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

The use of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) by professional athletes is a prevalent issue in today's sports world. The temptation to use PEDs is high for many athletes due to the potential to enhance physical performance. However, the risks associated with PEDs outweigh the benefits. The United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) should continue to enforce strict anti-doping policies to protect athletes from the dangers of PEDs.

The consequences of using PEDs can be severe. Professional athletes who use PEDs risk losing their awards, damaging their reputation, and even jeopardizing their careers. For example, Lance Armstrong was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles after admitting to using PEDs. Jim Thorpe was also denied two Olympic gold medals due to his use of PEDs. The list of athletes who have suffered due to PED use is extensive.

Legalizing PEDs would not only harm athletes but also negatively impact the people around them. The negative side effects of PEDs can include muscle weakness, hallucinations, liver abnormalities, and tumors. Despite the risks, many athletes still choose to use PEDs. However, it is crucial for athletes to prioritize their safety and avoid taking unnecessary risks.

Using PEDs defeats the purpose of competition. Sports are meant to be a fair and ethical competition, and using PEDs is a form of cheating. Athletes can improve their performance through safe training, healthy eating habits, and proper rest. True success in sports requires hard work and dedication, not shortcuts.

In conclusion, performance-enhancing drugs should remain illegal in sports. The risks associated with PEDs are too great, and the consequences of using PEDs can be severe. It is essential for athletes to prioritize their safety and avoid taking unnecessary risks. The use of PEDs defeats the purpose of competition and undermines the integrity of sports.

Arguments extendRebuttal to: Punished in the pastIf Russia has been punished before, why would this time be any different? Rebuttal to: Can still competeAs I already stated, Several former olympians, including 4 time 200 meter champion Andrey Fedoriv have been upset that the whole country is being punished for something a small percentage of athletes did. (dw. com) Andrey Fedoriv said: “Competing in the Olympics is not about winning gold medals. It is winning honor and respect for your country” according to Sportsreference. comRussia costs the IOC millions of dollarsHowever, Russia will cost the IOC 1.46 billion dollars if the ban is not lifted, which is more then the 10 million dollars mentioned by my opponentsVoters, please vote for me. I have rebutted all the opposing arguments and all of my arguments still stand.

I am saying boxing should be banned for these reasons 1.Boxing causes many deaths, and medical officials have continually called for it to be banned.The British Medical Association has repeatedly called for a ban on boxing or a removal of the head from the permitted target areas. The body of medical evidence is growing that suggests even if a boxer survives individual bouts relatively unmarked, the cumulative effect of a career in boxing can lead to a greater susceptibility to chronic neurological injury 2.We are promoting violence. Boxers are presented as beacons of success for young people, but they are not good role models. Children should not idolize people who make a living by injuring other people. In addition to the violence in the ring, brawls often break out at press conferences and even inside boxing venues. The marketing of boxing exalts this mindless violence and those who perpetrate it. Mike Tyson is a particularly harmful example. Tyson was one of the most popular and successful boxers in history, when he faced Evander Holyfield in the most hyped fight of the year. Tyson cruelly bit off a portion of Holyfield"s ear in the fight, on live television. These are not role models of which we should be proud.

In this debate my opponent be arguing that people should do drugs. My opponent may go first.

Hello I will be the contender :) I would like to start by saying as of now it is non-ethical due to the fact that there have been no long term experiments on subjects; testing if it will actually raise the IQ, what the long term pros/cons are, and how it might alter the thought process or the brains of human beings has not been worked out or observed. Long term experiments provide more insight into what the process might do to the individual during their lifetime. Exhibit A: Cigarettes, when they first came out, were sold under the thought that they were healthy and helped people, although they never tested the long term effects. Fast forward many years and now we know they cause numerous health issues and are dangerous. I used that example to show how something may seem good in the moment when not to much is known about it, but not observing what the long term effects are could lead to problems for the people who have had their minds genetically engineered. So as of now it is not ethical to start genetically engineering human minds due to the fact that not all the information is there to prove it will be good or bad for the individual.

I accept but please give in your first arguement examples of suggested drugs so I can understand fully thank you. I hope for an enlightened debate.

I think Pro's overlooking why drugs are "illegal" in the first place; they are dangerous. Yes, my opponent said " When we decide to legalize drugs, we can make the process of getting and using drugs safer.", but legalizing drugs doesn't make it healthy like that. There are many drugs which are dangerous, such as LSD, Heroin, Cannabis, and Barbiturates. Some drugs are illegal, because they're harmful to people. Legalization can't fix this, therefore those drugs should be illegal.

College athletes work hard. Their athletics require long hours similar to a full time job while they also take classes, which prevents them from getting jobs and being able to support themselves. Paying them is fair and teaches fiscal responsibility. Since athletes already receive scholarships and other benefits, they are essentially being paid. Why not determine their value like you do in the real world? One's monetary value is often based on how much revenue they generate. College sports is very lucrative. Advertisements, sponsorships, video games and ticket sales lead to huge profits for college teams worth tens of billions of dollars [1]. Many college athletes suffer injury that prevents them from moving on with their college or professional athletic career. They put their bodies on the line every day. If they can make money while playing the sport, they should be able to. [1] http://finance.zacks.com...

The relationship between scholastic and athletic participation we have here in the United States is unique to this country for one key reason: in a country this massive, schools provide the infrastructure necessary for competent athletic competition. Beyond this, the ties between an education and the multibillion dollar behemoth that is college sports is nonsensical. Because of how ingrained sports are with the university system in the United States, separating the NCAA from the schools remains impossible. Regardless, I have three reasons why the ideal way to mitigate the effects of forcing these athletes to also be students is making football, basketball, and other profitable college sports undergraduate degrees. 1. The commitment needed to perform at the high level college athletics require is similar to that of an undergraduate degree. 2. Unmotivated athletes take up valuable seats in classes they have no business being in. 3. A degree in a sport would allow athletes to truly become students of the game, and more easily get to the next level. I will expand on these points as the debate continues and demonstrate why college athletics and academics would improve with the introduction of sports degrees. I am looking forward to hearing what the other side has to offer.

Last time I tried to debate this, my opponent forfeited before finishing the debate. Please only accept this debate if you are going to finish it. My position is that all illegal drugs should be legalized. I'll post arguments supporting this in the next three posts. Definitions: Illegal- Currently banned under US law. Drugs- There are too many illegal recreational drugs for me to mention them all, but specifically, I will discuss heroin, cocaine/crack, meth, ecstasy, and PCP, and any other drugs my opponent wishes to mention. Legalized- Currently illegal drugs would be given the same legal status as tobacco or alcohol.


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

The use of performance-enhancing drugs should be permitted in professional sports leagues.

When discussing the symptoms of steroid usage, as you've raised in your "Part one arguments," it's important to note that there is a lack of concrete data regarding the effects of these substances when used at recommended dosages by healthy individuals. This lack of scientific evidence makes your points somewhat speculative and not directly applicable to the resolution that "Performance-enhancing drugs should [not] be allowed in professional sports." Your arguments suggest that these drugs are unsafe, which is indeed a concern, but it does not directly address the legality or allowance of their use in sports.

Your "Part two arguments" regarding the influence of athletes as role models for children are relevant to a separate debate, such as "Should children be encouraged to look up to athletes as role models?" However, in the context of our resolution, the concern is not about the moral implications for children but about the fairness and safety within the sport itself.

