M111 - Motion on the modern Olympic Games Watch

This discussion is closed.
Birchington
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#21
Report 7 years ago
#21
(Original post by Lipvig)
I thought the ceremony was tomorrow?

(Any chance you know who's lighting the cauldron btw?)
It is, I saw the practice rehearsal.

No idea who's lighting the torch - that's top top secret even for staff at the stadium.
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#22
Report 7 years ago
#22
(Original post by Birchington)
No. The Olympics are going to be fantastic, just wait and see.

I have been volunteering at the Stadium for nearly a month, and the amount of work that has gone in from everyone should not be moaned at.

I also saw a full rehearsal for the opening ceremony tonight - you're in for a treat! Lighten up and enjoy this once in a lifetime event. Yes, the corporate sponsors may have a large presence, but they have invested in youth sports facilities etc. They don't just take.
I saw it too and yes you are in for a treat.

I have a hunch nothing more about who will light the torch- Sir Steve Redgrave.
0
PierceBrosnan
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#23
Report 7 years ago
#23
Abstain. Too many reasons so abstaining is good.
0
jesusandtequila
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#24
Report 7 years ago
#24
(Original post by Melancholy)
And what the heck is wrong with the Coca-Cola Company? Not all their products are unhealthy, and they are hydrating. And why should we care if it's American?
http://www.killercoke.org/

?
0
tehFrance
Badges: 15
#25
Report 7 years ago
#25
(Original post by Melancholy)
And what the heck is wrong with the Coca-Cola Company?
They have over 500 brands worldwide... all of them disgusting crap that is not healthy. They should not sponsor anything to do with sports.
0
eff01
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#26
Report 7 years ago
#26
Mr Speaker, this government has attacked British sporting in the budget, I'm not surprised they are attacking the Olympic Games in this motion.
0
Observatory
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#27
Report 7 years ago
#27
idk how you can say the Olympics have been staged for "economical gain" when they are going to cost the taxpayer billions and would never have been staged if they had been required to fund all their own costs from ticket receipts. Some companies have sponsored the games in exchange for ad rights, partially off-setting the cost. Ie. they have given money that the taxpayer would otherwise have had to spend. The Olympics is nonetheless a part of the public sector for all intents and purposes.
2
RoryS
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#28
Report 7 years ago
#28
Undecided, I think I'll abstain.
0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#29
Report 7 years ago
#29
(Original post by Observatory)
idk how you can say the Olympics have been staged for "economical gain" when they are going to cost the taxpayer billions and would never have been staged if they had been required to fund all their own costs from ticket receipts. Some companies have sponsored the games in exchange for ad rights, partially off-setting the cost. Ie. they have given money that the taxpayer would otherwise have had to spend. The Olympics is nonetheless a part of the public sector for all intents and purposes.
Well, I have not seen the official financial report but I am sure that the financial gain for the companies is going to be greatly superior to what they spend. Otherwise, they would not do it, simples.

What I have seen so far was a pompous and unnecessary opening ceremony, lots of advertisements, a man falling of a bicycle because of not looking in front of him and some megalomaniac security measures. The athletes somehow fall into the background between all that.

By using common sense, the whole games would be far cheaper and an actual sporting event, but those are not seen on television these days, are they? Anything without proper ads and adequate financial gain does not qualify for television.

Anyway, we should primarily consider the purpose of sport in the media itself – I agree with Noam Chomsky who has written that their purpose is to reduce the awareness of the masses regarding important issues and rather focus on sport, which creates an irrational sense of nationalism in order to keep them emotionally attached and interested. That is why athletes represent countries, not themselves or their clubs or whatever. The whole point of the Olympics nowadays is the same – hey, there is something new apart from Simon Cowell's crap on the telly, let us watch it! Along with the merchandise hype, it surely fulfills its purpose very well!

I have been watching swimming today and it really surprises me how can someone spend so much money to go see several people swimming, however great they are. I am not even going to start about standing almost six hours beside a road, watching some cyclists pass by a couple of times – at least it was free.
1
Observatory
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#30
Report 7 years ago
#30
(Original post by Life_peer)
Well, I have not seen the official financial report but I am sure that the financial gain for the companies is going to be greatly superior to what they spend. Otherwise, they would not do it, simples.
Yeah, for what the companies spend. At least a bit more than they spend anyway, since they were competitively bidding against one another for ad rights, so if it would be a lot more, some other company would have outbid the current lot. But corporate sponsors aren't covering the full cost or anything like that.

What I have seen so far was a pompous and unnecessary opening ceremony, lots of advertisements, a man falling of a bicycle while because of not looking in front of him and some megalomaniac security measures. The athletes somehow fall into the background between all that.

