argument top image

Are Olympics an overall good or bad for the cities where they are hosted? Show more Show less
Back to question

The Olympic Games are a set of international sports competitions that occur every four years for winter and spring sports, or every two years overall. Each competition is held in a different city in a different country, with the potential possibility to repeat a location. As the world economy and tourism expanded in the late twentieth and early twenty-first century, there has been some debate as to whether the Olympics is an overall good or bad experience for a host country.

The Olympic Games are an overall good for their host city Show more Show less

The Olympic Games stand for both international camaraderie and competition. To be a host is to step into the international spotlight in a favorable way and present the best of one’s city and country. It is a phenomenal opportunity for host countries, cities, and citizens to announce to the international community that their city is a place ripe for appreciation. The Olympics Games can stoke the local economy, increase prestige, and even benefit communities long after they are over.
(1 of 2) Next position >

The Olympics provide motivation for cities to address longstanding concerns

The strict deadline and timeline of hosting the games may motivate cities and countries to tackle longstanding concerns to improve the quality of life for citizens.

The Argument

It is merely stating fact to say that hosting the Olympic Games is an enormous construction and infrastructure undertaking. However, the strict deadline and timeline of hosting the games may motivate cities and countries to tackle longstanding concerns to improve the quality of life for citizens.[1] By tackling infrastructure, environmental, economic, and other concerns on a speedier timeline, the Olympic Games provides sufficient motivation and funding to address issues.[2] London’s largely depressed and under resourced East End became revitalized by construction for the 2012 games, Barcelona once again became an international destination, Seoul’s Han River received a major cleanup for the 1988 Games, and citizens of Vancouver greatly appreciate the transit line built from downtown to the airport for their 2010 Games.[3] The best example of all may be the Olympic Park District created for and following the 2000 Sydney Games. A thriving suburb has popped up around the district, hosting a variety of sports and entertainment events.

Counter arguments

The rapid timeline imposed on a host city regarding the Olympic Games is not a sufficient amount of time to repair decades of internal damage. For instance, the 2016 Rio de Janeiro Games featured a surge of new infrastructure to Brazil, but the new transit and transportation appears to only service high-income neighborhoods. More common is for these facilities to fall into intense disrepair like locations in Athens and Beijing. This reality is more common than revitalization.[4]

Proponents

Premises

Rejecting the premises

References

  1. https://www.procon.org/headlines/hosting-the-olympic-games-top-3-pros-and-cons/#14
  2. https://www.nber.org/papers/w14854.pdf
  3. https://www.britannica.com/list/7-ways-hosting-the-olympics-impacts-a-city
  4. https://www.businessinsider.com/why-olympics-terrible-investment-host-city-china-rio-pyeongchang-2017-12

Vote

Not sure yet? Read more ↑

Discuss

This page was last edited on Monday, 26 Oct 2020 at 10:39 UTC

Explore related arguments