The Instigator
gahbage
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Pro (for)
Losing
22 Points

Performance-enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports.

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 8/2/2008 Category: Sports
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 12,880 times Debate No: 4885
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (13)

 

gahbage

Con

Said drugs should stay illegal for use in sports, for a few reasons.

1) Negative effect on the steroid user

Steroids, as we all know, speed up protein synthesis to enhance performance. However, there are some harmful side effects to using them. They include:

- higher blood pressure
- higher cholesterol levels
- higher risk of heart disease
- liver damage
- premature growth
- testicular cancer
- abnormally large amounts of acne
- breast development in men

This, obviously, is not good for the steroid user. Furthermore, exercising normally can avoid these problems, and regular exercise is better for physical and mental health.

2) Negative impact on children

When children start to get into sports, they normally treat their favorite player as an idol, an image of what they want to be when they grow up. How would they feel if their idol essentially cheated by using drugs so they didn't have to work as hard? Furthermore, what if they decided to use steroids too, because their hero did?

3) Unfair advantage

Most professional athletes work hard every day to stay in shape and sharp at their sport. Why should some players get to skip this hard work that everyone else is doing?

That's all for now.
Ragnar_Rahl

Pro

Unfortunately, I have to say that your arguments apply to a few related resolutions, but not the resolution at hand.

Your "Part one arguments," to the extent they raise true symptoms (which is not clear, because data on the symptoms of the usage of steroids at recommended dosages in healthy people is in a shortage and rather conflicting, which is perhaps why you have cited no scientific data), apply to the resolution "Should you use steroids?" Or "Is hiring a steroid-using baseball player a good investment?"

Your part two arguments apply to "Should children be encouraged to look into athletes as role models?" (and I note they also have a flaw, how would the child feel about his uber-clean athlete role model if he found out the athlete was only being uber-clean because he was forced to? Kind of disillusioning no?)

Your part three argument applies to "Should sports leagues concerned with an image of 'hard work' or 'fairness' allow steroid users to play?"

The resolution at hand, however, is whether it should be ILLEGAL for professional athletes to use these drugs. That is, whether Johnny McSuperStrong's use of steroids is a justification to send a man with a gun to his door and stick him in a cage, shooting him if he doesn't cooperate. This raises questions of "What are proper social limits (rights)?" Since human beings require the application of their own mind to their own actions to live, and need to produce goods with those actions, and this is a universal need, it holds that each human who wishes to live should find it proper that others not interfere with this (the rights of liberty and property). In order to pursue this, it is of course necessary that they themselves not interfere first, for interfering with one who does not interfere removes the incentive for that other to not interfere.

Thus the question in whether to violate someone's liberty or property is "Have they violated yours?" I await your proof that the injection of steroids into one's own body, or between consenting parties, somehow violates anyone's liberty or property.
Debate Round No. 1
gahbage

Con

"Your "Part one arguments," to the extent they raise true symptoms (which is not clear, because data on the symptoms of the usage of steroids at recommended dosages in healthy people is in a shortage and rather conflicting, which is perhaps why you have cited no scientific data), apply to the resolution "Should you use steroids?" Or "Is hiring a steroid-using baseball player a good investment?""

http://en.wikipedia.org...

They do apply to the resolution, "Performance-enhancing drugs should [not] be allowed in professional sports". They show that using these drugs is unsafe.

"Your part two arguments apply to "Should children be encouraged to look into athletes as role models?"

No, I'm saying that performance-enhancing drugs should not be allowed because they set a bad example for children.

"Your part three argument applies to "Should sports leagues concerned with an image of 'hard work' or 'fairness' allow steroid users to play?"

No, I'm saying that performance-enhancing drugs cheat users out of hard work and practice that other players have to go through.

"The resolution at hand, however, is whether it should be ILLEGAL for professional athletes to use these drugs."

Uh, no, it's whether "Performance-enhancing drugs should be ALLOWED in professional sports." "Allowed" and "legal" are very different. "Allowed" means allowed within the sport's rules; "legal" means allowed within the law.

Since my opponent has only tried to relate my arguments to different topics by misinterpreting the resolution, and not actually presented an argument, you vote CON at this point.
Ragnar_Rahl

Pro

"
They do apply to the resolution, "Performance-enhancing drugs should [not] be allowed in professional sports". They show that using these drugs is unsafe."

Doing unsafe things is allowable. People have the right to do unsafe things with their own bodies.

"
No, I'm saying that performance-enhancing drugs should not be allowed because they set a bad example for children.
"
Athletes are not slaves, existing for the sake of their examples to children. They exist for their own sake and are to be treated as such, as human beings, so long as they treat others as such. This means they are not to be forced to a course of action just because it will benefit someone else, only them initiating force can justify such force.

"

No, I'm saying that performance-enhancing drugs cheat users out of hard work and practice that other players have to go through.
"

"Have to?" No one "has to" do such a thing. They are perfectly able to take the drugs themselves, or work hard, or not condition themselves, as they please. And the use of drugs by one party does not delete the hard work by another, they are separate bodies, separate phenomena.

