just one sport. The Olympics encompass all sports, and winning an event is the highest honor for an athlete. Winning the World Cup? Sure, it's great, but for a decent number of countries, it doesn't mean much. Winning an Olympic Medal for your country? You become famous. Even if it's for a little bit of time, you are still on top of the world. The Summer Olympics mean so much more to the world just because of how more encompassing they are.

Winning the World Cup doesn't mean much? I already stated in my opening post that the World Cup has both brought an end to and initiated violence of the worst kind. Please, give me some of what you're smoking, Noah. Also, I'd like a source on "every country that has a team plays."

The question is which is more important to the World?

I know what the question is. I answered correctly: the World Cup is more important.

The World Cup consists of just 32 countries while the Summer Olympics has over 200. How can the World Cup be more important to the world when maybe only 1/7 of the world is involved?

Because limited participation doesn't automatically disqualify an event from being important to the world. The Summer Olympics isn't more important to the world than the World Cup, it just has more world participation.

There are obviously still football fans that watch the World Cup even without their country being involved but the importance of who wins and the effect the event has on the person just isn't the same.

The people of those countries who don't qualify shouldn't worry; I'm positive that the people of those countries who do qualify more than make up for their lack of enthusiasm with their own excessive jubilation.

The Olympics gives the entire world at least something to root for and look forward to.

When you give me proof that the possibility of a gold medal can do as much for a country as the possibility of a World Cup, I'll debate this point.

You are right that football in the Olympics isn't comparable to the World Cup as far as competition and fan attention goes but it is just one sport. It may be the most popular international sport but that doesn't mean that every country is a fan. Here in the US hardly anyone gives two shits about the game.

I think the viewership figures in my rebuttal to your opening argument handle this point quite nicely. Also, America's population comprises a little less than 5% of the world's population. This argument would hold weight if our country contained a significant minority of the world's population, but it doesn't. Even if we spend the most on sports per capita, our expenditures still pale in comparison to what the rest of the world spends on sports (especially association football).

There are an abundance of sports involved in the Olympics and it allows for everyone to be satisfied. If a country isn't big on football then there's the second most popular international sport, basketball. You also have tennis which is big around the world and you have all of the different track events etc...

I already dealt with this point in my rebuttal to your opening argument. Even if there's something for everyone at the Summer Olympics, they obviously don't provide as much utility/benefit as association football does.

While the World Cup is one dimensional and only allows for a handful of countries to really be emotionally invested, the Olympics offers something for everyone and gives every country the hope of bringing home a medal.

Again, medals mean very little relative to a World Cup and viewership figures indicate that the World Cup is of much more importance than the Summer Olympics.

 

[Big Sexy]

History should have no bearing in this debate precisely because the World Cup absolutely decimates the Olympics in viewership. Full cumulative figures haven't been released for the 2010 World Cup yet, but FIFA alleges that the 2006 World Cup attracted a cumulative viewership of 26.29 billion people. Even if we cut this number by two-thirds (this report from The Independent argues that the 2006 World Cup final had only about a third of the audience FIFA claimed it attracted, so we'll be conservative here and reduce the cumulative viewership by a third as well), that's still a cumulative viewership almost twice as large as that of the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, the most-watched Olympic event ever.

First of all the World Cup is a month long while the Summer Olympics only lasts two weeks so you're comparing a cumulative viewership of two events that are not of equal length. Secondly with as many sports as the Olympics has there is going to be a lot of them that people have less interest in. I doubt many people worldwide were tuning in to watch archery or water polo and that will negatively affect the ratings.

For this argument it'd be more relevant to compare two big events within each competition. Let's compare the World Cup final from 2006 to the opening ceremony of the 2008 Summer Olympics. The World Cup Final in 2006 was estimated by FIFA at 715 million viewers and estimated at 260 million by IPG media agency. The worldwide viewership for the Summer Olympics opening ceremony in 2008 was between 1 and 4 billion, much more then the World Cup final.

Only 16 teams compete in football in the Olympics. Furthermore, while there are only 32 spots in the World Cup, 205 countries vied for them in the qualifying rounds leading up to the 2010 finals; that's one more country than the 204 represented at the 2008 Summer Olympics.

And qualifying for the World Cup isn't the World Cup. If a country failed to qualify then they were obviously not part of the actual tournament which is what we are talking about.

I'm happy that you'd take the Olympics over the World Cup, but it's evident that the majority of sports fans around the world definitely do not agree with you.

How exactly is that evident when more people around the world watched the opening ceremony for the Summer Olympics over the World Cup Final?

Because limited participation doesn't automatically disqualify an event from being important to the world. The Summer Olympics isn't more important to the world than the World Cup, it just has more world participation.

No one said the World Cup wasn't important. Just not as important as the Olympics.

When you give me proof that the possibility of a gold medal can do as much for a country as the possibility of a World Cup, I'll debate this point.

