The Instigator
vab
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DWolf2k2
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

Lance Armstrong should still be considered as more of an international hero than just a lying jerk

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
DWolf2k2
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/29/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,644 times Debate No: 29663
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (5)

 

vab

Pro

I disagree with most people (and media) that Armstrong is nothing but loser and liar. I still think there are more positive than negative sides in his story. I welcome anyone to debate this.
DWolf2k2

Con

I'll try taking this one up. I assume the four rounds will go as follows: R2) Definitions and opening arguments R3) Rebuttals and Rebuild R4) New Business R5) Summaries and Voters. As you're Pro, Prima Facia is on you.
Debate Round No. 1
vab

Pro

I'm excited as this is my first debate and I love this site. Please excuse me if I misspell or my poor vocabulary because I am not from English-speaking country. I hope for a good debate, the rules seem legit. Good luck.

Ok, let's get it started!

First, let me make it a bit more clear what I am trying to show in this debate. It is the question of public image of Lance Armstrong, which is extremely negative in the past years and especially since he openly admitted doping in all 7 Tour de France races that he had won. He is a liar and he is a cheater to other racers and disappointment to his fans.

(Btw. DWolf2k2, sorry for giving your side arguments lol ;)

But, I would say that we don't look a whole story here...
In spite of all this show going on, I think that negative picture of Armstrong is purely emotional and not rational, and I will try to prove it by argumenting about his appearance and influence on fans and contribution to the USA and whole world.

I remember back in high school we had a text in English book about Armstrong. He actually survived cancer on testicles and than won 7 Tour de France races in row. (And also had children which is weird considering where he had cancer) He was an idol and inspiration for many. Especially for cancer-fighters. Now he is just the opposite. Did he make more good things during his career or bad things? Did he hurt more people than he helped?

That brings me to my main argument.
So, his story sucks. He is cheater and liar, disgrace for sport (which is also questionable since many bicyclists were also doping...). The condemnation go so far to this point: UCI president Pat McQuaid said "Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling" and that the American "deserves to be forgotten."
Well, I suggest we actually imagine he never doped and never won all that races and never even existed. He wouldn't have been an amazing and maybe best ever inspiration to people who suffer cancer. But, more importantly (since today it's all about the money), his foundation raised more than $470 million to support the mission to inspire and empower people affected by cancer. And that's a lot of money. I am sure those people appreciate it and I think that the public image of Lance Armstrong should be more positive due to this.

http://www.livestrong.org...

That's it for now. I think that I don't need to stay in defence of him in what he did in sports (not that I'm not willing to), but just put his own help to many people who really need it.
DWolf2k2

Con

We, as humans, love heroes. People who overcome incredible odds to perform extraordinary feats are often considered heroes. And Lance Armstrong"s story of overcoming what was thought of as terminal cancer to go on to win one of the most grueling races on the planet more times than any other person in the history of the race certainly qualifies. However, that story was built on a lie. A lie which said that he did it with nothing more than hard work, faith in himself and his teams, and an unearthly reserve of determination. Now that we know truth, why should we continue to cheer for a cheater? Can we actually forget that he broke the rules and gave himself an unfair advantage? No, we cannot. Your assertion that we can and in fact should forget what he did flies in the face of our society"s norms, that if someone cheats, they should be punished. And if he should be forgiven, should other who cheat be rewarded? You are asking society to completely reverse one of our social norms. Also, you"re saying it"s an emotional response and that we should appeal to rationality, but you are asking us to ignore a rational argument in that he took purposeful and deliberate steps to hide his actions and remember the positive emotional response we used to have? No having it both ways on my watch. Now that I've refuted your primary contentions, time to lay out some of my own Counter Contentions.
1)He broke the rules of his sport, which banned PEDs and blood doping. The evidence as presented by the USADA, the United States Anti-Doping Agency, shows that Armstrong put himself in the center of a massive scheme to cheat, and evade those who would catch him. And because he has broken these rules, why shouldn't he be punished, which includes losing all the fame and admiration he gained because of it?
2)We punish other athletes in other sports for the same thing. Right now in Major League Baseball, players who were even SUSPECTED of using PEDs will likely never see the inside of Cooperstown, and those who are caught using drugs face suspensions, loss of pay, and eventual lifetime ban from the game. Other international sports follow the policies and rules set down by the World Anti-Doping Agency, with regular violations eventually resulting in a lifetime ban. As I asked in Counter Contention 1, why shouldn't Lance Armstrong be punished for doing it if others are?
3)His reputation is based on a lie. A heavily defended lie. If someone told you something and then years later, you find out that not only was it a lie, but all this time they were doing everything in their power to prevent you from finding the lie out, how would you respond? I find that on the whole, the response to this revelation is reasonable. Rick Reilly, commentator for ESPN and a regular defender of Armstrong, one of the strongest among journalists, dedicated an entire article explaining why he felt betrayed by the revelations. Why then should we all not feel duped and betrayed by someone that we trusted?
Lance Armstrong may have good qualities, but to ignore the fact that many of those good qualities were the product of a lie and are now shattered is simply being ignorant. It is for these contentions that I urge you to vote for the opposition.
Debate Round No. 2
vab

