The Instigator
CharlotteG121
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
masterdrave
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Should steroids be allowed in the Olympics

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
masterdrave
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2014 Category: Sports
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 783 times Debate No: 51272
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

CharlotteG121

Con

I think steroids should not be allowed in the Olympics
masterdrave

Pro

Oh come on, steroids are great! Let em in, it makes it all the more interesting. Who will pass out this time? Who took an overdose this year? Will there be any near-death experiences once more? Sounds good to me fool.
Debate Round No. 1
CharlotteG121

Con

Wrong all steroids should be band it does horrible things to your body you could die
masterdrave

Pro

Banned*. And that just adds some drama to the Games, it'll be great! Knock em back I say.
Debate Round No. 2
CharlotteG121

Con

So wrong at school we have to right an essay on this and all the research I've done so far says exactly what I'm saying now so I disagree with you
masterdrave

Pro

Wow, what a fail. Looks like you're out of time, oh glorious mind of splendour.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Mr.Dan 2 years ago
Mr.Dan
I have thought about this a thousand times. We should have a clean Olympics and a dirty one where all drugs are legal. Lets see what the human body can achieve with the help of drugs. Usain bolt on speed doing the 100m would be a sight to see I am sure of that.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by The_Scapegoat_bleats 2 years ago
The_Scapegoat_bleats
CharlotteG121masterdraveTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Reasons for voting decision: Not really much of a debate. Con has bad grammar, but Pro called Con a fool, so conduct goes to Con. Both should be ashamed for their poor performance on arguments.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
CharlotteG121masterdraveTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments are too weak to award points to either side for. Con did make some obvious spelling mistakes which pro pointed out.
Vote Placed by Defro 2 years ago
Defro
CharlotteG121masterdraveTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con essentially made no valid arguments, because Pro refuted Con's only point by saying that it just adds to the drama which is great. Pro left Con's argument unaddressed and only said "i disagree with you." Pro also claimed that he did research about it, yet he did not present any of it to support his case. This loses him points in conduct and arguments. Pro pointed out Con's spelling mistake, so I guess spelling and grammar also goes to Pro. Both Pro and Con were horrible debaters.