By using common sense, the whole games would be far cheaper and an actual sporting event, but those are not seen in television these days, are they? Anything without proper ads and adequate financial gain does not qualify for television.
What do you mean common sense? We could hold the games in existing facilities scattered around the country. We could even hold them in the same country each year. And we could ditch the less popular events. But then it wouldn't be the Olympics. Personally I couldn't care less if the Olympics as we know it disappeared, but if you want to stage an event with a whole lot of obscure sports that all need enormous specialised facilities, and where those have to look good to impress all the foreigners visiting and watching, in a particular city and have that city change every 4 years, there's no way it isn't going to cost a lot of money.

Anyway, we should primarily consider the purpose of sport in the media itself – I agree with Noam Chomsky who has written that their purpose is to reduce the awareness of the masses in important issues and rather focus on sport, which creates an irrational sense of nationalism in order to keep them emotionally attached and interested. That is why athletes represent countries, not themselves or their clubs or whatever. The whole point of the Olympics nowadays is the same – hey, there is something new apart from Simon Cowell's crap on the telly, let us watch it!

I have been watching swimming today and it really surprises me how can someone spend so much money to go see several people swimming, however great they are. I am not even going to start about standing almost six hours beside a road, watching some cyclists pass by – at least it was free.
Yeah, right, the media are all involved in a massive conspiracy to promote nationalism, the number 1 most common ideology amongst journalists. *******s. They just want to sell papers and attract viewers, and the Olympics is a good way to do that because people already like sports and international competitions without the need for a grand conspiracy by shadowy elites to manipulate their thinking.
0
Melancholy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#31
Report 7 years ago
#31
(Original post by jesusandtequila)
http://www.killercoke.org/
?
I genuinely was unaware of this, which is a bit silly since I suspect it's common knowledge. I'm not sure whether it's sufficiently bad to advertise such a harmful private company to render the positive effects of private investment obsolete. Though I suspect it does do damage to my argument.


(Original post by tehFrance)

They have over 500 brands worldwide... all of them disgusting crap that is not healthy. They should not sponsor anything to do with sports.
Well, call me naive, but I accepted some of their claims at face-value. I don't drink their products. I had not encountered the opposing side's criticism of their specific activities.
0
thunder_chunky
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#32
Report 7 years ago
#32
(Original post by tehFrance)
They have over 500 brands worldwide... all of them disgusting crap that is not healthy. They should not sponsor anything to do with sports.
Don't they also make an energy drink?
0
tehFrance
Badges: 15
#33
Report 7 years ago
#33
(Original post by thunder_chunky)
Don't they also make an energy drink?
Google says yes... 12 of them in-fact... they own Relentless :sad:
0
Morgsie
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#34
Report 7 years ago
#34
(Original post by thunder_chunky)
Don't they also make an energy drink?
Yes, Powerade for example.
0
tehFrance
Badges: 15
#35
Report 7 years ago
#35
(Original post by Morgsie)
Yes, Powerade for example.
Powerade is not an energy drink.
0
Morgsie
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#36
Report 7 years ago
#36
(Original post by tehFrance)
Powerade is not an energy drink.
Its a Sports drink :fyi:
0
thunder_chunky
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#37
Report 7 years ago
#37
(Original post by tehFrance)
Google says yes... 12 of them in-fact... they own Relentless :sad:
Ok so since they make sports drinks and energy drinks which supposedly (because I've never had much use in them and held much stock in their usefulness) help people hydrate and improve their performance, isn't that one thing in their favour?
0
tehFrance
Badges: 15
#38
Report 7 years ago
#38
(Original post by Morgsie)
Its a Sports drink :fyi:
Yes which is not an energy drink... don't :fyi: me.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#39
Report 7 years ago
#39
Mr Speaker, i must agree with some of my colleagues in that the fact that Coca-Cola sponsoring the Olympics is a travesty, there are reports that the area surrounding the worlds largest plant in Mexico is now all but dead due to the waste, and this precludes the fact that Coca-Cola has in the past been linked as potentially carcinogenic.
0
eff01
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#40
Report 7 years ago
#40
(Original post by Rakas21)
..There are reports that the area surrounding the worlds largest plant in Mexico is now all but dead due to the waste, and this precludes the fact that Coca-Cola has in the past been linked as potentially carcinogenic.
Mr Speaker, given the example the Prime Minister has stated, does the Prime Minister advocate banning Coca-Cola in the United Kingdom, after all the mass destruction of the surrounding areas of the Coca-Cola plant is unacceptable. If the Prime Minister wants to stop such brands being associated with sporting events, surely he would not want such brands being associated with the United Kingdom?
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices?

Yes I know where I'm applying (153)
59.3%
No I haven't decided yet (60)
23.26%
Yes but I might change my mind (45)
17.44%

Watched Threads

View All