Your "Part three argument" about the ethos of 'hard work' and 'fairness' in sports leagues is pertinent to the question of whether leagues should allow steroid users to compete. However, your argument does not fully address the resolution, which is about the permissibility of performance-enhancing drugs in sports, not just the ethical implications for other athletes.

It's crucial to distinguish between "allowed" and "legal" in this context. The resolution is about whether it should be permitted for professional athletes to use these drugs within the rules of the sport, not whether it should be legal under the law. The legality of drug use is a separate issue from the rules and regulations set by sports organizations.

CON has lost. CON's last statement was the following:'Ok, i never said i wanted it banned or anything but people that dont want to do it shouldnt have to, forcing physical activity is abuse. if its not forced then it isnt. 'That entire statement is irrelevant. (S)He hasn't responded to the fact that no sports are violent, and the resolution is: 'Should rugby and other violent sports, wrestling boxing be compulsory in schools. ' Therefore, the statement 'but people that dont want to do it shouldnt have to, forcing physical activity is abuse. if its not forced then it isnt,' does not have anything to do with the resolution.

My opponent starts off with a sophisticated and admittedly powerful argument i.e There are many things that we use on a regular basis which ought not to be made illegal even though they can cause deaths. While I think this is a strong argument it fails to address my original argument. It does not address the injuries and deaths caused by boxing. Bare buckle boxing was quite popular in England in the 1800s. It was made illegal because people died from it. Do you think it should be made legal again because many other Mondane things( like candy,soda etc. ) kill people too. Just because other everyday innocent things can kill someone once in a blue moon doesn't boxing is an extremely violent sport. My opponent then moved onto another argument: "People have to work to live and minimum wage isn't going to support a family. Not all can obtain degrees or perform a trade at a pro level!" He seems to be suggesting that boxing provides a haven for those unable to get a degree. Well so does bank robbing a bank or working at McDonalds. Just because you can work there if you don't have a degree doesn't add any merit or desirability to it. My opponent then moves onto an argument which I find to be completely absurd: "Many are descendants of slaves that have been advantaged by the hard lives of their ancestors in a way that is lucrative; how racist is it to know a slave's past(that the slave lived a way that he/she was forced to be an utter mainstay for whites in every way at any time) and try to deny them their inheritance when whites claim they deserve nothing(benefited somehow off the centuries' headstart and steal now)?!" Firstly there is absolutely NOTHING advantageous about the way in which black slaves were treated so to say you think this is advantageous for boxing skills is very inappropriate. My opponent then claims it is racist to deny blacks people what he calls their inheritance. He thinks that because black peoples have been treated extremely bad they deserve boxing. I find this to be a silly and borderline offensive argument. Another race argument follows: "What about the financial gap created between many whites and blacks due to that huge headstart?! What about the black person that has the God given ability to lift his family out of poverty? Some whites and other races are poor, too! That's what outlawing boxing would do!" Firstly,to what "huge head" start are you referring too. Blacks are not payed less than whites as that is illegal so clarification is needed. Also being able to beat someone up for money is not a "God given ability to lift his family out of poverty". It could be but it is not neccesaraly. He then seems to be claiming that by outlawing boxing I will make people of all races poor. This is just blatantly false. The only justification for this is given above when he claims that boxing is a job for those who cannot get a degree. Well as I said boxing is only one of thousands of jobs for people who can't get a degree so to say that outlawing boxing will cause economic turmoil for the races is plainly invalid. My opponent then plays the allegation card: "You seem a lot like those animal lovers who say that they don't believe in eating meat, because they don't want to kill animals: they bully others who eat animals, but they wear animals in their clothing, hair, accessories, footwear, etc. If you were really so sincere about what you say, then you'd be against anything else that kills you in the same way boxing does! And to be honest, that's just about anything!" Firstly I would hate to be identified with those animal lovers. I am not like them. He then accused me of hypocrisy by saying that if we're to express complete intellectual honesty then I ought to be against every thing that could potentially kill someone. Well I think this is false as boxing is much more brutal,barbaric and dangerous and unlike candy,soda or any everyday item that could potentially kill someone boxing will DEFINATELY injure someone and is much more likely to kill someone than soda. I noticed that my opponent did not address my argument that boxing encourages violence in children.

In this debate my opponent be arguing that people should do drugs. My opponent may go first.

"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. " Ah, but who has the burden of proof? You. Also, you said that the core-abs is the "key muscle group," which implies that there are other groups that make a difference in baseball. All statements you made assuming that any effect made to the upper body does nothing are irrelevant because you never really proved them to be irrelevant. "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. " We're talking about comparisons. If two guys would have had the exact same batting average, but one guy's batting average went down because he weighed more, and therefore couldn't reach first base as quickly, I win. "I'm picking factual phrases. You're picking opinions. " However, your factual phrases do not eliminate steroids as a factor. They only show that it could have been a combination. The guy you cited though so. Why can't you? You have BoP, after all. "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. " It would obviously mean that the narrator is unreliable, and you should get a more reliable source to confirm that 2+2=4. There are plenty out there. "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. " Your factors don't exclude steroids. They could have all worked together. "Uh, I'm not going to counter that example by quoting it because you used it as a clarification. .. " "Other factors" does not mean "only factors. " "This is a completely irrelevant argument. .. " Where have you shown that steroids have no effect? You assume that they have no effect, and you have the Burden of Proof, and the BoP alone loses you this debate. "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. " Extra home runs? Because guys who use steroids weigh more, they would be slower. Therefore, they would score fewer singles, and perhaps more home-runs. However, the fewer singles would be a significant change in statistics. Even the negative effects mess things up. "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. " You haven't provided any evidence that it doesn't. Let's go with the BoP. Which is on you. "Because they're straight, and because they're easy to throw, and because the hitter will know what's coming. .. " In that case, they'd throw change-ups. Why fastballs instead? Because they're fast. It's physics. "Throwing hard is good. Throwing hard is good because it makes it hard to hit. Faster pitches are harder to hit. " In that case, pitchers would have more strikes. Steroids don't have any effect on a player's reaction time, so the playing field wouldn't be even. It would be lopsided, and all of the statistics would change up or down in some way. "First of all, quit with your [sic]s. It's called the subjunctive tense. .. " See my evidence locker for why this is incorrect. . http://www.debate.org... "You haven't shown anything that says a faster ball is hit for home runs more often that a slower ball. " Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. A fast ball bounces off of the bat with more power. . http://en.wikipedia.org... "IRRELEVANT. The rules don't matter. " Yes, they do. Playing by the rules is considered to be natural ability at using the rules to one's advantage. Breaking the rules is not. "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. " Yes. It says that any difference is statistically significant so long as it is consistent. That goes my direction, not yours. "You haven't shown it's significant IN TERMS OF MAKING THE STATISTICS ILLEGITIMATE. " If a guy is weighed down by his steroid use and is called out at first more often, his number of singles is no longer correct. Although, you've never shown anything about the statistics being legitimate in the first place. "1. No, because I cited a factual statement from the article, and you're citing an opinionated statement. " What makes it an opinion? You never established that. "2. Statistically significant does not mean that it is significant enough to change the statistics. " Actually, that is basically what statistically significant means. Read it out loud. Statistically significant effects have significant effects on statistics. "3. No, because you haven't shown that steroids have an effect. " You haven't shown that steroids don't have an effect. "4. You have not shown this. " The rest of his step rebuttals seem to count on the above points being rebutted, so. .. "He did not show that steroids affected a player's performance, misinterpreting his own source. " I could say the same about you, except with the lack of an effect. "Then, his other arguments were easily refutable, and often based off nothing. " Your arguments don't even exist. "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). " Not only does this sentence need another clause, but I never said that fastballs are easy to hit. They just fly further. "His arguments about statistical significance displayed a lack of understanding of what statistically significant means. " My opponent seems to be looking in a mirror. "His own source says that statistical significance does not equate to actual significance, meaning importance. " All I've needed is a statistically significant source. I don't need it to be important. I need it to be statistically significant. After all, this is a statistical debate. Nowhere have I said that it was actual significance. You've just assumed that it takes actual significance, which it does not. "I have refuted all of his arguments. The resolution has been affirmed. Vote PRO. " He's forgetting something again. He thinks that by refuting all of my arguments will win him the debate. He is wrong. He may be able to attack my arguments, sure. But after that, we have nothing. He has not affirmed the resolution. He has only tried to stop it from being negated. As the Instigator and PRO, and having said nothing earlier, he has the Burden of Proof.

