As an international sporting committee we would lift the doping ban
Debate Rounds (4)
The nominated judges are: Romanii, tejretics, Mikal and airmax1227
Please only accept this debate if you intend on seeing it through. Do not forfeit rounds.
Doping ban: Currently, athletes in professional sports are tested periodically and randomly to check if they have taken banned substances which can boost their performance hence allowing them to have an unfair advantage. Guilty athletes may be banned from future events and/or stripped off previous achievements. We would dissolve this ruling, hence all athletes will be allowed to use whatever substances they want to prior to competing.
FIRST ROUND IS ACCEPTANCE.
Looking forward to a good debate. Thank you!
Firstly, today we already acknowledge and accept the use of various utilities, equipment, medication etc. not only to improve our lives but to accomplish amazing feats. A long time, the Royal Geographic Society in UK refused to allow mountain climbers to use oxygen tanks because this was a non-human device and as such, any achievement through using it is not a 'completely human' achievement. We have gone a long way from these times. Climbers use oxygen tanks to put their name on world peaks, swimmers use special suits (often engineered by big companies) to break records and body builders use creatine and protein shakes to improve performance during workouts and recovery times.
When we can already agree that these things are allowed, where do you draw the line between something which is 'natural' and something which is 'unnatural'. Some of the food you eat already contain the exact chemicals in drugs. Does eating more of these foods and absorbing its nutrients therefore be considered as illegal drug intake?
Secondly, the regulation and detection of athletes who are guilty is extremely inefficient. It is just too hard to monitor every single player in a tournament. This is evident when Russia was found guilty of mass doping of their athletes. Mamadou Sakho, the football player was banned ONLY AFTER his team Liverpool managed to enter the finals of the Europa League. His performance had already affected the match and arguably, his team would probably not have won.
Also, accidents happen. Examples include Maria Sharapova and Lee Chong Wei who were given long bans just for accidental intake of drugs. It is hard to imagine this was intentional because they are already big names in their respective sports.
Hence, for these reasons we should lift the regulations and ban concerning drugs for athletes. By allowing everyone to take anything, we are actually levelling the playing field with a lot less hassle.
"A young boy with dreams of becoming a professional athlete would feel he has to use drugs in order to compete and pursue his dreams." It really depends on the level of competition. If it was an amateur competition and most people join for the satisfaction and fun of it then there is nothing wrong with allowing contestants to take drugs or not since the main motivation for these people is not to win, but to challenge themselves. At the highest levels, where athletes already receive a lot of funding from governments and sponsors, there is nothing wrong with allowing them to take drugs AS LONG AS everyone is allowed to, openly and without secrets.
"And you can't compare a special swimming suit or an oxygen tank to a chemical that has negative side effects on an athletes body." If you have an issue against chemicals, I suggest you wake up. We are surrounded by carcinogens on a daily basis which we use to improve ourselves. Deodorants, anti-pesticides for vegetables, injections on poultry to become fatter produce more eggs to feed an every increasing population. "We should encourage our athletes to be as healthy as possible." It is up to them whether or not they choose to take in extremely harmful substances. As long as it is an act of free choice, surely they have a right to consume what they want. Here, I would also like to highlight that these drugs are seldom extremely dangerous substances. With correct application and suitable doses, they can be used in a healthy manner to stimulate the muscles and organs. If athletes fail to follow the prescription, it's just like an obese person who chooses to consume too much foods.
My opponent also never rebutted my arguments.
Again your defeatist way of thinking leads you to assert that just because we come in contact with harmful substances on a daily basis that there is nothing wrong with adding one more. I would argue that we should limit our contact with harmful substances as much as possible. As for any safer alternatives that are banned let us also talk about the integrity of the sport. Should a person using unnatural chemicals have an unfair advantage over someone who is all natural? How can you say someone broke the record when they used a substance not available to the person who set the record decades before?
And what arguments of yours are you still waiting for a rebuttal?
That's where you've got this wrong. You think we are "giving up" on law enforcement.
Where exactly do you draw the line between something natural and something unnatural?
The comment you made about breaking records. Hello. Wake up. Today even sports attire which is engineered with aerodynamics etc gives athletes seconds of time ahead from athletes of previous generation. We should look into that since you clearly think that's "unnatural".
I apologise that I have to conclude early because I am actually away from home and am typing this on mobile.
I invite my opponent to use only 1000 chars because that's what I'm doing here. It is up to him whether he wants to or not.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Romanii 3 months ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's case is solid. He argues that athletes already have plenty of "unnatural" ways to gain advantages over one another, and many athletes secretly use performance-enhancing drugs anyhow, so we might as well just lift the doping ban and level the playing field for everybody. Meanwhile, Con's case was essentially just an appeal to emotion, which relied on the assumption that drug usage is inherently immoral. Pro correctly called out that assumption as unsubstantiated, and Con didn't really rebut any of Pro's case outside of repeating the emotional appeal over and over again. Thus, by the end of the debate, the resolution is affirmed, and I must vote Pro. If Con had demonstrated some real, well-evidenced harms of normalizing the consumption of performance-enhancing drugs in professional sports, then perhaps this would have gone differently, but he didn't, and so my decision stands. Anyways... good debate! Both of you are quite good at articulation.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.