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

Performance-Enhancing Drugs in Professional Sports: A Risk to Athletes' Health

Performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) are increasingly prevalent in professional sports, putting athletes at risk. Despite the availability of advanced technology and training methods that can enhance athletic performance without compromising health, some athletes turn to PEDs for an unfair advantage. This not only undermines the spirit of competition but also poses significant health risks.

Athletes already have access to sophisticated training techniques and equipment, such as scientific diets, altitude simulation tents, and supplements that optimize their genetically superior bodies. These methods are legal and effective in improving performance. However, PEDs, which can lead to improved strength, speed, and endurance, make the sport more compelling for both athletes and spectators. Yet, these substances can have detrimental effects on health.

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) highlights the dangers of steroid use, including mood swings, reduced sperm counts, heart damage, and masculinization in women. These health risks are just the tip of the iceberg, as PEDs can cause a multitude of other problems that could end an athlete's career. Despite this, some athletes may be tempted to use PEDs to enhance their physical capabilities and reduce the likelihood of injury.

The essence of sports is competition, driven by talent, dedication, and excellence. Every sport has its boundaries, and PEDs blur these lines. When athletes resort to PEDs, they lose sight of why they started playing the sport in the first place. The love of the game and the competitive spirit should be the driving forces, not artificial enhancements. However, PEDs can provide athletes with a false sense of security, allowing them to train longer and harder, which can lead to overexertion and injury.

To ensure the safety and integrity of sports, PEDs should remain illegal. Athletes have access to safe and effective methods to improve their performance, and the risks associated with PEDs far outweigh any potential benefits. The spirit of competition and the love of the game should be the guiding principles in sports, not the pursuit of an unfair advantage through the use of performance-enhancing drugs.

