Question: Should the Use of Performance-Enhancing Substances be Permitted in Athletics?

Performance-enhancing drugs should not be accepted in sports. The argument for allowing performance-enhancing drugs in sports is similar to the argument for allowing transwomen to compete in the women's league. However, the use of drugs is prohibited largely because athletes could potentially overdose while trying to outdo each other. Even in the sports entertainment industry, where the outcome is predetermined, drugs are not allowed due to their danger. The current definition of "fair" in sports is that everyone competes with what their body naturally does. When it comes to "fair" sports, transwomen are allowed to control their levels of testosterone and estrogen, while biological females are not. This is even more pronounced when transmen are concerned, as they are using performance-enhancing drugs in the form of prescribed hormones. The disparity in victories between transwomen and transmen is significant, but the question is whether it's acceptable for them to have an advantage. According to the current definition of "fair," it should be. However, just as we don't allow certain types of women to compete in the women's league without being prejudiced against those we exclude, we cannot allow performance-enhancing drugs without compromising the integrity of sports. The use of drugs would also lead to an uneven playing field, as not everyone would have access to them, just as not everyone has access to certain genetic or biological advantages. Therefore, we must continue to strive for fairness in sports by prohibiting the use of performance-enhancing drugs.

Two baseless assertions in Pro's conclusion. I will conclude by saying that the drugs do serve a purpose and can have a positive - and healthy - benefit on peoples lives.

Once again, many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate. However, I must say, Con, that your question as to whether or not I actually read or skim the arguments is more than offensive. Not only have I responded to every single thing you've said in this debate, but the reason I "simply extend" my arguments is because you have ignored most of them. In fact in the last round I had to single out TEN arguments that you completely dropped in your rebuttal, so if anyone is going to be rude and ask if one of us is just skimming the debate then clearly it should be me. I think that will be MORE than obvious to the audience. Another thing I'd like to mention is that you literally dropped about 75% of my arguments due to lack of character space. However that's only because you copied and pasted what I said word for word in your response instead of just responding which was unnecessary. That said, let's get back to Con's points. She begins by clarifying that she does not suggest ALL rappers are drug users - just some of them. In that case her argument makes little to no sense. I see she didn't respond to my priest analogy, so once again I'll waste character space repeating myself. While SOME priests are child molesters, it would be irresponsible to suggest that people avoid priests as a whole because of that fact. Similarly, while some or even most rappers might use drugs, that is nowhere near a good enough reason to avoid ALL rap. Con concedes this point to me since she never explained why rap music in general should be prohibited and not just the kind that advocates drug use, misogyny or violence. Furthermore, even if Con actually took the time to explain that I would have defeated her argument by pointing out that rock stars use drugs [1], as well as politicians, artists, popes, composers, authors, etc. [2]. Clearly Con's argument A3 has been defeated. Just because some rappers do drugs doesn't mean rap music should be avoided. That's like saying since so many philosophers did/do drugs that philosophy should be avoided. Clearly that's non-sensical (and yes, many philosophers did drugs such as William James' nitrous oxide, Sigmund Freud and his cocaine, Plato and his magic mushrooms, etc.). Next, Con says that I am "irresponsible" for not taking it upon myself to go to the other website where she expects me to read other people's arguments and accept them as her own. Extend my points about (a) that being bad conduct as it's cheating character space; (b) I cannot be expected to debate the people on Yahoo Answers as they cannot respond; (c) I used AnswerBag to quote song lyrics -- not to make arguments, etc. At this point I think only my opponent is naive enough to expect people on DDO to accept a link to Yahoo Answers as an actual argument. Either make the case here in the debate or consider it irrelevant. Moving on, Con says "I believe that we have already debated your points on the positive effects of rap." In other words she completely contradicts her statement from the previous round where she writes, "As for singling out the negatives of rap, please, feel free to list the positive effects that rap has on teens." So in Round 3 she asks me to list the positive effects rap can have (which I already did in R1 and R2). Then when I re-wrote them again since they were ignored, she has the audacity to say "We have already debated your points." She completely contradicts herself by suggesting I never provided them and then saying we've already debated them. Moreover, Con completely failed to respond to any of the positives I mentioned. She ignored Murray Forman's analysis about the impact of cultural expression. She ignored the various rappers I mentioned who rap about positive things. She ignored the fact that rap artists use their talents for good, i.e. Jay Z's rap concert raising money for the families of 9/11, etc. Con is completely incorrect in saying "we have already debated" these things because she simply never responded to those examples and others from previous rounds. She did say some rappers promote bad messages, but I never denied that fact. My argument is that it'd be wrong to assume every artist from a particular genre is to be avoided or presume that every rap song is negative. Moving on, Con writes, "[Heavy metal and punk] may contain profanity also, but that is besides the subject." This ignores the points I have repeatedly stated since the first round about it being wrong and non-sensical to single out rap in particular, ESPECIALLY because it's inherent to so many people's culture. Not surprisingly these arguments were dropped by my opponent as well. Next Con says, "I have presented more than enough evidence of why rap is harmful to children and teens." Well I have provided more than enough evidence of why rap can be positive or beneficial to children and teens, so this is a moot point. Additionally this is irrelevant. Just because I can prove that junk food is undoubtedly harmful to children doesn't mean that it should be prohibited. Con continues, "I mean that it would eliminate the main sources of rap... People can still rap, but it isn't going to get them anywhere. Future generations would be raised not being exposed to it, and would be less likely to have a negative impact from it." I think it is appalling that Con wishes to eliminate a particular genre of music just because she doesn't like the style or content. Finally, since that is all my opponent has left us with I will simply repeat the arguments that were dropped: A) Not all rap music contains profanity. B) Profanity is not a big deal anyway... C) Rap, like movies, are often strictly for fictional entertainment. D) We should not negatively stereotype and draw conclusions about ALL rap songs/artists. E) Censorship is inappropriate and near impossible to enforce. F) Parents are responsible for raising their children and ensuring distinction between entertainment and real life. G) Rap is an art form, and all art can be used for positive means like self expression. H) Rap is an integral part of some children's culture and 21st century society. I) Rap songs and artists can and do use their music for good and to promote positive messages. All of my opponent's arguments have been defeated (see R2 for a step by step analysis of me defeating each of her points). The arguments of mine that she bothered responding to in her rebuttal have also all been in my favor as well. I would have liked for Con to explain why songs such as "Be Healthy" and "Revolution" by Dead Prez, "Diamonds Are Forever" and "Jesus Walks" by Kanye West, "Changes" and "Keep Ya Head Up" by Tupac, etc. are inappropriate for teens. Those are rap songs and I don't think they should be prohibited by any means but celebrated for their content. Anyway, thanks for this debate, Con, and good luck in the voting period. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.soveriegn.freeservers.com...

Most people think that animal hunting is hurting the environment and should be banned. I believe that hunting should not be banned. A lot of people believe that people hunting animals for food will eventually cause extinction of our animals however, there are strict laws for hunters and how many animals they are allowed to take. Hunting goes way back in history. A few thousand years ago, hunting was the only way we knew. It was one of the only thing we could do to survive. Today, hunting is considered a sport. Hunters still need to eat and some of them hunt because they would rather harvest their own venison rather then buying it from the store. Some hunters prefer the taste of wild game then animals who have been raised on a farm and feed steroids and other chemicals. Other people simply may not be able to afford to buy meat from the store, therefore they fend for themselves by hunting. Hunting is often considered a tradition and is passed down from generation to generation.

