100 likes | 202 Vues
The debate surrounding the Olympics centers on its impact on host cities. Proponents highlight benefits such as improved infrastructure, the creation of sports venues, and an increase in local pride. They argue that the Olympics strengthen regional values and provide a legacy for the city. However, criticisms include the potential for protests, increased taxes, social dislocation, and environmental changes. This discussion weighs both sides of the argument to assess whether the Olympics truly benefit host communities or if the drawbacks overshadow the positives.
E N D
Intro • Idea 1: Overview of the issue (OLYMPICS) • Idea 2: While some people say… (STATE CONTRASTING THEORY) • Idea 3: In contrast (THIS IS WHERE YOU MUST ASSERT WHAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO TALK ABOUT) Be sure to directly reference the texts. Also-remember that each text may offer BOTH sides of the argument
Text #1 (POSITIVES) • “Improvements in air, roads, and rail transportation” • “Creation of new sports venues/postgame community use”
Text #2 (POSITIVES) • “Strengthening of regional values and traditions” in other words… • “increased local pride and community spirit” CRITICISM
Text 3 (POSITIVES) • Hellz no
Text 4 (POSITIVES) • “EXPOSED TO OLYMPIC VALUES” • “Legacy of your city” • “100,000 people received technical skills” • “Opened up new airport/infrastructure”
Text 1: NEGATIVES • “Potential for protest” (negative community involvement)-COULD LEAD TO VIOLENCE AND DEATH AND ULTIMATELY CIST THE CITY $$$ (legal fees/added security) • “Increased costs in taxes” • “changes to the environment”
Text 2 (NEGATIVES) • “SOCIAL DISLOCATION”