K, good job, I'm enjoying this. Rebuttal to opponent: 1: The sanctions were never meant to punish these men. The men DIRECTLY involved have been punished and marked for life. The sanctions were for Penn State, b/c Penn State itself failed. It failed to report the crimes that went on in its own football facilities. Penn State failed to stop a child molester out of fear of bad publicity. The university, sad and as unfortunate as it is, must take responsibility for what happened in its buildings for its football team. And the sanctions in regard to Paterno did affect him. The last and perhaps most powerful part of him left, his legacy, is obliterated for good. When people speak of Joe Paterno, they will speak of a coach who cared more about football than people. (This part was half serious half for a good laugh. Its true his legacy is damaged, but whether or not he cares, wherever he is, I don't know.) 2: I want to make it clear that I do feel sympathetic to the Penn State players, and to a lesser degree the Nittany Lion nation. (I feel less sympathy for the B10. It will function just fine with Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Michigan State, etc.) They were innocent, yet they are being punished. These players will never go to a bowl game again. These fans will live with this for the next 4 years. Yet, they were an unfortunate casualty of something bigger than themselves. They were caught in the crossfire of all this madness. But this does not mean the sanctions were unneeded. What happened at Penn State was vile, that me and my opponent fully agree with. However, as I said, a penance had to be exacted for the magnitude of these crimes. These fans and players, through no fault of their own, were caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. Its a bad circumstance, but the sanctions are still necessary. And the argument that this will destroy Penn State football is completely baseless. We have no way of determining what this team will do in four years. They could band together and be stronger than ever before. Many current players have not indicated they will leave, despite the fact they may do so without penalties(1). Plus, the current recruiting class is ranked 16th in the nation by ESPN, in spite of the sanctions(2). I have a hard time buying that Penn State will become a new Vanderbilt for the Big 10. (and as you can see by my avatar for this site, that statement took some pain to say) 3: Speculation. The university has made no comment to anything of cutting scholarships, wages, or anything else.(unless you have a source saying so, in which case do share). I am reluctant to accept this as true without some evidence showing this. Even if it is true: The fine was equivalent to one year of the football programs revenue. The NCAA would be well within its rights to charge more, and this penalty, while harsh at first glance, is more or less an act of mercy upon Penn State. Sandusky did his dirty deeds over a period of nearly 5 years, and the cover up held out for longer. One year of football revenue to pay for the time these acts occurred is completely fair. And as I pointed out earlier, this scandal goes deeper than football. This went to the president of the university, which qualifies as a non-athletics position. Penn State football did not screw up, Penn State University screwed up. Yes people uninvolved were hurt, but maybe the leadership of the university should have considered this before covering up child-rape. (Its ironic they hid this to avoid bad publicity.......) My Opponent's Michael Vick analogy is flawed. The Atlanta Falcons did not discover this then hide it to save publicity. There was no cover up, and the management of the team was probably as shocked as any fan was of the events. Rebuttal to the rebuttal of my arguments: 1: Again, these sanctions were for the university, not the foul four (nice nickname, I think). The NCAA was punishing the school, and thus had every right to punish. The NCAA had to do something, and this was the only body to which they could do anything. 2: The precedent is not so much for the Sandusky's of the world, as it is for universities in general. This sends a strong message saying "Hey, you cover this up and we find out about it, your university is going to get hit HARD." NCAA sanctions mean nothing to a child rapist, but if you work in a university, are devoted to that school, than these sanctions will give you a reminder of possible ramifications for your actions. 3: It is obvious that my opponent severely underestimates the passion which Penn State fans hold for their football. Many fans were throwing their support behind Paterno, as we were learning that he had covered up illegal sexual acts between his coach and children! They chose his side instead of that of the victims! That is definitely deserving of a cult status. Now, I am a proud fan of Vanderbilt University. I love the black and gold playing on a Saturday night, where the cool air is broken only by a sea of fans and a good hit from some football pads. Yet, I could in no way support James Franklin (HC at Vanderbilt) if he had let his coach rape a child. This is because I (hopefully) can put my football fandom in perspective. The fans at PSU didn't call for Sandusky's head because he was long gone by then. Most of them probably never knew his name. They did call for JoePa to not be punished. They were outraged when he was fired. JoePa will still have a long legacy for himself (started PSU job in 66), plus the wins are purely official. We all know who won those games, the history books will just have an atserik next to them saying, "vacated because of NCAA sanctions". And unfortunately the CULTure at Penn State went beyond fans. the leaders of the school kept this a secret because they were protecting the football program. It was all about football. This was all for the dear love of Penn state football. And the statue had reasons for being removed. Like it or not, Paterno became a symbol of sexual abuse of children. Keeping it would have been an unnecessary point of contention for the university. I do want to take a moment to say that there were (are) some very sane PSU fans. Yet there was an alarmingly high number of them who were/are not. And I would hope if we found out a president was a child molester, we would be somewhat reluctant to picture him as a great hero. So ultimately, the NCAA had to step in and lay down the law for a school which had grossly overstepped the bounds of morality and decency. It was forced to respond when its member institution put football ahead of humans. More importantly, it did NOT levy the death penalty, giving PSU a hope, however slight it may be. If anything is encouraging, it is the healing that has already begun. The fans and players are staying loyal and making it through. Good for them. Con, I pass the baton. Put your game face on and then move your pawn (see what I did there ??) NOTE: I am sorry if my feeble attempts at humor are met with distaste. I simply find debates tend to be somewhat too formal and rigid. Human beings were made to laugh. I mean no disrespect at all, I just tried to be a little lively. Nevertheless, should my opponent find my conduct improper, I will become as funny and personable as Joseph Stalin. 2nd NOTE: Is it odd you get points here for spelling when you have a spell check button at the bottom of the screen? I feel this nullifies the spelling points a bit. 1)http://www.washingtonpost.com... 2)http://insider.espn.go.com...

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 I agree with my opponent on general principle, I also think there could be cases that are exceptions to his claim. 1)The player may have won the game before and rather than go through all of the work again, they use the cheats. 2)The cheats may allow you to do things that cannot otherwise be done when playing the game without them. 3)They may find it fun to play in god mode sometimes. 4)Maybe the are just slow mentally and need some help, but their manhood is fully in check.

