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

The debate over the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sports has a long history, dating back to the early days of the Olympics. Thomas Hicks, a marathon winner in the third Olympiad, received an injection of strychnine during the race, marking the earliest recorded use of performance-enhancing substances in modern sports. The International Amateur Athletic Federation was the first to ban "stimulating substances" in 1928. Despite regulations, the use of performance-enhancing drugs has become more prevalent and sophisticated.

The East German swimming team's dominance in the 1976 Olympics, where they won 11 out of 13 events, was later revealed to be due to the use of anabolic steroids, highlighting the effectiveness of performance-enhancing drugs. The health risks associated with these substances, along with the efforts of regulatory bodies to eliminate them, have not deterred athletes from using them. Vicky Rabinowicz's interviews with athletes revealed a belief among Olympic competitors that most successful athletes use banned substances.

The allure of success in professional sports, where elite athletes can earn millions of dollars annually, combined with the relatively minor penalties for doping, creates a strong incentive to cheat. Performance-enhancing drugs have also become more potent, with studies showing that even low doses of anabolic steroids can improve muscular strength by 5-20%. However, the rate of testing for these substances is low, with estimates suggesting that only 10-15% of participating athletes are tested in major competitions.

Kjetil Haugen's analysis of the prisoner's dilemma in sports doping suggests that unless the likelihood of being caught is significantly increased or the rewards for winning are reduced, athletes will continue to use performance-enhancing drugs. The current situation ensures that athletes are likely to cheat, despite the fact that the overall performance of athletes would be better if no one took drugs.

The use of drugs that mimic natural processes, such as erythropoietin (EPO) and growth hormone, has made detection more difficult. As technology advances, undetectable drugs will become more prevalent. Haugen's analysis predicts that athletes will choose to cheat when the risk of being caught is zero. The recent Athens Olympics saw the implementation of a global anti-doping code, with 3000 drug tests conducted, resulting in 23 athletes being found to have taken banned substances, the highest number in Olympic history.

The debate over fairness in sports is complicated by the role of genetics. Some athletes have genetic advantages that contribute to their

After reviewing the contentions, I still support the resolution. My opponent makes the assumption that we are discussing chess as an Olympic sport in the near future and this assumption is correct. I would advocate the sport for the next, or the very latest, two summer Olympics in the future 2012, 2016. Physical Chess vs. Standard Chess My opponent makes a solid argument and one that bears heavily on my Olympic proposal. Am I ruining the game just to get into the Olympics? If I submitted boxing chess then he would be correct, but I am not adding new elements, only exaggerating ones already present and codifying them in the Olympic rules. Currently, Chess tournaments can be grueling for a competitor, but the physical aspect leaves us at the highest level of competition. Top Grand Masters have become the prima donnas of the chess world. Bobby Fischer was one of the worst. Special lighting, time tables, certain types of mineral water, pieces, etc. The physical aspect is lost when all the comforts a player needs are provided. Lower levels of play, such as local and state tournaments, do not succumb to the needs of all involved. The tournaments are usually over shorter time spans so they require one to be physically ready. In addition, physical requirements have hurt prior chess masters. Mikhail Tal was such a person. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Many at the time felt if Tal would have taken better care of his physical body he would have been unstoppable. I agree. Speaking of Tal, he was known for a stare that shook his opponents (so was Lasker). Pal Benko once wore sunglasses to avoid his stare. The physical presence was there and was an advantage. The physical elements are there and under these rules, it will play a factor. The Olympic rules I propose bring the physical element back to the highest levels of play. The goal of the sport is still the same – checkmate. If my opponent can show that my new rules bastardize the sport, then I will respectfully concede. I see no need to call this physical chess, just Olympic chess. Much like we have Olympic boxing and professional boxing – they are not the same and yet both maintain the overall aspects of the sport. Olympic chess will be no different. The IOC My opponent is correct that the IOC does have to cap the number of sports and cannot allow all of them in, but their decisions are not arbitrary. They have a mission statement that guides them, and is listed on the wiki my opponent linked. . http://en.wikipedia.org... I submit that due to its violence, MMA would not make it as an Olympic sport although it is arguably one of the most physical sports in the world. Also, golf does not make it but mainly because of the burden building an 18 hole course. Countries are having trouble accommodating more and more. How does chess fare here? Very well, I think. The tournament could be held in a ball room or could be played in many local arenas; I see no need to build a stadium to house the event. Civic centers will do just fine and can have ample room for geeks like me to watch and listen to the commentators argue over the validity of Evan's Gambit. This sport is easy to accommodate. How well does supporting chess as an Olympic sport fare with the IOC's mission (edited some out due to space, and my opponent need not refute all. Picking three or so will be fine if he wishes to rebut them): 1. Encourage and support the promotion of ethics in sport as well as education of youth through sport and to dedicate its efforts to ensuring that, in sport, the spirit of fair play prevails and violence is banned; Check. No more penny ante nonsense from the grandmasters, all rules stay the same for all players. 2. Encourage and support the organization, development and coordination of sport and sports competitions; Check. The Olympic committee could setup the outlines for Olympic chess and such tournaments could be held worldwide with the new rules. 3. Cooperate with the competent public or private organizations and authorities in the endeavor to place sport at the service of humanity and thereby to promote peace; Olympic chess is a mixture of mental strength, physical stamina, and no one is killed in the process. No submission holds, or bloody faces. 4. Take action in order to strengthen the unity and to protect the independence of the Olympic Movement; No problems here and chess needs such a movement as politics have taken over the highest levels. 5. Act against any form of discrimination affecting the Olympic Movement; With Olympic chess, all countries can be represented, no problems here. 6. Encourage and support the promotion of women in sport at all levels and in all structures with a view to implementing the principle of equality of men and women; I see no need to separate men/women in Olympic chess as the physical aspects can be outweighed with mental fortitude. Men and women could play together and each would bring different mental/physical traits to the game. 7. Lead the fight against doping in sport; The article listed in Time shows a complete agreement from chess organizers to submit to drug testing for players. 8. Encourage and support measures protecting the health of athletes; Athletes will be given breaks, but part of the competition will be physical stamina. The level needed would be much lower than other sports so I see no issues here. 9. Oppose any political or commercial abuse of sport and athletes; 10. Encourage and support the efforts of sports organizations and public authorities to provide for the social and professional future of athletes; 11. Encourage and support the development of sport for all; 9,10,11: Chess is in bad need for all three and the IOC could help provide the tools. Chess is an ancient sport and one that is still viable today. The IOC could bring it back to its prior standing and encourage new players world wide. Basketball is a great example. 12. Encourage and support initiatives blending sport with culture and education; I can think of no sport that would be better suited to blend culture and education. Chess is life for some and the skills needed translate well in the academic world and can help bridge gaps between cultures. All one needs is a board and the pieces to try. Chess speaks across language barriers and its beauty is seen by all that understand the game. For the above mentioned reasons, and in light of my learned opponent's contentions, chess should be chosen as an Olympic sport by the IOC. This is the one "mind game" with the applicable physical aspects to represent the prowess of the human mind in connection with physical stamina. Thank you, Sherlockmethod.