The possibility for a World Cup really isn't there for the majority of these countries. Only 8 countries have been able to win the World Cup in its 19 occurrences and only 24 countries have even been able to finish in the top 4. In the 2008 Summer Olympics alone 53 different countries won Gold Medals. The World Cup is basically an impossibility for most countries while an Olympic Gold Medal is very possible and something that could bring a lot of pride to a country.

I think the viewership figures in my rebuttal to your opening argument handle this point quite nicely.

Not really as I've already pointed out major holes in that argument.

Also, America's population comprises a little less than 5% of the world's population. This argument would hold weight if our country contained a significant minority of the world's population, but it doesn't. Even if we spend the most on sports per capita, our expenditures still pale in comparison to what the rest of the world spends on sports (especially association football).

I know America's population is nothing to the world as a whole. I was just using the country as an example of not every single country loving soccer.

Again, medals mean very little relative to a World Cup and viewership figures indicate that the World Cup is of much more importance than the Summer Olympics.

Medals are a realistic goal for a country as opposed to the near impossibility of most countries winning the World Cup and again, your viewership argument is very flawed as I've already pointed out.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

First of all the World Cup is a month long while the Summer Olympics only lasts two weeks so you're comparing a cumulative viewership of two events that are not of equal length. Secondly with as many sports as the Olympics has there is going to be a lot of them that people have less interest in. I doubt many people worldwide were tuning in to watch archery or water polo and that will negatively affect the ratings.

The World Cup spans over a month of time but it has nowhere near the number of televised hours that the Olympics has. In total, there are 64 World Cup matches played. Games last for 90 minutes and we'll be liberal here and say that half-time breaks last 30 minutes. That leaves us with 128 hours of televised play over a month. The Summer Olympics fit that many hours into a week. Granted, a majority of people aren't going to be able or want to stay glued to their television sets for the majority of the Olympics, but there's absolutely no problem with comparing cumulative viewership between these two events. Also, your point about no one wanting to watch archery or water polo works for my argument instead of yours: the World Cup is dedicated to a sport people are passionate about; the Olympics are definitely not.

For this argument it'd be more relevant to compare two big events within each competition. Let's compare the World Cup final from 2006 to the opening ceremony of the 2008 Summer Olympics. The World Cup Final in 2006 was estimated by FIFA at 715 million viewers and estimated at 260 million by IPG media agency. The worldwide viewership for the Summer Olympics opening ceremony in 2008 was between 1 and 4 billion, much more then the World Cup final.

So, you're comparing a televised event in which no sport is played to one where sport is actually played? This actually weakens your argument because it hints at people not really caring about actual Olympic competition, just the opening ceremony. Even if the 2008 Beijing Olympics opening ceremony is the most-watched event ever, you still have no proof for the Olympics' ability to gain consistent ratings. If the opening ceremony actually did draw 4 billion people, that leaves it with only a cumulative viewership of 700 million for the duration of the rest of the Olympics; this just further goes to show how little people care about the Olympics relative to the World Cup.

And qualifying for the World Cup isn't the World Cup. If a country failed to qualify then they were obviously not part of the actual tournament which is what we are talking about.

No, attempts to qualify most certainly do count as caring about an event. If people cared little about the World Cup, then only a small portion of the world's countries would try to field a team. Furthermore, the viewership figures I have cited show that people care about the World Cup even if their national team doesn't make the cut.

How exactly is that evident when more people around the world watched the opening ceremony for the Summer Olympics over the World Cup Final?

Because the opening ceremony doesn't actually show anyone in competition?

No one said the World Cup wasn't important. Just not as important as the Olympics.

If you want to keep on believing that, go right ahead.

The possibility for a World Cup really isn't there for the majority of these countries. Only 8 countries have been able to win the World Cup in its 19 occurrences and only 24 countries have even been able to finish in the top 4. In the 2008 Summer Olympics alone 53 different countries won Gold Medals. The World Cup is basically an impossibility for most countries while an Olympic Gold Medal is very possible and something that could bring a lot of pride to a country.

Yet almost every single country in the world tries to field a team in the World Cup every four years. Furthermore, 76 countries have been represented in the World Cup since its inception, so that's definitely more representation than your citations would lead someone to believe.

Also, the fact that almost every country tries to make the World Cup every 4 years shows how little feasibility matters when they think of what's most important to them. The finances needed to field a football team may be staggering and the chances of making it to the World Cup may be minuscule for many countries, but that still doesn't stop them from potentially realizing their hopes of making it to the most important sporting event in the world.

Not really as I've already pointed out major holes in that argument.

Yeah, you've shown that one segment of the Olympics that included no competition and that only accounted for a small portion of its total televised hours was the most-watched television event ever. Try to find one competitive event from the 2008 Olympics that rivaled the viewership of any World Cup match from either 2006 of 2010.

I know America's population is nothing to the world as a whole. I was just using the country as an example of not every single country loving soccer.

So? What does this have to do with the debate at hand? The world does not equal America. This is about which sporting event the world cares about the most, not about which sporting event the majority of America could care less about.