1. The commitment needed to perform at the high level college athletics require is similar to that of an undergraduate degree. Pro has asserted that the commitment needed to perform at the high level college athletics require is similar to that of an undergraduate degree. This is obviously wrong. Yes, they do need the 40 hours that are stated from the NCAA article, but think of it this way. Less than 2% of those people who get these undergraduate degrees would actually get employment, and most of the employment opportunities would come mid-college, which would destroy the chances for getting the degree. Link Used For Source: http://www.businessinsider.com... 2. Unmotivated Athletes have no place being in valuable seats in classes they have no business being in This is false. To have Athletes that are taking up seats, this is a greatness to society. One thing that is known about high school athletes is the fact that they are required to do school work and sports. For football for example, during the season, they spend a good 15 hours after school doing direct practice. 3 1/2 hour practices. Therefore, that would be to say that students in these grades should discontinue their education for their sport because the education portion is so hard. From someone who was a student athlete, I understand that there is a time for school and there is a time for sports. But don't we all do things we don't want to do in this world that might be time consuming? By saying that a baseball player for example, shouldn't need to be educated in anything other for baseball and should be focused completely on baseball would be like saying someone who makes typewriters should focus on making typewriters and not focus on organizing the papers or learning how to put in the ink, and maybe be able to use and test these typewriters. Good spelling doesn't come from hitting a ball or catching a football. It comes from hard mental work, and by excluding that idea from athletes that they are required to do that, that is almost denying them the freedom of speech. 3. A degree in sports would allow them to truly become students of the game This is really confusing. First of all, going back to the article, lets say that they learn all of this stuff, and they graduate. First of all, if they are not recruited by the NFL or the NHL or the NBA or the MLB, than they are given this degree that has no usage. This degree is unusable practically. It would only create more people to get dead end jobs to try and pay off these degrees. One thing that the pro fails to understand is that getting a degree in this would be like getting a degree in playing games. Most of what you get in a sport is a skill set, and a sport is a game in the end with physical requirements. It would be like getting a degree in chess, which does not exist, because nobody would have the interest to get one. I do not protest the idea of having another opportunity for people who play football or basketball to go to another type of academy that focuses on having a strong athletic program more than colleges, like Don Bosco High School, but still having an education program. I think of colleges like universities, and universities are made to learn things, not to study a game.

Marijuana should be legal in the U.S. I maintain that there is no reason for it to remain illegal, and that the government has severely over dramatized the effects of marijuana. definitions: marijuana noun ï¿½Drug smoked or ingested for euphoric effect, '. "After smoking a bowl of that fine marijuana, they ate some brownies." legalize verb ï¿½To make legal, to permit under law. Either by decriminalizing something that had been illegal or by specifically permitting. Conditions: 4 rounds, time to argue is 72 hrs. voting period is 2 weeks 8,000 characters max. definitions: Ninjawords.com

1.You said people sign up for but look at it in all ways you need to care for your citizens health. If they retire they will have a lot of side effects after. So let's not spent money into that when easily avoiding that just banning boxing because your hit intentionally someone to hurt them 2.Boxing is a combat sport in which two people engage in a contest of strength, speed, reflexes, endurance, and will by throwing punches with gloved hands against each other. This simply means we are advancing our natural violence level which we already have. Even if wear gloves they work at all because people get cuts when fight. So said we were born violent but don't tell me a baby can do boxing according to how your saying it .So in conclusion am still standing that boxing should be banned

People have the right to harm their own bodies should they choose to do so.While the government and private entities have the right to place public smoking bans, such as in certain restaurants and bars or on government owned property, the government has no right to prohibit people from using tobacco in private should they choose to do so. There is no legitimate legal basis for preventing people from smoking tobacco in the privacy of their own homes, where the dangers of second-hand smoke are nonexistent. There are plenty of ways that people commit self-harm that are perfectly legal, such as not getting enough sleep, eating too much or too little, getting no exercise, skipping medication, or taking on a high-stress workload. Should the government ban these things too?The answer, of course, is no. If someone wants to harm themselves in the privacy of their own home, nobody has the right to stop them. So to answer the question that Pro posed to me in the second round, yes, it should be okay to do cocaine, cannabis, bath salts, or drinking in excess, just like it should be okay to eat too many fatty foods or skip meals. As long as these actions are done within the privacy of one's home, then these actions can only have consequences on the person doing them.Second-hand smoke is not enough justification to completely ban tobaccoTo completely eliminate the problem that second-hand smoke creates, all that is needed to be done is to put a restriction on where people can smoke. By eliminating the use of tobacco on public property, we in turn eliminate the dangers of second-hand smoke without completely banning tobacco. Like I said earlier, people still have the right to smoke in their homes where their actions harm nobody but themselves.There is absolutely zero justification for a complete tobacco banMy opponent stated that tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. While this is true, the leading cause of preventable death in the world is Hypertension [1], or high levels of stress and high blood pressure. This is usually the result of stress-inducing jobs. Given my opponent's argument so far, I suppose we should ban high-stress jobs too, right? The number two cause of preventable death in the U.S is obesity, so I suppose we should also completely ban all food with high levels of trans fat and sugar.Wrong. As long as an individual is not posing harm to others, they should be free to do whatever they want to themselves. If that means smoking tobacco or eating fatty foods or working a high stress job, then fine. These are all things that you should have the freedom to choose. I have the freedom to choose whether or not to smoke and I choose not to. But as soon as you let the government make that choice for you, then its just getting closer and closer to a nanny state that completely restricts what its citizens can and cannot do."The whole point of this country is if you wanna eat garbage, balloon up to 600 pounds and die of a heart attack at 43, you can! You are free to do so!" - Ron Swanson, Parks and Recreation [2]To summarizeRisk of self-harm is not a good enough justification for a complete tobacco ban. The threat of second-hand smoke is nonexistent as long as smoking is disallowed in pubic places, which means that a complete ban on tobacco is not required to solve this problem. Every citizen has the right to do what they want with their bodies, and the government or anyone else should not have any say in that whatsoever.Citations:1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://www.imdb.com...

Inducting these below average players would not be representative of one of the most profitable, successful, and enjoyable eras in all of baseball. Yes, in hindsight, it was an unfair advantage, but virtually everyone was doing it. To leave out Bonds, A-Rod, Clemens, and Pettite would be leaving out four of the best players of all time (just to name a few). And most doctors have agreed with the point that PED's have a rather low plateau in terms of improving overall game, and that they act more as a longevity helper. Skill is there, PED help keep it going longer. You can't leave out an entire era of baseball, just because the players did what was inherent of the time; take PED's.

I will start this last round by naming everything my opponent hasn't talked about or has wrong. A. ) My economical argument has been left untouched, leaving Pro with no answer for it, making it valid. (STANDING POINT) B. ) My opponent strays from the actual topic here, which is "Pro athletes are overpaid" not "Pro athletes are overpaid compared to *insert profession*". That's a different debate, and all I am trying to say is that they are not overpaid, seeing as it is perfectly logical as to why they make that much money. C. ) My opponent completely misjudges the importance of athletic role models in America, especially an OBESE America, which needs this people to be here helping the youth become active. D. ) My opponent cannot give a valid reason refuting the charities that Pro athletes dump millions into, and the foundations that wouldn't be around without them. If these athletes didn't have larger paychecks, none of the MILLIONS and MILLIONS of people who were helped by those charities would have been helped. E. ) Pro also doesn't counter my "fame" argument, which is simply that in order for someone to do something that will NEVER give them privacy again, they must be paid more. (STANDING POINT) Pro's claims for the doctor's paychecks are invalid because he states no source. Are we just supposed to take your word for it? In that case, I could go ahead and say that 98% of ALL pro athletes checks go into charities. You wouldn't believe me because I have no source. Same goes for Pro's lack of sources. This is completely irrelevant either way because, like I stated before about the actual topic, doctors don't matter in this debate. In Round 3, Pro is trying to make a very confusing point. Someone who works really had at McDonald's, making minimum wage, deserves millions of dollars? ! Well that seems a bit outrageous. And still, irrelevant. Speaking of millions of dollars, I would like to point out that Pro started this debate saying that $20M or greater was the usual pay for athletes, then states later that on average, a basketball player only makes $6 million a year. Seems he doesn't even have his facts straight. |Conclusion| Pro gives no valid or relevant points in accordance to the topic "Pro athletes are overpaid", and I have at least two contentions that he couldn't answer for. Any sensible person reading this would realize that not only do my points hold relevance and merit (as opposes to my opponents), but they weren't even countered.