People have cosmetic surgery to fix "imperfections" and enhance their outer beauty. But we cannot answer what perfection is and to what lengths people will go to achieve "perfection". According to WebMD.com, most people who have a cosmetic surgery once, are likely to have another. This need for perfection and enhancement can lead to addiction to plastic surgery, therefore to avoid this, plastic surgery should be banned.

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

I can not agree with you, because as I know, sport always helped, helps and will help promote health. For example to take an old people, who are over 60, for what they are do exercises and jogging? To be in good shape and to strengthen their immune system. Or people wake up a bit earlier for what? To do a stretching, to temper their body.

1) Plain and simple; people sign up for this. People are KNOWINGLY risking their health for something they enjoy. Banning this sport would be a violation of the three basic unalienable rights for us, "Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS." Banning the sport wouldn't hold up in court. A lawyer can bring this up and win and shut down the case immediately. 2) You don't, "promote," violence. Violence is inherited as we are hunters and gatherers. It is within our genes to be violent. It is not something that is, "learned."

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

I 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.

Idk, the list on the right of the of the page showed your name. So, be happy you're famous! :D To start, i in no way advocate the use of drugs. I'm sorry if i don't hit every point of the debate or make multiple points in one of the numbered topics, but hopefully you'll have a wonderful rebuttal waiting for me! Basically: 1: More people use drugs when they are illegal. Historically this has been the case. For instance, in the 1920s alcohol was illegal. During that time you had the Al Capons, his men bootlegged alcohol from Belgium and Holland. Their were increased car accidents, crime, and consumption of alcohol. All of the effects i listed decreased dramatically after the passing of the 21st amendment. There is no single compilation of Prohibition statistics which would enable us to determine the degree of success which Prohibition enjoyed during its lifetime. In the Netherlands, where Marijuana is legal, you have less people using it there than you do here (percentage wise) where it's illegal. 2: The "Gateway Drug" theory is a myth. One of the most addictive drugs in the country is nicotine, and no one ever calls nicotine a gateway drug. The man buying marijuana can't get the marijuana from the store like he would if it were legal. He must go through the drug dealer, with the dirty needles, harder drugs, high prices, and crime associates. You don't see the bartender selling alcohol to kids, or else he would lose his liquor license. 3: Making an item illegal does not eliminate it, it merely causes the people who want it to get it in the worse manner possible. Thus, creating a black market. Prohibiting behavior people find "bad" is silly. Why not make sky diving illegal then? It's dangerous too. 4: People who use drugs now will continue to use if they're legal or not. What stops drug use is awareness. It is unlikely that if meth were suddenly legalized tomorrow that i would want to go and purchase meth. 5: Arresting drug is not a solution. Arresting someone who's been using heroin, who may have never committed a violent crime in the past. Spending money to house them, feed them, and clothe them for ridiculous sentences (50,60 year sentences) costs nearly $47,102 [http://www.lao.ca.gov...] a year. Yet, serial killers get released before they do, and often the drug users come out of prison as hardened criminals. 6: Since what i have stated above is true, this would mean the comsumption of drugs that are illegal is at it's highest point now. Which means that continuing the drug war will do nothing to improve conditions. My solution: Regulate illegal drugs like alcohol, the drug war is a failure

As you can see, my opponent has forfieted a round as well. Drug legalization is a stupid idea to be honest, because it will a big danger to humans, and will also cause a large death rate due to people using drugs in the wrong way.

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.


