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

All performance-enhancing drugs should be decriminalized in sports.
Decriminalizing performance-enhancing drugs could make their use safer and more regulated in the athletic world.

We have boxing now that is Inclusive of women. Rugby also promotes womens competitions. Should we continue on this parallel journey of equality? My argument is that no we shouldn't. We are different but equal and Dykes pretending to be men should not be encouraged as being OK. When a Woman can run a 10 second sprint get back to me. Its not that Interesting. If you are not aware , most men don't think womans sport means diddly squat apart from looking at that Russian girls legs at Wimbledon. The politicaly correct continue to force feed the Idea that we are equaly as Interesting on the field of sport , but we are not.

"Should video games be illegal? What about sports or talking to women?"Say what you will, I've heard it before. Quite frankly, I've never heard a case of a f***ing mexican cartel geting in a shootout over the latest copy of Call of Duty or some s*** like that.You made a good point about the harmful affects, so I'll give you that one."a gross overexageration of the munchies"I don't think so. It may seem like an exaterattion to you, but some of my friends are potheads. I can tell you from personal experience of being around someone who's high but not high myself that they ate every bag of lays in my house. Maybe I took it too far, but as I said I'm a bit of a d*** about the way I argue.And as for the gateway drug thing that you wrote an entire f***ing seminar on, if weed becomes legal then how does it stop being a gateway drug? People take pharmacudicals all the time illegally, so making it legal might make it worse, because teenagers can get in a whole lot more trouble, and now someone who actually needs that weed for cancer or something can't get it because some idiot names Brody needed to get his weed."I am not trying to be rude but "it completely does" is not an arguement."Okay, fair enough. What I was trying to say is that weed, like any other mood changing substance, causes crazy psychadelic affects. These things can cause certain people to do reckless and impulsive things, mainly because they're just so calm about everything. Alchohol does this too, but instead of calmness, drunks get pissed about everything. I'm not trying to say weed's a bad thing, I'm just trying to get people to drop the subject. It's not like it's hard to find or anything. Are you too lazy to visit a nearby park that you'd rather wait in a line to get some more pot?

I think that sports cripples, but not tempers, because I'm an athlete and my sport is alpine ski. On my personal experience I had two serious injuries, and I also braked my arms 3 times, and sometimes it hurts on the weather. My grandma, also was an athlete and now she have problems with she's knees, so that is mean that sprots cripples.

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.

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

Hello, I think we should not get rid of football. The injury's sustained by the players are know. Before doing this game. Making them completely liable if they get hurt. Thus making a great game to watch with the family. Or enjoy with a few buddies.

Thanks for the definitions, I'm new to debating and just working out how all of this works! "People participate to have fun and to exercise." This is wrong, it is made compulsory by the school. Also you say that "not every kid enjoys competitive sports" I'd just like to say that not every kid enjoys maths or science yet they spend a lot longer than one afternoon a year doing that! Also everyone has different levels of academic abilities. I agree that "You cannot compare what a school does to promote exercise to what professional athletes do at one of the most important sporting events." however the "professional athletes" have to start somewhere. They need to start as early as possible to get their 10,000 hours practice in their sport before they can get to the top of it. (4) Some children wont get any chance to experience competitiveness in sport before its too late. So what I am really saying is that if there are no competitive sports days then the children who don't get taken off after school for other competitive activities wont experience it and are potentially losing out on a huge opportunity. This means that only children with pushy parents will get the chance to go to things like major sporting events in their field, bar the odd anomaly. The problem with people with the push from their parents rather then themselves is that they do feel anxiety because if they fail they will be failing their parents. If they are motivated by their own competitiveness then they will have self belief and are less likely to fail. "Many noncompetitive sports do not require lots of dedication and skills can be improved without anyone else." If you are dedicated and then improve your skills and you are denied the opportunity to show them off are you going to bother to train again? What is wrong with people training after school to improve themselves but then being being told it does not matter to win, the thing that is wrong here is that next time they just wont bother to do the exercise to improve their skills, which is totally against what you said. You said that they should teach "healthy life style habits" and training is one of these. If they aren't allowed/given the opportunity to show how their training has paid off they will become demotivated and stop, therefore living a less healthy life than before. Also all sorts of people can enjoy sports such as rounders, netball, squash.(the list goes on and on) People can enjoy these sports whatever physical level they are at. They can have fair and fun competitive games against people who have a similar amount of skill. I ask you, how many times do you come across competitive situations in a day? An example of how sports days are setting a child up to fail is if "there are no winners or losers" then when they get to the job market which is highly competitive (1) and see that there are clear winners and losers here what will they think? They will have to deal with anxiety here. Anxiety can be managed and its best to start learning how to do this at a young age. (2) An example is any of the Olympic athletes or even most other good athletes. An example was a good golfer who suddenly improved and was winning his tournament by a long way and nobody thought that he could lose, he did. However before the next tournament he worked hard on controlling his anxiety and he won it. The only reason he worked on it is because he is competitive, if you teach children not to be competitive then it will affect them in all walks of life for example in their job. So you say "children of all abilities can exercise" Please let me bring your attention to the Paralympics. I see people with all abilities competing there. Well they do have wiis and not any other videogames so you do agree that that is not teaching them how to have a healthy lifestyle as you said earlier. I really do have to question that if schools are treating this as sport then pupils will see it as sport and play on a wii and think that they are doing a good thing. If this is what non competitive sports days bring then are they really good? What better opportunity can you ask for to teach children about competitiveness? If they have competitiveness in other lessons where some children are less able than others why shouldn't they have it in sports? "By schools having noncompetitive sports days they can offer a larger variety of activities and can teach kids healthy life style habits." Could this not be taught to students in PE lessons? Also if "there are no winners or losers" then it is shown that children try less hard and don't do as well. (3) This leads to them being less healthy as there is no motivation for them to say run the 800m if they walk it it would be easier and if there are no winners or losers then they are just as good as the person who ran it. That is a very bad value to be teaching children! Competitive sports days provide a better environment for exercise as people will work harder and push further, therefore improving their fitness more quickly than in a non competitive sports day. (please see the 800m example) This contradicts your main argument. Sorry about the sloppy structure! (1)http://www.bbc.co.uk... (2)http://www.anxietyguru.net... (3)http://gigaom.com... (4)http://en.wikipedia.org...(book)

Being that there is no other argument apart from the athleticism of men to women, I will dispute that. Though a push for equality is important in American and other western societies, this does not ignore biological differences in men and women. Men physically have a higher capability of forming muscle through testosterone. Testosterone also creates a different bone structure to that of women. This gives men the ability to grow more muscle, and overall have a larger body appearance. Some examples of why men and women are in separate sports are prominent through swimming, running, basketball, and soccer. The first example is in swimming where Katie Ledecky, who has the record by 9 seconds of all women to ever compete in the 400m freestyle, is still 16 seconds behind the men's world record. In running, women's world records closely resemble a division 3 men's division champion team, which is far less than men Olympic runners. Third we have basketball where NCAA Division 1 men's teams average 67 points per game, and women's teams average only 60 points. Lastly in soccer the no. 5 women's soccer team in the world lost 7-0 to a 15u men's soccer team. These show the disparity in men's and women's sports ability, as well as the biological reason as to why these disparities occur. Because of these, women would not be able to prosper on men's teams, and it could result in the belittling of women compared to men. Sources: -http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com... -https://www.nih.gov... -https://en.wikipedia.org... -http://www.livestrong.com... -http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