Medals are a realistic goal for a country as opposed to the near impossibility of most countries winning the World Cup and again, your viewership argument is very flawed as I've already pointed out.

It's not flawed at all. If anything's flawed, it's your argument that a non-competitive, televised event definitively proves that people care more about the Olympic games than the World Cup. I stress "games" here because none of them actually took place during the televised event that you're clinging so tightly on to.

 

[Big Sexy]

The World Cup spans over a month of time but it has nowhere near the number of televised hours that the Olympics has. In total, there are 64 World Cup matches played. Games last for 90 minutes and we'll be liberal here and say that half-time breaks last 30 minutes. That leaves us with 128 hours of televised play over a month. The Summer Olympics fit that many hours into a week. Granted, a majority of people aren't going to be able or want to stay glued to their television sets for the majority of the Olympics, but there's absolutely no problem with comparing cumulative viewership between these two events. Also, your point about no one wanting to watch archery or water polo works for my argument instead of yours: the World Cup is dedicated to a sport people are passionate about; the Olympics are definitely not.

You said it yourself, no one can watch round the clock Olympic coverage. The World Cup has the advantage of having set times for each game that is very easy to follow and everyone knows when each game is on. It's nearly impossible to follow all of the Olympic coverage and the schedule they have. People tune in to the Olympic events that they want to see.

And no the archery point doesn't work for your argument because there is still someone around the world that does like to watch the sport. Like I said the Olympics has something for everyone the World Cup is revolved around one thing. Do most people around the world enjoy it? Yes. Does everyone? No. The Olympics even with all of the less watched sports still have multiple heavily watched events as opposed to the World Cup's one.

So, you're comparing a televised event in which no sport is played to one where sport is actually played? This actually weakens your argument because it hints at people not really caring about actual Olympic competition, just the opening ceremony. Even if the 2008 Beijing Olympics opening ceremony is the most-watched event ever, you still have no proof for the Olympics' ability to gain consistent ratings. If the opening ceremony actually did draw 4 billion people, that leaves it with only a cumulative viewership of 700 million for the duration of the rest of the Olympics; this just further goes to show how little people care about the Olympics relative to the World Cup.

No, I'm comparing one of the biggest parts and attractions of the Olympics to the biggest attraction in the World Cup. The opening Olympic ceremony is a huge part of the event. The ceremony shows all of the different countries and allows each and every viewer to have pride in their country. We are comparing the importance of the Olympics to the importance of the World Cup and the fact that 1-4 billion people tuned in to watch the Olympic opening ceremony shows how important it is.

No, attempts to qualify most certainly do count as caring about an event. If people cared little about the World Cup, then only a small portion of the world's countries would try to field a team. Furthermore, the viewership figures I have cited show that people care about the World Cup even if their national team doesn't make the cut.

That's fantastic, I never said the countries that attempted to qualify didn't care about the event. You said that 205 countries tried to qualify for the World Cup which is one more then took part in the Olympics. I responded by saying the qualifying tournaments are not actually part of the World Cup itself so that point is irrelevant.

Because the opening ceremony doesn't actually show anyone in competition?

And which part of this topic said anything about competition? It's about importance to the world and 4 billion people watching the opening ceremony shows the importance of it.

Yet almost every single country in the world tries to field a team in the World Cup every four years. Furthermore, 76 countries have been represented in the World Cup since its inception, so that's definitely more representation than your citations would lead someone to believe.

76 out of 205 isn't very good especially when the majority of those 76 don't ever make it far at all.

Also, the fact that almost every country tries to make the World Cup every 4 years shows how little feasibility matters when they think of what's most important to them. The finances needed to field a football team may be staggering and the chances of making it to the World Cup may be minuscule for many countries, but that still doesn't stop them from potentially realizing their hopes of making it to the most important sporting event in the world.

And fielding Olympic teams and sending athletes to the Olympics is cheap? Just like every country attempts to make the world cup each time they also attempt to get athletes to the Olympics each time.

Yeah, you've shown that one segment of the Olympics that included no competition and that only accounted for a small portion of its total televised hours was the most-watched television event ever. Try to find one competitive event from the 2008 Olympics that rivaled the viewership of any World Cup match from either 2006 of 2010.

Unlike the World Cup not every single event could be seen worldwide. There were many territorial restrictions due to copyright issues that prevented this. You also have to take into account that multiple events were often going on at the same time. The set up of the two events is completely different in terms of how it is televised.

So? What does this have to do with the debate at hand? The world does not equal America. This is about which sporting event the world cares about the most, not about which sporting event the majority of America could care less about.

Do you enjoy putting words in peoples mouths? I was just using the US as an example to show that not every single country sees football as the number one sport. With the Olympics every single country can find something they enjoy and something that is of importance to them.

It's not flawed at all. If anything's flawed, it's your argument that a non-competitive, televised event definitively proves that people care more about the Olympic games than the World Cup. I stress "games" here because none of them actually took place during the televised event that you're clinging so tightly on to.