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

Athletes Using Performance-Enhancing Drugs Should be Excluded from the Hall of Fame

I concur that while anabolic steroids don't necessarily hasten recovery, Human Growth Hormone (HGH) is often used by athletes with the intention of accelerating healing. Regardless of HGH's potential benefits or drawbacks, it is categorized as an illegal substance by Major League Baseball. The rationale behind athletes' PED usage is irrelevant; what matters is that these substances were prohibited, and those who used them should face consequences. Observing the all-time home run leaders in MLB, it's striking that three out of the top ten have been implicated in PED use, with a fourth, Barry Bonds, the home run king, rumored but not officially caught. Seven of the top 25 players have PED links. These individuals should not be inducted into the Hall of Fame alongside the hundreds of players who maintained the integrity of the game. [1] [2] [3]

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'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. .

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...

I am currently a high school student taking a debate course and this is my debate topic. Thought I could test out my arguments here before I present them in class. I will allow my opponent first shot. In round two I will post my opening speech and rebuttal. I accept all challengers. Cheers.

Thanks to C_N for his response and also his apology regarding the initial heated exchange in the forum thread. Although I was quite taken aback by his remarks at the time, I have realised that I was partially responsible for escalating things and would like to re-assure him that there are no hard feelings on my part. ___ Rather than any scientific argument about what could potentially cause black people to be physically superior, C_N seems to have argued his position based solely on a few hand picked statistics. Rather than showing "a stronger correlation [between?] black ancestry and physical prowess then there is between white ancestry and physical prowess" all that these statistics suggest is that individual black people have performed better in a few particular sporting disciplines. I don't see how such correlation goes anywhere towards proving the resolution. As any amateur logician knows, correlation does not imply causality, and even if it did, it would be a simple task for me to present alternative statistics proving the success of white athletes in other fields, swimming and ice hockey being obvious examples. ___ 1. Heavyweight boxing. 1) It is indeed a fact that black American boxers have dominated the heavyweight division of boxing for decades but C_N claims this statistic proves his assertion without giving any reason why. Why, if they are so superior do they not dominate other sporting disciplines, or indeed other boxing weight divisions, in the same way? As well as strength and reflexes, boxing of course requires a great deal of technique, concentration, strategy and decisiveness, all mental factors rather than physical ones. Boxing is not street brawling, or a mere contest of strength, it is an art and a science. 2) C_N accepts the "valid point" that white people dominate power lifting, and I think it is clear that this is a much less mentally demanding sport than boxing. I would wholeheartedly agree that "it is not certain that this is due to biology or sociology" but fail to understand why C_N reaches this conclusion about such a purely physical sport, while insisting that the success of black boxers is due to inherent physical superiority. This seems like a logical inconsistency to me, if it's unclear with power lifting, it is surely unclear with boxing too. If black people are inherently physically superior, why do they not dominate a straight forward contest of brute strength like power lifting? 3) C_N recognises that certain social backgrounds can contribute to boxing success but seeks to dismiss this as a factor in the success of black boxers for the reason that non-black people also live in similar conditions. Black people are on the lowest rung of the poverty ladder in America, http://www.infoplease.com... this table shows levels from 1975 to the present, with the average black person consistently around three times more likely to live in poverty than their white counterpart, I would assume the difference to be even more noticable prior to that. As well as basic socio-economic factors to take into consideration, there are many more subtle cultural factors, harder to measure, but just as real. Pre-civil rights legislation, employees were free to openly discriminate on the basis of race, and even after this, on-going prejudice continues to profoundly affect the job prospects of black Americans. http://www.questia.com... http://hum.sagepub.com... Let's face it, one has to be pretty desperate to choose a career that involves being hit in the head repeatedly by an 18 stone man and those white people born into poverty had much more reason to be optimistic about other avenues of employment. Some popular sports such as baseball and basketball were segregated at the beginning of the timeline C_N refers to and so gifted and ambitious black athletes were more likely to select a sport like boxing where they would be able to compete at the highest level. The success of black boxers from the time of Johnson to the time of Ali was also surely a great inspiration to young black boys who finally saw a black man beating a white man at something and encouraged them into the sport. There are many successful hispanic American boxers, the most well known perhaps being Oscar De La Hoya, their lack of success in the heavyweight division doesn't seem relevant to the debate to me, they are not white or black according to the definitions we have. Regarding poverty they are less likely to live in poverty than black people (although more than white) and they of course make up a much smaller percentage of the US population, although this trend is changing in recent years http://www.infoplease.com... Perhaps superficial ethnic differences make hispanic men shorter on average and therefore less able to bulk up enough while maintaining tone. The important thing to consider about C_N's assumptions about heavyweight boxing, is that he is referring to the exploits of a few individuals in one weight class, of one sport that is not by any means a purely physical sport. His conclusions are baseless. ___ 2. The Olympics C_N links a table of Olympic achievements modified for GDP, claiming that the positions held by Zimbabwe and Jamaica support the racial superiority claims but this is wildly misleading. As the source itself acknowledges, Zimbabwe's score "reflect[s] more than anything else the collapse of their economy under Mugabe's rule" and how do the success of Mongolia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Armenia etc. fit in with the race argument? The problem with modifying for population in this way is that a few outstanding achievements by individuals can propel a nation higher up the ranking with less statistical significance. It is also interesting to note that in the modified-by-population graph, the only predominantly black nation apart from Jamaica that makes an appearance, is its geographical neighbour, the islands of Trinidad and Tobago. Jamaica is indeed an exceptionally successful Olympic nation, but I would argue the main reason for this is the huge cultural emphasis Jamaicans place on sport in general and on athletics in particular. This BBC video is a good demonstration of how seriously athletics is taken in Jamaica, school age competitions can attract 30,000 spectators in a country of less than 3 million people. http://news.bbc.co.uk... The "statistical anomaly" C_N refers to, concerns just two individual countries and covers so many unknown variables and obvious cultural and economic conditions that it has no significance at all. If this is the best statistical evidence C_N could find to support his position, it should tell him something about his beliefs. ___ 3. Football I don't know what 7 players Cereb is referring to, but I believe that Ferdinand, James, Lennon and Cole all have one white parent and would therefore be excluded from his definition of a black person. In any case a disproportionate member of black footballers again says nothing about inherent physical superiority. It shows a cultural trend for interest in a specific sport, notably one that requires little equipment and is accessible to all. Where are the disproportionate numbers of black rugby players, cricketers or oarsmen? If there was any significant difference in inherent ability, black people in countries with large black minorities would dominate all sports and they clearly don't. It is also worth noting that black people from Jamaica, Brazil, America and England are far more likely to have some European ancestry than black people from African countries. What about African teams? 4. Slavery Since my opponent has provided zero evidence for his unusual opinions on why black people were favoured as slaves, I will allow him to do so before responding to such claims. Thanks.