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

The first reason why chess should not be considered an Olympic sport is it is purely mental. I am saying that the Olympics are all about athleticism. The Olympics according to the Greeks anyway are about athletic perfection or arete. Due to the expanding nature of the mind, one cannot have a perfect chess game. Also where would it be placed in the Olympics? I"m not referring to location. I am talking about whether it would belong in the summer or the winter due to the indoor nature of sanctioned competition. Further, chess is not a team sport neither in the classical or modern Olympics sense. Who would watch over competition? Who will be the governing body in Olympic chess? These are the question and answers s that prevent chess from being an Olympic sport.

I will be speaking of the following supplements: Thermogenics (fat Burners), creatine (specifically monohydrate), protein, testosterone boosters, BCAA's, growth hormone supplements and anabolic steroids. I will once again state that I am not against the use of performance enhancing supplements but there is a big however. There are many factors as to why the listed supplements can be more harmful than beneficial to the individual also not necessary seeing how at that age the body is still developing and still producing necessary hormones to keep up with activities, from sedentary to rigorous. Supplements that promise not only faster results but better results influence the attitude that hard work comes secondary to the type of supplements you are taking in. All of the ingredients that supplements offer (proteins, amino acids, and vitamins) can be adequately provided with a healthy diet. Our food supply provides a unique balance that cannot be duplicated by taking any combination of supplements. In addition, eating is one of life's pleasures. However, it is evident by supplement sales totaling over $23.7 billion a year that much is invested in the hope that supplements will help. [1] The body also treats the listed supplements above as "synthetic". For example to effectively load creatine monohydrate in the body the user must not only take increased amounts for the first 5 days but must also continue a consistent regiment of it for months at a time to start seeing noticeable results. [2] Over time the body will slowly cease to producing natural ATP (ingredient found in creatine, transfers chemical energy to promote metabolism). Once the individual decides to cease taking creatine he/she faces the consequences increased muscle deterioration due to the fact that the body must fight to catch up producing natural chemicals. The same goes for protein supplements, testosterone, and fat burners (if requested either by the voters or Con I will gladly go into detail). Collectively these supplements also strain vital organs due to the difficulty of digestion. The two in particular being the kidneys and liver take the brunt of the damage. According to Mayo Clinic, the kidneys and liver work to eliminate the by-products of protein metabolism, and may be taxed by the overuse of protein shakes and similar products. Over an extended period of time, protein shakes can damage the liver or kidneys, or may worsen pre-existing cases of organ failure. [3] Thermogenics, and pre-workout supplements combined also quickly dehydrate the body seeing how they are both packed with doses of up to 200mg of caffeine in their products. [4] This is not including the energy drinks, coffee, and other stimulants the individual may be taking daily. With BCAA's (Branched chain Amino Acids) the body must undergo rigorous amounts of training to adequately balance the amount of BCAA's being digested into the body. Once again both essential and nonessential amino acids can be provided through a healthy diet. The majority of these supplements offer some portion of BCAA's. Research has shown that massive amounts of BCAA's can be harmful to the liver. [5] Let's talk about anabolic steroids; I will say that there are large quantities of evidence those anabolic steroids to provide medicinal benefits to those who need it (i. e. muscular dystrophy, patients with low T cells, COPD, and other hormone deficiencies) however this is not the argument. The potential for abuse increases drastically of those using AS recreationally. Not only that the lack of education of AS can lead significant medical complications due to higher risk of misuse dosages. Another study combined methyltestosterone (15 mg/d) with imipramine (25-50 mg/d) and found a prompt paranoid response in 4 of 5 men treated. In a 1983 study of 32 weightlifters using AASs, 56% reported a temporary increase in self-defined irritability and aggressive behavior. When these psychoactive effects combine with strong positive reinforcement from weight and strength gains, as well as from improved self-image, AASs can prove addictive. [6] [1] . http://www.ext.colostate.edu... [2] . http://reference.medscape.com... [3] . http://www.livestrong.com... [4] . http://www.gnc.com... [5] . http://www.health24.com... [6] . http://emedicine.medscape.com...