The fact that you dismiss the opening Olympic ceremonies is absolutely laughable. It's probably the most important part of the event and in essence defines the importance of the Olympics to the world. Hence why it's viewership absolutely shit on that of the World Cup final.

 

[The People's Peep]

I dont know why everyone said this was an easy choice, because I really had a hard time choosing. But in the end, I believe that the World Cup is the bigger event.

In America, we really dont watch soccer. But I think it says a lot when most of the country suddenly is sucked into a 4 week tournament for a sport we supposedly dont like. It creates a sense of nationalism that is unmatched. Dont get me wrong, the olympics creates a sense of nationalism as well, but not as much because the events are mostly based on an individual representing a country and not a team representing a country.

Another thing that makes the World Cup bigger is the whole 4 years thing. Each Summer or Winter Olympics are 4 years apart as well, but really but because we are looking at the Olympics as one event, it happens every two years. So with the World Cup, you have to wait 4 years to get another chance. Individuals in the Olympics have to wait 4 years also, but as a country, its only two years before the chance to win some medals. This brings me to my next point.

Only one team wins the World Cup, where as many different countries win medals at the Olympics. In fact, in the 2008 Summer Olympics, 86 different countries won medals and 54 of those countries had at least one gold medal. They say the overall medal count is the important part, but winning the medal count only gives you bragging rights. Its nothing official. As for the World Cup, its one winner, thus increasing the importance of a victory.

Like I said before, you guys are crazy for thinking this was easy. I found this choice to be very difficult. But by a small margin, it looks like the World Cup is the more important event.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

You said it yourself, no one can watch round the clock Olympic coverage. The World Cup has the advantage of having set times for each game that is very easy to follow and everyone knows when each game is on. It's nearly impossible to follow all of the Olympic coverage and the schedule they have. People tune in to the Olympic events that they want to see.

Which still leaves what? About 5/6s of the Olympics being nothing but events that only a handful of people will want to watch?

The comparison between the viewerships for each is still valid, especially when you consider the fact that networks have no problem choosing which events to broadcast. If there was more interest in the Olympics, it would be spread out over a longer period of time and/or networks would buy the rights to air more of it.

And no the archery point doesn't work for your argument because there is still someone around the world that does like to watch the sport. Like I said the Olympics has something for everyone the World Cup is revolved around one thing. Do most people around the world enjoy it? Yes. Does everyone? No.

Whether or not one person likes archery is irrelevant to this debate. What's relevant to this debate is whether or not the aggregation of people who enjoy the more obscure Olympic events rivals the total amount of people who enjoy the World Cup; it doesn't, and it doesn't even rival the number of people who enjoy the World Cup when added to the number of people who enjoy the most popular events at the Summer Olympics.

The Olympics even with all of the less watched sports still have multiple heavily watched events as opposed to the World Cup's one.

Again, you're incorrectly equating variety with popularity. I've already addressed this issue right above this quoted portion of your post.

No, I'm comparing one of the biggest parts and attractions of the Olympics to the biggest attraction in the World Cup. The opening Olympic ceremony is a huge part of the event. The ceremony shows all of the different countries and allows each and every viewer to have pride in their country. We are comparing the importance of the Olympics to the importance of the World Cup and the fact that 1-4 billion people tuned in to watch the Olympic opening ceremony shows how important it is.

Yes, we are comparing which event is more important, and clearly the World Cup is when we take into account cumulative viewership numbers. And, yes, you're right; we are comparing the importance of the Olympics (not the Olympics opening ceremony) to the importance of the World Cup. One portion of the Olympics doesn't determine whether or not it's more important than the World Cup, especially when you consider the precipitous drop in viewership that occurs when you get to actual Olympic competition.

That's fantastic, I never said the countries that attempted to qualify didn't care about the event. You said that 205 countries tried to qualify for the World Cup which is one more then took part in the Olympics. I responded by saying the qualifying tournaments are not actually part of the World Cup itself so that point is irrelevant.

Firstly, I never said that you said that, so I'm not even going entertain this cheap ploy of yours to make it look like I've skewed your argument.

Secondly, how are qualifying match-ups irrelevant to which of these events is more important? If the World Cup wasn't important to the majority of the world's countries, they wouldn't try to qualify, simple as that. They do, though, so it follows that they DO care about making it to the World Cup.

You could try and argue that caring about making it to the World Cup and caring about the World Cup are two totally different things, but that would be laughable indeed.

And which part of this topic said anything about competition? It's about importance to the world and 4 billion people watching the opening ceremony shows the importance of it.

Uh, we're in a league, debating sports. I'd think that sports themselves would need to be directly addressed at least a little in each debate we have. Sports necessarily implies competition.

76 out of 205 isn't very good especially when the majority of those 76 don't ever make it far at all.

Yet viewership figures for the World Cup grow every year and the number of countries that try to make it stays the same. The number I gave you here was meant to complete the citation of numbers that you intentionally left incomplete for the purposes of supporting your own argument. If I remember correctly, that argument was, "The possibility for a World Cup really isn't there for the majority of these countries." Like last time, my point still stands: even if making it to the World Cup is an improbability for most countries, they still try to get there every four years. If countries didn't care about the event, then they wouldn't persistently try to vie for a spot.