Thanks for accepting. I would like to start out by stating that when I said it should not be tolerated, what I meant was that NFL should start being more proactive against this very practice. Again, I believe they have the right to kneel. But the practice itself is disrespectful to those who fought and either died or lost their minds or limbs. I would also like to dispute that I did not say they had to stand for the anthem. They can link arms, they can stand without placing their hands over their hearts. I just don't think that it's okay to kneel at the anthem because you're trying to make a statement. There are many ways to make a statement without being disrespectful. I would also like to point out the fact that the NFL is very hypocritical when it comes to things like this. For example, they wouldn't allow for the Cowboy's to wear stickers showing solidarity to the Dallas police officers who were gunned down by a Black Lives Matter activists. They also wouldn't allow for players to wear cleats showing support to those who lost loved ones on 9/11. But yet, they would allow for players, like Colin Kaepernick (I think I spelled his name right), to wear socks that depict cops as pigs and would allow them to kneel at the anthem. It just shows that the NFL has no standards when it comes to respecting the nation. Yes, they have tossed out players who do stuff that go way to far as it pertains to this topic, but they should start being a little more strict on their policies for this stuff. So, I reiterate, the practice of kneeling, while constitutional, is not a good way to make a statement. Plus, I find it hard to believe that these guys want to protest the same nation that is allowing them to play football and receive millions of dollars in their contracts. It's like a homeless person on the street who does drugs and alcohol, yet says that America is unfair for not helping him.

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.

Okay, why don't we examine this debate from first a moral standpoint and then a logical one. The value I am basing my debate on is EQUALITY. First, the moral standpoint. Women pretending to be men? No, we're not. Quite honestly, I find it a bit insulting. I am all for diversity. Sure, women are different. That's great. But going so far as banning women from participating? That is not only irrational, but unfair as well. "Separate but equal" was a term coined in the 60s to promote racial segregation. As we know now, this is not fair, equal, or, to put it simply, 'okay.' In fact, going so far as to ban a person from sports due to organs between their legs is both morally reprehensible and an unfair act protected by a thin barrier of "logic". See, statistically speaking, women account for 78% of healthcare works. [1] But should we ban men from entering this job? Of course not. Next, why don't we move on to the logical standpoint.Before I begin, can you provide evidence from your claim that "most men don't think womens sport means diddle squat apart from...". Even if you can provide evidence, WHY does it matter? See, while I understand that men's sports, historically speaking, have brought in more revenue than women's, this is NOT the sole purpose of sports. Like I already mentioned, having superior ability, winning, or sex organs doesn't constitute a valid reason for participating (or not participating) in an activity. Sports can be used to express oneself, to stay physically active, to bond with friends, to have fun in a friendly competition, and even to burn off excess energy. For many, it's even a form of therapy. And who are you to deny women the right to any of these outlets? Furthermore, you argue against "political correct[ness]". Can you elaborate on this so I can gain a clearer understanding?[1] http://www.forbes.com...