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

"In science, if a variable is accidentally thrown in, and its effect is unknown, it doesn't matter how small or large the effect really is. The experiment's results are invalidated. " Source? Anyway, the whole argument is that the effect is insignificant. We're talking about baseball. No one who studies baseball statistics is going to pretend that they're perfect. They're still subject to many, many minor fluctuations–that's just the nature of the game. Thus, we accept these statistics, because they are basically as good as they can possibly be. The argument is that any change due to steroids is non-existent or minimal, and therefore the legitimacy of these baseball statistics is maintained. "If a scientist decides to grow some plants under Condition A to observe the effects compared to plants under Condition B, and he realizes that he used tap water for Condition A, but vitamin water for Condition B, what should he do? Invalidate the experiment. If the effect of the vitamin water is unknown, there's no way that he can publish these results. " You keep distorting my argument. First of all, these are not plants. Your example already allows a scientist far more control over the experiment than in baseball. Baseball isn't even an experiment. Baseball is a game first, and a potential scientific study second. Second, the difference in tap water and vitamin water for two experiments is HUGE. As I've been arguing, the effect in baseball statistics due to steroids is not even close to the effect in your hypothetical. "cannot accept steroid-influenced statistics [1]. " Your source says nothing about this. "If you want to run further, you can run further, tiring later. " How much does that help baseball? The only running in baseball is around the bases, which is pretty insignificant, especially compared to hitting and pitching. "If you want to do 1,000 sit-ups, you'll do it with less pain, increasing the chances of doing them all before giving up. " Where's your source saying that steroids help train the abs? Your earlier source gave a blanket statement that steroids help training. What training? As my sources have shown ([6], in the first argument), steroids affect the upper body (meaning the arms, upper abdomen, etc. ) It seems to me that if steroids affect the upper body, but also supposedly improve training, that they would specifically help upper body training, not total body training. "All of them. " You need to provide a source. "So, you concede that there might be a minimal effect. However, even a minimal effect is statistically significant [3]. " Read your source. You're twisting what it says. I quote: "'A statistically significant difference' simply means there is statistical evidence that there is a difference; it does not mean the difference is necessarily large, important, or significant in the common meaning of the word. " I said there may be a minimal effect, even though I've provided many arguments to show otherwise. If there is a minimal effect, that does not make it significant–or, IMPORTANT–enough to change the statistics. That's the argument. "One of your own sources says," It doesn't matter. The source provides two points that we're focusing on. One is that bats and stadiums changed to promote offense. This is factual. This is what I've cited. Elsewhere in the article, it says that steroids were a factor. That's not a factual statement. I cited a source that provided both factual statements and opinionated statements. You can't disregard the factual statements because of opinionated statements. "but there had to have been some factor to slow this down. " Ok. I think you're misunderstanding the graph, but regardless, I've shown you other factors. "That's because the second graph doesn't show how the slope used to be much steeper, but suddenly evened out. " Uh, so? The first graph doesn't show that there wasn't any change in power levels. You can't just disregard one graph because it doesn't show the same thing as another one. "Well, if not everybody is using steroids, then we obviously can't call it an even playing field. " Yes, we can, if the non-using population is miniscule compared to the using population. "Ordinarily, they both would have the exact same statistics. However, the steroid user ended up with a few more home runs every season because of his steroid usage. Obviously, these statistics cannot be compared with each other. " You haven't shown anything to support that the steroid user would end up with more home runs due to his usage. Sorry, but this is the same thing you did in the last debate. You can't just say something is true when it's what we're arguing. "Well, this looks as if you concede that if PEDs do have an effect, then it would lead to an increase in home runs, so an even playing field would not occur in terms of statistics. " Haha, what? I didn't concede anything there. I said that you haven't shown anything to say that PEDs have an effect. You ALSO haven't shown that pitching faster results in more home runs, which is really a ludicrous claim. If you want to hit a baseball farther, you might do so if the pitch is faster, but a faster pitch would also make it harder to catch up with. You're basically saying that a faster pitch would make it easier to hit home runs, which contradicts uh, everything that common sense can tell us about baseball. So, were your argument even legitimate in that its premises, that steroids increase speed, were correct, the conclusion wouldn't even work. "You concede that steroids might have a minimal effect. Statistically, with an outside factor that cannot be accounted for, and might have an effect on the results, the results are no longer legitimate. Because this outside factor has a minimal effect, this effect is not due to chance, because it is correlated with PED usage, so it would be counted as statistically significant. " You haven't shown any source for this. Understand that these are statistics created from what is first a game, not an experiment, and understand that minor faults already exist. Steroids, IF the effects exist, which you haven't shown, DO NOT create enough of a difference to make these statistics illegitimate. This argument of yours also hinges on your misunderstanding of the source above. A statistically significant change is not necessarily an important change. "Again, because it is conceded that there might be a minimal (but still statistically significant) effect on statistics, the statistics cannot be held as legitimate. " Refuted above. You've completely misunderstood your sources and distorted my argument. I'm sorry to say that you seem to be arguing this in the same way you did last time. You don't seem to understand the topic at hand. You keep using semantics or distortion to try and refute what I've said, but you still haven't provided very many real contentions. You haven't really shown that steroids help at all, and you haven't shown that if they help at all, they change the statistics, and you haven't really shown that if they change the statistics, that it's enough to make the statistics unimportant. There aren't going to be any sources here, but I cited [6] in the first argument earlier in this argument, and I've shown that my opponents sources don't show what he thinks they show, and thus his citations should be considered void.


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

Steroids should be permitted in professional sports under certain conditions.
1a. While players strive to prevent injuries, they remain a part of the game. Similarly, steroids can pose health risks. The distinction is that injuries, like all health hazards, are to be avoided, as should be the case with steroids. Athletes do not accidentally administer themselves steroids.1b. It's true that no one would take steroids solely for the undesirable cosmetic side-effects. Moreover, steroids and other prohibited substances are occasionally prescribed for injury recovery. Consequently, I see no justification for prohibiting their use in other scenarios.1c. NFL players who have suffered severe concussions are also prone to similar behaviors. However, this doesn't imply that football should be abolished due to the risk of injury. Players don't unintentionally inflict concussions on themselves, but they do intentionally take steroids. Nonetheless, both can be detrimental to one's health, as your concussion example and my roid rage example (which you didn't address) illustrate.1d. Admittedly, the muscle growth from steroids is unnatural, but so is our ability to fly in airplanes. Some individuals might have superior steroids, but this is also true for education, technology, and financial resources. I am not arguing that all unnatural things are bad. My stance is against steroid use, which is also unnatural, due to its adverse side-effects and the impact it has on the essence of the game.2a. Why should there be a distinction between achievements related to the human body and those involving technology? Why not replace athletes with high-tech robotic limbs? That's not the purpose of sports. Competing in sports is based on skill, physical effort, competition, and so forth.3a. If there were no connection between interest and steroid use, why have MLB ratings [changed]? Remember, correlation does not equal causation.

