Hosting the Olympic Games is a phenomenal opportunity to announce to the international community that a country is prepared for increased participation on a global scale as well as the scrutiny that accompanies it.
The argument
Hosting the Olympic Games is a phenomenal opportunity to announce to the international community that a country is prepared for increased participation on a global scale as well as the scrutiny that accompanies it. Asia, interpreted by many to be a continent on the rise for the past few decades, may see this reflected in its increased participation in hosting the games. Until 2018, Asia had only hosted three games; beginning in 2018, it won the right to host three in a row. For the current biddings, an Asian country is involved for each one. This follows increasing public respect for various Asian countries as a whole including admiration for several countries successful COVID-19 responses. While the games, COVID-19, and economic policies are not all neatly tied together, hosting the games “serves as a credible signal that a country is committing itself to trade liberalization” and general international openness. Furthermore, in 2018, it was announced that for the first time an African nation would host an Olympic event. While not the official games, Senegal is to host the 2022 Youth Olympic Games, the first country to host an Olympic event on the continent. For so many years, the Olympic Games signified an example of Western elitism, with Eastern and African nations largely resigned to competitors or visitors. The increased participation and egality on a global scale not only emphasize the International Olympic Committee’s increasing commitment to inclusivity and diversity, but also emphasize that to underestimate these flourishing countries would be a mistake.
Premises
Counter-arguments
The Olympic Games are a shallow baseline to announce to the international community that a country is prepared for increased global participation. This should be shown in ways other than something as silly as hosting an international competition. Trade, economy, environmental policies, government structure, quality of life, and more are much better benchmarks to increased respect on an international level. Furthermore, hosting the Olympics Games does not absolve a country of their own future stumbles. The United States have hosted more than a dozen games, yet still deal with violent racism. China, host of the 2008 and 2022 games are facing a humanitarian crisis unlike anything in popular memory. There are much better ways to gain the world’s respect.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] International standing rests on how a state conducts itself rather than on an event it stages, and the premise offers no case in which hosting altered a country's position beyond the fortnight of the Games. [Rejecting P2] Which regions win hosting rights is a fact about the awarding body's choices rather than about the standing of the winners, and the number of cities willing to bid has fallen in recent cycles — so a successful bid may reflect thin competition as much as rising stature. [Rejecting P3] Even granting the signal, the question asks about the host city. Prestige accrues to the country while the debt, displacement and unused venues fall on the city, so the premise does not reach the conclusion it is offered for.