Thanks once again to Snowbunny for this debate! I would like to take this chance to restate that the response time for this debate is a shortened 48 hours, instead of the usual 72 hours.INTROThe question were are considering is simple and straightforward: should the government prohibit the use of recreational tobacco products, including cigarettes, cigars, and chew. Ultimately, a government's core obligation is to the welfare of its people; the whole purpose of laws that restrict the consumption of dangerous drugs is that these laws have public utility. Consider the potential harms that drugs pose to individuals, and then consider if they were more widely available. It would pose a significant public health risk to the country.I will assert that if the benefits of a smoking ban outweigh the harms, then, as has been done with other substances, tobacco products should be restricted and prohibited. Any such ban should be phased in gradually, for reasons I will address later, but the ban should nonetheless go forward.THE HARMS OF TOBACCOP1. Health Risks to Smokers"Smoking is a leading cause of cancer and death from cancer. It causes cancers of the lung, esophagus, larynx, mouth, throat, kidney, bladder, pancreas, stomach, and cervix, as well as acute myeloid leukemia...Smoking also causes heart disease, stroke, aortic aneurysm (a balloon-like bulge in an artery in the chest), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (chronic bronchitis and emphysema), asthma, hip fractures, and cataracts. Smokers are at higher risk of developing pneumonia and other airway infections...A pregnant smoker is at higher risk of having her baby born too early and with an abnormally low birth weight. A woman who smokes during or after pregnancy increases her infant’s risk of death from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)...Men who smoke are at greater risk of erectile dysfunction." [1]There are also less severe, but still harmful, health effects of smoking. "'One of the chief and significant causes of premature aging of the face is smoking'...Skin changes, like leathery skin and deep wrinkling, are more likely in people who are regular smokers. According to the American Academy of Dermatology, smoking leads to biochemical changes in the body that speed the aging process. For example, smoking deprives the living skin tissue of oxygen by causing constriction of the blood vessels. As a result, blood doesn't get to your organs as easily, and that includes the skin. Another classic smoker giveaway is tar staining of the hands and skin from holding cigarettes." [2] Additionally, "smoking increases the chances of impotence dramatically for men by affecting blood vessels, including those that must dilate in order for an erection to occur." [2] Loss of breath is another common side-effect. "Many smokers report a diminished ability over time to comfortably do things as simple as climbing a set of stairs or enjoying sports activities they once easily took part in such as volleyball or jogging." [2] Smoking increases our susceptibility to minor illnesses like the cold and the flu as well. "Tiny hairs called cilia that line the respiratory tract, including the trachea and bronchial tubes, are designed to protect us from infection...One of the toxic effects of cigarette smoke is that it paralyzes the cilia, thereby destroying this core protective mechanism." [2]Just by quitting smoking, one can greatly increase one's life expectancy and expected quality of life. A person who quits at 30, for instance, reduce their chance of premature death due to tobacco use by 90%. Similarly, quitting at age 50 can reduce that chance by around 50%. [1]P2. Economic Costs to Smokers"[T]he average cost is about $5 per pack, and in some states it can be as high as $10 per pack, including federal and state taxes." [2] For users who are addicted, this is an ongoing, chronic, involuntary expense that becomes as essential as buying food. For poor families, a addiction to cigarettes can present a huge problem, one that might entail trade-offs between necessities or lead to crime in order to fund the addiction."Coupled with this enormous health toll is the significant economic burden of tobacco use—more than $96 billion a year in medical costs and another $97 billion a year from lost productivity." [3]P3. Health Risks to Non-smokers"The harmful effects of smoking do not end with the smoker. An estimated 88 million nonsmoking Americans, including 54% of children aged 3–11 years, are exposed to secondhand smoke. Even brief exposure can be dangerous because nonsmokers inhale many of the same poisons in cigarette smoke as smokers." [3]"Inhaling secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults...Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke...The U.S. Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker’s chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent...Exposure to secondhand smoke may increase the risk of heart disease by an estimated 25 to 30 percent...Pregnant women exposed to secondhand smoke are at risk of having a baby with low birth weight...Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk of SIDS, ear infections, colds, pneumonia, bronchitis, and more severe asthma. Being exposed to secondhand smoke slows the growth of children’s lungs and can cause them to cough, wheeze, and feel breathless." [1]"Each year, primarily because of exposure to secondhand smoke, an estimated 3,000 nonsmoking Americans die of lung cancer, more than 46,000 die of heart disease, and about 150,000–300,000 children younger than 18 months have lower respiratory tract infections." [3] "Secondhand smoke is estimated to cause 50,000 deaths every year. It's no wonder: More than 4,500 separate chemicals are found in a puff of tobacco smoke, and more than 40 of those are known carcinogens." [2]ConclusionThe ultimate, harmful impacts of tobacco are clear. They increase risks for illnesses at all levels of severity, and, even if used as directed, they lead to death and disease. "Tobacco use is the single most preventable cause of disease, disability, and death in the United States. Each year, an estimated 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke, and another 8.6 million live with a serious illness caused by smoking. Despite these risks, approximately 46.6 million U.S. adults smoke." [3]IMPLEMENTATIONI would phase in a tobacco prohibition over a 25 year period. Years 1-5 I would allow sales of tobacco to people over 21, and allow tobacco companies begin to shut down production and prepare for the ban. Years 6-15 I would allow sales of tobacco to users who could demonstrate that they were clinically addicted to tobacco and needed to continue to purchase the product to avoid withdrawal. I would also subsidize programs to help people go through withdrawal, just to give those people an alternative to smoking. Sales to everyone else would cease, and hefty fines would be imposed on those found in possession of illegal tobacco products. After five fines, a 6 month jail sentence could be levied. Years 16-20 would see the continuation of tobacco sale to the already addicted as well as the subsidization of withdrawal programs. The number of fines before a jail sentence would be reduces to three, and only select pharmacies would be authorized to sell tobacco--it could no longer be sold at grocery or convenience stores. Years 21-25 would see the discontinuation of all sales. Ideally, subsidized programs to reduce addiction would be continued well past that time frame. I would have tobacco then classified as a Schedule III Substance, with all the incumbent rules and penalties for possessing such a substance fully imposed. [4]SOURCES1 - http://www.cancer.gov...2 - http://www.webmd.com...3 - http://www.cdc.gov...4 - http://www.dea.gov...Thanks! And with that, I turn the floor over to Con...http://www.youtube.com...;

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


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

The legalization of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) in global sports competitions is a contentious issue. However, we must consider the impact on the vast fan base of elite athletes, such as football players, who are role models for people of all ages, from the elderly to children. If PEDs are permitted, it is likely that fans will emulate their idols. For instance, a young child might say, "My hero uses those substances to boost energy during games; I should try them too." This could pose significant risks to underage individuals. It is crucial to remember that maintaining a healthy diet and engaging in efficient exercise are natural alternatives to PEDs.

