The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

Resolved: That schools should regularly drug test their athletes to prevent drug use.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/5/2013 Category: Sports
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,149 times Debate No: 40005
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Schools should regularly drug test their athletes to prevent performance enhancing drugs. These drugs give you a higher advantage on the field and can get you disqualified from a game or season. it is the schools responsibility to regulate drug tests too prevent drugs and be a legitimate team in a conference. Also drugs tests will allow coaches to warn and inform athletes about the effects of these drugs on their bodies and mind and prevent them from using them in the future.


First, I would like to define a key word that my opponent conveniently overlooked. This key term is "schools." The only schools that could have regulations enforced on them by the government would be public schools. However, this still could allow private school students to use enhancing drugs, AND they are also able to recruit new players. Based on your previous argument, would private schools be considered as illegitimate teams in a conference? Also, in your argument, you stated that coaches can only use drug tests to warn and inform their players about the effects of the drugs. However, it is evident that coaches can warn their players before it gets to the point of actual consumption.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to start off by stating that private schools with athletes that consume performance enhancing drug would be considered a illegitimate team in a conference. Also at the end of your statement you stated that coaches are able to stop athletes from consuming drug which fall on my side of the argument stating that we should drug test athletes.

Public Schools
- in 2002 the supreme court ruled that public schools have the legal permission to drug test their athletes
-In 2005 and 2006, 373 school even received government funding to do drug tests

Private Schools
-They cannot be directly affected by state laws.
-But they can be affected by national laws.
- due to not wanting to be suspected of drug testing many private schools drug test their athletes
-It is also in their best benefit to drug test their athletes because if they are taught their whole team can be eliminated from their conference and put a bad view on their team.

Benefits Of Drug Testing
- Many people fear that drug testing will violate a student, but in contrast there are several way these tests can be completed without violating a student.
-If a student does test positive, public schools are prohibited from sending the results to any legal office; therefor, students are protected.
-Along with testing positive, school officials can suspend or expelled any student from a sport.
-decrease drug abuse in teens


Although my opponent has proposed very useful facts, he failed to cite his sources. In result, these facts are not credible to the argument. My opponent also failed to answer the whole question that actually stood before him. Would private schools, that are allowed to recruit players, be considered illegitimate in the conference? Along with this, my opponent also took my argument out of context. I said that coaches are able to warn their athletes about drugs without having to use drug tests.

Back to the argument at hand, states are the ones who have the policing power to keep their people healthy. Do you think you will be able to have every state cooperate with drug testing? Is the state government going to be able to fund all public schools to administer drug testing of their athletes? Many public school districts are already having issues passing levies that are simply for operational purposes.

And based on my opponent's opinion, private schools should be held to the same standard of drug testing as public schools. However, how do you plan on state governments regulating private schools when you said yourself that they have to be affected by national law?

As a result, I stick to my argument that schools should not regularly drug test their student athletes.
Debate Round No. 2


castmetal forfeited this round.


Due to my opponent's lack of response, I restate my opinion that schools should not regularly drug test their athletes to prevent drug use.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by SBorn 3 years ago
The public schools vs private schools debate is a good argument. Private schools are held to a looser standard than public schools. Private schools can recruit their athletes while public schools are held to athletes in their district. Depending on the district drug use could be a more common thing. No matter if the school is private or public.
Posted by MarkR 3 years ago
Aren't some school athletic departments already tight on budgets, they are one of the last to be dealt resources, how could smaller schools ever have the hope of having a team if they are forced to spend all their money on drug tests.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the forfeit. I will note to both sides that private schools most certainly CAN be affected by state law, and note to Con that the question of whether schools will really do the testing is irrelevant unless your point is that the scohols that cheat will get unfair advantage. I'll also note to Con that he skated close to losing the conduct point for claiming in R2 a direct question wasn't answered that seemed rather as though it were answered by his opponent in R2.