I oppose that this house would ban all blood sports as a means of entertainment. It's clear to me that this topic raises the issue of morales and much deeper than just being about hunting or dog fighting, it causes us to ask questions about human nature, and indeed, the nature of other animals with whom we share the world. Being Irish, the first things to come into my mind when i think about blood sports are fox hunting, hare coursing, dog fighting, and deer poaching. Each of these blood sports do happen in Ireland, and are a source of enjoyment for the upper, middle, and working classes. The most prevalent of these is fox hunting - which has a lot of support here among the general public. I'm positive that each of you is in some way connected to a person - be it a relative, friend, or acquaintance - who supports fox hunting. But there is also a huge amount of opposition on the topic, in fact, it became clear to me while researching the debate, that there is a majority opposition, something that i find very confusing. It is so difficult to find the arguments supporting fox hunting, and indeed all blood sports - but not because there aren't upsides - it is simply because of ignorance. The sheer volume of incorrect, prejudiced, self-patriotic anti-blood sports material out there is absolutely swamping the truthful material. People say it's cruelty - abuse to animals. I can't understand this misconception that the world is a pink fluffy soft safe place where there is no such thing as sacrifice or death. I'd imagine the majority of you reading this are meat eaters - after all, the majority population are. A lot of meat eaters prefer to eat free range, as battery farming is undoubtedly cruel and unnecesary. The free range farmers of Ireland - and many other countries - depend on the yearly fox hunt to protect their chickens and provide their livelihood. A fox finding a free range chicken farm (or even one family's personal brood of chickens), is not necesarily good for the fox himself, as that fox will learn to depend on that brood of chickens to provide him with food whenever he feels like it. He or she becomes dependant on that brood, and teaches their young to feed from it. Now the farmer, whose income has been damaged, feels the need to take action, usually in the form of laying a snare or putting out poison. This brings me nicely onto my next point: fox hunting is the most humane way of culling the rural fox population. if trapped in a snare, a fox will lie, a limb broken, in pain for days, until either a farmer comes and promptly shoots him, or until he or she starves to death. if poison is scattered carelessly about the countryside, there is a small chance that it will be ingested by a fox, and not a hedgehog, badger, rabbit, or small child. If fox hunting were banned, free range farmers - the most humane farmers around - will find it very hard to make a living, and may instead resort to battery farming, which as you know, is so so humane ;) fox hunting, more than just a sport - is a necesity in rural ireland, and what, i ask you, is wrong with getting enjoyment from something that is a necesity? there is an element of voyeurism in every single one of us. It is, as one might say, human nature. And what better place to allow voyeurism than at a controlled event, such as at the hunt. Also, to cut down another misconception, fox hunting would not have any sort of long term effect on the over-all fox population, as it generally involves culling an average of 2% of the fox population each year, allowing for it to return to normal in the spring time. Also, it affects only the fox's living near farmland and in rural areas. Moving on now to the topic of hare coursing. Whereas fox hunting is more commonly enjoyed by those of the upper-middle-class, hare coursing is known as being a sport, widely enjoyed by the working class in our society. Often used in the training of grey-hounds, it involves letting a dog loose over rural land in the pursuit of hares. Formerly a very unfair sport, modern laws have made it compulsory for dogs to wear muzzles during these pursuits, rendering them unable to kill any of the hares. In nature, these hares would normally be chased by fox's anyway, and these chases are already a part of their lives. The dogs do no harm; need i say more? I'll now move onto the topic of deer poaching. During certain times of the year, various different establishments in Ireland open their land to deer stalking. It involves people following a herd of deer (aka stalking), and eventually shooting one. Taxidermy is very uncommon nowadays; the meat, known as venison, is usually eaten. I ask you what is the difference between this and buying meat in the shops? In fact, I would even see this as a sign of a lack of ignorance. Nowadays, many meat-eaters would cringe at the thought of an animal dying but are unashamed to dig into a burger or steak; a sign of complete ignorance as to how that meat got there. The shot resulting in the death of the deer is quick and results in death almost instantly. The shooting areas have rules and restrictions on how to go about deer stalking in the most humane way possible. To deny humans of such a hunt is to deny humans to practise their basic human instinct and nature. People who are so concerned about animal rights should pause for a moment, and realise that we are animals too. Our greatest injustice to other animals, if anything, was domestication, our training them to cast off their basic nature. So why cast off our own? We cannot ignore our instincts. I will finish with a quote from Charles Darwin: "Man with all his noble qualities, with sympathy which feels for the most debased, with benevolence which extends not only to other men but to the humblest living creature, with his god-like intellect which has penetrated into the movements and constitution of the solar system- with all these exalted powers - Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin." Better to have man satisfy his voyeuristic ways that he carries from this 'lowly origin' in controlled situations, than on battlefields, or through wasteful murder. Try as we might, we cannot cast off our instincts. If we are to consider other animals fairly as our equals, then we must take into account, animals kill animals to survive. What is not wasteful is not cruel. It is nature.

My opponents "arguments" 1. I did not know that until you told me. For your information, I have a sister who has skated for 5 years. I skated for 5 years at one point. At no point did someone come up to me and ask me for meth. At no point did anyone offer me meth. And just because a name is slang for a drug, does not directly relate to it being subliminal messaging. Coca-Cola is not subliminally telling people to take cocaine. 2. Ok, perhaps I took this argument in the wrong way. Here's a better response: Something being cold has no reason to be outlawed. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it should be outlawed. Ice is cold. Should we outlaw water since ice is frozen water? According to you, we should. 3. My opponent still has provided no evidence. My opponent merely says: Watch the tapes. However, I do not have access to those tapes. Secondly, it doesn't matter, as the judges judge on their own preferences, and how they think it should be awarded. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they are idiots. My argument: Banning ice-skating would be detrimental to society. Here's my back up argumentation. 1. Ice skating is a huge industry. It not only encompasses figure skating, but it also includes hockey. Both sports are huge industries. If we were to ban ice skating, we would lose a huge portion of the sports industry. There is money in ice skating. There is money in hockey. Banning ice skating would create a loss of all those opportunities to make money, and for an industry to flourish. Therefore since less money would be flowing, the economy would be harmed. Therefore, society is harmed, since if the economy is doing worse, then society is directly hurt. 2. Many people look up to athletes, including ice skaters. If ice skating is banned, then these children who look up to people like Michelle Kwan will be hurt. Therefore, it is detrimental to society, because if the kids are hurt, the population is hurt. I am equally excited to see my opponent prove that society will be fine without ice-skating.

I will give my opponent an chance to post an argument since she missed her last round. Thus, I will re-post my previous arguments. _____________________________________________________________________________ Okay, let's begin. I will be dissecting my opponents arguments. Opponent: "You give some good points, but the fact of the matter is, there is a difference between simple teasing and bullying." My response: I understand the difference between teasing and bullying. I have be pushed around too. However, I feel bullying should be allowed because it teaches kids how to handle it. Personal Anecdote: Not only I have been bullied, I have also witnessed it. In all the cases where I personally knew the person, they were not affected by the events. These are all people I talk to, and are friends with now. Rather than be traumatized, they have LEARNED from the experience. As I said about myself, I can say about others: We have gained more confidence and endurance as a result of our past experiences. Opponent: "This means that if you are "different" then someone else, or don't meet the criteria others assume you must, it's OK to be bashed for it. I'm considered weak, does this mean that it's OK for someone to bully me?" Misconception: I did not say that people SHOULD bully others. I just said that is should be allowed. People shouldn't drink, but it's allowed. Understand the difference? Also, everyone is different. They exploit your differences because they have their own as well. Rather than dwell on what they say and do to you, think to yourself: "What are they hiding?" It will help you understand why they do what they do, and what they are insecure about them-self. Opponent: "Now, what about the bullies? By bullying, they are putting themselves at risk as well. About 87 percent of students say school shootings are motivated by the desire to get back at those who have hurt them." My response: Of course. Bullies are not smart people. They feed off the "weaknesses" of others. But that statement is almost trying to help bullies. If they want to be stupid enough to bother unstable and insecure people, they may have to face the consequences and retaliation. {-Do not misconstrue that statement! For everyone: Violence is never the answer. Hurting others or yourself will never solve the problem. Death is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. If you are bullied, learn how to handle it, rather than react wrongly-} Perspective (Cont.) Bullies have a simple job. Bully others who are different. This statement may be taken wrongly: If we make bullying illegal and unaccepted, many kids will lose their source of happiness. Wait, here me out. Bullies, almost all the time, are insecure of themselves or problems in their life. By making bullying illegal, we are taking away a way they deal with their problems. Thus, if they couldn't be bullies, how would they otherwise vent out their anger. They could possible turn to violence.... With regards to the Columbine Story and the resolution at hand, how one reacts to bullying is very important. The side I argue for is the logical side: To simply stand up to it, and not let them hurt you emotionally. There are obviously cases of violence being spawned by bullying, but there are psychos in any situation who would resort to violence. You even said it in your own response: "A distraught Klebold was easily manipulated by Harris." It wasn't only Klebold's fault, because he was coerced into doing it, and Harris preyed on his weakness. Almost like bullies do.... That could even be compared to Hitler. The German soldiers were not inherently violent people, but were egged on by a smooth-talking dictator, Hitler. The point I'm trying to make, is that how people react to bullying is so important. The way I did, the way I saw others do, is the way that everyone should. Simply learn from the experience, stand up to them, and not let them tear down your walls. If students reacted in a better manor to bullying, rather than resorting to violence, leaving school, etc, I don't see a problem with bullying going on, as long as the student knows how to handle it. This is why, rather than have talks in school about why bullying is wrong and kids shouldn't do it, there should be talks in school about how to HANDLE the bullies. The seminars should teach kids how to stand up to them, and how to make them stop. If kids were taught how to react, and how to grow from their experiences, bullying would not be a problem, but rather an effective way for kids to learn and understand how the world works, a world that isn't always perfect.