Here's one for the Conservatives ;) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Jefferson once said, "If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny. " Today, the manufacturing, buying, posession and distribution of psilocybin mushrooms is illegal in all but 2 states: Florida and New Mexico. I support the legalization of this drug for several reasons: 1. The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. .. " yet the law disregards one's right to utilize the effects of mushrooms to enhance/practice their religious beliefs. 2. In addition to religious freedoms, individuals in the United States should have the right to ingest anything of their choosing - especially if it is not a narcotic or the chemical composition of the drug is natural. That is to say, mushrooms are grown wild in the enviornment and if people want to pick them and eat them and/or give some to their friends, that should not be a crime. 3. Mushrooms are not addictive either physically or psychologically. If continued mushrooms use is excessive within a short period of time, a tolerance will build giving the drug little to no effect anyway. Additionally, studies show that one's desire to ingest "magic" mushrooms decreases over time. 4. Mushrooms were legal in the U. S. until 1968, and the world was just fine prior to that year while they were still legal. Thus we can assume that there will not be incredibly dramatic, awful consequences for the legalization of mushrooms. 5. Safety: Mushrooms are realtively safe drugs. The toxicity is one and a half times that of caffeine, and the mortality rate as a result of mushroom's toxicity is an incredibly low 0.016%. 6. Researchers from the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine conducted a study regarding magic mushrooms. 61% of subjects reported a "complete mystical experience" while being under the mushroom's effects (which lasts 2 - 12 hours; usually between 4 - 8). Two months after using psilocybin mushrooms, 79% of the participants reported moderately to greatly increased life satisfaction and sense of well-being. Further, the "bad trips" that can result from usage were reported to be easily managed by the researchers and did not have a lasting negative effect on the subject's sense of well-being. 7. As with all illegal drugs, legalization of a controlled substance would eliminate the black market buying and selling of drugs which would in turn reduce the number of criminals in this country. I understand why not all drugs can or should be legal, however, mushrooms is not one of them. 8. It is wrong to compare individuals who take magic mushrooms with hardened drug addicts. Not only are the effects of mushrooms much different from other hard drugs such as cocaine, heroin or meth, but mushrooms are also less addictive and less harmful to the body in both the long and short term. 9. Additionally, consider the positive effects mushrooms have on individuals (spiritual enlightenment, euphoria, etc. ). Most people who are 'high' on mushrooms do not feel compelled to put the lives of others in danger or at risk by, say, driving a car while under the influence, or acting violently towards another individual. Rather people who use mushrooms report feeling closer with nature and want to be outdoors. If not, they're enjoying closed or open-eyed visuals and are more concerned/distracted by what they're seeing and feeling internally than the desire to venture out and hurt others. This is not my opinion but rather documented in various studies/reports of individuals who are familiar with the use of entheogens. 10. Finally, of course being under the influence of any drug (including caffeine and cold medicine) has the ability to alter one's actions and reactions. This should not be a factor for several reasons. First, for medical reasons my little brother takes testosterone injections on a daily basis. This greatly affects his mood (he is angered more easily) yet his consumption of the drug is not illegal. If someone were to take magic mushrooms for any reason - spiritual or medical (they have been known to help with cluster headaches) - it should not be against the law. Why? Other legal drugs that are prescribed or not affect our reflexes, chemical imbalances, moods, or ability to complete tasks / reasoning. Rather than outlaw these things, our society has sought to warn (i. e. the warning to not operate automobiles after taking Nyquil) and/or educate, such as via D. A. R. E. programs or groups like M. A. D. D. (Mothers Against Drunk Driving). I believe that like alcohol, if people are educated regarding the effects of mushrooms, they can make better decisions that would eliminate or highly prevent consumption from interfering with the lives of others and causing disaster. Similarly, just as it is socially accepted (and promoted) for there to be a 'sober force' with an individual(s) who has been drinking, for example, a similar concept can be attributed to the consumption of shrooms. In conclusion, just one of those arguments is reason enough to support the legalization of mushrooms, however, I have provided 10. For my opponent to win this debate, he or she must argue that mushrooms should not be legal and why. Their reasoning should outnumber and/or outweigh my arguments. Because my points are mostly rooted in fact, Con would have to negate those facts in order for their case to be valid.

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

I believe and will argue that crack baby basketball, as detailed in the South Park episode titled 'Crack Baby Athletic Association' ( . http://en.wikipedia.org... ), should become an actual televised sport in the United States. For those of you plebeians who dont know what crack baby basketball is. .. .. The game works by putting numerous babies born with a cocaine addiction into a crib/arena, placing a ball filled with crack cocaine in the middle of the arena, and then watching the babies fight for it. Its quite hilarious and entertaining to watch Anyways, I am arguing that this sport should become a real thing, con will argue that it shouldnt become a real thing.

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

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.

I do not think football should be banned, it is a sport and anyone who plays football or does any type of physical activity knows that you can get injured.