Pro

As you did not comment on my main argument I suppose you accept it:

"Well, I suggest we actually imagine he never doped and never won all that races and never even existed. He wouldn't have been an amazing and maybe best ever inspiration to people who suffer cancer. But, more importantly (since today it's all about the money), his foundation raised more than $470 million to support the mission to inspire and empower people affected by cancer. And that's a lot of money. I am sure those people appreciate it and I think that the public image of Lance Armstrong should be more positive due to this."

It is not surprising that you limit the whole story on cycling. My point is exactly that he should be viewed as humanitarian also. It still is my main argument.

I wouldn't like voters to view this as pro and con-doping, cause it most certainly is not. But I will not run from your arguments.

He lied, and he apologized for that, but why put the whole blame on him? Doping has become a tradition in cycling, athletics and sports in general. Lance did not fight against the culture in cycling. He simply didn't want to be the one who changes the rules of the game. Cheating, unfortunately, was and still is normal in such sports. Lance's sin is that he was the best in it at his time. What would you do, if you wanted to win at all cost?

Just take a look, how long the lists are (only the ones who got caught):
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Now, to answer yours 1, 2 and 3:

He was punished for doping, unlike many others. He is still one of the best. Many cyclists agreed that it is impossible to win Tour de France without doping. And PED is very discussable as it is differently defined in various sports. Coffee and marijuana are not permitted while extra protein and vitamins (in quantities that are not possible to insert in body via natural food) are permitted. Everyone cheats, some get away with it.
So, it's difficult to determine which drugs should be allowed. For example, winter Olympians often gain exercise-induced asthma due to over-training. The doctors suggest less training, but they rather take drugs. Is this unfair advantage or just medicine, which is positive?

I will follow your example and include other sports in rebutting.
1)
"He broke the rules of his sport, which banned PEDs and blood doping."
- All race walkers with no exception break the basic rule of their sport, and the winner still isn't punished.

2)
"We punish other athletes in other sports for the same thing"
- maybe like Overeem in UFC? Doping really says more about the sport than about the athletes.

3) "His reputation is based on a lie. "
-if Michael Jordan admits doping tomorrow, would he really loose whole of his reputation? I don't know, he would still be a legend to me...



In this debate, it is not mine to defend Lance Armstrong's doping, but to show that he is unfairly being presented as nobody. I did this by argument of his enormous humanitarian work and showing other cases that have been treated less roughly (Overeem). I also pointed out that doping is sad reality of sport and that athletes are being confronted to moral question: dope or lose.
DWolf2k2