First, I want to start with your P.E. teachers statement. I have went to 9 different schools and everyone of my teachers have always graded kids on how much energy they exert. Those Fitness gram tests are required by the state and they are usually not part of your grade. My P.E. teachers just do this to see how they are performing in the class. My P.E. teachers also grade the people in our class if they are able to follow the rules and have the basic skills down. Now to answer your argument about the bad atmosphere. My teachers have always picked kids to go out. Then they choose other kids to go behind the "captains" and that would be a team. Usually, the captains are the same ability level ,so the teams could be even. Also, I have never seen a teacher that likes the most athletic kids if they have a bad attitude or if they think that they are better than all of the other kids. They hate those kids and they like the kids that exert the most effort. Finally, in response to your first argument. My school makes us have 90 minutes of P.E. class every day. And everyone in my GRADE have never gotten below a 85 in P.E. I am going to re-iterate this: my P.E classes have always been graded off of your effort that you show. I also want to talk about your uniform argument in Round 1. You said that students shouldn't have to wear horrible uniforms. Now, I highly disagree with this. For starters, I tend to wear dressier clothes to school and I wouldn't want to exercise in those. P.E. clothes can also reduce bullying between children. Some people get made fun of for the clothes that they wear. The P.E. clothes eliminates this route of bullying for kids.

Since my opponent forfeited the last round, I will not argue this round. I will simply close my argument I will give him this round to give his rebuttal and closure. In conclusion, I still believe that music should be allowed in schools with limitations. Yes, the games are distracting, but most teachers are schooled in scoldings. As he stated earlier, most students lack willpower, but music has helped improve this aspect in a lot of children. Even kids with ADHD. Thank you for voting and thanks for participating!!! :)

Thanks!!! Also, do you mind explaining your 3rd point please because don't you need a lot of training for all sports0

Be that as it may, if college athletes go payed, they could earn money. Remember that an average college athlete practices 40 hours a week and with studying, it leaves no time for an actual paying job! So, that means if they do a good job they get paid $50, if they suck they get paid $10

2: No insults or put down or any fallacious arguments e. g. appeal to majority, authority, circular or straw man arguments. 3:This debate will not start until on round 2 with the Pro starting it off and Con finishing off. 4: Cited sources can be listed on the last round of the debate. 5: A person cannot contend with the instigator unless he or she accepted the aforementioned rules of the debate. 6: Winning is certainly not the main point here- it's about to learn and to teach one another. The debate starts officially on round 2 with Pro, for not the Con must reply and adhere to the rules of the statement above. Good luck to the person who decides to participate in this debate.

In recent history barry bonds was accused of lieing in court about not taking steriods. Your getting of the subject when you say why he would risk it, no one knows only he does so basically your saying he is stupid for throwing away his carrer

I will try to render what my opponent just said. My opponent argues that women should be allowed to play football too, but they should not be half naked during the process. Pro is stating that women shouldn't be judged and we should all be equal. First of all, my opponent says "when it comes to wrestling no (as in we aren't equal) cause that's ok" What sort of reasoning is that? No because that's ok? What is so "ok" about wrestling? Please specify. Pro continues on: "nevermind bout wrestling guys could really get hurt but ya I think genders should play professionally together" What's the "nevermind" here for? Since it was right after your claim about wrestling, I assume you say "nevermind" because that point was worthless... well, not that it meant much in the first place. You don't give any concrete reasoning for why both genders should play football together. The "because they should be equal" argument isn't enough. I need to know WHY they should be equal. Yes, women shouldn't be judged, but I negate the resolution that they should play football with guys. Arguments: 1) Sexual actions: Of course, you will always have perverts, creeps, etc. that just cannot help but touch or comment on someone's genitals or other parts that need to be hidden. Even if women aren't half naked, there will still be guys and girls that will want to touch each other, and might even have sex. Yes, the latter is unlikely, but sexual actions will increase if we let the to genders play together. Unwanted flirtation will occur as well. You might have some cases of rape, or a guy touching a girl's butt or breasts. This can also distract the players from focusing on the game, thus, lowering the rankings of players. Also, are you talking about football in general? Or the NFL? It cannot be both. Either way, some idiot is going to want to be sexual if both genders play at the same time. 2) Physical Strength: The average male weight is about 180 lbs. The average female weight is around 166.2 lbs. Men are bigger and stronger than women are. I don't think NFL is interested in putting in women having most of them getting injured. Injuries happen all the time for men, so I think it would be immoral to have tons of women getting broken bones or fracturing bones. Not to mention any NFL team that was more women than men wouldn't stand a chance. Of course you could divide them up into equal men to women ratios, but then people would get less interested in watching NFL. NFL will lose a large amount of profit and people will freak out. Let them play in separate leagues. I have no problem with women playing football, just as long as they're not put in with men. http://halls.md... http://www.washingtonpost.com...


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

The Legalization of Performance-Enhancing Drugs in Professional Sports is Necessary

I argue that professional sports organizations should permit the use of performance-enhancing drugs, such as steroids. I recognize that this stance might initially be perceived as heretical, but there are several compelling reasons why sports leagues should consider legalizing these substances. Firstly, human history is replete with examples of individuals striving to push the boundaries of what is achievable, often utilizing the latest technology to do so. The Wright Brothers, for instance, defied the limitations of human flight by inventing the first airplane. Similarly, the legalization of steroids would lead to a rapid turnover in record books, reflecting humanity's continuous quest for excellence. Moreover, comparing athletic achievements across different eras is already challenging due to the evolving rules and standards. Additionally, permitting performance-enhancing drugs could provide significant economic benefits to sports. The 1999 baseball season, when Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire both surpassed Roger Maris's single-season home run record, witnessed a surge in public interest. The extraordinary feats of these athletes captivated the attention of casual fans, as they were achieving what no human had accomplished before. This is akin to the fascination surrounding Jeanne Calment, the oldest person ever recorded, who lived to the remarkable age of 122 years. Although her longevity was made possible by modern technology, her record-breaking achievement captivated the public's imagination. Why should sports be held to a different standard? Historically, baseball has been the sport most affected by performance-enhancing drugs, leading to the greatest public excitement over new records. Nowadays, athletes are often caught and penalized for using such substances, resulting in fewer opportunities for record-breaking achievements and diminished public interest. Consequently, baseball's viewership has declined in an era where football and basketball are experiencing a surge in popularity relative to other television programs. Therefore, the legalization of performance-enhancing drugs in sports is a necessary step.