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

Even though I am the Pro, the Con is technically advocating that Animals should not be eaten or tested on, meaning she is PRO animal rights. I am also Pro animal rights, but i sleep well at night knowing we can eat animals and that we use them for tests. Reasons for the consumption of meat and for testing on animals Consumption: 1 - Meat can be healthy 2 - It is natural 3 - It is usually humane Testing on animals 1 - Saves lives 2 - Not all tests put the animal's life at risk 3 - Testing on animals can help other animals be healthier 1A) Meat is high in protein, and it is even recommended to have meat or fish servings in one's diet. The proteins are packed with amino acids necessary for any life form to function, and even though you can get these elsewhere, you need to eat a low of extra stuff just to match the quantity of protein you can find in meats. Some meats can be bad for you but not all meat is bad, and so since meat can be healthy, it shouldnt be banned. http://www.livestrong.com... 1B) Animals eating other animals is natural, its been like that far before humans ever walked the Earth, and unless a catastrophe of epic proportions wipes out all life forms, animals will still eat other animals long after humans are gone... What is natural in most cases is acceptable, and shouldnt be outlawed. 1C) When humans eat animals, the animals are usually humanely killed before being processed, excessive torture is frowned upon, outlawed, and those who do treat them poorly are often prevented from continuing to continue. Humans have the means to humanely kill other animals to consume, and no other animal has the means of doing that or even the will to. Humans eating animals is taking something that is already natural, and making it more humane. 2A) Testing on animals saves lives, its as simple as that. It could come as testing vaccines, it can come as actual parts that are integrated into a human (transplants can work across species), and it flat out saves people. Coal miners would often bring canary's down into the mines and if the canary died, it was because there was an unsafely high amount of dust in the air that could make a single spark into an explosion, killing dozens of miners. Vaccines developed from animal testing has helped treat what were debilitating diseases completely treatable and even preventable. http://www.mofed.org... http://www.farmanddairy.com... http://www.guardian.co.uk... 2B) Not all testing puts an animals life at risk, People use animals to test new kinds of pet foods, to test cognitive abilities to humans, to point out similarities in humans and animals organ systems, etc. If you want to ban animal testing solely on the grounds that it kills animals, then you would only be banning about 10% of animal testing. For a science project I used a hamster as a test animal, I put the little thing in a cardboard maze, a hunk of cheese on the other side, and I recorded the results. Every time the animal was in no danger and 33% of the time he even got a nice hunk of cheese out of the experiment. 2C) Testing on animals can help save the lives of other animals. Animals arent tested on just to make vaccines for humans, they are often tested to find vaccines to fight diseases in other animals as well, such as apes, rhinos, elephants, chimps, etc. http://www.caller.com...

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.

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


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

Performance-enhancing drugs should be permitted in professional sports.

The argument that performance-enhancing drugs should not be allowed in professional sports because they are unsafe does not hold water. People have the autonomy to make decisions about their own bodies, and if they choose to take risks, that is their right. Athletes are not mere role models for children; they are individuals with their own agency and should be treated as such. Forcing them to conform to an ideal set by others is unjustified unless they initiate harm towards others.

The claim that performance-enhancing drugs cheat users out of the hard work and practice that other players have to go through is also flawed. The phrase "have to" implies a compulsion that is not present; athletes can choose to use drugs, work hard, or not condition themselves as they see fit. The use of drugs by one party does not negate the effort put in by another; they are separate actions.

The distinction between "allowed" and "legal" must also be recognized. "Allowed" pertains to the rules of the sport, while "legal" refers to the laws of the land. The resolution is about what should be permitted by the law, not what is allowed by the sport's governing body.

In conclusion, performance-enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports, as athletes have the right to make their own choices about their bodies and their careers.

Ok, we need no definition here, illegal drugs need to stay illegal based on this thought: >A person that takes drugs most likely does so of their own accord in order to be happy. Once they take drugs, they develope an addiction, dependence, tolerance and eventually cannot stop. They then cease to be happy, if they in their original right mind could make the decision to stop because it was taking away their happiness, they would do so. So it is up to us to make that decision for them, assuming that it is a moral obligation for a human to help another human in need. To start this debate, lets examine the intent and purposes of illicit drug use, consider the following chain of logic: > Utilitarianism is the philosophy by which most people abide > Drug users come under the overall catergory of 'most people.' > Drug users are therefore, normal people who take drugs to be happy What I wish to claim, is that we can only enforce law on normal people. Once someone's ability to reason and choose out of freewill are negatively affected by druguse, they cannot be measured up against the law.These people are therefore obliged to stay normal, in oder to be able to abide by the law. its their duty to society in exchange for the privalige of living in 21st centruy civilization. Outside this debate, I questioned jamie the following: Would you force someone to stop hurting themselves if they did not want to do it? This question seeks to identify a difference between the mental and physical persons of an individual. In drug use, this 'physical side' is the person harming themselves by taking drugs due to the fact that they are now depending on it. The mentail side is the persons original state of mind, his/her reasoning before it was affected by drug use. So the question asks, if someone had an impaired ability to choose, and they were hurting themselves against their normal reasoning, should you intervene? Or in other words, if someone is taking drugs and is addicted, should we stop them? Throughout the duration of the debate I will attempt to bully James into saying yes. If we should stop people from taking drugs, then that means we should not legalise drugs in Australia. Im going to do a precognitive rebuttal now and say that my opponent is probably going to claim something along the lines of: People have the right to choose to do something that harms themselves as long as it doesnt harm anone else. Firstly, I have a contention against the word 'right.' In the sense that it doesn't exist. There are privaliges, but there are no such things as rights. Thats working from the standpoint that you were born into society. if you are one of the 200 uncontacted settlements, you owe nothing to society and have the right to remain secluded. But if you are born into society, you have the privalige of everything that society gives you inexchange for the following responcibilities: >The duty to protect society >The duty to progress society >The duty to maintain society Society is a collection of like-minded humans, not in the sense that they believe the same ideas, but that we all share the ability to reason. Anyone who has destroyed their ability to reason in order to make themselves happy has not fulfilled their role to maintain society. They have reduced the imput of a perfectly operational human being and turned it into a person who leeches, a person who requires welfare benefits and the generosity of the law-abiders to remain alive. This is the first causation effect that follows the desicion to take drugs if viewed as a wave. on the bottom line, there is no way to harm yourself in society that doesnt harm someone else. Every death reduces the total output of the working humans simply because there is one less worker. All humans can work, old people use to work once upon a time, so they are excluded, and mentally disabled people can work, if not, they are an exception too, because they did not choose to be disabled. Consider the following statement that may or may not be brought up by the affirmative team: 'What if someone wants to hurt themselves to be happy?' my answer would be that firstly, one must be able to prove that the individual should be put first before the majority, and secondly, one must be able to prove that there is a someone who is in society that owes nothing to society. With those two points taken care of, I look forward to hearing from my opponent.