Question: Should the use of performance-enhancing substances be tolerated in athletics?

Performance-enhancing substances in athletics.

I am of the opinion that performance-enhancing drugs should be permitted in sports. This would optimize the abilities of most athletes and represent an evolution in advanced conditioning techniques. The main reason these substances are stigmatized is due to their illegality and association with dishonesty. Athletes who choose not to use performance-enhancing drugs should have that right, similar to how some athletes currently opt out of specific training methods. Those willing to accept the health hazards linked to these substances should have the autonomy to do so.

My opponent's argument is essentially this:1) Marijuana is beneficial in many cases2) Banning beneficial substances is bad3) Therefore, marijuana should be legalized. I agree with 2, however disagree with 1 (and therefore the conclusion). Is marijuana good for you? The legalization lobby which claims that marijuana is actually a beneficial substance are mistaken. In fact, the American Cancer Society has stated, "A number of reviewers have concluded that the scientific evidence does not support smoking marijuana as a medicine because of problems with dosing and the variable amounts of any one compound that might be delivered." They continue to look into the most extensive research project in the area, a 1997 report by the IOM. What the report found was that although marijuana can be an effective medicine in some cases, they found many drawbacks which easily overwhelm the possible medicinal purposes. They found that the effects on the immune system are dangerously unknown, and negativley affect movement and memory. Further, as marijuana has many active compounds, the report (summarized by the ACS) argued "it cannot be expected to provide precise effects unless the individual components are isolated". Further, although some researchers mantain the position that THC can reduce cancer growth, the ACS noted that "There is no available scientific evidence from controlled studies in humans that cannabinoids can cure or treat cancer" [1]. This has also been agreed upon by the National Cancer Institute, arguing that "No clinical trials of Cannabis as a treatment for cancer in humans have been found in the [PubMed] database maintained by the [NIH]."[2] In fact, there is considerable research into the harmful effects of marijuana. Research has shown that smoking marijuana increases the rist of heard attack 4.8 times from what it would otherwise be. There have been possible links between marijuana and mental illness--including anxiety, depression, hallucinations, and schizophrenia symptoms becoming increasingly worse. Smoking marijuana while pregnant leads to a host of child deformaties, and doubles the risk of a drivers risk in being in an accident. Although marijuana may be less addictive than other substances, it has an addiction rate of about 9%, and near 17% for young users [3]. The case against marijuana legalization 1. Increased useLegalization of drugs of any kind would lead to a substancial increase in use. Although many argue that medical marijuana, for example, has no effect on overall use, states with pro medical marijuana laws have much higher use. Overall, marijuana use has been falling for a long period of time. However, states with pro-medical marijuana laws have seen much less of an decrease than states with anti-marijuana laws [4]. Many have claimed there is little proof that legalization would lead to increased use, but this is an incorrect statement. A study by the non partisan RAND corporation has found that legalization would lead to a significant rise in drug use. The study found that drug costs would decrease--as they would not be high due to prohibition--and the decreased price, as basic economics assumes, would increase use. They proved both of these assumptions as correct in their data: drug prices would fall, and use would increase [5]. Medical marijuana may seem to be a red herring in this debate, but I assure you it is not. Legalization of medical marijuana would lead to decreased price as well as increased access. Research by the National Bureau of Economic Research has found that allowing marijuana for medical use would lead to a substancial increase in marijuana use. For example, for those 21 and older, the increased probability in use would increase 16%, increase of use 12-17%, and an increase in marijuana dependency/addiction of 15-17%. The increased use is primarily seen in those over 21 (who would have access to the drug for medicinal purposes) [6]. The increase for those over 21 years of age who would have access to the drug agrees with the hypothesis that lax laws would lead to increased use. Many animal expiriments actually provide an interesting place to research. When rats were given unlimited amounts of cocaine, they kept consuming until they died. And obviously, then it was harder to access or restricted, fewer died. This then hints that restricting the use of drugs would lead to decreased abuse. Further, during the decade that 11 states decriminalized marijuana use, use tripled among adolescents, doubled for adults, and quadrupled among older adults. Each year, there are 8,000 people sent to the emergency room for marijuana abuse. Imagine the substancial increase in costs from legalization, assuming that the number of 8,000 increased to 16,000 or more. The economic costs would be enormous [7]. 2. Increased cost to society1) Drugs cause harm to society2) Legalization increases drug use3) Therefore, legalization would lead to increased cost of societyThis line of reasoning is further supported by a study which noted that legalization would lead to an increased amount of time spent in the hospital. As one report argued, "this study took place in a London borough where it saw a 40% to 100% increase in the hospitalization of men due to hard drugs after marijuana was legalized" [8]. In fact, the study further argues that policing policies of marijuana actually significantly impact public health, for the better [9]. Further, the head of Emergency Room of Denver's largest hospital says he has seen a substancial increase in people in the ER due to marijuana [10]. Conclusion --> Marijuana does not have significant positive qualities--> Marijuana legalization leads to increased use--> Legalization of marijuana increases the cost to society by increasing hard drug ER visits (due to increased drug acceptance, and decreased hard drug prices as well [5]), and an increase in ER visits due to the drug itself. 1. http://www.cancer.org...;2. http://www.cancer.gov...;3. http://www.drugabuse.gov...;4. http://thecaseagainstmarijuana.com...;5. http://www.rand.org...;6. http://www.nber.org...;7. http://www.sarnia.com...;8. http://www.completeinthee.com...;9. http://www.ifs.org.uk...;10. http://www.cpr.org...;

Ice-skating is a sport that should be illegal in the United States. This is for three main reasons. First, it promotes drug use. Second, it is cold. Third, the judges in the Olympics were idiots. That is all.

well, at least I get to state my argument in 2Cnd, 3rd, and 4th round. I'll probably PM you to "provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round" (As said by the instigator himself, Because "I" in your perspective is Mastery, while "You" in your perspective is me. You'll only have 5th round to conclusion with no new arguments. :P (unless you want a full 7-point forfeit) "3rd round-Pro Argument & Rebuttal. Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments." "Provide YOUR arguments and rebuttal in this round..." "YOUR arguments and rebuttal" "Rule breakage will result into a full 7 point loss unless forgiven by the opponent..." (I will not forgive this error. Sorry. It's your mistake. :P) ",..FULL 7 point loss..." Now, to the argument--I argue smoking should not be banned. There are too many people who are addicted to smoking, In 2012, 967 million people were reported to smoke every day, as stated by http://www.bbc.com.... Banning smoking would only allow it even furthermore. Why is this? Well, you all can probably remember what happened when alcohol was banned--everyone attempted to hide it illegally, and children were on the same scale as adults--any age was prohibited to drink. But after the US allowed alcohol, children cannot get it now, showing a definite positive effect. Smoking is similar to alcohol, both being "consumed" by many many people around the world and both have negative effects. While you may argue it is "only is public places", smoking is hard to control, and it would be hard to track those people who smoke in secret. Smoking is nearly impossible to get rid of, especially the addiction. Banning it in public and placing a fine on it would not work, people can still smoke in private, obtaining all your risks and dangers. If you wanted a strong argument, you should have said "ban smoking altogether", while that may be hard to control, it at least supports your health statements and your implication that if smoking was banned in public, people will be healthier. But this is not the case-- you are merely banning smoking in public, not exactly making everyone healthier. I conclude round 2, and will PM you so that you can provide my arguments and rebuttals in the 3rd round. Thank you.