I am going to be arguing that boxing is a dangerous sport which not only causes severe injury but also encourages violence among youth. I will post each premise of the argument below and a defence underneath. 1) Boxing causes severe damage Andy often deaths to those who participate in it. I think this premise is quite obvious. But just many deaths are there in boxing each year? The website www.livestrong.com had this to say: "In the journal article entitled "Boxing -- Acute Complications and Late Sequalae," Hans Forstl, M.D. and his team of researchers in Germany reported that there have been an average of 10 boxing deaths per year since 1900. Of these deaths, over 80 percent were due to head and neck injuries suffered in the ring". One might be tempted to say that the above figure if ten deaths per year is quite small in conparasent to other sports. Even if that were true the amount of people who die is irrelevant. All that matters is that there is one death(which shows the sport is too very violent). 2) Boxing encourages violence among youth. This premise is also relatively obvious. If kids see their favourite boxer on Tv beating the other boxer to a pulp and being celebrated for it they will want to aspire tonne like their hero. 3) Therefore boxing should not be played.

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.

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.

Sorry to get back so late as i am a busy man these days with training. I see my opponent has got the personal attack game accomplished with his little "Furthermore, who cares what kind you like?", well who the hell cares about your existence? Anyways. 1. I never said the F.D.A. is banning it. At all. The Title is The F.D.A. SHOULD NOT ban flavored dip. Never said they ARE or going to. The title does not imply that they Will, but the PROPOSED BAN DOES. 2. My opponent's 3'rd argument is extremely improper."you will most likely try more because your body wants the nicotine." I know many people who have dipped both flavored and non flavored dip, and have never dipped again, although the nicotine was in their system. Also the guy who left the first comment on this debate can agree too. 3. My opponents 4'th so called "point" was that i did not provide any evidence. This is correct. This is common sense. All about morality bub. 4. My opponent must also be a stickler about technicalities also. He tried quoting me and failed at that, but, 10 out of 10 people i see dip. My whole platoon dips. So therefore everyone i see and am surrounded by in the USMC dips. 5. My opponents little "Contention" was one of the most hysterical things i have ever seen. Bub. First off it is just the flavor. Fruits arent the only dip flavors bub. There is wintergreen, mint, whiskey, bourbon. Bub the reason they are fruit flavored is because most people like that instead of the burn from the hardcore dips. There is no reason to ban flavored dips because 24 kids might try that instead of a straight dip


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

Performance-enhancing drugs should be accepted in sports.

Firstly, steroids provide athletes with the ability to recover faster from workouts, enabling them to train harder and more frequently. Studies have shown that short-term use of anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) can result in an increase of 2-5 kg in body weight, primarily due to an increase in lean muscle mass. Animal studies have also demonstrated a reduction in fat mass, although this effect is less pronounced in humans. Steroids have been found to increase muscle fiber size, particularly in type I muscle fibers of the vastus lateralis and trapezius muscle, and these effects can persist for more than 6-12 weeks after cessation of AAS use. Additionally, strength improvements in the range of 5-20% of baseline strength have been observed, with the most significant improvements in exercises such as the bench press.

Moreover, a randomized controlled trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that a 10-week strength training program accompanied by testosterone enanthate at 600 mg/week improved strength more than training alone, even in novice athletes. The same study found that this dose was sufficient to significantly increase lean muscle mass in subjects who did not exercise at all. A subsequent study in 2001 showed that the anabolic effects of testosterone enanthate were highly dose-dependent.

The argument that sports should be a measure of an athlete's natural talent and dedication is flawed. Steroids can actually increase the amount of time an athlete can train, as they recover faster from workouts. Judging the athletic prowess of a person enhanced with steroids is different from judging their natural ability. However, this does not mean that testing the athletic prowess of people enhanced with drugs is without merit. Ensuring fairness by monitoring that every athlete in a given sport is taking the same amount of the same drug could preserve fairness. However, this would corrupt the sport and make it virtually impossible for someone who doesn't take the drug to go pro when everyone else is using drugs.

The claim that steroids show the affinity of players, as they are willing to take risks to succeed in something they love, is misguided. Long-term and permanent damage should not be mandatory for professional athletes, and watching people harm their bodies for recreational purposes is not something that should be encouraged.