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...

Despite intense research efforts around the world, the molecular causes of Parkinson"s disease are still unclear, it is now widely accepted that there is no single "cause" that triggers the disease. Instead, Parkinson"s disease likely results from a confluence of inherited and environmental factors that interact in complex ways to set disease processes in motion. (parkinsoninfo.org) Ali never regretted ever getting in the ring but said "If I wasn't a boxer, I wouldn't be famous. If I wasn't famous, I wouldn't be able to do what I'm doing now." Not everyone who plays football will gets injured or have permanent brain damage, everything in life has an inherent risks and rules are improving conditions. Athletes have the freedom to choose.

Hello, CON. Your thesis is: 'Rugby and other violent sports, wrestling boxing should not be compulsory in schools.' My thesis is: 'Rugby and other violent sports, wrestling boxing should be compulsory in schools.'The resolution is 'Should rugby and other violent sports, wrestling boxing be compulsory in schools,' however, rugby, wrestling and boxing are not violent sports. PRO hasn't provided any definitions, so I have the honors now. DEFINITION OF 'VIOLENT' :Noun1: Behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or somethingREFERENCE:http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...DEFINITION OF 'WRESTLING' :NounThe sport or activity of grappling with an opponent and trying to throw or hold them down on the ground, typically according to a code of rules.REFERENCE:http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...So as you can see, if you wrestle with someone, that person doesn't intend to harm you, all they intend is to hold you to the ground, with means of using force if necessary The article 'Should Boxing be Banned? Arguments For and Against,' [1] states: 'There is no general intent in boxing to injure the opponent. Rather, the primary aim is to score the most points by hitting strictly defined regions of the body.'Therefore, boxing is not violent. Rugby is not violent because when tackling in rugby, all you mean to do is bring the opponent down by using force, you don't intend to hurt anybody. This debate should already be over because my opponent's listed sports are not violent but, even if they were violent:REBUTTALS:1) 'No of course it shouldn't, some kids are not up for this and it embarrasses them,'Yeah, and track-and-field in my school is mandatory, I don't feel up to it (I don't like jumping and running around; I like more organized sports) but I still do it anyway. CON also said that it embarrasses kids but why would a kid be embarrassed? 2) 'we must also take into account physical harm could be caused. It is child abuse and a way of embarrassing kids.'Every physical activity has the potential to end up in harm. Again, track-and-field is mandatory in my school, and it can end up in pain. Again, how does any sport embarrass somebody, let alone a 'violent' sport?3) 'I know some dummies will say its about toughening people up but its unlikely it will happen in real life' ...What? Sports do toughen you up. The article: 'Should Boxing be Banned? Arguments For and Against,' states: 'Boxing requires a high degree of physical fitness, if you wish to be successful, and so it teaches young people to look after their bodies.' You have to be fit to play any sport.4) 'Also IT IS NOT EXERCISE AT ALL BECAUSE WRESTLING ISN'T RUNNING AROUND, AND RUGBY IS PHYSICAL ABUSE'I want to point out that my opponent just did the Internet equivalent of shouting. Shouting at your opponent in a debate is never acceptable, and there should be no exceptions here. Apparently, the only form of exercise is running around. How about push-ups? Also, rugby does involve running around, and CON claimed it was a violent sport. Rugby is not physical abuse.DEFINITION OF 'PHYSICAL ABUSE' :Physical abuse is an act of a person involving contact of another person intended to cause feelings of physical pain, injury, or other physical suffering or bodily harm.REFERENCES:http://en.wikipedia.org...You do not intend to hurt somebody when tackling in rugby, therefore, rugby is not physical abuse.5) 'although its not that serious physical abuse but people could feel uncomfortable doing it so there are some dumb people who think people should have to embarrass themselves for the sake of some dumb pe thing but after what i have said no one could come up with an opposite arguement.'My opponent just admitted that violent sports don't have very much physical abuse. How do kids get embarrassed from a sport?I just refuted everything my opponent said, and demonstrated that rugby, boxing and wrestling are not violent sports. Therefore, I urge the audience to vote for PRO.[1]-http://superbrainwave.hubpages.com...

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.

Fu*cking awesome! ! First off i would like to define what frowned upon means. Frowned Upon: To regard something with fu*king disapproval or distaste . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... y first argumernt: Entertainment Okay think about this sheit: A long long time ago, in a galaxy far away. .. jk in the 3rd century B. C. , Gladiators were prisoners that were punished with death or slaves. They were given a chance to rise up and fight their way to freedom while killing other fuc*ers for the entertainment of the public population. Even the great Caesar found joy in this form of entertainment . http://en.wikipedia.org... *****New Rule! ! **** #saynotohashtags 2nd argument! ! ummm. .. . Yeah. .. Blood and gore. Look at almost every good Movie. Muttafucin blood and gore. Saving pvt ryan Gladiator 300 any need to continue? Im not saying that good movies have to have blood and gore but it sure helps. we already see all the b*tchin' blood in the media, why censor it in the public? Sheit happens right? anywho. .. .

The relationship between scholastic and athletic participation we have here in the United States is unique to this country for one key reason: in a country this massive, schools provide the infrastructure necessary for competent athletic competition. Beyond this, the ties between an education and the multibillion dollar behemoth that is college sports is nonsensical. Because of how ingrained sports are with the university system in the United States, separating the NCAA from the schools remains impossible. Regardless, I have three reasons why the ideal way to mitigate the effects of forcing these athletes to also be students is making football, basketball, and other profitable college sports undergraduate degrees. 1. The commitment needed to perform at the high level college athletics require is similar to that of an undergraduate degree. 2. Unmotivated athletes take up valuable seats in classes they have no business being in. 3. A degree in a sport would allow athletes to truly become students of the game, and more easily get to the next level. I will expand on these points as the debate continues and demonstrate why college athletics and academics would improve with the introduction of sports degrees. I am looking forward to hearing what the other side has to offer.


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

Performance-enhancing drugs in sports.

To clarify, I use 'advanced training' to denote the accepted methods and measures that professional athletes take to reach the pinnacle of their sport. I'll address the arguments point by point, with some responses. You make a couple of key arguments.