Round 1, opponent will choose one of the below to present either side in Round 2. Opponent will leave me 3 choices as well (to be presented in Round 2). Judges will decide who presented the better case. OPPONENT"s CHOICES: 1) Baseball players should be required to sign autographs. 2) John 3:18 is correct. 3) When people get a parking ticket, they should rejoice that the system is working. Good luck and thanks in advance! Thomas

'what people dont really want to do it, they dont need to or they dont care. ever thought of that, it isnt violent but it is very rough and i remember getting hurt and wet and everything and people laughed at me so you havnt even said so there is a club for it if people want to play it you havnt said a thing about why it is compulsory you should of just said why it should be compulsory, my idea of violent meant rough so i got the words wrong. so yes answer why every kid in the entire country(s) should have to do it when it doesnt help them but why is it in the curriculum. answer that'CON states: 'what people dont really want to do it, they dont need to or they dont care. ever thought of that, it isnt violent but it is very rough,' so CON just admitted there is no violent sport, therefore, violent sports shouldn't be banned. CON states: 'you havnt said a thing about why it is compulsory you should of just said why it should be compulsory, my idea of violent meant rough so i got the words wrong. so yes answer why every kid in the entire country(s) should have to do it when it doesnt help them but why is it in the curriculum. answer that. ' All I have to say is, are you kidding me? I don't have to answer squat, wise guy. You say: 'answer why every kid in the entire country(s) should have to do it when it doesnt help them but why is it in the curriculum. answer that,' and since the resolution is 'Should rugby and other violent sports, wrestling boxing be compulsory in schools,' you are really asking me: 'answer why every kid in the entire country(s) should have to do *play violent sports* when it doesnt help them but why is *violent sports* in the curriculum. answer that. ' Nobody should have to play violent sports because they cannot--violent sports do not exist--and violent sports are not in the curriculum because violent sports don't exist. But I want to point the audience's attention to CON's statement 'you havnt said a thing about why it is compulsory you should of just said why it should be compulsory, my idea of violent meant rough so i got the words wrong. ' That was the stupidest thing I have heard all month. I don't need to say anything about why it should be compulsory because it cannot be compulsory--violent sports do not exist--and then CON said 'my idea of violent meant rough so i got the words wrong. ' Lord help humanity. What was your thought process behind that statement. Oops, I got the words wrong, but its no big deal, just because nobody knows my definition of violent doesn't mean the debate can't continue. If you wanted violent to mean 'rough,' then you should have put your definition in the first round. But, since you didn't, I had every right to make my own.

I don't know how you are so convinced that Barry Bonds intentionally took steroids. He already had a huge contract. Why would he all of the sudden want to do a risky act that could put him in jail and kick him out of the MLB? Barry has a very good work ethic, and, I believe, he worked out for how big he is now. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason that Barry Bonds should lose his legally won record, because he did NOT use steroids.

"The ability to train longer and harder. There is no reason that sit-ups would be excluded from this training. All training is included. " Of course there's a reason. If I have strong biceps but weak quadriceps, I should be able to do many bicep workouts but not many quadriceps workouts. As I've shown, steroids affect the upper body. As you've shown, steroids give the ability to train longer. It naturally follows that unless otherwise stated, this training is restricted to the upper body, because that's the part of the body that steroids affect. As I've shown, the upper body doesn't help in baseball. "I already have. It said 'training' for a reason. " And you're assuming that it just applies to all training, but there is no reason to think so. If steroids affect the upper body, like I have proven, then if a source just says "training," it's logical to conclude that it only refers to upper body training. You need to provide a source that says steroids SPECIFICALLY help training the abs and lower body, or else you concede all of these points. "As long as there is a difference, it is significant. A minimal difference is still significant. " Statistically significant DOES NOT MEAN it is important. Just because it's statistically significant, does not mean it's important enough to make the statistics UNABLE to reflect a player's true natural ability. "You're picking and choosing your phrases? " I'm picking factual phrases. You're picking opinions. "Therefore, steroids were a factor in the increase in offense, and therefore, steroids have a significant effect, and therefore, the resolution is negated. " NO. Can't you see what you're doing? I quoted a fact from the article. You're just quoting something it says as an opinion, and trying to pass it off as fact. You're basically saying that "oh, this article says this outright, so it must be true. " If one article says that 2 2=4, and then ALSO says that all non-Caucasian people should be murdered, does that mean I can't cite the factual 2 2=4 part without agreeing with the later opinionated part that non-Caucasian people should be murdered. "Ah, but can you cite when these factors came into play? " It says in the ESPN source, [3] in the R2 argument. "Of the last dozen seasons. " The article was written in 2005. So, about 1993-2005. That's exactly my time frame. "The graph I'm using is the bigger picture. It shows that something suddenly took a very steep decrease in power levels and suddenly almost flattened it. What was this event? PEDs. You didn't counter the example about the national debt. " Uh, I'm not going to counter that example by quoting it because you used it as a clarification. I already countered the argument above. I said there were other factors. Bats. Stadiums. "So, you're going to let the rule-breakers continue on with their illegal, immoral rampage of drugs, while the few who actually maintain the dignity of baseball by refusing to cheat find themselves unable to keep up? Is that what you want to happen to the noble sport of baseball? Have it overrun by cheaters? " This is a completely irrelevant argument. Complete straw man. I hope that everyone who reads the debate sees this complete appeal to emotion. We aren't talking about whether they're illegal. We aren't talking about whether they're immoral. Oh, if it's a rampage, aren't you helping my point that the overwhelming majority of players used PEDs? Thanks for conceding that point. Where have you shown that those players would be "unable to keep up"? You haven't. Where have you shown that it would be "overrun"? You haven't. You're falling into the same arguments you did last time. Stay away from that. "If I manage to win the first contention, then this contention clicks into place. " You haven't come close to winning that first contention. You'd have to show that steroids have an effect, and that the effect resulted in a few extra home runs. "So, it might lead to an increase in home runs, but a large decrease in singles and doubles, which would actually explain the power levels. " You still haven't provided any evidence that it would lead to an increase in home runs. Your whole argument here lacks any basis in fact. "Why do you think they throw fastballs in the Home Run Derby? " Because they're straight, and because they're easy to throw, and because the hitter will know what's coming. This is a horrible argument. Do you realize that there has, for all time, at every level, been an emphasis on throwing hard? Seriously? Do I even have to explain this? Throwing hard is good. Throwing hard is good because it makes it hard to hit. Faster pitches are harder to hit. "Yes, it would. By physics, the faster ball would fly further. " First of all, quit with your [sic]s. It's called the subjunctive tense. "IF your argument WERE legitimate. " The IF clause creates a subjuntive mood, which means one uses "WERE" instead of "WAS. " Second, I'm not talking about the physics. I'm saying that a faster ball is harder to catch up with. You haven't shown anything that says a faster ball is hit for home runs more often that a slower ball. "The other minor faults don't break the rules. " IRRELEVANT. The rules don't matter. "By the definition of 'statistically legitimate,' any difference would be significant, as long as it is a difference. " Sorry, but you've just misunderstood your source. The source OUTRIGHT SAYS that a "statistically significant" difference IS NOT the same as a "significant" difference. "And what difference does that make? A significant outside change that makes the player seem better than he actually is invalidates the statistics. " You haven't shown it's significant IN TERMS OF MAKING THE STATISTICS ILLEGITIMATE. Statistically significant means that something exists. It doesn't have anything to do with the importance of any change, if the change even exists. You haven't provided any source regarding the invalidation of statistics. "No, you've misunderstood what statistical significance is. " I have not. Read your Wikipedia source. Let me refute my opponents points by numbers: 1. No, because I cited a factual statement from the article, and you're citing an opinionated statement. 2. Statistically significant does not mean that it is significant enough to change the statistics. 3. No, because you haven't shown that steroids have an effect. 4. You have not shown this. 5. You have not shown this. 6. No. Ladies and gentlemen. I offered this debate to mongeese once, and he didn't understand the argument. I have offered this debate to him again. Fortunately, he cut down on his number of straw man arguments. However, this time, he did not provide any sources that actually backed up his contentions. He did not show that steroids affected a player's performance, misinterpreting his own source. Then, his other arguments were easily refutable, and often based off nothing. His arguments regarding the even playing field either reflected a lack of understanding of baseball (specifically, his arguments about the fast pitches being easier to hit for home runs). His arguments about statistical significance displayed a lack of understanding of what statistically significant means. His own source says that statistical significance does not equate to actual significance, meaning importance. I have refuted all of his arguments. The resolution has been affirmed.