Although steroids are harmful to the user's body, they are no more harmful than smoking and alcohol, which are not outlawed. Athletes are aware of the risks associated with taking steroids, and they

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. .

i guess we can continue and talk about how it is a sport...lol

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

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

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!

Contention 1: Public opinion I agree with my opponent that people usually tend to enjoy violence. Despite this, he ignores that 70% of soccer fans are happy with the way the sport is played, 15% disagree with the referee system and 5% disagree with other issues (1.000 people of different nationalities were questioned for this poll), this proves that very few fans support the resolution and therefore the negative is the one that has public opinion on it's side. I will repeat that if people want to see violence they can go to a wrestling match and if they want to see soccer they can go to a soccer match. Contention 2: Violence My opponent agrees with my point. He also states that children would in fact be encouraged to have fights in the playground I also agree. Finally he says that this is better than knifes and guns (???); this is irrelevant because soccer as we know it today does not promote gun usage etc, neither will gun usage nor knifes be limited because violence will be promoted, although the opposite is possible. Contention 3: Red Cards. My opponent says that we should let the sport evolve. His point is completely irrelevant to my contention that in a nutshell states that it would be hypocritical to ban players (red cards) who are violent and on the other hand give the win to the most violent team. Despite this, I will answer to his supposed counter argument. - I agree we should let the sport evolve, but we should let it evolve positively and promoting violence, going against public opinion and creating grudges between players is NOT positive. Contention 4: Grudges My opponent gives an example in failed attempt to counter my contention. I think we all remember what huge trouble the word cup incident caused to Manchester United, Ronaldo came close to leaving the club! All this turbulance occurred without there being an actual fight, we can imagine what would have happened to United and any other club in a similar position, if there was a fight. Contention 5: Penalties are thrilling My opponent starts by saying that penalties, effect fans with high blood pressure. In addition to this being a weak counter argument, I believe that a fight wouldn't really change the situation. He continues by saying that players like Joey Barton would be on the England squad. This is definitely not a good thing, one of the latest comments on the YouTube link my opponent provides is that Joey Barton is a bad example, I agree to this. Remember that the England national team is a SOCCER team and should have players who play SOCCER not people who fight, this is yet another problem of the affirmative, soccer would lose meaning, since clubs would hire fighters rather than football players. "Soccer has a proud heritage of violence – football and hooliganism go together like salt and pepper – it's an integral part of the game and people that don't want to see violence can always watch cricket instead." - False, violence is NOT part of the game itself, because violent players and teams whose fans are violent are punished by the rules. As for hooliganism, it is definitely a bad thing and serious measures to stop it have been made. Those responsible for the game (FIFA) and tournaments, as well as the game itself object to violence. Therefore violence is not part of the game, to the contrary it something the game objects to.

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...

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.

I don't know of a single sport whose athletes would not be able to effectively argue points as to why their particular sport is "better." However, given your supporting argument, I'm personally having a hard time even understanding which side of this argument you're on, given that the title says that Rhythmic/Artistic gymnastics are "better than any other sport," but your argument seems to be against that claim. Perhaps you should clarify your actual stance in the next round so we can have a more legitimate debate.

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...


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

The use of performance-enhancing drugs for athletes should be legalized.
PEDs should continue to be prohibited. The concept of performance-enhancing drugs is to boost immediate performance, which provides an unfair advantage to those athletes in a specific sport who are not using such substances. This undermines the meritocratic nature of sports by elevating those who are not deserving to the top, thus distorting the competitive balance.

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.

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

I don't know of a single sport whose athletes would not be able to effectively argue points as to why their particular sport is "better." However, given your supporting argument, I'm personally having a hard time even understanding which side of this argument you're on, given that the title says that Rhythmic/Artistic gymnastics are "better than any other sport," but your argument seems to be against that claim. Perhaps you should clarify your actual stance in the next round so we can have a more legitimate debate.