"
Uh, no, it's whether "Performance-enhancing drugs should be ALLOWED in professional sports." "Allowed" and "legal" are very different. "Allowed" means allowed within the sport's rules; "legal" means allowed within the law."

This would be a permissible arguments if your round 1 argument did not already concede you were talking about what THE LAW should allow. As it stands it is not, it is merely a tool of deception, and I quote (emphasis mine:)

"
Said drugs should stay ILLEGAL for use in sports, for a few reasons."

That was at the beginning of your first round argument. That leaves no room for weaseling out of it, the resolution was explicitly clarified by you as meaning allowable by the law, not allowable by the sports league. You made your bed now argue in it.

"and not actually presented an argument, you vote CON at this point."

Read second paragraph from the bottom of my Round 1. I did in fact present an argument, as relates to the resolution as you clarified it's meaning at the beginning of the debate. If you are going to state the resolution is anything other than what I have stated it is, you will be forced to admit the statement at the beginning of your Round One argument was deliberately dishonest.
Debate Round No. 2
gahbage

Con

"Doing unsafe things is allowable. People have the right to do unsafe things with their own bodies."

Did you not see what "allowed" refers to? Rights or not, steroids are not allowed in professional sports.

"Athletes are not slaves, existing for the sake of their examples to children. They exist for their own sake and are to be treated as such, as human beings, so long as they treat others as such. This means they are not to be forced to a course of action just because it will benefit someone else, only them initiating force can justify such force."

I didn't say that. Obviously, an athlete should be expected to be a role model for children, since many kids will look up to him/her. This does not dictate the way they live; it simply means they should not do stupid things, cheat, etc. because that will negatively influence kids. This is why, for example, Michael Phelps got a lot of crap for doing drugs.

""Have to?" No one "has to" do such a thing. They are perfectly able to take the drugs themselves, or work hard, or not condition themselves, as they please."

Do you see any unconditioned professional athletes? They all have to do some sort of tough conditioning to stay sharp at their sport. And most people consider steroids cheating, or do not use them because of the aforementioned side effects. Professional athletes who do not use steroids HAVE TO work hard to stay in shape and up to expectations.

"And the use of drugs by one party does not delete the hard work by another, they are separate bodies, separate phenomena."

EXACTLY - one party still has to go through hard work, while the other can just take drugs.

"This would be a permissible arguments if your round 1 argument did not already concede you were talking about what THE LAW should allow. As it stands it is not, it is merely a tool of deception, and I quote . . . That was at the beginning of your first round argument. That leaves no room for weaseling out of it, the resolution was explicitly clarified by you as meaning allowable by the law, not allowable by the sports league."

Well, first, if something is illegal for use in sports, then it is not allowed for use in sports. So I can relate these arguments to the resolution even if you were right.

Second, you just contradicted yourself. First you state that I conceded that I was talking about what the law should allow. But then, you say I "explicitly clarified [it] as being allowable by the law, not allowable by the sports league". But really, I was laying the latter all along. The very first sentence says "illegal for use in sports". That means that their use is punishable by law if used in sports.

Now before you start saying that we should not jail people for steroid use, that's not what "punishable by law" means. Loitering is punishable by law; do you get thrown in jail for it? What about littering or violating curfew laws?

===============================================================================

My opponent has spent all of his arguments attempting to not relate my arguments to the resolution. However, I have showed how he has misinterpreted all of my arguments. Furthermore, he has not attempted to argue with my position, and is giving contradictory and misleading "reasons" on why I have "not" supported the resolution. You have no clear reason to vote in his favor, so vote CON.
Ragnar_Rahl

Pro

"
Did you not see what "allowed" refers to? Rights or not, steroids are not allowed in professional sports.
"

Again, you are ignoring your own statement at the beginning of the debate. You conceded the point about which meaning of "allowed" is to be used.

"
I didn't say that. Obviously, an athlete should be expected to be a role model for children, since many kids will look up to him/her. This does not dictate the way they live; it simply means they should not do stupid things, cheat, etc. because that will negatively influence kids. "
You're contradicting yourself. The ability to do "stupid things" is part of the ability to choose how to live. Either you dictate how they live or you don't, there is no middle ground here. Respect their rights, or treat them as slaves. That's it. If you dictate that a person acts as a role model, this means you are dictating that they live as one.

"
Do you see any unconditioned professional athletes? "
Yes, actually, in baseball for example, at some of the positions that are specialized, it is possible to just have a good technique down for pitching and hitting and not actually do much in the way of conditioning. Not optimal but some people do it with success.

And you are ignoring the fact that being a professional athlete is a choice. They are free to be one or not to be one. So no, they don't HAVE TO do anything, even those whose sports do require conditioning, are not forced to choose that sport.

"
EXACTLY - one party still has to go through hard work, while the other can just take drugs.
"
Again that "Has to," which is false, and the false assumption that the first party can't use the drugs. And if you'll notice, exhbit A, the most successful steroid users also work the hardest (See Barry Bonds' extensive workouts.) The steroids simply allow the workout sessions to last longer and be more productive.

"
Well, first, if something is illegal for use in sports, then it is not allowed for use in sports. So I can relate these arguments to the resolution even if you were right.

