The Instigator
critterrice
Pro (for)
Losing
28 Points
The Contender
beem0r
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

It is possible to become a top level bodybuilder without resorting to anabolic steroids.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/7/2008 Category: Health
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,250 times Debate No: 4366
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (27)
Votes (14)

 

critterrice

Pro

For the purposes of this debate the term anabolic steroid will apply to synthetic testosterone and HGH, and similar products such as DECA, ANDRO, and the like.
My premise is that the human body is capable of reaching high levels of muscle mass and low levels of bodyfat, to a degree that they could compete on a professional bodybuilding stage.
It is my contention that supplements and drugs are at the very bottom of the list of what determines ones potential as a bodybuilder.
The first factor is genetics. We all know people who are very muscular, while never having set foot inside a gym.
The next level is even in my book and consists of nothing more than proper training and recovery. This means stimulating the body through intense exercise, then allowing adequate rest and macronutrient intake for the muscle tissue to rebuild itself bigger and usually stronger than before.
In time, a proper combination of the aforementioned elements could result in a high enough level of atrophy to be considered a professional level physique.
I will cite references in round 2.
beem0r

Con

Ladies and gentlemen, there is one very major issue with my opponent's argument.

1. Top-level bodybuilders must be humans. No other species is capable of becoming a top-level bodybuilder.

2. It is impossible to become a top-level bodybuilder without having any testosterone.

3. Testosterone is an anabolic steroid.

4. From 3 and 4, I negate the resolution.

However, I know what objection to this my opponent would bring. He will claim that he defined an anabolic steroid as "synthetic testosterone and HGH, and similar products such as DECA, ANDRO, and the like."

The first issue is the issue of the definition of anabolic steroid. I could disagree, and provide definitions to counter my opponent's, but I will not. Instead, I will have the audience draw their intention to this part of his definition:

"the term anabolic steroid will apply to synthetic testosterone and HGH"

Here, we see that the HGH my opponent speaks of isn't necessarily only the synthetic sort. And since no one could possibly become a top-level bodybuilder without HGH, I negate on largely the same line of reasoning shown above.
Debate Round No. 1
critterrice

Pro

Interesting. Thanks for taking this up. Now:
Webster's dictionary defines resort thus:
resort[1,noun]resort[2,intransitive verb]re-sort
Main Entry: 1re�sort
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈzȯrt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, return, source of aid, from Anglo-French, from resortir to rebound, resort, from re- + Old French sortir to go out, leave
Date: 14th century
1 a: one that affords aid or refuge : resource b: recourse 1a

It is the usage as "resort to outside help" in my opening challenge negates your point. As outside help will refer to anything outside of the body proper.
The usage of this term then would cast the reference to anabolic steroids as supplemental in nature.
beem0r

Con

You'll notice that my opponent's definition is a noun, whereas it is not used as a noun in the resolution - it is used as a verb [or rather, as a participle - an adjective form of the verb].

Here's the real definition of resort:

Main Entry:
2resort
Function:
intransitive verb
Date:
15th century
1 : to go especially frequently or habitually : repair
2 : to have recourse

#2 is obviously what is meant here. It's necessary to define recourse here, so I will.

Main Entry:
re�course Listen to the pronunciation of recourse
Pronunciation:
\ˈrē-ˌkȯrs, ri-ˈ\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English recours, from Anglo-French recurs, from Late Latin recursus, from Latin, act of running back, from recurrere to run back — more at recur
Date:
14th century

1 a: a turning to someone or something for help or protection b: a source of help or strength : resort 2: the right to demand payment from the maker or endorser of a negotiable instrument (as a check)

Definition 1 is clearly what is meant here, 1b being the most accurate. Since testosterone/HGH are indeed a source of help or strength for bodybuilders, it is indeed recourse for them.

Even so, let's look at the noun definition my opponent gave. The example usage was "have resort to outside help," but that is clearly not the only thing one can have resort to. The "outside help" is clearly not part of the definition of resort, since that would make "resort to outside help" rather redundant. Resort, the noun definition, is simply something you rely on. In that example, the person has reliance on outside help. They could just as easily rely on inside help. "John has resort to inside help" is just as valid as "John has resort to outside help." This applies to both the noun and the verb.
Debate Round No. 2
critterrice

Pro

As laid out in my introduction; "It is my contention that supplements and drugs are at the very bottom of the list of what determines ones potential as a bodybuilder."
It appears I must also define drug:
"b: a substance used as a medication or in the preparation of medication caccording to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (1): a substance recognized in an official pharmacopoeia or formulary (2): a substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease"
and supplement:
"1 a: something that completes or makes an addition b: dietary supplement"
Specifically:
"Main Entry: dietary supplement
Function: noun
Date: 1967
: a product taken orally that contains one or more ingredients (as vitamins or amino acids) that are intended to supplement one's diet and are not considered food"

In tandem with resort the definition I have used is obviously referring to the use of an outside 'resort.'
It doesn't matter how many other definitions there are. Only one is needed to define my purposes.
If my opening statement is that "Our island captive had to resort to the consumption of bananas, which are a fruit."
You can say that banana is also a pejorative for male member,
but that doesn't change the fact that the banana is a fruit, and does not make the implication that our subject had to orally consume a male member.