Intro: Judge, my name is Santa288 and I am on the Opposition side of this debate. Arguing that Russia"s punishment was a perfect punishment and that it should not be taken away. Russia has been punished before. In 2008 7 Russian Track athletes manipulated urine samples, they were suspended. In 2010 20 Russian athletes partake in widespread doping. They were all banned In 2014 was the first example of government sponsoring Russian Doping. Which led to the Russian head of athletics being banned and the Russian doping experts were also banned. In 2015 40 Russian Athletes participated in widespread, coach-sponsored doping that led to 40 athletes suspended, the Russian head of athletics banned, the top russian coach was banned and the russian anti-doping foundation was banned. And now (2018) 51 Russian athletes were caught participating in widespread, government-sponsored doping. Russia was banned from the olympics. Source: "Doping Scandal:Wasa to decide whether or not Russia is in compliance with the code by Rachel Axon on USA today. Russian athletics officials supplied banned substances in exchange for 5% of an athlete's earnings and falsified tests together with doping control officers Mariya Savinova saying that contacts at a Moscow drug-testing laboratory had covered up her doping Russian long-distance runner Liliya Shobukhova allegedly paid 450,000 euros to cover up her positive doping result. Reviewing 7289 blood samples from 2737 athletes from 2001 to 2009, a report found that the number of suspicious samples from "Country A" notably exceeded other countries. According to the study, that country was Russia Judge, what do you do when a child keeps on not listening to you? You impose harsher and harsher punishments until they do. It is Russia"s own fault that they got banned, and they need to learn not to use performance-enhancing drugs Russian Athletes can still compete 51 Russian athletes took part in the widespread doping scandal that was supported by the government There are 9 athletes who did not (CNN by David Stokes) If those 9 athletes pass clean, then they can still compete in the olympics They would compete under the name of Olympic Athlete from Russia Therefore, the athletes who did nothing wrong are not punished and are still able to compete There are 1186 athletes who are clean and have done nothing wrong. There is a majority of clean athletes (99.5%) Why should the 99.5% of clean athletes lose medals to those who used drugs? (olympics.org) 95% of the time, when doping is used, those dopers score much higher than those who do not dope (Statista) Russia costs the IOC millions of dollars When Russia was being investigated for the widespread doping, th IOC was forced to spend 10 million dollars Russia being banned is punishment for both that and the doping. (Statista) Therefore judge, if the proposition says that it was unwarranted from 1 of those things, there are 2 causes to the punishments. Russia should be happy they are not getting double the punishment then what they got in 2015! Outro: Judge, my name is Santa288 and this is why the Opposition should win this debate.

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

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.)

We live in a capitalistic society. Under capitalism, a person is paid capital slightly less than the profit that the employer thinks he will receive upon hiring the employee. Such is the exact same with sports [1]. The reason sports athletes are paid so much is because they are able to produce so much profit. Alex Rodriguez was obviously predicted to increase the revenue of the Yankees by millions, which naturally made a salary of millions seem reasonable. Society put this power in A-Rod's hands by deciding to pay more for games involving the skill of Alex Rodriguez; Alex Rodriguez produced lots of profit, and therefore deserved a portion of the profit he helped his employer receive. My opponent compares athletes to teachers, firefighters, and police officers. However, there are numerous reasons why they would not be paid nearly as much: 1. The competition is not as great for hiring those jobs. People don't put extreme value on how well a teacher can teach. One teacher might give a private school around $1,000 dollars more in profit per year over another teacher. Therefore, it would not make sense to give the better teacher an offer that is more than $1,000 over the offer to the other teacher. Parents would not be willing to pay the tuition for a private school that paid $2 million to every teacher. 2. Athletes appeal to a greater audience. When a police station hires policemen, only the local population is concerned about the skill of their police force. Let's say that in one city of 15,000 people, there are 30 working policemen. In order to pay the policemen $2 million each, the city would overall have to be taxed $60 million. This would amount to $4,000 per person. However, people are not willing to pay $4,000 of their own money in taxes towards their local police force. Therefore, a $2 million salary would be completely unreasonable. Meanwhile, an athlete appeals to a much greater audience. Millions of people are watching sports every day. Millions of dollars pour into the sports industry every day. If there are one million Yankee fans in the United States who would be willing to see A-Rod play over another player, and they each pay $50 over the course of the season (through tickets, refreshments, TV stations, advertisements, etc.), the Yankees profit $50 million off of A-Rod. A-Rod then receives about half of that. Finally, my opponent brings up the president. The president does not make $200,000 per year, but $400,000 [2], in addition to other various goodies such as expensive plane trips on Air Force One. The job of president is not determined by capitalism, but by democracy. Therefore, capitalistic principles cannot apply. If the government were to work under capitalism, we'd see presidents making more money, and probably being more successful. Blame democracy. In conclusion, capitalism justifies the high salaries of athletes. Good luck, ilovedebate. 1. http://tinyurl.com... 2. http://tinyurl.com...