1) Purity

You argue that performance-enhancing drugs would taint the pure nature of professional sports and allowing external 'alterations' would skew human performance. This argument would be valid, if it hadn't already happened. It would only be true if regular people, who were athletically talented, were our professional athletes. This is obviously not the case. Gone are the days when athletes like Babe Ruth could rely on natural human ability. Today's professional athletes already use extensive, extra-human workout routines and get their hands on any kind of herbal substance, protein formula, or other legal aid that might give them a boost.

Do you think that a guy who has been hardcore training since adolescence, takes dozens of supplements a day, and is paid ridiculous amounts of money to do nothing but find some kind of edge that will make him a better player is a 'pure' representation of human ability? You cannot find one single professional athlete that is free from outside alteration, legal or not. If pros were pure human beings, I would agree, but anymore, they are just engineered muscle. Any notion of purity went out the window decades ago.

2) Allowing Performance-enhancing Drugs is not fair to those who don't want to use them.

You argue that, if we allow performance-enhancing drugs, players who don't elect to risk their health would be unfairly ostracized from the sport, because of lower performance. Again, isn't this already true? Players who do not choose to adopt the newest and most performance beneficial supplements and training techniques are left in the proverbial dust as well. If an athlete elects not to train intensely or receive the legal aid available, his skills are not on par with others and he/she is not able to compete.

Now, it seems I am avoiding the obvious. "Training isn't harmful to their health, performance-enhancing drugs are harmful. We shouldn't make people harm themselves in order to compete professionally." This seems like a reasonable objection, but in reality, again, this is already true. It seems like common sense that being in good physical condition would be good for you. But, new studies and literature show that living the life of a professional athlete leads to more severe injuries, a shorter lifespan, and worse

My position is that Michael Vick shouldn't be allowed to play professional football with any sanctioned league, whether it's the National Football League, the United Football League, the Canadian Football League, etc. , because of the crimes he committed. For those who might be unfamiliar with Vick and the controversy that surrounds him, here's some information: <"Vick and three others are charged with competitive dogfighting, procuring and training pit bulls for fighting and conducting the enterprise across state lines. Michael Vick was indicted Tuesday on charges of illegal dogfighting. The dogfighting operation was named "Bad Newz Kennels," the indictment states, and the dogs were housed, trained and fought at a Surry County, Va. , property owned by Vick. The indictment alleges that the 27-year-old Vick and his co-defendants began a grisly dogfighting operation in early 2001 in which dogs fought to the death — or close to it. Losing dogs were sometimes killed by electrocution, drowning, hanging or gunshots. "> (1) All of this can be substantiated by the following link: . http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:PPytD-HmYL4J:espn.go.com/media/pdf/070730/taylorstatementfacts.pdf+tony+taylor+summary+of+facts&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a That link takes the user to a summary of the facts in Vick's case, which were used against Vick and his accomplices in court. In features a confession from Tony Taylor, who was partners with Vick in their heinous "business. " <"Beginning in or about early 2001 and continuing through in or about September 2004, in the Eastern District of Virginia and elsewhere, defendant TONY TAYLOR, also known as "T," knowingly and unlawfully combined, conspired, confederated and agreed with PURNELL A. PEACE, also known as "P-Funk" and "Funk," QUANIS L. PHILLIPS, also known as "Q," MICHAEL VICK, also known as "Ookie," and with other known and unknown persons, to commit the following offenses against the United States, to wit: a. traveling in interstate commerce and using the mail or any facility in interstate commerce with intent to commit any crime of violence to further any unlawful activity and to promote, manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, and carrying on of an unlawful activity, to wit: a business enterprise involving gambling in violation of Virginia Code Annotated Sections 3.1-796.124(A)(2), 18.2-326, and 18.2-328, and thereafter performing and attempting to perform acts to commit any crime of violence to further any unlawful activity and to promote, manage, establish, and carry on, and to facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, and carrying on of the unlawful activity, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1952; b. knowingly sponsoring and exhibiting an animal in an animal fighting venture, if any animal in the venture has moved in interstate commerce, in violation of Title 7, United States Code, Section 2156(a)(l); and c. knowingly buying, transporting, delivering, and receiving for purposes of transportation, in interstate commerce, any dog for purposes of having the dog participate in an animal fighting venture, in violation of Title 7, United States Code, Section 2156(b). TAYLOR agrees that he entered into the conspiracy willfully and with the intent to further the conspiracy's unlawful purposes. "> Not only does it describe the crimes in detail -- but it has ~50 pieces of information which collectively prove the guilt of Vick and the other members of his nefarious gang beyond a reasonable doubt. In essence, Vick and company knowingly ran a dog fighting ring, which resulted in the brutal and disgusting deaths of many dogs -- but not only did they kill the dogs who lost, but the methods used to kill them were sociopathic; the dogs were tortured. The dogs also suffered an abundance of injuries. The killing and torturing of all these dogs seems to be more than morally equivalent to the killing of an individual human, which would still have Vick in prison, and not in a position to be reinstated to any football leagues. Knowing this, it's my belief that Vick should still be in prison, and thus, not playing professional football. (1) = . http://www.cbc.ca...

For this debate I am establishing a set of rules to be followed. While this is a very controversial topic and may involve discussions on ethics, questioning morality and other issues, please refrain from personal attacks both in arguments and comments. This is meant to be an intellectual forum to exchange ideas and opinions and beliefs, not attack one another. Round 1 - Accepting the debate and a brief synopsis of your position and reasons for, limit to a few sentence. Round 2 - Establishing a factual basis for your argument. Round 3-4 - Refuting and responding to opponent's argument and evidence. Round 5 - Closing remarks and gesture of thanks and respect to opponent. Position Synopsis: Enhanced interrogation, as it is often called, is a technique of extracting information from individuals through use of force, induced psychological and physical stress, and other techniques often considered morally wrong. However, in cases of national security, when there are innocent civilians and other people who have not engaged in threats of violence against an offender, I feel there is nothing wrong with using any and all means necessary to retrieve that information. I think it should be done only in cases that the perpetrator is confirmed to be involved in the potential threat but if so then all means should be allowed.

While there is a "physical" aspect to chess (even which my opponent agrees "I grant that it would be on the low end for Olympic sports, but it is still present. ") there has been nothing shown that chess would need anything more then a basic stamina. That a player with with excellent stamina would have any advantage over a player with decent stamina. The true game lies within the players mental abilities and in all most every match. While chess is a great game and I am proud to be a co-founder of the chess team at my high school (which became #2 in the state in our 4th year, after I had graduated) and have the utmost respect for it. I must acknowledge that the game is not one for the Olympics, as much Beethoven doesn't belong in the Rock and Roll hall of fame, even though his music was truly great. P. S. My personal favorite is the Deep Blue matches.