i dont believe there should be steriods put into our food. what are the pros and cons of the steriods?

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

This was the topic for the LD nationals in 2007. I thought it would be fun to debate. Rounds will go as follows: Round 1: con states rules Round 1: Pro presents his arguments Round 2: Con presents his arguments and rebuts to pro's case Round 2: Pro rebuts to con's case Round 3: Con rebuts Round 3: Pro rebuts 10,000 character limit. 3 days to post argument (per round)

First of all, what is up with this immensely odd grammatically excursion from the fundamental rules of the English language in which you have partaken? ("what I refrained from enclosing the above sequence of characters within brackets or marks to signify quotation in order to maintain the hilarious absurdity that dwells in the seemingly innocuous 6-letter stream. "The debate is about the following: 'Dustin Pedroia Deserved Major League Baseball's A. L. MVP Award in 2008. '" The topic is a differing entity from the resolution. You selected the Con position with regards to the resolution, and I have illustrated what the resolution was, in actuality. I have negated my opponent's sole argumentative discourse.

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

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

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?

PLEASE CHANGE YOUR WAY OF THINKING, BECAUSE IT HAS NO MERIT! You can be killed by eating candy, eating dessert, and/or drinking soda over the years in much the same way a boxer dies from post fight dementia, too: decades after starting the practice. Should that be outlawed?! What about pretzels?! I'm sure that if you ate a "Big Grab" bag(old name for the 50" bag) a day for decade that there'll be some who have a heart attack, stroke, and some who die from the condition. Should pretzels be outlawed, too?! People have actually died having sex the first time. Should that be outlawed, too?! What about pork, eggs, and steak? Should they be outlawed, too?! What about most fast food chains?! Anything packaged can be tampered with before you get it and kill you instantly or over time(made a poison, cancerous, etc.). We know that's a potential of anything packaged just as we know the potential dangers of boxing. Should they be outlawed?! Some people are athletes that are boxing, football, mma, specialists. People have to work to live and minimum wage isn't going to support a family. Not all can obtain degrees or perform a trade at a pro level! Many are descendants of slaves that have been advantaged by the hard lives of their ancestors in a way that is lucrative; how racist is it to know a slave's past(that the slave lived a way that he/she was forced to be an utter mainstay for whites in every way at any time) and try to deny them their inheritance when whites claim they deserve nothing(benefited somehow off the centuries' headstart and steal now)?! What about the financial gap created between many whites and blacks due to that huge headstart?! What about the black person that has the God given ability to lift his family out of poverty? Some whites and other races are poor, too! That's what outlawing boxing would do! Besides, all that other stuff can kill you instantly or over time, too! You seem a lot like those animal lovers who say that they don't believe in eating meat, because they don't want to kill animals: they bully others who eat animals, but they wear animals in their clothing, hair, accessories, footwear, etc. If you were really so sincere about what you say, then you'd be against anything else that kills you in the same way boxing does! And to be honest, that's just about anything! On the original argument, there are some major differences between a prime Ali and a prime Holmes. 1. Holmes would be far easier to hit by Ali than Ali would be able to be hit by Holmes. As much as Holmes got hit during his career, it's probably on par with the short arm brawlers. And that group probably gets hit the most of any group. 2. Ali was the fastest in all of history and was a multipunch combination guy. Holmes was like the Ali that was past his prime--minus the the multipunch combos. Holmes was a 1-2-3 guy. Imagine Roy Jones or FMJ. Ali was precise and didn't need body punching. Holmes was very accurate with the fighters that fought, but never fought a Joe Frazier(best gauge to determine a BOXER'S ACCURACY; Norton wasn't nearly as dynamic as Joe; he was much longer, so he didn't have to be. It's easier to hit Norton with clean punches than Joe: both are open to uppercuts). 3. Ali danced in his prime in fights that he took seriously all of them. Holmes used it only to run after being hurt. That edge has to go to Ali in footwork as a skill. 4. People might say that Holmes would be a better version of Norton and would give Ali more trouble. Not against Ali. Holmes would come straight in and Norton was more subtle. Holmes would have to outAli Ali to beat him, but Norton neutralized clear advantages that Ali had over him. 5. The only advantages that Holmes has over Ali is a bigger punch(all could take Holmes' power, because his problem was the left hook or a Shavers or Rocky right) and a prime Holmes had a better chin than a prime Ali(Ali's chin got better later, but still great from 64-67). Considering that all fighters that fought Ali by walking straight in lost badly, I think Holmes would do better than they did. My projection: 10-5.(Ali whipped other such fighters 13-2).

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.)