1) My opponent believes that we should ban a sport (that sport being Boxing) because it would cause side effects. First, I would like to mention that Con didn't list or state any of the side effects in his argument. Then, Con goes on to call Boxing a combat sport, which it is. I would like list a few other combat sports. They are as follows: kickboxing, MMA and Judo. These sports, including boxing, have regulations, (RULES & REGULATIONS state that a boxer must wear gloves, a mouthpiece, headgear for amateurs, loose-fitted shorts and soft-soled shoes), put into place that would prevent a player from further being injured (Let's not forget how these, 'contenders,' (as they are called) play the sport because they not only signed a contract to play it but they enjoy it as well). SOURCE FOR RULES & REGULATIONS: http://boxing.isport.com... 2) There are other sports that can cause the same injuries. One sport that is close to, if not greater than, the amount of injuries a player sustains is AMERICAN FOOTBALL. Should we ban AMERICAN FOOTBALL too? If we banned every sport that has the possibility to cause injury, then there wouldn't be any sports to enjoy. Is it, necessarily, our job to put a roadblock on every sport that causes injury? Not only would it get in the way for a person to do what they enjoy, but it would violate the three most salient unalienable rights that are given to every human being at birth. Let's not do that. Instead, just let them enjoy what they love. It isn't our duty to stop them. That is illegal and morally unjust. That is where I end my argument.

Premise 1: Sports can hurt you [1].Premise 2: Pain inhibits learning [2].Conclusion: Sports can decrease your ability to learn, therefore, they should not be compulsory. Sources: [1] http://kidshealth.org... [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Athlete's should not be able to yield the National Anthem. It is disrespectful.


Question: Should the use of performance-enhancing substances be tolerated in athletics?

Statistics, Performance Enhancing Drugs, and Major League Baseball–II.

The discussion about performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) and their impact on Major League Baseball (MLB) statistics has been ongoing for years. One argument is that PEDs primarily affect the upper body, which is the part of the body that steroids target, but who has the burden of proof? The debater must prove that any effect made to the upper body does not impact a player's performance, which is a tall order.

The core-abs muscles are considered the key muscle group in baseball, but there are other muscle groups that make a difference in the sport. All statements that assume that any effect made to the upper body is irrelevant need to be proven to be so. However, the factual phrases presented do not eliminate steroids as a factor; they only show that it could have been a combination. The cited source acknowledges this possibility.

The debate revolves around comparisons. If two players would have had the exact same batting average, but one player's batting average went down because he weighed more and therefore couldn't reach first base as quickly, that would be a significant change in statistics. Even the negative effects of PEDs can mess up the statistics.

The assumption that PEDs have no effect on a player's performance is not supported by evidence. The debater with the Burden of Proof (BoP) must show that PEDs have an effect and that the effect resulted in a few extra home runs. However, because players who use PEDs weigh more, they would be slower, resulting in fewer singles and perhaps more home runs. This would be a significant change in statistics.

The argument that PEDs have no effect on a player's reaction time is irrelevant. Steroids don't have any effect on a player's reaction time, but they do affect the speed and power of pitches. Pitchers would have more strikes because faster pitches are harder to hit. This would create an uneven playing field, and all of the statistics would change in some way.

The rules of the game matter. Playing by the rules is considered to be a natural ability at using the rules to one's advantage. Breaking the rules is not. The source outright states that a 'statistically significant' difference is not the same as a 'significant' difference. Any difference that is consistent is statistically significant, which goes against the argument that PEDs have no effect on a player's performance.

The debater with the BoP has not shown that steroids do not have an effect on a player's performance. The

Pro's argument is that we should actively distribute these illegal substances instead of simply making them legal. He argues that we shouldn't even try to get addicts to quit taking these illicit substances, but let them keep doing it since they will eventually enter 'spontaneous remission' anyway. Knowing this, my grounds for opposition will be to argue that we shouldn't encourage others to use these illicit substances, but that we shouldn't prosecute them for using them either. Instead the solution is to simply make usage of these substances legal and allow the market and society to solve the problem itself. Before I get into my arguments any further, I should note that my opponent has failed to provide any evidence for anything he has state thus far. Evidence is not always necessary for a debate, especially when there are premises that both sides openly agree on. However when the likes of 'Spontaneous Remission' are made, legitimate evidence is necessary to show that said claims are true. I challenge Pro to provide evidence for the arguments he has already made in this debate in his next round. To make this claim fair, I will not source my arguments until he does so. With that out of the way, my argument is that we should in no way encourage use of such dangerous substances, but we shouldn't prohibit either. The natural precedent to look at for such an issue is prohibition. After making this substance illegal the nation entered a period of immorality and high crime rates. It should be interesting to note that substances such as heroin and other opiates were once legal as well, but when they were outlawed the reaction was not as severe, but we'll get to the impacts of that in just a moment. The attempt to regulate morality here backfired and prohibition was eventually repealed. Since then public concern and social movements have done a much better job at lowering usage of alcohol than policing morality ever have. If we were to allow heroin and other opiates to follow this precedent, then we would also leave such social programs in place to take care of this problem. Making it legal would take the danger out of heroin usage, but still provide an outlet to treat addiction as an issue of public health.

No, they cheated therefore they shouldn't make the hall of fame. It doesn't matter if a lot of players did it. They cheated therefore they should be penalized. The people who make the Hall of Fame should be in there because of their honor to the game, not for cheating and deceiving people so they can have a physical advantage. You said that there are many "incredible players" in the Mitchell Report. Don't you think maybe they were so incredible because they used steriods and performance enhancing drugs? If they didn't use them they wouldn't be as good as the stats show. I understand players are out there to get theirs and get as much money as they can, but what about the true players of the game who aren't using these performing enhancing drugs. They did the right thing and won't make the hall of fame because they might have decent numbers over their career but the ones who used performance enhancing drugs had better stats than them because they cheated.

2) Mixed martial arts style fighting, as seen for example in the UFC, should become an Olympic sport. Concur. I accept the PRO side of this topic. C-1: Mixed martial arts/UFC is indeed becoming increasingly popular. According to an article on CNN.com, MMA is being watched by thousands of fans, and is growing in popularity. Such enthusiasm opens doors to more athletes, and additional entertainment. When questioned whether the economy would hurt NASCAR, President Bruton Smith replied that he didn't think so because Americans love entertainment and will continue to buy tickets. The same can be said for MMA. http://www.cnn.com... C-2: MMA is almost a nostalgic throwback to the gladiator days. According to an article in wikipedia, there was once an Olympic event called pankration, which shared similarities to MMA. Picture this, an arena full of cheering fans. Two gladiators with mad skills ready to answer the other's challenge. The winner gets the spoils while other takes home the loser's purse. The word picture itself brings to mind Olympic-esque competition. http://en.wikipedia.org... C-3: MMA could be a new stand alone event or replace other tired out events. This is an exciting opportunity for both men and women of all weight classes who want to compete. An argument could be made that MMA could be a money saver. If Tae Kwon Do, Wrestling, Boxing, and the like were combined into MMA, money could be saved on awards. Since it indeed so popular now, people would want to watch it, thus television ratings, DVDs, and souvenirs would be in higher demand. Additionally, amateurs could have one more goal to shoot for in the sport that they love. CONCLUSION: Many may argue that MMA is too violent. Every sport has inherent dangers, and athletes train with these in mind. Further, everyone that has a remote control has the ability to change the channel. There are lots of Olympic events that I don't like to watch. My daughter likes equestrian while I like baseball, the point is, we don't have to watch it if we don't choose to, but should that be a reason to deny someone else the opportunity? Sports Illustrated columnist Josh Gross concurs that MMA should be considered: Assuming an amateur system can be implemented, there's no reason MMA shouldn't be a part of the Olympics. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com... Thank you and I look forward to reading your case. It should be a fun one! P.S. That actually came in a fortune cookie LOL.