I'll happily debate this topic with you. I feel that for athletes receiving a scholarship I don't think its fair for them to receive a stipend or any other form of money on top of this. College is EXPENSIVE and it's hard to pay for. If you get a scholarship to get you through college you should be grateful and I'm not the only one saying it Whitlock a former division 1 basketball player (including scholarship) agrees. Take a peek at what he has to say on the topic. I'll say this as a college student I can barely afford to be here. Just being able to pay for school is a blessing and athletes should treat it like one. My first point would have to be given the current guidelines say "It is a violation of the NCAA rules for athletes to accept money or gifts while intending to remain eligible." which means clearly that you can't pay athletes. However, clearly we are ignoring this; I'll just move into the rest of my argument. According to the Washington Post the average athletics scholarship is $10,000 a year (Bowen). This equals out to $1,111 a month while schools in session. Currently, I work 26 hours a week and take 16 credits a quarter make out with about 900-950 a month after taxes. I am also paying for college out of my own pocket plus loans. The scholarship, in my mind, is the payment for work rendered. Not only this athletes get to travel (which even at a smaller school like mine costs about $100,000), have access to facilities other students don't and oftentimes have athletic trainers which are limited to athletes. Another thing is that colleges help their athletes to go professional by putting them in the spotlight. This gives them a chance to go Pro which they wouldn't otherwise have. My cousin is a full-ride football scholarship student at UW and manages to find time to work to pay for his additional expenses. He works an evening job because he needs to do class and practice during the day. I feel that he is proof that any athletics student can find ways to make ends meet. If athletes receive pay for their services beyond a scholarship even more money is spent. This can lead to higher tuition for students and things being cut in the schools. Right now would not be the time to start paying athletes beyond their scholarships. Currently many colleges are having their money cut on a federal and state wide level. The revenue from money making sports, such as football, are used to pay for other sports that are less supported by revenue. Given the majority of these are women's sports which the school has to support because of Title IX schools HAVE TO pour money from revenues of other sports to support it. Athletes at a college level are AMATURES which means that they don't get a paycheck for playing. They can be motivated to play by a scholarship, but to give them money via the university makes them professional players. Bowen, Fred. "Don't Bank on a Sports Scholarship - Washingtonpost.com." The Washington Post: National, World & D.C. Area News and Headlines - Washingtonpost.com. 4 Apr. 2008. Web. 28 Mar. 2011. . Whitlock, Jason. "ESPN.com - Page2 - College Athletes Already Paid in Full." ESPN: The Worldwide Leader In Sports. 2007. Web. 28 Mar. 2011. .

At the last second my opponent in the Tournament contacted me on DDO, with an idea for a topic. I would prefer to debate something else, but as this is pretty much the last second...okay. This is what we will debate. I'm assuming that since my opponent contacted me on this Site, he wants for the Debate to take place on this Site. I hope that this doesn't violate any rules. So, without any further delay... First Round is for Acceptance. Burden of Proof is on Pro, though I usually prefer to share the BoP with my opponent in my debates. In the last round no new arguments will be presented by either side; rebuttals only. If these rules are satisfactory to my opponent, I wait for him to accept.

Prohibition was a great idea in many ways and at its conception im sure that it seemed like the only solution but history has only shown it makes things worse. I don't think anyone should use a drug like cocaine or heroin but it is simply impossible to stop someone from getting the drug. It can't be done and so we have to deal with the situation in the most efficient way possible and that is not prohibition. Were every drug to be legalized the only people that would do these drugs are the ones who were doing them while they were illegal.

I am not trying to be rude and I apologize sincerely, but I am trying to say the wording of this topic is awful. You can not just shorten sports. According to the wording of this topic, I am supposed to be arguing on why sports are taking too much time. The opposition is supposed to be arguing why sports don't take too much time. The problem is, you can't change how long a sport is! You can't! There is literally no point in debating this topic! You also said that my points were "bad and atrocious" but so were yours! All you said in round two was,"Kids should be able to handle the time consumption. It is their choice to quit. Sports are a good way to use time- they can help a child stay healthy" Those aren't even arguments! You didn't even provide statistics or anything! Anyway, I will keep on giving points. My second point for this debate, is that kids won't do their homework. If there were sports that take too long, kids would try and have an excuse for not doing their homework. This would be a bad habit and kids shouldn't get away with this. Kids wouldn't do homework because they are "tired" or they were too busy with sports. Please, don't take offense to my arguments or refutations. In debates, you are SUPPOSED to attack the other side's arguments. That is why you are debating! To prove you are right and the other side is wrong! You didn't have any rules or any regulations or anything! That is why you should vote for the proposition side. Hopefully my opponent will keep debating after I have already apologized. If he doesn't, I have clearly won. Vote for the PROPOSITION!!! ^_^

Well, there isn't much to say at this point as my opponent has pretty much admitted to plagiarism and appears to think that it is benign. That unfortunately isn't true."Actually mr what ever it doesn't matter if i get it from that link because i only have to prove it."First, it's fascinating that you've admitted to plagiarism, which to me is the equivalent of a full forfeit.Second, this is not the case. You can use some of the arguments in a piece, but literally copying and pasting somone else's work and passing it off as your own work is not permitted, neither here or in academia. I can tell you, as a published academic, that I would get into big trouble if I ever attempted to do that. Third, you haven't proven anything. And, because you bear the burden of proof, you need to prove your case.Fourth, you can call me Mr. Keynes, if you'd prefer."By the way Animal testing is cruel last night i read this really sad story about this cat and it says "Kyle is a little white mouse who lives in a lab. Unlike others, he doesn"t have to worry about risking his life for food." His mother was being cut alive to test for a reaction to certain products and his dad was being tested for different types of drugs, which made him lost the ability to see. Kyle knows his destiny, he"s still waiting for his day to come, and he"ll never forget the hopeless look in his mother"s eye. He watched his mother being rudely taking out of the cage, tortured and abused. He only hopes that someone will understand how he feels, but even that is too scary to think about.This doesn't prove anything. First you haven't cited the story nor used it as evidence -- please don't copy and paste it. So, at this point, you're only argument is "Trsut me, I'm right." Second you're making an assertion that animal testing is cruel without proving it. Third you haven't connected cruelty to a ban. The resolution does not pertain as to whether animal testing is cruel in its current form, but whether it should be flat-out banned. If, for instance, animal testing were modified so that it weren't cruel, and therefore there wasn't a need to ban it -- as your only contention thus far is that animal testing is cruel -- the resolution would fall.Fourth in claiming that "Kyle knows his destiny" you pronounce that the mouse is conscious and aware. You've done somhting similar by saying that "He only hopes that someone will understand how he feels, but even that is too scary to think about." These are extraordinary claims, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What evidence do you have of either of these claims? How can you prove either of them? "Think about it guys. Imagine you as a dog being locked inside a cold barren cage waiting to be tested . Will you still think animal testing is fair?"My opponent is quite right that dogs are used for testing in the United States. As I said, she does not conntect this to the resolution. Her argument is essentaily this:P1: If (x) is cruel, it should be banned. P2: (x) is cruel.C: X should be banned. If this were the case, we have to ask ourselves how we define "cruel." Not only is the phrase subjective, but then we have to consider how far we would like to go in our endeavor to eliminate cruelty. Do we ban all forms of animal slaughter? Do we agree with PETA that we animals shouldn't even be kept as pets? If that were the case, wouldn't animals be subjected to even worse fates in the wild? The point is, my opponent cannot take a hypocritical stance that some forms of cruelty are fine, but others are not. At the same time, she cannot ignore that fact that, if animal testing were to be reformed to eliminate cruelty, the resolution falls, anyway. At this point, even though I do not bear the burden of proof, I will offer my own contentions.Contention 1: Animal Testing is Necessary Truth be told, there simply isn't any alternative to animal testing, and we would be foregoing critical scientific research. For instance, all veterninary research requires animal testing, every medical breakthrough over the past 10 years has utilized it, every Nobel Prize Winner in medicine or physiology from as early as 1901 utilized it in their work, and several surgical techniques (e.g., hip replacement and heart transplants), seveal medicines (e.g., several antibiotics and pain killers), and several anasthetics all relied on animal testing -- as did medical techniquies such as MRI's. Simply put, there is no way to substitute non-animal testing completely for animal testing. We would be sacrificng major medical breakthroughs and put human lives at risk.[1. http://tinyurl.com...] Contention 2: My Opponent's Case is DeceptiveMy opponent cites dogs in her example. However, in the U.K., dogs, cats, and primates only account for 0.2 percent of the animals used in research (1). There may be ways, as I said earlier, to reform testing, but using the example of a dog is highly deceptive and Pro is leaving out crucial context. At the same time, the U.K. has strict regulations on the type of testing that can be carried out. For instance, animal testing may only be used in cases where non-animal testing cannot be substituted. Ethics committees constinually review practices to ensure that the benefits of the testing outweigh the costs, the costs being the suffering to the animals. Contention 3: Trade-Off Between Human Suffering and Animal SufferingAs I have pointed out, in many cases animal testing is non-substitutable. It has been crucial in developing crucial medicines and breakthroughs that we use today. So, if you intended to stop the suffering of animals by banning animal testing, you would significantly increase the suffering of human beings who are suffering and dying with otherwise preventable diseases. Surely my adversary would not support that. Contention 4: Philosophical CaseThere is in fact a philosophical case against animal testing. Rene Descartes, for instance, did not consider animals to be conscious, minded creatures, but essentially machines who operated solely with respect to causal laws, noted in the fact that they coudn't display adaptibility as it pertained to language and behavior. Peter Carruthers takes a simialr position. He argues that consciousness necessitates higher-order thinking. For this reason, not all human behavior is conscious. Because animals cannot exhibit higher-order thinking, an argument for consciousness is essentially null and void.[2. http://tinyurl.com...]