Con

Since you had Prima Facie, you had the right to set the terms and limits of the debate, which you never seemed to. Also, I didn"t make the debate pro- or con- doping, I"m asking why we should praise someone whom everything they done was built on a lie, on cheating, on breaking the rules. You are saying that because he used ill-gotten gains to do good, that we should ignore that the gains are ill-gotten? There is an old adage that applies: The ends do not justify the means.
You then bring up Winning at any costs. Is winning the only thing that should matter? Also, is it worth winning if you know that you didn"t do it fairly? It is a moral dilemma that we have a social norm which answers the question: CHEATERS NEVER PROSPER.
Next, you say why put all the blame on him? Because for 14 years, he lied at every opportunity. He could have at any time said yes, but he only said yes now because he wants to keep competing and keep making money and is hoping that his punishment will be lessened. He wasn"t told to keep lying, he CHOSE to keep lying.
Now, to rebuild my Counter Contentions, quoting your attacks.

1) "All race walkers with no exception break the basic rule of their sport, and the winner still isn't punished." Do you have evidence that EVERY one of them break the rules? I know it"s semantics but saying something like that is just open to attack. Also, has anyone in Race Walking dominated their sport in the same way Lance Armstrong did? Finally, It also doesn"t damage the argument that he should not be praised, so Bring Counter Contention 1 across.
2)"Maybe like Overeem in UFC? Doping really says more about the sport than about the athletes." In this situation, Overeem is not licensed in the state where the testing occurred, and thus cannot be punished until he decides to try to get licensed in Nevada, thus it doesn"t apply. Meanwhile, to further my argument more, Sammy Sosa also did a lot of charitable work during and after his career, but all we remember about him is PED use and corked bats. Bring Counter Contention 2 across.
3)"if Michael Jordan admits doping tomorrow, would he really loose whole of his reputation? I don't know, he would still be a legend to me..." Nice hypothetical, but there"s a difference between a statement and if evidence came out. Also, when someone ADMITS they were wrong, we treat them better than if they were confronted with the evidence before saying anything. Also, Armstrong denied for YEARS that he doped, and only said anything to try to save face. Bring Counter Contention 3 across.

The point I"m trying to make is this: He made a choice to cheat, and then chose to keep cheating and keep lying about cheating for so long, that it built up and up until the truth came out. Why should we still praise someone who did this, no matter what he might have done with the fame and fortune? Cross-apply what I said at the beginning: The Ends Do Not Justify The Means, and Cheaters Never Prosper. You have shown nothing why we should ignore these social norms in this case.
Debate Round No. 3
vab

Pro

vab forfeited this round.
DWolf2k2

Con

First, my opponent forfeited the last round, so bring my Counter Contentions 1, 2, and 3 across and through to the whip speech. Second, the Pro side failed to provide new business for discussion in this round, and that will be added to my voters in the whip speech. But as this is an educational process, I will endeavor to continue by discussing what has been previously mentioned.

My opponent attacks me in round three for not attacking his primary argument, when I thought the conduct here was to not attack in our opening statements, but rather lay out our cases. Well then, I"ll do it here. My opponent"s critical argument, as mentioned by him, is as follows:

"Well, I suggest we actually imagine he never doped and never won all that races and never even existed. He wouldn't have been an amazing and maybe best ever inspiration to people who suffer cancer. But, more importantly (since today it's all about the money), his foundation raised more than $470 million to support the mission to inspire and empower people affected by cancer. And that's a lot of money. I am sure those people appreciate it and I think that the public image of Lance Armstrong should be more positive due to this."

My opponent is asking us to just simply forget that this man, Lance Armstrong, came into the public life, accepted fame and glory for his actions, and then turned out that the linchpin of his image was built on a lie. If he had simply been a guy who recovered from cancer not much attention would have been paid to him though it would have still been a nice feel-good story. Instead, he chose to return to cycling, and be successful in cycling, in order to raise the profile of Cancer Research and be an inspiration to others, a worthwhile goal. However, in 1998, as someone who was recently recovering from Cancer Treatments, his body was not perhaps in the best shape to begin competing in an endurance sport at the International Level. So, he decided to go with the culture of the sport, a culture my opponent noted earlier, and began using Performance Enhancing Drugs and Blood Doping as part of his new cycling team in order to be able to compete, as noted in the USADA's report that was submitted to WADA, retrievable from http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org.... He could have, if he wanted to, at any time, blow the whistle, and even if he had admitted his part, could have been heralded as an even bigger icon as it would have shown his integrity. Instead, he chose to live the lie, live the culture of the sport, and not only kept quiet, but helped to keep the program going and improve it. Is this a man we should look up to and say is an inspiration to others? I say no, and I again urge you to vote for the opposition. I await my opponent"s whip speech.
Debate Round No. 4
vab