How annoying about the sources. They can all be found here: http://www.debate.org... except for [12], which works in round 1. About the definition of legitimate: I can provide a new one, but we can also run with yours. Both of them work fine. Alternate definition: of the normal or regular type or kind. [1] As we discussed earlier, this debate is about statistical legitimacy. A legitimate statistic is one that can still be used for its intended purpose. "The known effects of PEDs [2]:" I don't think this refutes what I said. Where is this lean muscle mass, and does it help? I addressed what kinds of muscle help and what kinds don't. How does it help them train longer and harder, as in, training which parts of the body? Are these parts important in baseball? Keep in mind, folks, that general athletic ability is far different from baseball ability. "This can be explained. The people who couldn't make it to the major league decided that they would cheat to get in. The boost wasn't large enough to get them to the very top, but they made it." Of course, this still assumes that PEDs even help. "Muscle mass and strength sound good, but the training is the major part for baseball. Training is basically a wild card, because it can be applied to any muscle group, including the core-abs, the oh-so-important muscle group for baseball." Right, I addressed this. What groups can suddenly be trained better? "How many pitchers use steroids?" I fail to see how this was even very relevant, but actually, many do. Take a look at the Mitchell Report. There are many pitchers there. It's a very common misconception that steroids were abused far more often by hitters. I was only providing an additional argument as to why steroids don't help pitchers. "This implies that there is an effect on the lower body." Weak. Of course, I'm not going to outright say that there is zero effect. Perhaps there is some, but if there is, it is minimal. "1. Notice how the power factor was going down rather steeply until the 'Steroid Era.' The slackening of this decrease could very easily be attributed to PEDs, as they seem to be the only factor left in the graph." First of all, there were other factors, specifically, changes in bats and the shift towards the creation of new, hitter-friendly ballparks. [2] [3] Second, I barely even understand what you're saying. Power still declined. How can steroids help if power still declined? In any case, a look at the next, much larger graph on that website shows that there is no change in the power levels. "PEDs?" This isn't even in the time frame. "And what about the players who actually play by the rules and don't use PEDs? What do you propose?" Uh... what? This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. "For one thing, the pitchers gain less from steroids." Evidence? Don't try using my argument about the external rotation of the upper arm. That was only an additional reason why arm mass wouldn't help a pitcher. It doesn't help your argument, which concerns magnitude of help. "For another, if the baseball is going faster, and Barry Bonds is hitting harder, this would lead to an increase in home runs, because quick fast balls are the optimal pitch for a home run. That's why they pitch down-the-line fastballs in the home-run derby. Therefore, steroid use on both sides leads to even more home runs, so it definitely can't be legitimate." The baseball is going faster? Bonds is hitting harder? Haven't I addressed those? Isn't that the whole point of the debate? I'm showing that those things didn't happen. "Finally, what about the 5% of the pitches that weren't backed by steroids? Those would still interfere with the statistics." Insignificantly so, and barely so, because as I've shown above, steroids don't really help. "Again, what is to be done for the players who played by the rules?" Nothing, because those who broke the rules didn't have an effect on the statistics. "So, because PEDs DO have an effect," You haven't shown that. "and the playing field isn't COMPLETELY even," Insignificant, even if we assume that steroids help. "and the statistics ARE influenced," You haven't shown that. "the resolution is NEGATED." Nope. [1]http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]http://just2sportsguys.blogspot.com... [3]http://sports.espn.go.com...

i think it would be more amussing to permenetly ban all sports in every country and watch all sport fans flip ****

My opponent states that, "I believe drug abuse should be a public health issue, which means users and abusers do not face criminal penalties," By inference my opponent refers to the use of illegal recreational drugs, as previously noted in Canada and the USA. I object to this on the basis that drug abuse has been made a crime, because drug abuse threatens the health of the user, those around them and the wider society. Cannabis one of the more benign of the illegal recreational drugs has been shown to cause permanent damage to mental health, including paranoia, anxiety attacks and schizophrenia. In addition it can reduce reaction times, driving whilst under the influence of cannabis is therefore a threat to the wider society. . http://news.bbc.co.uk... If the health effects of drug abuse were limited solely to the user/abuser then that would be a point in favour of my opponents proposition. But it is clear that these conditions provide a threat to the liberties and quality of life of others. Thus drug abuse must remain a criminal matter. That is before we address the terrible effects of Cocaine, LSD and Heroin etc. There is also a direct correlation between drug abuse and crime, not merely due to the criminality of the drugs themselves (which obviously would be negated by my opponents proposal), but by addicts who are attempting to fund their habits. Though it can be argued that legalisation would increase the availability and reduce the cost of such drugs, many drug abusers are currently unable or unwilling to hold down a job and so would still resort to crime. If anything the number of these criminal drug users would increase under my opponents suggestion. By treating the catalyst of these crimes, and the crime itself as crimes the police are more able to deal with the overall rate of crime. My opponent further argues that drug uses are not to be prosecuted "but are offered treatment for their addiction in an open ended, government funded center. " My opponent clearly states that the treatment will be ‘offered', this implies that such treatment will be entirely voluntary. I observe that drug abuse is a threat to the health of the user, their friends, families and the wider society. Drug abuse also tends to be addictive. As drug abuse is harmful to society and as drug abuse tends to be addictive then it must be noted that in the former case we would like the users to accept treatment, in the latter case it is questionable how many would. We can not expect a typical Heroin addict to volunteer for drug rehabilitation/treatment, nor having done so to remain in a such a program purely through the strength of their own willpower. It is clear that such treatment deserves a certain amount of coercion and would only be effective through the use of coercion. The current system, where drug addicts are punished, removed from the society they threaten and often required to face rehabilitation or treatment as part of their sentence is clearly superior, thus my opponents resolution is negated. It is also amoral to expect society and specifically the tax payer to tolerate the social cost of drugs without protest, yet then be forced to pay for the drug abusers treatment. This is especially relevant in the USA, why should the tax payer pay for the self-inflicted problem of drug abuse when the rest of society is expected to fend for themselves? My opponents argues that one of the benefits of his proposal will be that, "This would remove much of the racial stereotype seen with arrests for possession of illegal drugs. " I believe that this is the least of our worries, no one really cares what the race is of the person caught dealing drugs to their children, or to which race a drug fuelled mugger belongs to. I would also point out that drug abuse is a noted facet of numerous cultures. "This would save billions of dollars in police processing fees, court fees, incarceration fees, and potential recidivism costs. Money would also be saved with the end of prohibition world wide, including all border regions, bribe costs to maintain prohibition, less violence and therefore less collateral damage to pay for, ect. " Though it can't be denied that there would not be certain ‘savings' in some areas, the issue is that the net cost to society will increase. My opponents proposal is to argue that Heroin use be considered a similar ‘condition' to alcoholism. "These savings would go towards prevention methods, which would be intelligent and factual pieces of information spanning across all forms of media and entertainment in order to educate ages child to adult. " More effective prevention methods would however be more police and tougher sentences for drug abusers. Educating children on the nature of these dangerous drugs removes the stigma that ought to be associated with their use and encourages them to think of drug abuse as a manageable risk, such as going to bar or indulging in red meat. Finally my opponent argues that, "By removing prohibition, the existence of the black market would dwindle considerably as see with the end of alcohol prohibition, and the move into a legal and regulated market. " Though that is true, alcohol which is only dangerous through excessive consumption is not analogous to such drugs as say Heroin. Which can be instantly addictive or even fatal with the first use. A better analogy would be between the ending of alcohol prohibition and the hypothetical legalisation of Russian Roulette. Thus I propose that the current system is superior to my opponents proposal and thus my opponents proposal is negated.