Being that there is no other argument apart from the athleticism of men to women, I will dispute that. Though a push for equality is important in American and other western societies, this does not ignore biological differences in men and women. Men physically have a higher capability of forming muscle through testosterone. Testosterone also creates a different bone structure to that of women. This gives men the ability to grow more muscle, and overall have a larger body appearance. Some examples of why men and women are in separate sports are prominent through swimming, running, basketball, and soccer. The first example is in swimming where Katie Ledecky, who has the record by 9 seconds of all women to ever compete in the 400m freestyle, is still 16 seconds behind the men's world record. In running, women's world records closely resemble a division 3 men's division champion team, which is far less than men Olympic runners. Third we have basketball where NCAA Division 1 men's teams average 67 points per game, and women's teams average only 60 points. Lastly in soccer the no. 5 women's soccer team in the world lost 7-0 to a 15u men's soccer team. These show the disparity in men's and women's sports ability, as well as the biological reason as to why these disparities occur. Because of these, women would not be able to prosper on men's teams, and it could result in the belittling of women compared to men. Sources: -http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com... -https://www.nih.gov... -https://en.wikipedia.org... -http://www.livestrong.com... -http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

I negate: International soccer matches should NOT be settled by fights, rather than penalties. "England subsequently lost the match on penalties, which was a cruel way to exit the tournament" - I agree that England should have won that match and probably would if not for Rooney's red card, but that's soccer. Despite that, the match was won on penalties were numbers don't count, which one the basic reasons that they exist. England had a chance to beat the 11 Portuguese players with 10 of their own, but they missed it. "Penalties are such lotteries – the goalie can only just guess which side of the net the striker is aiming for, he might be lucky, he might not." "Penalties are such lotteries – the goalie can only just guess which side of the net the striker is aiming for, he might be lucky, he might not." -This is false. Most of the time goalkeepers DO choose the right side, although they don't block the ball from going in most of the time, is just coincidence? – No its skill. You have to both anticipate were the kicker will shoot and be good enough to block the ball. Reflexes play a huge role in the above and many times a bigger one than luck. If you try to score a penalty on a professional goalkeeper, believe me, you would have a hard time (I've tried it). So penalties are not lotteries, you have to be a good goalkeeper to block even if you do guess right. Also you have to be a very good kicker, to place the ball hard enough and accurately enough in the corner in order to score. The Portuguese were better at doing so. Also, Ricardo (their goalkeeper) was better at blocking than the England goalkeeper, therefore they won the match. "On that occasion, all the England players would have been queuing up to give Portugal's dirty, cheating, pretty-boy midfielder Christiano Ronaldo a proper kicking and I suspect I wouldn't be the only England fan to say that that spectacle alone would have been worth the price of the ticket." - I suggest that my opponent attends a kick boxing match rather than a soccer one, if he wants to see a fight rather than soccer. Contention 1: Public Opinion Common logic tells us that if you ask soccer fans, if they believe that international soccer matches should be settled by fights, not penalties, the vast majority of them would either laugh or simply say no. Contention 2: Violence Soccer has been used over the years to pass messages to the public due to that it has many supporters and has been very successful in doing so. Some of these are "no to racism" (we remember this from the 2006 world cup) and "no to violence". If soccer were to promote violence, imagine what influence it would have on the public and especially children who usually imitate their heroes, the soccer players. Contention 3: Red Cards Red cards are usually given to players that do hard tackles or play violently. For example, if you punch your opponent, you are very likely to get a red card. It would be both confusing and hypocritical if on the one hand, you send him off for being violent and on the other declare the better puncher the winner. Contention 4: Grudges Many players would object to the system (certainly not Rooney), because in most matches, they would not be motivated to hit their opponents. Also, take into consideration that most soccer player are constantly on the move and who knows, the day after the fight they may find themselves on the same team as the person they knocked out the previous day. This would develop hatred and personal grudges between players and we certainly do not want that to happen as soccer fans. Contention 5: Penalties are thrilling, anyway Personally, I believe that penalties are absolutely thrilling (and many people share this belief). I don't think that even my opponent, being an England fan, can deny being glued to the screen, with his heart pounding, to see if England will win or lose the shout-out. Thank you.

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.

The Essendon Supplement Scandal has attracted a lot of media intention in Australia lately. The fact of the matter is, that during the off season these players were administered illegal peptides, believed to be AOD-9604 and Thymosin Beta 4, which was not approved for human use and is banned under the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA). If these players took this drug, then under the current system they should be banned for professional sports for the mandatory two year period outlined in the WADA code, of which Australia is a signatory. [1]These banned substances were apparently administered by club sports scientist Stephen Dank and club doctor Stephen Dank, with the players claiming that they believed to whole thing was legal. However section 2.2.1 of the WADA code reads: "It is each Athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his or her body. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation for Use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method" [2]We can take two key things away from this. The first being that it is the athletes responsibility to make sure they do not take a prohibited substance. Second, that it is not necessary that an athlete knows they have taken a banned substance in order to violate the terms of the WADA code. So the question now becomes, was a performance enhancing drug taken? Well Essendon have all but admitted to administering their players with AOD-9604, a human growth variant. In his interview on the popular talk show, On the Couch Essendon captain Jobe Watson admits to it himself. (See video) http://www.youtube.com...The evidence is growing larger and larger in the wake of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency (ASADA) report into the matter, and while this investigation remains on-going. As a fan of the game, this entire situation makes me feel deeply troubled. I really feel very sorry for the players, who seem to the victims in this entire saga. However, the rules are there, and it is not fair on the other 17 clubs in the competition if another club is able to take banned substances and get away with it. I do not even know where to begin with my opponents opening statement, except to say with. The resolution of this debate is about what should happen to the Essendon players, not to sport in generally, and if that's the angle that you want to argue then it's fine by me, as long as you keep it relevant. [1] http://www.theage.com.au...[2] http://stage.wada-ama.org...

No of course it shouldn't, some kids are not up for this and it embarrasses them, we must also take into account physical harm could be caused. It is child abuse and a way of embarrassing kids. I know some dummies will say its about toughening people up but its unlikely it will happen in real life. Also IT IS NOT EXERCISE AT ALL BECAUSE WRESTLING ISN'T RUNNING AROUND, AND RUGBY IS PHYSICAL ABUSE. 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