I am not saying all average players should make it but what about above average players who werent as good as the ones that used steriods? They won't make it because these people used steriods and got a chance at getting ahead of them. How would the players know if steriods didn't effect the quality of their game, theres no evidence to support that claim. You think there going to tell you, yeah it helped my game out a lot, they wouldn't say that. They are lying you, they make a false claim with no evidence to support that claim. They have no evidence it didn't effect their game. Why do you think they call it performance enhancing drugs, key words performance enhancing. Do you understand what performance enhancing means? It means that it improves your game, so them saying it didn't is lies. If steriods didn't enhance each players game play why would they ban it? If it didn't effect their quality of play why would the MLB ban it?

it should be banned because would you want to have the animals antibiotics in your system


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

All performance-enhancing drugs should be permitted, convince me otherwise.
My stance is that all performance-enhancing drugs should be allowed in sports, regardless of potential risks. I dare anyone to provide a compelling argument against this. The only possible drawback I can foresee is a slight increase in the number of athletes abusing substances, perhaps a 1-2% rise.

Obviously, tobacco is bad for you. But that doesn't mean it should be banned. People should still have a right to do what they want to themselves. We've given them several warnings. Now, it's up to them to see if they help or harm themselves.One problem that arises from a total and complete smoking ban is this:HOW COULD WE ENFORCE IT?There's really no way we could. It would just be a continuation of the failed war on drugs. Finally, if people want to smoke, they deserve the consequences.

As I looked at some of your sources I notice that the 31,000 dollars spent on drug tests was over a period of 5 years which is only 6,200 dollars a year which I think is very reasonable. Also as a member of my schools basketball team I would hate to have the player above me in the lineup be taking steroids and be stronger than me because of it. Also you are arguing for schools to tolerate drug use even if they know it is happening you think they should take no actions to prove that accusation and not help that student with their life threatening problem. Letting this student do this puts everyone around him or her at risk of drug use as well. If you think drug use is ok for young Americans of this generation that is your opinion but I will not tolerate drug use of my peers and I will push for random drug tests. :)

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

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...

I will be arguing that there should be a prohibition on drugs, and I will post my first argument during this round. Claim: Drugs cause harm to many people and also animals. Proof: The website, . http://www.addaction.org.uk... states, "When drugs get into the bloodstream they are carried to all parts of the body and some reach the brain. The quicker the drug reaches the brain, the more intense the effects. . .. Once in the brain drugs affect chemicals called neurotransmitters. These are the chemicals that control the flow of information within the brain between the neurons or brain cells, forming a synapse. Neurotransmitters also alter people's moods and feelings. Different drugs can affect different neurotransmitters. For example, ecstasy appears to affect a neurotransmitter called serotonin by reducing the amount of the chemical in the brain. Those people with lower levels of serotonin in the brain tend to suffer from depression and also there are concerns that taking too much ecstasy for too long might make a person chronically depressed. Experiments with animals have shown that certain drugs like ecstasy can damage brain cells but experts are not agreed on whether this happens with humans to the same extent. There have been concerns about damage to the brain from taking a wide range of drugs including ecstasy, LSD and solvents but the evidence is, so far, inconclusive. " As you can see the use of drugs will cause horrible damage to the human body. Because of this a prohibition on drugs should be in place.

First is acceptance. I argue and believe there no greater pleasure or a more enjoyable animal slaughter/ abuse then the act of clubbing (or any weapon) sea lions. Opinion are accepted and can be considered for it is up to the voters. The goal is both a persuasive argument for me(Pro) and for the voters. Do you accept these terms Kreakin?

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.

My opponent noticed that $31,000 applied to a period of 5 years. I did state this - "In the last five years, it spent $31,000 on drug testing. .. " My opponent simplified this to $6,200 a year and claims this is a reasonable price. However, the school found a total of 4 students in all five years. If we extend my opponent's logic, this is less than one student a year found using random drug testing. This means that, in at least one year, $6,200 went down the drain, as not a single student was found using a random drug test. Now we don't know how many students were found each year - it could have been three in one year or they could have been spread out, etc. We do know that four were found total. This means that the cost amounted to $7,750 per student. I retain my argument that a better use of this money would go to educational programs, counseling services, and other alternatives to random drug testing. My opponent falsely accuses me of arguing that schools should "take no actions to prove that [students are using illegal drugs]". I never said that the school shouldn't take action. If a student is found using drugs, of course he or she should be disciplined. My opponent committed a straw man fallacy and argued against a point I never made. It is still possible to catch students using drugs without a random drug test and, if this happens, of course they should be punished. What I argued was that people do not die every time they take drugs. My opponent also makes up an accusation by arguing that I think it might be okay for young Americans to do drugs. I never said anything of the sort. I simply argued for alternative methods of preventing drugs rather than random drug tests, which I have proven to be ineffective. That my opponent is on the basketball team and would hate to see another player do better because of steroids is irrelevant to the debate. However, if this scenario were to occur, the player on steroids would likely arouse suspicion with his playing. Any drug test on him would not be random - it is important to note this - because his usage of drugs was already suspect. I am arguing against random drug testing. My opponent dropped my arguments about random drug testing discouraging parents and counselors from warning students. From this, it can only be concluded that he concedes these points. Please extend them. My opponent likewise dropped my argument that students in an environment with random drug testing feel more untrusted and stressed, which may actually cause drug usage. Please extend this argument as well.

I accept and will be arguing that, contrary to my opponent's beliefs, it is better to be a non-stop machine of sexual vigor than what can only be described as half a man. It's on like Donkey Kong, et al.(Also, while I appreciate the rule at the end, I would prefer there to be no nude pictures of men with two testicles either.)