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.

I'd like to say I'm glad that you're not trying to be rude. In the following argument, if anything is perceived as rude, I am not trying to be, just like you said. Anything that seems insulting honestly isn't, because I see that we are both trying to be mature about this, and I respect that. It's not always easy to find on a website like this. I disagree that the wording is awful- I just didn't go into description. When I said "School sports are taking up too much time" I meant that we are arguing about how much time kids have to do it. I wasn't focusing solely on the sport itself- I was talking about a sport participant's personal time (meaning sports are taking too much time in their personal life). Were you ignorant on this topic? The reason I did not provide statistics was because I supposed the debate was not going to continue. If we both agree that our points were "bad and atrocious" (I don't think mine are, and I'm sure you don't think yours are), I'm sure we can agree to disagree. It's only fair, of course. I thought of "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" as something that was describing my argument- that sports were not taking up too much time (it was explaining why they should continue, which was describing continuing, which was describing the sports, which I am fighting for. I suppose that is an argument in the past, so we can put that behind us). Now I suppose we can get back to just arguing points. I will argue your points and I will also state my own. Arguing Opponent's Points: 1. "Kids won't do their homework." I think that if sports are taking up a kid's homework time, they should be punished. I do not think that this is a reason that it takes up too much time. Many students can find time. There are ways that they an be punished for not doing their homework that isn't making them quit sports. They can find time to do their homework. In fact, many schools have study halls- some even let students have an extra study hall in place of P.E. or another additional activity. They can also find time to do their homework on days they don't have sports (because they don't have it every day, and if they did that would be solved by the school, because they can solve it interfering with schoolwork), such as going to school on the weekends (or if they're at home, they can do it there). My Points: 1. Sports can actually help students with school. Let me explain. How many kids have had problems because of social issues at school? A lot- so many you can't count. Think about it. Sports are an excellent way to find new friends and bond with teammates. This will help a student make friends, which is a social problem solved. 2. Sports can help a student make friend, which can stop bullying. Many students think that they are alone in bullying. With a friend, they can have someone support them. I get that you were not trying to offend me. We're okay on that now. Instead of saying attack, maybe we can use terms such as argue? It would seem more friendly if, say, instead of saying "You're arguments are bad" we could say "I don't agree with them." Hopefully we can both agree to be friendly while arguing! To readers: I think you should vote for my (con) side because I thought I had very valid arguments. There are no problems and we can continue this debate in a friendly, non-offensive way! :-) Go Con Side!

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.


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

Performance-enhancing drugs should be accepted in sports as they level the playing field and reduce health risks associated with black market substances.

The debate over legalizing performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) in sports is often framed as a moral issue, but it's important to recognize that the current system is already flawed. Sports aren't about equality, as winners and losers are determined by a combination of inherent abilities and resources. If equality is the goal, sports might not be the best place to find it. The current system creates an uneven playing field, as not all athletes have access to the same training facilities, equipment, or medical treatments. The use of PEDs can help level this playing field, as they can help athletes make up for inherent disadvantages.

In addition, the black market for PEDs is a significant problem, as it leads to the use of more dangerous and expensive substances. Legalizing PEDs would make them more accessible, affordable, and safer for athletes. It would also reduce the incentive to use designer steroids and gene doping, which have unknown health risks. Each athlete accepts the health risks associated with PEDs when they choose to use them, and they should have the right to make that decision for themselves.