first, as suspected, let me point out that this debate is entirely plaigarized. i google'd the introduction and it turns out that this summary as well as my opponent's contentions all come verbatum from a website (found here: http://www.idebate.org...). that is pretty low, without citation. i affirm that my opponent is a big fat cheater :o) however, i will debate this anyway. this is because my opponent was actually dumb enough to not only copy and paste the arguments for one side of the issue, but she copied and pasted the arguments for MY side of the issue as well! so basically, she has already negated her own points, however, i will continue to argue them IN MY OWN WORDS, meaning double negation, meaning an automatic win for my side, imho. ~~ here we go ~~ "Beauty contests promote an ideal of female beauty to which only a minority of women can realistically aspire" so do magazines, tv shows, the movies, and the media in general. so what? to argue this point would mean that this same argument is applicable to all forms of media and entertainment. the point is that nobody forces anybody to watch or believe anything. people who watch beauty pageants essentially enjoy them. and nobody says that people have to conform to society's standard of beauty. "Judging women, but not men, primarily on their looks contributes to the subjugation of women" who says that only women are judged? there ARE male beauty pageants or something similar thereof. moreover, it is an ignorant assumption that only females are subjicated to pressure from society to look or act a certain way. guys are under immense pressure to be "buff" and exhibit "masculine qualities," so to assume that women are the only group who is oppressed is a fallacy. "they can still only do so if they take part in the swimsuit competition, which may well not be considered appropriate dress in their culture." then very simply, they don't have to enter. this is a PRIVATE competition and doesn't affect any country in an economic or political way. nobody is forcing a country or group of people to enter. if they do so, they do so under their own inclination to participate in the aspects of the competion as-is. if the asians or anyone else have a problem with it, they can create their own similar pageant. "Beauty contests fail to challenge harmful political attitudes to women." on the contrary, these pageants require that a woman have a certain level of political knowledge; to be without it will not get you far. a perfect example is the criticism miss california received from perez hilton and others for her answer regarding proposition 8 and gay marriage. had she been kept out of the loop or ignorant to politics (like women have been in the past), she would have been humiliated and not taken seriously. being in a pageant requires a certain amount of political correctness. that includes pc recognization of feminism, liberalism, women's rights, etc. "by reinforcing looks as the most important feminine quality, they harm women's liberation in general" i disagree. consider the feminist groups of the 1970s. lesbians or butch women were kicked out of women's lib groups because the women didn't like the reputation of being "butch" or "dykes" simply because they aspired for equal rights among the genders. i think being politically active, talented, etc. all while retaining aspects of femininity IS empowering and helps to remove sterotypes about how feminist women look and behave. "The fact that the organisers of Miss World 2002 had no problem with holding the contest in Nigeria at the same time as a high-profile case in which a woman was due to be stoned for adultery exposes the competition's hypocrisy" uh, what does a culture's punishment for a crime like adultery have to do with the ideals of the competition? ~~ good luck, pro. ~~

My opponent is a misinformed person but that's ok because it doesn't harm society in this level of debating. His claim amounts to a single point: >People are fully aware of the consequences of a decision before they make it. This statement although true, does not advance my opponents claim due to the fact that there are various other components that weigh on different sides of the person's desicion to start taking drugs. Consider this scenario: there is a homeless person named Scott who lives on the street. Everyday, Scott is abused and assaulted and has trouble getting food or water. He has various friends who are in the same state that he is in, but they are less than honorable. These friends introduce him to drug use. immediantly, Scott's reaction is that the drugs will not make him happier, he knows the consequences of drug use and that it will hurt him. But Scott agrees to try the drug out and is later hooked, addicted to the drug which releases copious amounts of dopamine in his brain, shutting down his euphoria receptors. Scott becomes depressed and when he cannot find a way to acquire more of the drug himself, he kills himself. Now, everything about that scenario is reflected in tens maybe hundreds of thousands of alike people, but what I want my opponent to realise, is that it completely disproves the basis of his claims. Scott was not influenced by his own reasoning as my opponent would claim he was, his normal state of mind was already impaired by: >His friends >His state of living The same situation can be applied to every drug user in the country, humans are not capable of doing things without reasoning and so any reasoning that leads a human to do something against his/her nature is unnatural. My opponents view is that we are not morally obliged to stop someone from harming themselves even though they do not want to. There is no such thing as a human who wants to harm themselves in their correct state of mind. The incorrect state of mind is like a prison, it tortures the person even though they don't want it, but they will continue living in that prison because we have neglected them. That disproves my opponents claims that people who are in the right state of mind can make the decision to harm themselves. Completely false, if they make that desicion, then obviously they are in the impaired state of mind. Allowing them to make their desicions using an impaired conscious is completely inhumane and cruel. Looking at my opponents claim that we have freedom of choice, Its pretty plain to see that he didn't properly read my post at all. He completely failed to defend it from a rebuttal that was waiting for him to arrive. Lets go through his unorganised slab of text and refute each point as it arises: 'he is assuming that every person on this earth from the richest tycoon to the poorest man follows this theory of philosophy.' What my opponent says is accurate here, although the implicit straw-man is not welcome. All creatures follow some form of the philosophy of utilitarianism as a default. in animals, instead of looking for happiness they look for survival and different ways to survive and eat. Humans are not so worried about survival as animals, so we look for a purpose, happiness. Everything ever done by humanity with reason has been done for the reasons of 'a greater good,' a 'better place,' or simply for happiness. Why do we search for things to satisfy our curiosity? Its makes us happy. Why do we kill millions of each other in wars and battles? For greed, why are we greedy? For happiness. Everything boils down to happiness eventually, drugs are no different. In fact, drugs are the closest to failed pursuits of happiness than nearly anything else. 'he judges everybody with a standard model he says that if everybody in the world was given the full information about drugs, if they knew it was going to hurt them in the long run then they would not take.' Until an exception can be found to the rule, it shall stand. My opponent is very closed minded when he sees an ordinary person deciding to take drugs for the first time. However, we need to balance the motives. If there is peer pressure shoving the individual on one side, then we need to provide information to discourage him proportionate to the level of peer pressure he or she is experiencing. This way, we can negate the disruptive influences that negatively impact someone's choice. All decisions should be able to be made by an individual without exterior negative interference. That is called freedom of choice. But where all the information comes from a single party, eg, a friend or criminal dealer, the choice has been negatively affected and cannot be called 'free.' So who is going to provide the other half of counterbalances to dispute negative influences? The government. His ending statement seeks to misinterpret my previous arguments. I said that all humans living in society have: >The duty to protect society >The duty to progress society >The duty to maintain society I was wrong to assume my opponent had a shred of common sense. Ill explain it in simple English: The duty to protect society means that all members that benefit from society are obliged to help prevent or intervene with an attack on society if it is within their power to do so. The duty to progress society means that any opportunity that will advance any aspect or capability of society is not to be turned down unless it conflicts with a person's privileges (rights). Eg. Thou shalt continue working that extra 5 minutes that will allow a discovery of the cure to cancer even if you have a sore toe. The duty to maintain society is actual a duty to not tear it apart. If you are born into the world and live of welfare for your entire life, you are a drain on society and are in the wrong. The laws of Australia that prevent drug use also prevent a complete massacre of the younger generation. We both know that adolescent children have an impaired ability to determine risk. Well known fact. Considering that making it illegal for teenagers won't stop it getting to them, I would like to challenge my opponent to propose a method in which drugs can be made legal whislt our teenagers stay safely out of its reach. I would like to raise some previous points that my opponent completely failed to address in the probably vain hope that he might see them. >there is no way to harm yourself in society that doesn't harm someone else. >Drugs destroy your duty of care to society >Would you force someone to stop doing something if they are not in their correct mindset? I would like to finish up by quoting my opponent from outside this debate, after a different argument I asked him why he still supported his claim, he said: 'I am irrational.' This wasn't a joke or anything, he said what he meant and meant what he said, so my question, which I never got to ask him, is something that is irrational worth supporting for the purposes of this debate? The resolution is negated, now lets see what else my opponent has to say...

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!

This is a debate in the second round of the official May tournament. TUF and I are going to be debating the topic that is written out in the topic portion above. Structure is pretty standard. In TUF's first debating round, he will be allowed to provide rebuttals. Otherwise format is: 1st - intro/acceptance 2nd - main arguments/starting rebuttals 3rd - rebuttals 4th - summaries In the fourth round there shouldn't be any new argument. It should be for new evidence and elaboration on things already said in the debate. Just so everyone's clear on that. Now let's get started! Good luck!