Pro

vab forfeited this round.
DWolf2k2

Con

Let's go straight to the Voters.
1) Counter Contention 1, which has come though defended and otherwise untouched. He tried to attack it in round 3, but I was more then able to defend, rebuild, and strengthen it.
2) Counter Contention 2, Cross-Applying the reasons for Voter 1
3) Counter Contention 3, Cross-Applying again the reasons for Voter 1
4) Lack of Round 4 Argument from my opponent, without rhyme or reason to the lack of an argument. If he had a legit reason, he would not have been online in time for the debate, choosing not to.
5) Lack of Round 5 Argument from my opponent, Cross-Applying the reason for Voter 4.
6) My opponent brought no substantial reason to disregard the actions of Lance Armstrong, thus unable to fulfill the burden of proof expected. He brought forth the proposition, but only gave sympathy comments as to why he's right.
7) Any sourcing he did provide came from an unreliable source, as Wikipedia can not withstand academic scrutiny, and personal interviews are questionable as evidence in a case where the subject is known to have actively lied for a prolonged period of time.
It is for these 7 reasons I urge you to vote for the Opposition, and as my opponent forfeited the last two rounds, I urge a max score win for the Opposition. Thank you very much.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by vab 4 years ago
vab
You deserve this win cause I forfeited last two rounds. Although you would have probably won anyways, in my opinion.
I agree with ax123man that I set the bar too high...
In the end, I am satisfied that there was one voter (morgan2252) who was on con side before the debate, changed his mind (now tied). That was my goal in this debate.
I was total underdog :P
Posted by DWolf2k2 4 years ago
DWolf2k2
I understand, I'm in college too. But you can't begrudge me trying to work and woo judges in rebuttal, right? Also, as I see points can be earned through reliable sourcing is why I explained my debate background.
Posted by vab 4 years ago
vab
Hey, I apologize for not posting in round 4 and 5, due to too much stuff these days on college.
I don't think voters will be too concerned about sourcing...
Thanks for the debate either way :)
Posted by DWolf2k2 4 years ago
DWolf2k2
Also, just so that it is know, I'm used to North American Parli Debate, with some British Parli as well. Either way, that means I'm not used to sourcing in the debate, as under normal circumstances only 20 minutes is allowed for prep. Just wanted to put that out there.
Posted by vab 4 years ago
vab
lol
nevermind. I bet I misspelled a lot... I see now that last sentence doesn't really make any sense, but you could see what I mean. That this is more important part of the story.
Looking forward to your arguments.
Posted by DWolf2k2 4 years ago
DWolf2k2
I know I misspelled Prima Facie. Why does it have to sound like an a sound and not an e sound? :(
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
vabDWolf2k2Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
vabDWolf2k2Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Cheaters never win, in the end, and Pro failed to prove otherwise nor provide any valid reason why a cheater should still be treated as a champion even after his cheating comes to light. Conduct point lost for seemingly walking away from the debate - with or without "breaking the basic rules of the sport" :D
Vote Placed by morgan2252 4 years ago
morgan2252
vabDWolf2k2Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct & convincing arguments to con because of FF. Otherwise, sources and spelling and grammar were similar.
Vote Placed by ax123man 4 years ago
ax123man
vabDWolf2k2Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro set the bar too high with the resolution. Something more like "Lance Armstrong doesn't deserve the level of negative treatment he has gotten" would be better. I suspect maybe that explains the forfeit as the arguments were actually reasonably good.
Vote Placed by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
vabDWolf2k2Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited his last two rounds, something which I take as an concession.