The Instigator
lilcutiedest
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
logicinlife
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Should student athletes bet required for drug testing?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
logicinlife
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/12/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 602 times Debate No: 71602
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

lilcutiedest

Con

My Lit Class is doing the same debate. I will be speaking on how it is breaking the Constitution. The sixth amendment was made for a reason. Innocent until proven guilty is what it says. Having all athletes is like saying Guilty until proven innocent. If you suspect that the child is using or the students are using then yes that would be good, because you are suspecting them of a crime but not suspecting them of a crime and having them being drug tested is like a police officer saying" Hey can I see your I.D.?" "Well, what for?" "I need your I.D." "Well, do you suspect me of a crime because that's the only way you can see it" Which is true. Cops can only ask for identification if they suspect you of a crime but if they don't they are breaking the constitution... A law they should be enforcing. Same thing with the drug testing.
logicinlife

Pro

Hello, I am accepting this debate, just because. I really don't feel strongly towards any position on this topic, but here it goes.

Con appeals to the sixth amendment, and take note that according to his profile that Pro is 14. It is a safe deduction that Pro is in high-school. This observance is important because (a) we all remember high school along with its parties, drugs and so forth and (b) according to the law Pro isn't old enough to be considered an adult, have a driver's licence, vote, join the military and on and on.

I will begin to refute Con's arguments and since no rules were established the burden of proof is on Con to support his thought that student athletes shouldn't be required to take drug tests. All quoted text is Con's words and my rebuttals are following.

"Innocent until proven guilty is what it says. Having all athletes is like saying Guilty until proven innocent. If you suspect that the child is using or the students are using then yes that would be good, because you are suspecting them of a crime but not suspecting them of a crime and having them being drug tested is like a police officer saying" Hey can I see your I.D.?" "Well, what for?" "I need your I.D." "Well, do you suspect me of a crime because that's the only way you can see it" Which is true. Cops can only ask for identification if they suspect you of a crime but if they don't they are breaking the constitution... A law they should be enforcing. Same thing with the drug testing."

Con, first assumes that a Cop asking for an I.D. is limited to whether or not they suspect you of a crime.

In Texas, it is against the law to not carry identification and thus by refusing to show an I.D. you give the officer probable cause that you are breaking a law such as not having your I.D. on you.


Con would have made an irrefutable case if he was an adult, but there are several factors to consider here. (a) Children need guidance, especially in high school because of psychological pressures to conform, stand out, or to simply be "someone." (b) All adults who went through high school knows that drugs get passed around, including alcohol and so forth. (c) By signing up to be in athletics you are receiving a privilege to play sports for your school therefore you receive that privilege under conditions (one being drug testing at some schools) and finally (d) Taking a drug test is easy, and the only reason to oppose of such is that you are guilty. (The common view, not saying that you are guilty.)

As a minor, and a member of a public school system, you do NOT have all of the rights of an adult. As such, when you were registered to your school system you gave up more of your rights. An example is that you can be searched and drug tested without any probable cause. The chances are that your school requires these drug tests for athletes by their own policies.

Now, there are two ways to avoid being drug tested as an athlete, (a) be homeschooled where you play sports in homeschool establishments against other homeschool groups or (b) ensure that the school you register for doesn't require drug testing. As a minor, you have no ability as this is your parent's choice.

Con, I present you with a simple hypothetical question: I have been applying for a job that I really want. I love the offered pay, hours, benefits and so forth. Basically this job is perfect for me, and when they bring me in for an interview and I get through the interview they say, "alright you just need to take a drug test." I agree, why? Because I want this job, I have nothing to hide and it is their policy to drug test to avoid hiring potential criminals or hiring liabilities. How is this situation for an Adult different? There are indeed some differences, but let me say this, if you are an employer for a construction site hiring for a bulldozer operator or a coach for a soccer team, would you want to hire a heroin addict to operate a bulldozer or to play on a team where he could injure other students.

It mostly boils down to two things for employers and schools, (a) Liability and safety and (b) credibility as an institution.

As Pro, I believe that not only should Athletes be drug tested in high school, but also in professional sports. As most jobs drug test for good reason, why should professional sports avoid such?

In conclusion to round one, Student Athletes should be drug tested for the following reasons:

1. Students should have nothing to hide
2. It is a courtesy to the school because they are letting you play sports
3. It is a courtesy to the safety to others
4. If a student is found to have drugs in their system they can receive the help they need to fight addiction and have their parents know.
5. It is a good practice of responsibility especially knowing that most jobs require drug testing
6. Students should have to appeal to the public system's policies


For some more information on the rights you do NOT have as a child in the USA here: http://people.howstuffworks.com...



Debate Round No. 1
lilcutiedest

Con

lilcutiedest forfeited this round.
logicinlife

Pro

Opponent forfeited. Extend arguments.

Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 2
lilcutiedest

Con

lilcutiedest forfeited this round.
logicinlife

Pro

Opponent forfeited 2 rounds. Extend arguments.

Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by americanmade23 2 years ago
americanmade23
i believe also that there needs to be some type of fact based suspicion before one is drug tested
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
lilcutiedestlogicinlifeTied
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: Forfeiture