The argument against PEDs often focuses on the potential for increased usage, but there's no evidence to suggest that legalization would cause a significant increase. In fact, mandatory testing programs among Major League Baseball players have revealed that only 5-7% of athletes were using PEDs, which means 93-95% of athletes were able to compete at a high level without coercion. The uncertainty regarding who is using PEDs in the current system creates more pressure to use than a transparent system where everyone who does use does so openly.

Finally, the argument that PEDs are harmful to the integrity of sports is flawed. The rules of what an athlete can do to their own body have no effect on the basic rules of how a sport is played in competition. The league doesn't have a right to deny access based on an athlete's characteristics, training regimen, or nutritional intake. Legalizing PEDs would not change the fundamental nature of sports, but it would make them fairer and safer for all athletes.

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

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.

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.

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)

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:)

Barry bonds was skinny in the beggining years of his carrer and yes he was a good rookie he bulked up extremely from a twig to a giant. He used steriods to help him cheat not play but cheat. Anyone can take perfomence enhancers and do good but the ones like babe who did it with meer talent are the players who should get records. For example sammy sosa used a cork in his bat and got suspended from the game and what is the diffrence from bulking up your body or making your bat lighter. Using steriods is a way to cheat and what example is it setting to younger stars who think they cant to good unless they take steriods. Steriods are a plain cheat and anyone who cheats is never a true champion so barry bonds shouldnt get the honor of being the champion of all time homeruns

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.

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...

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?

Pro says I did not make any attempt to disprove his first opening statements, even though clearly in the 1st round it says "Con may offer rebuttals as to why he disagrees in order to help build his own case". See here it says "may". I will now counter attack all of Pros statements. It's not even about the money but it's about so many other things. Yes it's a nice idea that college athletes get paid but they're so many negative aspects to it. If the athlete were to get paid there must be a contract. Lets say this athlete goes to UCLA & signs a contract for 4 years ok? Now two years into his contract he already becomes a college basketball sensation and NBA teams want to draft him already. They can't though because he's signed to contract! Also college is for education, not to gain athletic popularity. It gives the wrong message to younger kids. These athletes are going to ask for million dollar contracts, if you thought the 30 year olds in the NFL were bad, what about a 18 year old with the chance to acquire a multi-million contract. They are just not mature enough to carry that much money. My last statement brings me to my next statement. It'll completely take away all NCAA competition and scholarships could disappear. Reason is because bigger well-known universities will have more money, a bigger reputation, etc. It would make Div 2 teams weaker because they do not have the money to buy top prospects, making it very difficult for lower teams to negotiate if they don't have the money. Now what about the female athletes? Don't forget about community college as well. Do they have to pay high school athletes as well to bribe them to accept their school and no other school? Yes athletes are a big resource to income money, but in high school that's why they have athletic program. This sets a wrong representation for college & high school athletes. College athletes ARE NOT professionals!! The reason for college is to train the athlete for next level of play. For example in football you go from little league, to higher age group, to varsity, to college to professional. Also how would this benefit other students on campus? Who's going to pay the athlete? If the college does then this could raise the tuition rate for a non-athlete. If a professional team paid the college athlete then that'd break the NCAA Benefit Rule. Also, which athletes get paid? There's tennis, soccer, baseball, chess, etc. It's not fair if only popular sports got paid. Basketball and football, the most visible of high school and college sports, have a very low percentage of athletes who play in high school and then eventually move up to the professional ranks. In men"s basketball, for example, there is only a .03% chance of a pro career. This means that of the almost 156,000 male, high school senior basketball players only 44 will be drafted to play in the NBA after college, and only 32 women (.02%) out of just over 127,000 female, high school senior players will eventually be drafted. In football the odds are slightly better, with .08% or 250 of just over 317,000 high school senior players being drafted. http://www.thesportdigest.com... Keep in mind this is just the NCAA, as the numbers are selective but in high school the number is wider because there's more opportunity. So the chances of a high school player skipping college and becoming pro is very low because they are not going to have the skills or experience from a lower level of play. How do they know if they can compete with other college level players? To wrap this up, paying college athletes would just be unjust. It would not be fair for the many reasons I've stated above. This debate is about college athletes being paid & I provide more than enough information as to why they should not be paid. My argument literally speaks for itself.