And fielding Olympic teams and sending athletes to the Olympics is cheap? Just like every country attempts to make the world cup each time they also attempt to get athletes to the Olympics each time.

These costs are negligible in comparison to the costs associated with fielding a World Cup team when you take into consideration the fact that it's much easier to qualify for an Olympic event than it is to qualify for the World Cup. You've been stressing this point all along; I never thought that I'd be able to use it to my advantage in debating you.

Unlike the World Cup not every single event could be seen worldwide. There were many territorial restrictions due to copyright issues that prevented this. You also have to take into account that multiple events were often going on at the same time. The set up of the two events is completely different in terms of how it is televised.

What territorial issues are you talking about? Show me a source that says the rights to a televised event aren't held by the IOC but held by the host nation instead. Furthermore, if you can find a source that says this, show me another that says certain host nations refuse to make those rights salable.

And, as I said in the beginning of this post, if there was interest in simultaneously-held events, then one of them would be broadcast later or they'd be held at separate times.

Do you enjoy putting words in peoples mouths? I was just using the US as an example to show that not every single country sees football as the number one sport. With the Olympics every single country can find something they enjoy and something that is of importance to them.

I have never put a word in your mouth; since you're on the wrong side of the debate, though, I understand why you've resorted to saying this.

Again, I'll point out the obvious here: you're incorrectly equating variety with popularity. Popularity is what matters here since we're debating which event is more important to the world.

The fact that you dismiss the opening Olympic ceremonies is absolutely laughable. It's probably the most important part of the event and in essence defines the importance of the Olympics to the world. Hence why it's viewership absolutely shit on that of the World Cup final.

It's not laughable at all. What's laughable is that you think this proves that the Olympics has a premium in terms of importance over the World Cup. If the Olympics actually had an importance premium, people would, relatively speaking, give a fuck about the actual Olympics that follow the opening ceremonies.

 

[Big Sexy]

Which still leaves what? About 5/6s of the Olympics being nothing but events that only a handful of people will want to watch?

You can't look at the Olympic ratings in terms of each and every event because consistency obviously won't be there with the variety. The fact that 4.7 billion people worldwide watched a portion of the Olympics throughout the 2 weeks is what you need to look at.

Whether or not one person likes archery is irrelevant to this debate. What's relevant to this debate is whether or not the aggregation of people who enjoy the more obscure Olympic events rivals the total amount of people who enjoy the World Cup; it doesn't, and it doesn't even rival the number of people who enjoy the World Cup when added to the number of people who enjoy the most popular events at the Summer Olympics.

Says who? FIFA? They have basically admitted that the high number they say watch the World Cup overall is estimated and it isn't a very good estimate at all according to most places. The fact remains the World Cup lasts longer and every match is broadcast as opposed to the OLympics that lasts two weeks and while in the US it may be on 24/7 the same can't be said everywhere around the world where only some parts are shown.

Again, you're incorrectly equating variety with popularity. I've already addressed this issue right above this quoted portion of your post.

No. I'm using both variety and popularity to prove my point.

Yes, we are comparing which event is more important, and clearly the World Cup is when we take into account cumulative viewership numbers. And, yes, you're right; we are comparing the importance of the Olympics (not the Olympics opening ceremony) to the importance of the World Cup. One portion of the Olympics doesn't determine whether or not it's more important than the World Cup, especially when you consider the precipitous drop in viewership that occurs when you get to actual Olympic competition.

The opening ceremony is just one portion but it is the biggest portion of the event and the one portion of the event that every person worldwide is given the opportunity to watch.

Secondly, how are qualifying match-ups irrelevant to which of these events is more important? If the World Cup wasn't important to the majority of the world's countries, they wouldn't try to qualify, simple as that. They do, though, so it follows that they DO care about making it to the World Cup.

Are you serious right now? Where did I say countries didn't care about making it to the World Cup? I said that the countries that don't qualify obviously aren't going to care as much about the actual 32 team tournament itself. As opposed to the Olympics where every country has at least something to be prideful about and have the chance to see their country compete and possibly win a medal.

You could try and argue that caring about making it to the World Cup and caring about the World Cup are two totally different things, but that would be laughable indeed.

I'm not trying to argue that countries that don't make the World Cup don't care about the event. I'm arguing that the countries that don't make it are not going to care nearly as much about the actual tournament when their country isn't in it.

Uh, we're in a league, debating sports. I'd think that sports themselves would need to be directly addressed at least a little in each debate we have. Sports necessarily implies competition.

They are being addressed plenty in this debate. The opening ceremony ratings is one of many reasons why the Olympics are more important. As opposed to you who seem to think that skewed, inaccurate worldwide tv ratings are the only think that makes a sporting event important.

"The possibility for a World Cup really isn't there for the majority of these countries." Like last time, my point still stands: even if making it to the World Cup is an improbability for most countries, they still try to get there every four years. If countries didn't care about the event, then they wouldn't persistently try to vie for a spot.