"Main Entry: anabolic steroid
Function: noun
Date: 1961
: any of a group of usually synthetic hormones that are derivatives of testosterone, are used medically especially to promote tissue growth, and are sometimes abused by athletes to increase the size and strength of their muscles and improve endurance "

I will direct you to 'USUALLY SYNTHETIC" and "USED MEDICALLY."
This clarifies my definition as implicated as a "drug" or "supplement" in my opening statements.

Here is encarta: "an�a�bol�ic ster�oid (plural an�a�bol�ic ster�oids)

noun

Definition:

1. synthetic hormone: a synthetic steroid hormone. Use: to increase muscle mass and strength."

Again SYNTHETIC. I only need the one definition.

Encarta on recourse:
"3. act of having recourse to something: the act of turning to somebody or something for help in dealing with a problem"
Banana, banana, banana.
Encarta on drugs:
"1. medicinal substance: a natural or artificial substance given to treat or prevent disease or to lessen pain

2. illegal substance: an often illegal and sometimes addictive substance that causes changes in behavior and perception and is taken for the effects"

So, definition 1 says natural, but it also says given. That should be self explanatory.

The semantic argument is null, as my intent is clear when you view my opening in it's entirety. Even if we go with the naturally occuring steroids, a lack of them would not necessarilly preclude anabolism, as many anabolic processes are powered by adenosine triphosphate, and other chemicals not included in the accepted list of anabolic steroids.

So, if the semantic argument is null, then the only recourse is to prove that every bodybuilder at the top of the field is resorting to supplementation with the drugs known collectively as anabolic steroids.

So we must define top:
Any research into bodybuilding will tell you that the highest paid and most recognized contests are the Mr. Olympia, and the Arnold Classic. Before the Arnold classic, it was the Mr. America.

So the first of these is the Mr. Olympia. The man who held the championship in that event for Eight years, tied with only 1 other man in history, is Ronnie Coleman. The following from his website includes expert testimonial from a renowned doctor:
"Anybody can be really, really good with dedication and hard work," says Dr. Ben Levine, director of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas. "But to be the best, you have to have some gene endowment, as well as appropriate work ethic."

And, yes, say Dr. Levine and other experts, a body like Mr. Coleman's is possible without benefit of anabolic steroids. Mr. Coleman says he has never resorted to steroids, and he has passed every drug test he's ever taken, according to a spokesman for the International Federation of Bodybuilding.

The very nature of bodybuilding invites more public suspicions about steroid abuse -- a fact that annoys Mr. Coleman. Last year he quit reading Sports Illustrated after it ran a story calling steroids "the Wheaties of most pro bodybuilders."

Coleman says: "Once you're labeled with something, it's kind of hard to change that," he says. "It irritates us all, not just me....I'm not looking for any shortcuts."

Source:
http://www.ronniecoleman.net...

So according to experts, and most evidence, the man who is considered by many to be the greatest bodybuilder of all time never used steroids.

Now the Mr.America. The youngest Mr. America of all time was Casey Viator.
Casey Viator was the subject of Arthur Jones' "Colorado Experiment." One of the ojects was as follows:
"It is the author's fifth contention that the use of the so-called "growth drugs" (steroids) is neither necessary nor desirable ... on the contrary, repeated tests with animals and double-blind tests with human subjects have clearly demonstrated that the use of such drugs is strongly contraindicated. "

LET ME BRING YOUR ATTENTION TO: "on the contrary, repeated tests with animals and double-blind tests with human subjects have clearly demonstrated that the use of such drugs is strongly contraindicated."
Again: "strongly contraindicated."
And again:"growth drugs" (steroids)" as indicated in my definition.
Arthur Jones subjected Viator to drug tests and even threatened to feed him to the alligators if he found out he was using! Here are some results:
"For example, during the first l4 days, Viator gained 28.93 pounds, a daily average of 2.06 pounds. During the next 3 days, he gained 3.92 pounds, a daily average of 1.3 pounds. During the following 5 days, he gained 6.09 pounds, a daily average of 1.2 pounds. And during the final 6 days, he gained 6.34 Pounds, a daily average of 1.05 pounds."

This is unheard of, even among drug users.
Casey Viator won the Mr. America contest at the end of this training period.
I don't see a need to get into the Arnold Classic, as either of these examples alone would be sufficient to prove my point. There have been many bodybuilders who have used steroids openly, but there is absolutely no subjective evidence that all of them do, and there is the previous evidence that shows at least two of the best bodybuilders in history did not.