I accept. I will be arguing that tobacco should not be banned due to an individual's right to choose what to put into their body. If anything, tobacco should be regulated due to second hand smoke issues, but not completely banned.Please state your case.


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

Performance-enhancing drugs should not be universally condemned in sports.

The "War on Drugs" is consuming billions of dollars, but is it truly worth the expense? Is it worth infringing on individual civil liberties and wasting resources? Firstly, prohibition may actually be promoting drug use: consider a scenario where high school students, unable to easily access alcohol due to strict regulations, turn to a drug dealer for marijuana instead. Prohibition has not proven to be an effective deterrent against drug abuse, as seen during the prohibition era of alcohol.

Marijuana has been scientifically shown to be less harmful than cigarettes and alcohol. "Safer for the Consumer: Numerous deaths are attributed to alcohol consumption, whereas no deaths have been linked to marijuana use. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that over 37,000 annual deaths in the U.S., including over 1,400 in Colorado, are directly caused by alcohol use. In contrast, the CDC does not record any deaths caused by marijuana use. The official publication of the Scientific Research Society, American Scientist, reported that alcohol is one of the most toxic drugs, with a 10 times higher dose than what one would use to get the desired effect potentially leading to death. Marijuana, on the other hand, requires thousands of times the dose to have fatal consequences. Alcohol overdose deaths occur frequently in the United States, while there has never been a fatal overdose from marijuana. The health-related costs associated with alcohol use far exceed those for marijuana use. Health-related costs for alcohol users are eight times greater than for marijuana users, according to a study published in the British Columbia Mental Health and Addictions Journal. Alcohol damages the brain, while marijuana does not. Despite long-standing myths, marijuana has been shown to have neuroprotective properties, protecting brain cells from harm. For example, a recent study found that teens who used marijuana and alcohol had significantly less damage to the white matter in their brains. Alcohol use is linked to various cancers, whereas marijuana use has not been conclusively associated with any form of cancer. In fact, one study found that marijuana use actually reduced the likelihood of head and neck cancers. Alcohol is more addictive than marijuana, with alcohol users more likely to develop dependence and build tolerance. Alcohol use increases the risk of injury to the consumer, whereas marijuana use does not. Many people are aware that alcohol greatly increases the risk of serious injury. Research has found that 36% of hospitalized assaults and 21% of all injuries are attributable to alcohol

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...

I accept and will be arguing that, contrary to my opponent's beliefs, it is better to be a non-stop machine of sexual vigor than what can only be described as half a man. It's on like Donkey Kong, et al.(Also, while I appreciate the rule at the end, I would prefer there to be no nude pictures of men with two testicles either.)

Excellent introduction. I am honored that you are going to use my definition of morality to forward your case. Yes, this is in part a spin-off of our last debate, because you made some points that I want to isolate and address here. But, on the other hand, I have before and will in the future pose this argument to anyone who doesn't agree with my thesis.... unless of course you show me that my argument is flawed... 1) Your rebuttal depends on the fact that WoD CAN reduce your risk. I agree that you should not have to deal with the junkie in the semi truck that's high on methamphetamines, but that doesn't mean that outlawing drugs will actually quell that concern. If you can't show that it does, then your points are invalid. My point here, specifically, was that the government should not control what a person can and cannot do in the name of "health". Any argument that supports the WoD because drugs are unhealthy is simply wrong. If you don't see the slippery slope here I will outline it for you. I will grant, that if you can show that the WoD is a success, it will necessarily weaken this argument of mine, and we will have to revisit this point again. 2) I will not split hairs, I will defend all common drugs, unless my argument gets stretched ridiculously to include anthrax (viruses) or some kind of drug used as a weapon, but since bleach is more dangerous than any common drug, I should be fine. I think you have a mistaken idea of our justice system. A lot of people think that police officers are here to "serve and protect" among other things, but police officers have a very specific role in this society of ours. They arrest people who have broken the law. They don't, ..... I feel kind of stupid calling you Tarzan, like I have a joke being played on me... They don't arrest people who are LIKELY to be breaking the law soon. Let me provide an example. I say, hey Tarzan! You are pissing me off with your anti-drug sentiments online and I am going to kill you!! Now let's assume I actually know where you live. You can call the police, and possibly get me for a threat, maybe get me locked up for a night if you are lucky. But Officers are really not going to be able to stop me, in the end, because until I've perpetrated the crime, I'm untouchable. If you had an officer at your side 24/7 you could stop me on assault charges or something to that effect, but that is not feasable. My point here, is that our government has very specific functions, dictated by the constitution, and that although "crime prevention" and "serve and protect" get thrown around a lot, it is not TECHNICALLY what they do. Crime prevention is an indirect result of the very specific tasks that officers have the authority to do - mainly arresting people who break the law. Consider that in my example, you actually had the officer there. If I saw him, and ran away, I would not get charged with murder. You could get me at a lesser charge, at most attempted murder, but you could probably not even get me for that unless I swung a weapon at you or something to that effect. You would be completely unable to stop me, through use of the police department. The "crime prevention" would only take the form of my own conscience, reminding me of what could happen AFTER the fact. This lengthy explanation is what I would use to show you that the government does not have the authority to make drugs illegal simply based on the fact that someone could possibly use it to commit an injustice. I could commit plenty of injustices with any object in my room, but that doesn't make them cause for concern. Your examples: The man with the bomb has ALREADY broken the law, as is with the rifleman in the mall. And no, the rifleman can clean his gun in the privacy of his own house for as long as he wants, because of the second ammendment. You must not take that right away from him, without commiting a grave injustice. If gun owners want to kill people with guns, THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO. Nothing at all, until they have perpetrated the crime. Of course, gun rights is another issue, but I could simply use an axe as an example instead, and get the same effect. And yes, my argument of the ends justifying the means stands, because as with any family values argument, that is what is happening: we would like no one to abuse drugs, so we make them illegal. The ends, utopia, justify the means, prohibition. This logic, which has been tested endlessly through the millenia, can lead to much evil (much more than drugs ;) ) 3) I use a proxy for my first round argument, and I keep forgetting to delete the parts out of it that have been successfully refuted, which is mainly the homosexuals and religion paragraph. I'm sorry for missing that, I will concede that my homosexuals argument is tangented and my connection of family values to religion is flawed. As far as my family values argument in general goes, I would say that we don't agree, because you still percieve family values to be a good reason to pass laws. I argue that family values cannot be dictated. You say that drug use degrades the family structure. What's your definition of "degrading the family structure"? What if your politicians think that debate.org degrades the family structure? Should it be illegal? I bet there are some people that think a lot of things degrade the family structure, that only degrade what they *think* the family should be like. Therefore, family values, which are not absolute, are not grounds for laws, because family values are drastically different from place to place, in different times, to different peoples. Morality is absolute. Justice is absolute. Family values to me and you are completely different, and if you could pass a law to perpetuate your family values, mine would be affected adversely. If you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that family values were absolute AND that drugs necessarily destroyed them, you would still need to show that the WoD is effective at controlling them, before you refute it. WoD not successful, not a failure? I don't support that reasoning, because it simply is. First off, you need to show that this war can help reduce drug use to support most of your arguments, in my opinion, because there is no point in the waste of resources if it is not. Waste of resources includes: 1) Billions spent on the WoD in the last two decades 2) fines, jail and prison sentences to non-violent, drug possession convictions (I won't include distribution) 3) suppression of rights of marijuana users 4) Job histories ruined due to past drug possession convictions And to say it's not a failure, when the average tenth grader has NO problem procuring drugs, and there are distributors everywhere, users everywhere, is simply a gross understatement. The possibilites of drug control, while legal, have not even been explored yet because we haven't had the faith in our citizenry to try. I bet we could put drug dealers out of business overnight by legalizing drugs and putting strict controls on them instead, and when junkies hit rock bottom we can set up places where they can use in the presence of professionals who can detain them temporarily until they sober up, so they don't hurt anyone else. Violence is violence anyway you slice it, and should be dealt with accordingly. I only defend people's freedoms of choice; they have the right to choose, but choices have consequences. I say we should let the people make their own choices, but punish them if their actions have immoral consequences. Being high, in and of itself, is not immoral at all. I won't defend an overnight strategy, I suppose a slow but sure process would be acceptable. But that's not what we are doing now... I won't defend adult-age-requirements for drug consumption. We can stick to adults. Your quote is tactful and witty (taking it from Abe) but I don't see how you can use it against me...