And once again, I never said these countries didn't care about making the event and I never said they didn't care to watch. I just said it isn't as important as the Olympics.

These costs are negligible in comparison to the costs associated with fielding a World Cup team when you take into consideration the fact that it's much easier to qualify for an Olympic event than it is to qualify for the World Cup. You've been stressing this point all along; I never thought that I'd be able to use it to my advantage in debating you.

It doesn't advantage you in any way. What do you think costs more, fielding a potential World Cup team that most likely won't make the actual tournament or sending athletes across the world to the Olympics?

What territorial issues are you talking about? Show me a source that says the rights to a televised event aren't held by the IOC but held by the host nation instead. Furthermore, if you can find a source that says this, show me another that says certain host nations refuse to make those rights salable.

Globally, the 2008 Olympics was subject to extensive copyright restriction, which amounted to territorial restrictions whilst still being covered extensively online within various exclusive copyright autarkies. Thus despite the international nature of the event and the global reach of the internet, the coverage world wide of assorted nation-states and television networks was not readily accessible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Summer_Olympics#Media_coverage

Again, I'll point out the obvious here: you're incorrectly equating variety with popularity. Popularity is what matters here since we're debating which event is more important to the world.

And your skewed, inaccurate FIFA estimated ratings aren't a good base to prove that.

It's not laughable at all. What's laughable is that you think this proves that the Olympics has a premium in terms of importance over the World Cup. If the Olympics actually had an importance premium, people would, relatively speaking, give a fuck about the actual Olympics that follow the opening ceremonies.

4.7 billion people did care and watched the Olympics. 204 countries were able to watch there athletes compete with the best in the world and 80 of those countries got to witness their athletes succeed and bring home a medal.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

You can't look at the Olympic ratings in terms of each and every event because consistency obviously won't be there with the variety. The fact that 4.7 billion people worldwide watched a portion of the Olympics throughout the 2 weeks is what you need to look at.

It's this lack of consistency which makes the Olympics less important than the World Cup. I've already stressed this multiple times. The consistency's not there and the only viewership numbers that work in your favor are for a ceremony that doesn't include any competition.

Says who? FIFA? They have basically admitted that the high number they say watch the World Cup overall is estimated and it isn't a very good estimate at all according to most places. The fact remains the World Cup lasts longer and every match is broadcast as opposed to the OLympics that lasts two weeks and while in the US it may be on 24/7 the same can't be said everywhere around the world where only some parts are shown.

I accounted for the overestimation in my second post, and even conservative estimates of the cumulative viewership for the 2006 World Cup are right above 8.7 billion people. That's 700 million short of doubling the cumulative viewership for the 2008 Olympics.

No. I'm using both variety and popularity to prove my point.

You've given no proof whatsoever that the Olympics are as popular as the World Cup. All you've shown is that one non-competitive segment outranked the 2006 World Cup final in viewership. This is nowhere near proving that the Olympics are as popular as the World Cup.

The opening ceremony is just one portion but it is the biggest portion of the event and the one portion of the event that every person worldwide is given the opportunity to watch.

Exactly, it's just one portion. The Olympics pales in comparison to the World Cup in every other measurable aspect of popularity.

Are you serious right now? Where did I say countries didn't care about making it to the World Cup? I said that the countries that don't qualify obviously aren't going to care as much about the actual 32 team tournament itself. As opposed to the Olympics where every country has at least something to be prideful about and have the chance to see their country compete and possibly win a medal.

I never said you said this. I said that you could try to argue that caring about not making it to the World Cup is not the same as caring about the World Cup. I also stated that such an argument would be laughable.

Also, the hard evidence doesn't support your argument. If people truly cared about the Olympics more than they did about the World Cup, the cumulative viewership numbers wouldn't be so distant from each other. It doesn't matter how many countries have a stake in the Olympics; if the numbers aren't there, then there aren't enough people watching or there aren't enough die-hard followers of the Olympics watching consistently. This is obviously the case.

I'm not trying to argue that countries that don't make the World Cup don't care about the event. I'm arguing that the countries that don't make it are not going to care nearly as much about the actual tournament when their country isn't in it.

Yet the quantitative evidence shows that they do care. Sure, they might not seek out tickets for the live event, but they're tuning in.

They are being addressed plenty in this debate. The opening ceremony ratings is one of many reasons why the Olympics are more important. As opposed to you who seem to think that skewed, inaccurate worldwide tv ratings are the only think that makes a sporting event important.

Oh, I've given plenty of reasons for why the World Cup is more important than the Olympics. It's an all-out celebration of the world's most popular sport and it has brought about peace and violence in an equal measure that the Olympics has so far never been able to even partially match. You yourself have chosen not to address these points and have instead made this debate primarily about numbers. Admittedly, though, I have no problem with this since the World Cup's numbers win out every time.

And once again, I never said these countries didn't care about making the event and I never said they didn't care to watch. I just said it isn't as important as the Olympics.