This will be the first time I have ever found myself in the position of arguing FOR the War on Drugs (WoD). My screaming liberalism and hedonistic epicurean principles normally forbid me taking such a position. However, in this case, I am impatient to complete my third debate on this website, and be awarded voting rights. So. But, personally, I really doubt that my partner and I are very far apart on this issue. This really should be considered an example of Devil’s Advocacy. First of all, I would like to point out that, as I indicated, I hold the opinion that drug laws within the US should be relaxed significantly. This is especially true in the case of marijuana, and drinking age limits that have been set above the age at which a person can legally become a soldier or a voter. Why should a young man be permitted to potentially die in battle, without being also able to drink in honor of his fallen comrades? This is nonsense: if we can die for our country, we should be able to drink to our country, However, this should not mean that the “War on Drugs” should be regarded as an abject failure, or even discontinued. My take on this subject is that we should modify and focus our efforts to restrict dangerous intoxicants in a more intelligent and effective way. I feel that current policy does not accomplish this: we have a wasteful, inconsistently applied system that does not work as well as it should. This aside, it should not be called a “failure” and simply done away with. It should be mended – not ended. Entering this debate, these following important concerns arise for me – concerns that must be answered convincingly before I could accept my partner’s premise, that the War on Drugs has been a “failure. ” There was a time before the WoD was implemented. What was life like then? Was there an unacceptable level of human misery being caused by drug abuse? Most of my concerns with abandoning the WoD has to do with very dangerous intoxicants, especially heroin and cocaine. There are good reasons to believe that, if legal, many more Americans would begin to consume these dangerous toxins. Are there sound arguments that demonstrate that these Americans would not be harmed by this usage? Are there sound arguments that those Americans who choose not to use heroin and cocaine would not become victims of criminal acts perpetrated by those addicts who have become desperate to obtain their drug? Can an argument be presented that would demonstrate that our hospitals and health care system would not become clogged (and more expensive) as a result of increased rates of drug usage? It is reasonable to suppose that increased drug usage in the US would lead to more drug exports from developing countries. This increase in exports could lead to greater profits from drug cartels, which may then become strong enough to destabilize the nations that they operate in. Would Americans like to know that their money is going to these drug cartels? Can we assume that these drug cartels are ethical businessmen, who can be trusted to provide safe products? This is an important consideration, because these cartels will be the entities that first stake the largest claims to the new, legal, American drug markets that would emerge as a result of the WoD being dismissed as a “failure. ” These criminal, and often murderous, drug cartels will prosper if the WoD is ended. I argue that many people who might otherwise use illegal drugs choose not to do so only because they are illegal. If addicted, these people might become far less productive citizens. Should we have been allowing them to become addicted instead? Nations such as Afghanistan offer us a model of what a nation might look like - without such efforts as the WoD. Is this model better than the American system? I think that it is not. It may be argued that “we should be allowed to make our own mistakes. I do not need the government to stop me from using heroin. ” However, we may very much want the government to stop our babysitter from taking bath salts just before watching our children. We may want laws that protect those who do not use drugs personally from becoming endangered by those who do. To say that the WoD has been a failure is to suggest that it has not achieved its stated goals. I cannot agree with thispremise; rates of illegal drug use, responsible and reasonable drug restrictions, and limits on the murderous activities of drug cartels have occurred as a direct result of the WoD. All of these concerns can be placed into three neat stacks: The WoD has limited the negative effects that drug abuse might have on non-drug users, and those who use drugs responsibly. Benefits to the WoD can be found in public safety, crime rates, and health care costs One effect of the WoD has been to weaken the dangerous drug cartels, which might otherwise have oppressed and murdered many innocent people as a result of increasing their power The WoD has prevented many potential addicts from beginning to use dangerous narcotics. It may be argued that these people deserve to suffer for their choices, but it nevertheless remains reasonable to suggest that they are productive society members today only because they did not want to go to jail My position, then, is that although the WoD is clearly an example of imperfect policy, it has achieved some modest successes. It cannot, therefore, qualify as a “failure,” however slight those successes have been.


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

The use of steroids in sports should be prohibited. I believe that steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs should be banned from all sports. These substances can be detrimental to one's health. Critics argue that athletes who use such drugs are violating the rules and gaining an unfair edge over their competitors. They also contend that these athletes are risking their own health and setting a dangerous example for young people, indirectly encouraging them to follow suit.

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.

I like steroids in my food. I want to get beefed from my beef.

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...

My opponents "arguments" 1. I did not know that until you told me. For your information, I have a sister who has skated for 5 years. I skated for 5 years at one point. At no point did someone come up to me and ask me for meth. At no point did anyone offer me meth. And just because a name is slang for a drug, does not directly relate to it being subliminal messaging. Coca-Cola is not subliminally telling people to take cocaine. 2. Ok, perhaps I took this argument in the wrong way. Here's a better response: Something being cold has no reason to be outlawed. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it should be outlawed. Ice is cold. Should we outlaw water since ice is frozen water? According to you, we should. 3. My opponent still has provided no evidence. My opponent merely says: Watch the tapes. However, I do not have access to those tapes. Secondly, it doesn't matter, as the judges judge on their own preferences, and how they think it should be awarded. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they are idiots. My argument: Banning ice-skating would be detrimental to society. Here's my back up argumentation. 1. Ice skating is a huge industry. It not only encompasses figure skating, but it also includes hockey. Both sports are huge industries. If we were to ban ice skating, we would lose a huge portion of the sports industry. There is money in ice skating. There is money in hockey. Banning ice skating would create a loss of all those opportunities to make money, and for an industry to flourish. Therefore since less money would be flowing, the economy would be harmed. Therefore, society is harmed, since if the economy is doing worse, then society is directly hurt. 2. Many people look up to athletes, including ice skaters. If ice skating is banned, then these children who look up to people like Michelle Kwan will be hurt. Therefore, it is detrimental to society, because if the kids are hurt, the population is hurt. I am equally excited to see my opponent prove that society will be fine without ice-skating.