Second, you just contradicted yourself. First you state that I conceded that I was talking about what the law should allow. But then, you say I "explicitly clarified [it] as being allowable by the law, not allowable by the sports league". But really, I was laying the latter all along. The very first sentence says "illegal for use in sports". That means that their use is punishable by law if used in sports."

You are twisting logic here, and it is you who contradict yourself. You state that i contradict myself by declaring you were talking about the law, and then declaring you were talking about the law? That is the opposite of a contradiction! Meanwhile you contradict yourself by stating you are talking about the sports league's rules, and then stating "PUNISHABLE BY LAW." "LAW" is not what a sports league makes. It is what congress makes. A sports league has every right to forbid participation based on such grounds as steroid use... but such a rule is not a "law," does not make participation "illegal." Only that which is forbidden by a government body, Congress, is "illegal."

Unless you were trying to say I stated you were arguing it "Should be allowable by the law, not the sports league," which means you misinterpreted my statement. I stated the debate, you clarified, was about "What is allowable" by the law, rather than "what is allowable" the sports league, which means you are dropping the context and thus altering the meaning of my statement.

Either way I have not contradicted myself, either you misunderstand the term contradiction or you are dropping the context of a statement (Your summary of my supposedly contradictory arguments was so ambigous I have a hard time telling which.)

"
Now before you start saying that we should not jail people for steroid use, that's not what "punishable by law" means. Loitering is punishable by law; do you get thrown in jail for it? What about littering or violating curfew laws?
"
You are given fines, which if not paid result in jail. The end that lies down the road is the same, there are simply more steps. The point is that the penalty is government administered, and active, as opposed to the passive penalty of being refused employment if the prohibition were private. Jail and government-mandated fines are morally equivalent. Where one is morally unjustified, so is the other.

"
My opponent has spent all of his arguments attempting to not relate my arguments to the resolution. However, I have showed how he has misinterpreted all of my arguments."

And I have shown how you have misinterpreted mine, and thereby not shown how I have misinterpreted yours.

"urthermore, he has not attempted to argue with my position,"

Your explicit position, explicated in Round 1, is that it should be, again, ILLEGAL for athletes to use steroids. Not, grounds for a private entity to not hire, but, ILLEGAL. If you think I haven't been arguing with that position, you haven't paid the slightest bit of attention.

"nd is giving contradictory and misleading "reasons" on why I have "not" supported the resolution. "

I already demonstrated I have not contradicted myself. I hope you can do the same. It isn't my fault what you chose to open the debate with, had you not, the meaning of "allowed" would still be open to discussion, but your inclusion of the term "illegal" made certain it is not, and you have not responded to my arguments against it being illegal (or, since i am Pro, in favor of it being legal, though there is no difference between the two terms).
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Indeed if anything pitchers often need to AVOID "conditioning" primarily. They are, for example, not supposed to regularly lift more than five or ten pounds with their pitching arm, if I recall correctly.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Not all hitting is "hitting far." John Olerud, for example, a Mariners player, was well known for not doing much in the weight room, but getting by on batting average and a good glove.

As for the fastball issue, you'd be surprised. People don't generally improve their fastball speed much once they hit the pros no matter how much conditioning they attempt, it seems largely predetermined, based on technique and- talent? Fastballs tend to grow faster as children grow larger, but not so much as adults work harder.

In any case it's not essential to the issue.
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
You have to condition your arms to be able to throw a pitch at 90+ mph and to hit one far.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
That's conditioning a skill."

Equivocation. The kind of conditioning you were talking about, the only kind steroid use aids in, is conditioning of physical fitness. Not of technique.
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
"Yes, actually, in baseball for example, at some of the positions that are specialized, it is possible to just have a good technique down for pitching and hitting and not actually do much in the way of conditioning."

That's conditioning a skill.
Posted by Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
forget steroids
i'm waiting for respirocytes

Each respirocyte can store and transport 200 times more oxygen and carbon dioxide than natural red blood cells. Filled with these respirocytes, an adult human could hold his/her breath underwater for four hours. That person could also sprint at top speed for at least 15 minutes without taking a breath.

http://www.dailytech.com...
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
Well, I was hoping this would turn out to be more of a debate... oh well.
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
Hey Rezz that makes alot of sense...
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
Everything has negative effects. If such drugs were legalized everyone would be working just as hard, as everyone would have access to them. As for the unfair advantage card, that's the same for different athletes wearing more advanced / less advanced swimsuits; it's not a reason to take the "better" one out just because it can help people do better.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
gahbageRagnar_RahlTied
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 gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
gahbageRagnar_RahlTied
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 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 Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
gahbageRagnar_RahlTied
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 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 LakevilleNorthJT 8 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
gahbageRagnar_RahlTied
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 indianajones644 8 years ago
indianajones644
gahbageRagnar_RahlTied
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 CHS 8 years ago
CHS
gahbageRagnar_RahlTied
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 Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
gahbageRagnar_RahlTied
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 the_conservative 8 years ago
the_conservative
gahbageRagnar_RahlTied
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 CP 8 years ago
CP
gahbageRagnar_RahlTied
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 brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
gahbageRagnar_RahlTied
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