Every measure of importance you've given shows that this isn't the case. More countries are represented? OK, then how does it follow that this makes the Olympics more important? How do you even know that most countries care about being represented in the Olympics?

Unlike you, I think it's the case that people are more passionate about a sport that they love than about national representation in competitions that they have little to no interest in.

It doesn't advantage you in any way. What do you think costs more, fielding a potential World Cup team that most likely won't make the actual tournament or sending athletes across the world to the Olympics?

Obviously, in terms of the expected payoff, fielding a World Cup team costs more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Summer_Olympics#Media_coverage

Did you actually read this? Let's look at it in full:

Globally, the 2008 Olympics was subject to extensive copyright restriction, which amounted to territorial restrictions whilst still being covered extensively online within various exclusive copyright autarkies. Thus despite the international nature of the event and the global reach of the internet, the coverage world wide of assorted nation-states and television networks was not readily accessible. There was no global or supranational media coverage. The international European Broadcasting Union (EBU), for example, provided live coverage and highlights of all arenas only for certain territories on their website, Eurovisionsports.tv. Many national broadcasters likewise restrict online events to their domestic audiences. The General National Copyright Administration of China announced that "individual (sic) and websites will face fines as high as 100,000 yuan for uploading recordings of Olympic Games video to the internet,"part of an extensive campaign to protect the pertinent intellectual property rights.

Firstly, this paragraph here is clearly about copyrights, not broadcasting rights. Secondly, look at the part I bolded: these restrictions that you're talking about primarily pertain to the redistribution of Olympic coverage over the Internet.

There were absolutely no territorial restrictions on what events could be shown in a country; if the US wanted to show all track & field events, it could have done so.

My point stands unscathed: if there was as much interest in the Olympics as you claim there to be, networks would have purchased greater broadcasting rights to cover those events which they initially passed over.

And your skewed, inaccurate FIFA estimated ratings aren't a good base to prove that.

It's actually an excellent base since I've adjusted for reliability purposes at the beginning of this debate. Are you just now getting around to the article I posted in my first rebuttal?

4.7 billion people did care and watched the Olympics. 204 countries were able to watch there athletes compete with the best in the world and 80 of those countries got to witness their athletes succeed and bring home a medal.

Oh, I don't doubt that people do care about the Olympics, hence why I qualified my statement with "relatively speaking;" it's just that they don't care about the Olympics as much as they care about the World Cup.

All right, we've debated all points thoroughly. I'll post my closing argument sometime tonight or tomorrow morning.

 

[Big Sexy]

It's this lack of consistency which makes the Olympics less important than the World Cup. I've already stressed this multiple times. The consistency's not there and the only viewership numbers that work in your favor are for a ceremony that doesn't include any competition.

The lack of consistency is one negative the Olympics has but that negative is not nearly as large as the World Cup's negatives in terms the little amount of countries involved making it less important to the world as a whole.

I accounted for the overestimation in my second post, and even conservative estimates of the cumulative viewership for the 2006 World Cup are right above 8.7 billion people. That's 700 million short of doubling the cumulative viewership for the 2008 Olympics.

8.7 billion is still a very high estimation considering the fact that most places only estimated the World Cup Final at being around 262 million viewers and you know damn well the other 47 World Cup matches were not that high. Even so I've already explained that the World Cup lasts a couple weeks longer. You can say all you want that the Olympics has more overall coverage but I wouldn't be so sure. Yes the US shows it basically 24/7 but that isn't the case for every country around the world.

You've given no proof whatsoever that the Olympics are as popular as the World Cup. All you've shown is that one non-competitive segment outranked the 2006 World Cup final in viewership. This is nowhere near proving that the Olympics are as popular as the World Cup.

Once again the non-competitive parts are still part of the games as a whole and with the way the Olympics are set up and scheduled with all of the different events the opening ceremony is the one time that all interested parties would be guaranteed to be viewing and the interested parties were estimated to be between 1-4 billion people.

Exactly, it's just one portion. The Olympics pales in comparison to the World Cup in every other measurable aspect of popularity.

I already stated above that there is no definitive way to say which had higher ratings due to the set up of the events and the difference in length.

Another point I'd like to make is that you seem to be using popularity as a way to measure importance.

Popular- Widely liked or appreciated
Important- Strongly affecting the course of events or the nature of things; significant.

Those are two very different definitions. Is popularity part of importance? Sure. Is it the end all be all of what is more important? No.

There's episodes of Oprah that have had higher ratings then presidential elections. That doesn't make them more important.

Also, the hard evidence doesn't support your argument. If people truly cared about the Olympics more than they did about the World Cup, the cumulative viewership numbers wouldn't be so distant from each other. It doesn't matter how many countries have a stake in the Olympics; if the numbers aren't there, then there aren't enough people watching or there aren't enough die-hard followers of the Olympics watching consistently. This is obviously the case.