Im doing this topic for a school essay and want to know other peoples opinions on it. I promise I will not accredit anything without your ok. I just want an argument against this. If you could do this that would be great thanks:)

To be honest, I totally understand that different people have different views on different things. I tried to contact you through a private message but it didn't allow me to. I just wanted to state out a few things.First of all, thank you for bringing up this topic. For all the years I have been using this website, I have never stumbled upon such a revelating topic. I have never thought of such a topic could be such a huge of an issue until I was doing my research on this debate topic. It has been a pleasure having this wonderful debate with you in a friendly manner. Secondly, again, I understand people hold firm to their belief. I totally understand that. That's part of psychology. I'm not saying it's a detrimental thing, but I do wish you can open up yourself to the real world. Taking Hong Kong, where I'm living currently, as an example, about a great majority of us dislike motherland, China, as well as the citizens in China as a lot of us think that China is an extremely primitive and vile place to live in, and people in the country have poor conduct. This WAS true 2 decades ago. What most of us Hong Kongers don't know, is that China has improved considerably in terms of her economy and society. The Chinese are also becoming more humble and friendly. But since most of us Hong Kongers still see the Chinese today as we saw them 2 decades ago, which we are holding firm to our belief, and so a lot of us still dislike the country and the people. I would say that this is a pity, as we have been fooled by ourselves because we didn't open ourselves to what is actually happening in the real world. The fundamental world is not what you perceive, but what scientific tools and methods reveal, such as statistics. Besides, having 100 years of our lives is just too short, not to mention the possibility of not living until 100 years old. That is why we should fool ourselves, we should lie to ourselves about reality. I know you are not a racist or anything like that, but I do hope you can give yourself a chance to learn more about the world today.Again, it has been a pleasure having this revelating debate with you all along. We ought to finish the debate in the next round. Whoever wins or loses, I don't think it even matters :) Thank you!

I have a severe problem with my opponents argument besides the fact it misdefines amatuer principle. The resolution clearly states the athletes should be paid and my opponent seems to suggest in his first argument he is refering to the colleges themselves paying the athletes than you suggest that anyone or someone rather should pay them for something. Like I said they are currently being compensated in education and it is not nessarsary for them to compensated finicailly.I think changing intepration of the resolution should be grounds for disqualification. My opponent has fail to meet his BOP and asks questions of me. I answered the question in my argument so I would apprtiate if my opponent references my case. Is 98 percent an actual statistic or was that an estimate?

Ok. I know that it seems safer than alcohol and tobacco, but would it still be a good idea to legalize it? I think ( and this is my own opinion) that all substances ( alcohol, tobacco, and other harmful drugs not intended for treatment) should have RESTRICTED uses (not banned) . I know how alcohol and tobacco are easy to get and very well legal, but what if marijuana was of this to? I know it isn't as deadly, but the other two substances are widely accepted. Take for example in the early 19th century, when selling alcohol became illegal in the USA. People where smuggling it left and right and the government eventually just gave up on the law and peace was restored. So that rules out alcoholic substances from being eliminated, but I think more strict laws should be made on the sale of alcohol. And I understand why illegal marijuana is more deadly, but it's not the death that is the only problem (although it certainly is a big one) it is also the fact that people would have another way to lower self esteem. Imagine if it was legalized today? It may stop riots from druggies, but could start ones involving people like me ( who want to stop substance abuse). It could also stop drug dealing, since it would be legal to sell, but it also would allow younger people to hurt there self esteems by being reduced to the level of drug abusers. I'm not saying everyone in the nation would start smoking it, but some people would definitely do so. Why say "we should add it because it isn't so bad", and instead think that "why add another drug people can abuse?" I will wrap this up saying that if you think that it wouldn't be fair not to legalize it, try to see the other side in that it could hurt the picture of our nation (just like alcohol and tobacco do!) Try using the cup analogy for this conflict. Is it half empty, or half full? Is it not fair for it to be legal, or will it just hurt us even further. In reality, it depends on how you look at it in a way. P.S. This debate only concerns the use of marijuana for the public legally, not for medical uses in hospitals.

I already did this debate, but I love doing it and hearing new perspectives...and I did it yesterday and got, nothing short of an illiterate moron who quoted propoganda, so I am instilling new standards, 1.Quote research 2.Don't use propoganda Drugs should be legal, there is no moral or logical reason to make them illegal. 1.They can be taxed, more income that people would be happy to pay. 2.Many of them are harmless in the short term. 3.We've wasted more money on the war on drugs than we would have simply TREATING addicts and ignoring casual users. 4.Most of these drugs are only psychologically addictive (Weed, Shrooms, etc) and are no more dangerous than chocolate. 5.There is actually little conclusive evidence supporting many of the claims made by anti-drug persons. My own father claimed marijuana causes testicular cancer (when most research has actually shown is cures cancer, or prevents it) 6.By taking the illegality away we would destroy the underground drug markets, all of the drug related deaths around the world would CEASE to exist because drug cartels no longer have power since clean industrial production would be created. I'm not saying let's give needles to every 12 year old. I'm saying educate them about the REAL risks. Educate them on the long term affects. Make it impartial. When americans turn 18 they can... vote. join the army. drive a car. own a gun. drink (at 21) buy cigarettes (which are worse than most drugs most doctors would agree) use a prostitute. (where legal) buy explosives buy fire works and do all other kinds of things... many of these things are MORE dangerous than most drugs and can kill you quicker! yet we don't trust ourselves with some recreational drugs. I invite anyone to disprove me. But when it comes down to it, what people do with their bodies is NO ONE's BUSINESS. I'm not defending meth heads, but I'm following along the principle of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Evelyn Beatrice Hall Replace "say" with put drugs inside your body.

Thank you for joining this argument, Swimming should be considered a sport because like any other it is a competitive event. There are hundreds of competitions so it should be considered a sport. I will state the rest of my points later, Thank you,

This is a topic in which I am very eager to debate, as I stand in firm negation of the topic. since the first round is only for acceptance, I will not make any arguments; however I would like to question my opponent's rule number 2. I feel that this rule should be amended to state "Please refrain from making intentionally insulting comments that may hurt the feelings of the opponent or someone in the audience" I say this because neither I nor my opponent can know what will be deemed a insulting, or what would hurt the feelings of either each other, or the audience. We can however use our own common sense and know not to make blatantly offensive remarks. Also, I accept my opponent's definitions.