Resolution: As Pro I will show why the National Baseball Hall of Fame should take a strong stance that Hall of Fame voters may not vote against a players induction into the hall of fame based solely on steroid use. Con must show why it is justified for steroid users to be denied a Hall of Fame vote. Steroids: Includes all banned substances recognized as performance enhancing drugs. (Steroids just sounds so much more controversial)National Hall of Fame: located at 25 Main Street, Cooperstown, NY 13326. http://baseballhall.org... Challenger: Please be serious. No semantics. Rules: Standard debate rules apply.

Prove it. Your arguments: 1. Drug Use. No warrant, no evidence. No argument. 2. So? So is swimming. Basketball is hot, should we make it illegal? Rock climbing is hot, should we ban it? 3. That is yet to be proven. My arguments: 1. It should not be illegal since that would be detrimential to society. I'll show why later.

First, my opponent does not list her sources. This makes her claims invalid.Second, she drops my point that boys are stronger than women before puberty (around 12 and lower)Third, this was the agreed topic: Girls should be able to wrestle against guys on a competitive level.Just take these into account.My opponent has conceded key points that makes my case strong; such as women are weaker than men as they develop. She also drops the point that women will not be as competitive as men when they grow older. She drops the point that women are more likely to be injured by replying "so what?"Such differences between the genders can be noted by the army (1)" All-male 0311 (rifleman) infantry squads had better accuracy compared to gender-integrated squads. There was a notable difference between genders for every individual weapons system (i.e. M4, M27, and M203) within the 0311 squads, except for the probability of hit & near miss with the M4. And: All-male infantry crew-served weapons teams engaged targets quicker and registered more hits on target as compared to gender-integrated infantry crew-served weapons teams, with the exception of M2 accuracy. And: 1 All-male squads, teams and crews and gender-integrated squads, teams, and crews had a noticeable difference in their performance of the basic combat tasks of negotiating obstacles and evacuating casualties. For example, when negotiating the wall obstacle, male Marines threw their packs to the top of the wall, whereas female Marines required regular assistance in getting their packs to the top. During casualty evacuation assessments, there were notable differences in execution times between all-male and gender-integrated groups, except in the case where teams conducted a casualty evacuation as a one-Marine fireman’s carry of another (in which case it was most often a male Marine who “evacuated” the casualty)" My opponent does not give sufficient reasoning why women should be on the same wrestling teams as boys besides claiming she is quoting from a source that she doesn't even list in her citations.These are not adequate rebuttals. Overall, this debate was very lazy; and mainly driven by the passion and drive of the instigator as she ignores the facts I have presented to keep what she wants to believe a reality. Since Pro naturally has the BoP, she needs to prove that women should be able to compete against boys in EVERY age.I have fulfilled my BoP by showing that as teens and adults, men are stronger and can injure a girl easier. Even before puberty, I have shown women injure easier. As time goes by, the physical difference between males and females will be too great for females to overcomes; just like in the army. Eventually, even Pro herself will do best in a gender-specific league.The answer to why women should not compete with men on the same team is simple.They are physically not as strong and capable as men in sports such as wrestling. Thank you for your time.1. http://qz.com...

The topic and the arguments for and against is actually pretty self-explanatory. I've been thinking about this, and I've come to the conclusion that both sides of this debate have valid points that will make this debate very much enjoyable. I am not tolerant of any sort of name-calling or trolling. I am actually not a animal rights advocate. I'm here for the sake of battling logic to logic. If anything comes to condescension and belittling, I'm really not interested. 1st- round opening comments ( here list all the points that you will use in the arguments) 2nd - rebuttal 3rd - further rebuttal + cross examination (ask 3 questions) 4th - answer the questions. 5th closing statement. Pretty simple, right?


Question: Should the use of performance-enhancing substances be tolerated in athletic competitions?

Statistics, Performance Enhancing Drugs, and Major League Baseball.

"If the impact were truly negligible, players wouldn't resort to them." This is a non-sequitur. The conclusion doesn't logically follow. Many athletes will utilize anything they perceive as advantageous, regardless of its marginal impact. In the competitive landscape of professional sports, athletes will employ any means to gain an edge. "Furthermore, the effects are documented [1]:" You've merely illustrated the effects of steroid usage. We're debating the impact of steroids on baseball playing proficiency. I've questioned how much this increased muscle mass and strength benefits baseball players, specifically. "There's a straightforward explanation here. The subpar players opted for PEDs to gain an advantage. Moreover, the side effects of steroids may prompt people to discontinue use, resulting in a performance decline, potentially leading to their exit from the major leagues." Aren't you reinforcing my argument? If the side effects of steroids eventually lead to a performance dip, then steroids could have inadvertently caused a performance drop, implying that those statistics shouldn't be dismissed due to alleged artificial inflation. "1. They were inadequate, which compelled them to use PEDs. 2. They eventually quit, and thus couldn't remain in the MLB." So, they barely improved. That's my point. "Increased muscle mass enhances core strength, directly boosting baseball performance." Not necessarily – the increased muscle mass is primarily in the "thorax, neck, shoulders, and upper arm." [1] "Obviously, a pitcher would avoid steroids, but a batter would use them." I provided additional reasoning why pitchers should avoid steroids, though this is unrelated to batters' use, and you haven't presented a compelling argument for batters' usage. Just noting that. "Yes, but they can also be attributed to steroids." You haven't demonstrated why. "The PF aspect is intriguing, but it doesn't account for any pitching strength increase." I'm unclear on your point here. Accounting for the ball change, offense remained steady, suggesting minimal PED benefit. The only relevant argument you could be making is that since it doesn't account for pitching strength, if the trend is flat, then pitching strength balanced the hitting strength. To this, I'd say you've not shown evidence of any increase, and even if there was one, it supports my balanced playing field argument. "Great. Let's permit everyone to use steroids. That way, we can have every MLB player endure the side effects of steroids [2], which many players would

Athletes are spoiled, and have no idea what real work is. They are not doing anything important. If I were not disabled, I would be a lawyer. You have no idea to watch otherwise useful humans waste their talents on a God damn ball.

Many people argue that one of the main features of a sport IS teamwork, and learning to work together to achieve a goal. The main point of a teammate is to work together to take down the opposing team, not so that you have someone to lean on. This is a technicality, but if you do happen to lose, a whole bunch of other people could be blamed. Say, if your theoretical wife had a theoretical baby, which took out of your training time because you're a good theoretical father, you could place blame on others. You could also be injured by another, hampering your display of "extreme athleticism" while competing.

Resolution: As Pro I will show why the National Baseball Hall of Fame should take a strong stance that Hall of Fame voters may not vote against a players induction into the hall of fame based solely on steroid use. Con must show why it is justified for steroid users to be denied a Hall of Fame vote. Steroids: Includes all banned substances recognized as performance enhancing drugs. (Steroids just sounds so much more controversial)National Hall of Fame: located at 25 Main Street, Cooperstown, NY 13326. http://baseballhall.org... Challenger: Please be serious. No semantics. Rules: Standard debate rules apply.