I would like to begin by apoligise to my opponent both for the aggressive exchange that spurned this debate and for my delay in actually accepting it and posting an opening round. The Resolution is: Black people are inherently physcally superior to white people. Black People: For the purpose of this debate I wish to define black people as those of primarily black sub-saharan african descent. Thus a person whose only known antecedents are of black sub-saharan african descent would be a valid example. A person whose only known antecedents are of black sub-saharan african descent apart from one white grandparent would be a valid example. A person who is half black, and half white would not be a valid example. This is because one could equally claim that their physical superiority comes from the white race, and the simple need for some form of definition as to what is meant by the term black in order to have a valid debate. I accept my opponents other definitions and I do not feel that they need to be clarified. To further clarify my position, I seek to argue that Black People are, by and large, if taken collectively, physically superior to White People. That is to say there is a stronger correlation black ancestry and physical prowess then there is between white ancestry and physical prowess. It would be an obvious strawman, and one that I know my opponent won't indulge in, to compare an elderly or disabled black person to a white olympian. Argument 1: The Great White Hope Is indeed a reference to the Jack Johnson, the first black heavyweight champion of the world and in the words of the first Great White Hope, James J. Jeffries, "the effort to reclaim the heavyweight championship for the white race". Jeffries however was defeated, quite convincingly. The whites got themselves their great white hope in the form of Jess Willard in 1915, and whites held the title until 1937 when it was taken by Joe Louis (who still holds the record for longest reigning champion). http://en.wikipedia.org... A cursory examination of wikipedia suggests that of the period of 1937 to 2010 whites have held for approximately 6 years, certainly no more than a decade. That shows nearly 70 years of black hegenomy over the sport. http://en.wikipedia.org... (if people want to check) I would seek to argue that this suggests that Blacks are physically superior to Whites. My opponent counters the following, "1: You could just as well say that the success of black boxers indicates superior intelligence on their part, as boxing is a very mentally demanding sport." In reality there is no such thing as mind-body duality. Though something such as mathematical ability can be defined as mental, and muscle strength as physical, a complicated sporting activity crosses both. The skills of a boxer in include strength (purely physical) and reflexes (can be seen as physical and mental). Though part of the point above I will seperately address my opponents argument of, 2. "If you take a sport that relies purely on physical strength, like power lifting for example, you will find that the most succesful athletes in that discipline are actually white." This is admittedly a valid point, it is not certain that this is due to biology or sociology however. My opponent also argues that, "3: There are plenty of social explanations for the success of black heavyweight boxers. The determination and enthusiasm for violence required to succeed in this field is often nurtured in the very hostile and impoverished environments that black Americans have been more likely to endure than their white sporting rivals" I have no problem recognising that the social backgrounds of many of these black boxers have created a impetous. However there is firstly a world of difference between living in a violent neighourhood and the intense regimen of training that a professional athlete undergoes. In addition it is clear that there are just as many non-blacks who are raised in similar enviroments. Where are the hispanic heavyweight champions for instance? It is clear that sociology is not the primary driving force for black excellence in this field, and that the reason is most likely to be genetic predisposition. Argument 2: The Olympics My opponent states that, "I think the notion that on the whole, black people out-perform white people in athletic ability is easily refuted by a look at a list of multiple Olympic medalists." All things being equal one might assume that a country's share of olympic medals would be proportional to its population, allowing for the vagaries of random chance. In reality other factors come into play, such as a countries GDP (or I would suggest it's genetics). A number of statistical studies have been conducted. This article shows that when looking at population Jamaica, a predominately black nation, greatly overperforms. When looking at GDP we see that Zimbabwe, a predominately black nation greatly overperforms, followed by Jamaica. This is a strong statistical anomaly, and a reasonable explanation for it is race. http://www.stubbornmule.net... Argument 3: Football (Soccer). My opponent states that, "the fact that in our domestic sport of football (soccer), no nation with a black majority has ever won a major international competition, and countries with significant black populations, such as the US, Brazil and our own dear England, still field a number (in most cases a majority) of white players." 7 of the 25 members of the current England Squad are black. This translates as 28% of the entire team. When compared to the overall population of England this is massively disproportionate. This is because of the correlation between black ethnicity and physical prowess. Argument 4: Slavery The Spanish exported vast numbers of black slaves from Africa to the 'New World'. The motivation for doing so is clear, slavery provides a cheap workforce. Why did they not simply make slaves of the native population (these days referred to as indentured servants, or indeed slaves from Europe? Well they did use both, but ultimately blacks, being of superior strength and therefore more useful were preferred. I am unable to find the quotes I need to back up this point, and shall attempt to do in subsequent rounds and to bring in fresh arguments or develop new ones.

IntroductionGender transformation therapies, like many other civil-rights-related issues, have come under political controversy over whether they should be allowed. Practically everybody has his own opinion on the subject. In this debate, I shall demonstrate that, yes, these therapies ought to be allowed; in order to do so, I will prove that the benefits of allowing them outweighs the costs and risks.I will do so with two arguments: that the aforementioned therapies are psychologically beneficial to patients, and that even if these therapies were harmful, banning them would do more harm than good. RebuttalsBefore I begin my own arguments, however, I would like to address some of my opponent’s points. There were two main points in his argument: that transgenderism does not exist, and that the “victims” of medical interventions used to change people’s bodies to fit their minds are harmed by the therapies they receive. Pro stated that one is born as a man or a woman, and that no surgical interventions can change that. However, medical research states that one can sometimes be born with a brain that doesn’t completely match one’s body. For instance, a biological male who identifies as a female might have a brain that resembles a female brain in some ways. [1] This can cause transgender people to feel like they are controlling the wrong body. [2] As such, the notion that transgenderism itself is a fraud seems not to be based on actual fact.Pro has also stated that gender transformation therapies increase suicides and damaging psychological tendencies, and cited LiveScience, a science news journal. However, that source appears to completely contradict Pro’s claims. The source quoted medical professor Gail Knudsen, who stated that gender transformation therapies actually cause a "significant decrease in substance abuse problems and depression” among transgender individuals, and the journal attributes suicides not to the therapy, but rather to discrimination and social stigma. [2] This was an egregious misrepresentation of the source by Pro.Constructive caseBenefits to patientsCarrying out medical procedures that help people improve their lives more than they harm them is one of the major purposes of the medical and pharmaceutical industry. It is necessary that these procedures are not blocked by authorities, as doing so would stop doctors from doing their jobs. As such, if I demonstrated that the therapy was effective in making patients feel better about themselves without too much harm, I would demonstrate that the therapy ought to be permitted. Through a study from Sweden, we can see that gender reassignment procedures improve the lives of those receiving them; the majority of participants in the study functioned better than before they received treatment. [3] The APA endorses the therapy for gender-dysphoric people. [4] For transgender people, the treatment can make their bodies feel more like their own; it allows them to change their bodies to fit their brains. This demonstrates that the therapy ought to be allowed; doing otherwise would hinder doctors and psychiatrists from helping their clients. Even if it were harmful, we still ought to allow themMany, if not all, legally permitted medical procedures have their harms. The general procedure in the medical community for potentially risky medical procedures is informed consent, in which patients are informed about the risks of procedures that they would take and then decide to consent to doing them. Convention dictates that even if gender reassignment therapy were risky, it should still be allowed on a case-by-case basis with informed consent, with the patient and the doctor discussing about whether the therapy is a proper choice. Otherwise, consistency would dictate that practically every medical procedure needs to be banned: every procedure, from chemotherapy to brain surgeries, has its risks. Let’s assume that gender reassignment therapy is harmful. In the status quo, patients seeking the therapy are able to go to regulated practitioners and receive it in a system that is under governmental scrutiny; this significantly reduces any risks that may be incurred from it. Patients usually receive psychological counselling to ensure that the procedure is right for them. Under pro’s proposal, the therapy would be banned, but there would still be demand for it; patients may choose to receive the therapy overseas or in shady back-alleys, without any governmental scrutiny over safety, entailing all kinds of risks. Worse yet, a patient may decide to take the therapy when he has no actual gender dysphoria, and this would not be stopped by psychological counselling, as without safety regulations, there would be none. ConclusionIn this debate, I have demonstrated that gender reassignment therapies are a benefit to patients, and that banning them would entail a whole host of risks. I have also adequately addressed all of my opponent’s points, one of which, as I have revealed, was based on a misrepresentation of a source. As such, I urge you to vote for me, as although both sides have presented well-thought out arguments, I have clearly on the high ground in terms of accuracy and logic. Thank you. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://www.livescience.com...[3]http://link.springer.com...[4]http://link.springer.com...

Hello fellow debaters! I am quite new to Debate.org and this is my first debate. I am also quite new to debating and I see this site as a chance to improve my skill and have fun at the same time. Without further ado: I believe that girls and boys should be required in their Physical Education classes to do the same amount of exercise. There have been famous athletes in both genders. According to nextgenjournal.com the number of female athletes outnumbered males on the 2012 Olympic U.S. team. I believe this proves that girls can do just as well as boys in gym classes.

Thanks!!! Also, do you mind explaining your 3rd point please because don't you need a lot of training for all sports0

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,

Your response fails to adress the issue. Yor arguments are all of the ad populem falacy and presume unsupported premises. The law in the US permits it.