There are plenty of people watching the Olympics and like I said there is definitive comparison that can be made ratings wise. I go back to point above of importance though. The Olympics try to bring together every single country around the world and promotes unity. The World Cup is often filled with violence from fans from competing countries.

Oh, I've given plenty of reasons for why the World Cup is more important than the Olympics. It's an all-out celebration of the world's most popular sport and it has brought about peace and violence in an equal measure that the Olympics has so far never been able to even partially match. You yourself have chosen not to address these points and have instead made this debate primarily about numbers. Admittedly, though, I have no problem with this since the World Cup's numbers win out every time.

No you are the one who originally brought up the numbers and that has been the basis for your argument this entire time. The World Cup absolutely pales in comparison to the Olympics when it comes to promoting peace and bringing the world together.

This is what the Olympics promotes: http://www.peace.ca/peaceandtheolypmics.htm

This is what the World Cup brings about: http://www.articlesfactory.com/articles/sports/2010-world-cup-violence-free.html Not to mention all of the controversy that already comes with the sport of football involving officiating, faking injuries, and corruption.

I'm not going to lie and say the Olympics are all peaceful and no incidents ever take place but major incidents have been very rare recently when it comes to the Summer Olympics. Violence always seems to follow the World Cup.

Every measure of importance you've given shows that this isn't the case. More countries are represented? OK, then how does it follow that this makes the Olympics more important? How do you even know that most countries care about being represented in the Olympics?

And how do you know they don't? I can ask the exact same questions to you. How do you know the smaller countries that never make the World Cup enjoy their teams getting embarrassed? I highly doubt a country would be mad at the fact that their athletes were representing their country on a global scale competing against the best athletes in the world.

Unlike you, I think it's the case that people are more passionate about a sport that they love than about national representation in competitions that they have little to no interest in.

And you can without any doubt in your mind tell me that all 204 countries (not counting the US) all love the sport of football and are more passionate about it then anything else. Even when for most of these countries their team never makes the actual World Cup tournament and gets to be represented.

Firstly, this paragraph here is clearly about copyrights, not broadcasting rights. Secondly, look at the part I bolded: these restrictions that you're talking about primarily pertain to the redistribution of Olympic coverage over the Internet.

There were absolutely no territorial restrictions on what events could be shown in a country; if the US wanted to show all track & field events, it could have done so.

I know it's about copyrights and not being able to watch events or highlights over the internet is going to negatively affect some viewership and not allow the max amount of people to keep interest on every single thing that is going on.

I'm not discussing which events could be shown I'm talking about the fact that not every country had 24/7 Olympic coverage like the US so your point about the Olympics being shorter but still having equal coverage really doesn't hold weight.

It's actually an excellent base since I've adjusted for reliability purposes at the beginning of this debate. Are you just now getting around to the article I posted in my first rebuttal?

I read it from the beginning. All your doing is making more estimations on top of other estimations. And once again ratings still aren't the best argument to have beacuse of the difference in length and the set up of the two events.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Closing Argument​

I argued at the beginning of this debate that the World Cup was more important to the world than the Summer Olympics and I stand by that argument. Both quantitative and qualitative reasons support my argument. Quantitatively speaking, the World Cup is watched by more people than the Summer Olympics and just as many try countries try to qualify for the quadrennial football tournament. On the qualitative side of things, true stories abound about the effects that the World Cup has on people's behavior. From bringing about a ceasefire in a small, war-torn West African nation to precipitating the assassination of a Colombian footballer in his own country, the World Cup runs the gamut of passion. Although the Olympics is undoubtedly the better celebration of sport in general, no other sporting event in the world garners more interest or rouses people's emotions like the World Cup.

 

[Big Sexy]

Closing Argument​

I argued that the Summer Olympics was a more important event then the World Cup. One of my main reasons was that the Olympics offer something for everyone as opposed to the World Cup. Not only is football part of the Olympics, with the U23 rule attached, but other very popular international sports such as basketball, tennis, and boxing are involved as well. The other main reason was that the Olympics are a much more worldly event where every country around the world is involved. The World Cup has only 32 countries involved every 4 years while the Olympics has over 200 countries involved making it much more important on a global scale.

My main opposition in this debate focused on ratings more then anything else. He has tried to say that I was the one to make it a huge issue but he brought up that whole argument and he was the one who kept driving it home in each and every response making it the main focus of his debate. There are two reasons why this was not a good argument.

1. There is no undeniable way of knowing who had the better ratings. The two events are of different lengths and it's impossible to know the exact amount of coverage worldwide each receives in the time periods they take place. There are many estimated numbers out there but nothing official and nothing that can show how much of each event people got to see considering the differences in length.

2. My main opposition seemed to be using popularity as a way to measure importance. While popularity may play a part in importance it is only a small one and not the end all be all of what is more important. The Olympics offers every country a chance to compete and every fan a chance to show pride in their country. The benefits of the Olympics far outweighs the World Cup. If the World Cup ceased to exist then the Olympics just make a quick fix and get rid of the U23 rule for football. If the Olympics ceased to exist it would do far more damage.