Perhaps that is the truth. But certain people, and that is meaning all of those who do bad now, illegally, and with medication, will continue to do this with a freedom, and more people will do this because it is natural for people to copy what they see. Everyone will begin to do this, and eventually, the entire world could become a drug world. Everyone doing drugs, would not be a happy world.I agree that it is up to the pupil as far as what they want to do to their body, but it is the government's job to do what is best for the majority of the population. And just like with alcohol and cigarettes, people would do it in places where they are not supposed to no matter what.Also the companies that make a profit off of this, could convert to making something else that is just as appealing as the bad stuff.This is my conclusion to the debate. Thanks to my opponent for his time, and the debate. I had fun.

This debate follows National Forensics League LD format. If you are not familiar with it, do not accept this debate!Voting guideleines will be presented at the bottom. I will try to keep this under 2,000 characters so I can fit my speech in. Formatting will be similar to time, but 1 minute = 1,000 characters. Debaters will be expected to copy+paste speeches into MS Word and provide a word count at the bottom of the speech in order to verify to the judges that the speeches are legal.Character Limits by Speech:R1: Terms of debate AcceptanceR2: AC (aff. constructive) NC/NR (neg. constructive/neg. rebuttal)R3: 1AR (first aff rebuttal) 2NR (2 neg rebuttal)R4: 2AR (second aff rebuttal) Congratulations----------------------------------------------Voting Guidelines:Conduct will be tied unless there is a forfeit.Spelling and Grammar shall be neutral unless one competitor is guilty of breeching theory.Arguments shall be given to whichever side won the debate.Sources shall be given to whichever side presents better sources.----------------------------------------------This debate is currently not acceptable. Comment here or PM me in order to let me know you are serious about this. This is a series of debates that I am going to be starting in order to further my skills in this form of debate before competing next year. Thank you.

Lately, Some people have been saying, "steroids would make baseball more interesting" I've heard that a lot. I just simply think that they would make America's Pastime LESS interesting than ever. Pitchers would be pitching 115 MPH regularly. Hitters would have a lot of trouble hitting. And when they do make contact, it would be nothing but HRs

How annoying about the sources. They can all be found here: http://www.debate.org... except for [12], which works in round 1. About the definition of legitimate: I can provide a new one, but we can also run with yours. Both of them work fine. Alternate definition: of the normal or regular type or kind. [1] As we discussed earlier, this debate is about statistical legitimacy. A legitimate statistic is one that can still be used for its intended purpose. "The known effects of PEDs [2]:" I don't think this refutes what I said. Where is this lean muscle mass, and does it help? I addressed what kinds of muscle help and what kinds don't. How does it help them train longer and harder, as in, training which parts of the body? Are these parts important in baseball? Keep in mind, folks, that general athletic ability is far different from baseball ability. "This can be explained. The people who couldn't make it to the major league decided that they would cheat to get in. The boost wasn't large enough to get them to the very top, but they made it." Of course, this still assumes that PEDs even help. "Muscle mass and strength sound good, but the training is the major part for baseball. Training is basically a wild card, because it can be applied to any muscle group, including the core-abs, the oh-so-important muscle group for baseball." Right, I addressed this. What groups can suddenly be trained better? "How many pitchers use steroids?" I fail to see how this was even very relevant, but actually, many do. Take a look at the Mitchell Report. There are many pitchers there. It's a very common misconception that steroids were abused far more often by hitters. I was only providing an additional argument as to why steroids don't help pitchers. "This implies that there is an effect on the lower body." Weak. Of course, I'm not going to outright say that there is zero effect. Perhaps there is some, but if there is, it is minimal. "1. Notice how the power factor was going down rather steeply until the 'Steroid Era.' The slackening of this decrease could very easily be attributed to PEDs, as they seem to be the only factor left in the graph." First of all, there were other factors, specifically, changes in bats and the shift towards the creation of new, hitter-friendly ballparks. [2] [3] Second, I barely even understand what you're saying. Power still declined. How can steroids help if power still declined? In any case, a look at the next, much larger graph on that website shows that there is no change in the power levels. "PEDs?" This isn't even in the time frame. "And what about the players who actually play by the rules and don't use PEDs? What do you propose?" Uh... what? This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. "For one thing, the pitchers gain less from steroids." Evidence? Don't try using my argument about the external rotation of the upper arm. That was only an additional reason why arm mass wouldn't help a pitcher. It doesn't help your argument, which concerns magnitude of help. "For another, if the baseball is going faster, and Barry Bonds is hitting harder, this would lead to an increase in home runs, because quick fast balls are the optimal pitch for a home run. That's why they pitch down-the-line fastballs in the home-run derby. Therefore, steroid use on both sides leads to even more home runs, so it definitely can't be legitimate." The baseball is going faster? Bonds is hitting harder? Haven't I addressed those? Isn't that the whole point of the debate? I'm showing that those things didn't happen. "Finally, what about the 5% of the pitches that weren't backed by steroids? Those would still interfere with the statistics." Insignificantly so, and barely so, because as I've shown above, steroids don't really help. "Again, what is to be done for the players who played by the rules?" Nothing, because those who broke the rules didn't have an effect on the statistics. "So, because PEDs DO have an effect," You haven't shown that. "and the playing field isn't COMPLETELY even," Insignificant, even if we assume that steroids help. "and the statistics ARE influenced," You haven't shown that. "the resolution is NEGATED." Nope. [1]http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]http://just2sportsguys.blogspot.com... [3]http://sports.espn.go.com...

2) Mixed martial arts style fighting, as seen for example in the UFC, should become an Olympic sport. Concur. I accept the PRO side of this topic. C-1: Mixed martial arts/UFC is indeed becoming increasingly popular. According to an article on CNN.com, MMA is being watched by thousands of fans, and is growing in popularity. Such enthusiasm opens doors to more athletes, and additional entertainment. When questioned whether the economy would hurt NASCAR, President Bruton Smith replied that he didn't think so because Americans love entertainment and will continue to buy tickets. The same can be said for MMA. http://www.cnn.com... C-2: MMA is almost a nostalgic throwback to the gladiator days. According to an article in wikipedia, there was once an Olympic event called pankration, which shared similarities to MMA. Picture this, an arena full of cheering fans. Two gladiators with mad skills ready to answer the other's challenge. The winner gets the spoils while other takes home the loser's purse. The word picture itself brings to mind Olympic-esque competition. http://en.wikipedia.org... C-3: MMA could be a new stand alone event or replace other tired out events. This is an exciting opportunity for both men and women of all weight classes who want to compete. An argument could be made that MMA could be a money saver. If Tae Kwon Do, Wrestling, Boxing, and the like were combined into MMA, money could be saved on awards. Since it indeed so popular now, people would want to watch it, thus television ratings, DVDs, and souvenirs would be in higher demand. Additionally, amateurs could have one more goal to shoot for in the sport that they love. CONCLUSION: Many may argue that MMA is too violent. Every sport has inherent dangers, and athletes train with these in mind. Further, everyone that has a remote control has the ability to change the channel. There are lots of Olympic events that I don't like to watch. My daughter likes equestrian while I like baseball, the point is, we don't have to watch it if we don't choose to, but should that be a reason to deny someone else the opportunity? Sports Illustrated columnist Josh Gross concurs that MMA should be considered: Assuming an amateur system can be implemented, there's no reason MMA shouldn't be a part of the Olympics. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com... Thank you and I look forward to reading your case. It should be a fun one! P.S. That actually came in a fortune cookie LOL.

Hey everybody :)! This is a challenge to anyone who wishes to have a pleasant debate with me. I believe with all my heart a coach should be forbidden to yell at their players. I find it in poor taste, and embarrassing. I will develop this in later rounds. First round=Acceptance. Good luck!

I choose the CON side of number 3, and so will argue in the next round that people should not, when they get a parking ticket, rejoice that the system is working. The three choices that I give my opponent in return are: 1) The Pope, and everyone elected to the papacy after him, should be assassinated. 2) Mixed martial arts style fighting, as seen for example in the UFC, should become an Olympic sport. 3) Apart from those mentally incapable of doing so, everyone should try and learn a second (or third) language.