(and now for the Columbo)

Just one more thing:
"Anabolic processes produce peptides, proteins, polysaccharides, lipids, and nucleic acids. These molecules comprise all the materials of living cells, such as membranes and chromosomes, as well as the specialized products of specific types of cells, such as enzymes, antibodies, hormones, and neurotransmitters.
The energy required for anabolism is supplied by the energy-rich molecule adenosine triphosphate (ATP). This energy exists in the form of the high-energy chemical bond between the second and third molecule of phosphate on ATP. ATP's energy is released when this bond is broken, turning ATP into adenosine diphosphate (ADP). During anabolic reactions, the high-energy phosphate bond of ATP is transferred to a substrate (a molecule worked on by an enzyme) in order to energize it in preparation for the molecule's subsequent use as a raw material for the synthesis of a larger molecule. In addition to ATP, some anabolic processes also require high-energy hydrogen atoms that are supplied by the molecule NADPH."Anabolism
Nowhere in here does it necessitate a seperate hormonal occurrence.
beem0r

Con

Ladies and gentlemen, I am here to tell you exactly why you should vote CON in this debate.

In my round 1 speech, I agreed with my opponent's definition of Anabolic steroids, and pointed out that natural HGH was still covered in this list.

In MY opponent's response, his R2, he did NOT disagree with this argument, and therefore conceded the point. He instead made an argument about the word 'resort'.

However, I then responded with a quite sufficient rebuttal to his 'resort' point. He has again dropped this point, moving on to make other points rather than defending it. And thus, he concedes that 'to resort to' is not limited to external things.

Thus, let us look over what has been argued by me and conceded by my opponent:

HGH, even the natural form, is an anabolic steroid. This is based on my opponent's initial definition and my agreement with it in R1.

A person can resort to things that are internal.

Thus, it is not possible to become a top level bodybuilder without resorting to anabolic steroids, since everyone resorts to using their own HGH to grow and build muscle.

My opponent's attempt at redefining anabolic steroid should be seen as abusive, and it should not be considered. He had ample opportunity to redefine the term in R2, yet he waited until R3. I was unfairely made to think that he had conceded the point when he failed to address it in R2.

And with that, I must bid ye fare well.
Thanks for the debate, Critter.
Debate Round No. 3
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mbater1001 3 years ago
mbater1001
For more female bodybuilders check out Female Bodybuilders
Posted by mbater1001 3 years ago
mbater1001
For more female bodybuilders check out www.bigmusclecams.com
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
So like I said in my first comment, they either accept my abusiveness argument, or they vote for you.
Posted by critterrice 8 years ago
critterrice
Nonetheless, I think it was my final R3 paragraph that nullifies any other definition of inside and outside. But it is really not fair to continue the discussion any longer. It is in the hands of the public to interpret how they shall.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
Yes, that might be the obvious conclusion one would draw. However, as we all know, my semantics argument was based on a technicality, NOT based on what the obviously-meant definition was.

And also, my R3 abusiveness argument was about all your redefining in R3, including your sudden restriction of Anabolic Steroids to be only external despite my R1 point you conceded stating otherwise.
Posted by critterrice 8 years ago
critterrice
But in concert with my opening as stated in R3:
"In tandem with resort the definition I have used is obviously referring to the use of an outside 'resort.' "
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
Never in R1 did you define anabolic steroids as ONLY drugs and supplements. You may have referred to some anabolic steroids that are drugs in your argument, but you never stated anything to the effect of 'Anabolic steroids can only be drugs and supplements.'
Posted by critterrice 8 years ago
critterrice
However, when you accepted my definition as including HGH and the other things mentioned in my opening statement, you accepted my entire opening statement. Therefore, you accepted my definition as pertaining to drugs and supplements in round 1.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
Yes. Did you read my final statements? I argued that it's abusive for you to change a definition we've both already agreed on, 2 rounds after we agreed on that definition. Ergo the new definition doesn't count, if people accept the abusiveness argument.

Under the old definition, I showed that "It is not possible to become a top level bodybuilder without resorting to anabolic steroids."

The resolution does not specify external-only. Just because your opening argument had a limited scope does not mean I cannot use something outside that scope to negate the resolution.

That's, of course, if people accept my argument about you being abusive. Otherwise, people can use your R3 definition, under which I lose.
Posted by critterrice 8 years ago
critterrice
My closing statement of round 3 also shows that it is NOT necessary for the body to resort to these steroids.
I do respect the semantic argument, I think it was very creative. I was not expecting it. I only defined drugs and supplements because my opening specified that I was referring to drugs. That automatically clarifies the resorting as an external variety. It was not intended to be abusive, but to clarify my point.
I have the greatest respect for my opponent, he is very good. I, however, am the best.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by critterrice 7 years ago
critterrice
critterricebeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
critterricebeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
critterricebeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
critterricebeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Georgia 8 years ago
Georgia
critterricebeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Josh 8 years ago
Josh
critterricebeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Cro-magnon 8 years ago
Cro-magnon
critterricebeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Hypnodoc 8 years ago
Hypnodoc
critterricebeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by bigmomma 8 years ago
bigmomma
critterricebeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
critterricebeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30