The Instigator
kabirgrover
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zarroette
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Should teens be allowed to take bodybuilding supplements (not steroids)

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 3 votes the winner is...
Zarroette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/2/2015 Category: Sports
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 764 times Debate No: 69286
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

kabirgrover

Pro

Parents nowadays don't let teens take supplements like whey protein, creatine and other safe stuff.
They don't understand that the person is serious about it.
They sometimes refer to supplements as steroids when they aren't steroids.
I think they should allow their kids to take supplements.
Zarroette

Con

I accept. I await my opponent's opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
kabirgrover

Pro

kabirgrover forfeited this round.
Zarroette

Con

In this round, I am going to construct a negative case as to why teens should no be allowed to take bodybuilding supplements.


Negative Case

Premise: Peer pressure

It is no secret that teenagers are quite susceptible to peer pressure. Often this peer pressure can lead teenagers to make dangerous choices about important things like [3]:

- Drugs, alcohol and cigarettes
- Sex
- Stealing or shoplifting
- Driving without a license or speeding


So, when it comes to big decisions that can potentially cause a lot of harm, teenagers can often not even make the decisions themselves, but can choose purely by what other people pressure them into.


A1: Lax governmental regulation


According to Consumerreport.org, bodybuilding supplments are largely unrestrained by governmental policy. A report completed by JAMA Internal Medicine, some supplements have been found to cause "serious adverse health consequences or death" [1]. This is largely due to the fact that manifacturers are not required to put much information about the ingredients on their products, leading to unsafe ingredients being used in some supplements without the knowledge of the consumer.


A similar kind of story can be found with Craze, a bodybuilding supplement brought to the consumer by Matt Cahill. The supplement became quite popular among bodybuilders, of which includes teenagers. However, a USA Today report into the consumer product found that there were many unlisted products in this supplement that were dangerous. Again, as the industry is not held to high enough standards, there are many undetected, toxic substances that are not required to be registered by these companies [2].


Due to the risks involved in a largely unregulated consumer market, and due to the relatively inexperienced age of the teenager in regards to consumer consumption, teens should not be allowed to consume bodybuilding supplements.


Conclusion

Due to (Premise) teenagers being sometimes wholly unable to make decisions based on rationality, and instead making these decisions via peer pressure or inexperience, the potentially life-changing decision of choosing to take body-building substances, especially when the industry is not held to a high enough standard (A1), is going to have teenagers take unreasonable risks and potentially greatly harm themselves. Therefore, teenagers should not be allowed to take bodybuilding supplements. The resolution is negated.


References

[1] http://consumerreports.org...
[2] http://www.usatoday.com...
[3] http://www.kidshelp.com.au...
Debate Round No. 2
kabirgrover

Pro

kabirgrover forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
kabirgrover

Pro

I liked your points but
Sometimes , what you talked about can happen. But the rules are strict now. The company called "ConsumerLab" tests rach and every supplement that is made.
Parents can check the reputation of the company and also go into the depth of the ingredients used. Parents don't want teens to take supplements because they think that they are shortcuts and "steroids" where as they are not.
Supplements arae sometimes important for teen bodybuilders because they add an amount of protein that is difficult to obtain from a natural diet.
I do agree that supplements should be used not abused, but doesn't that apply for everything in our life? Even consuming 15 apples a day can harm you.
Zarroette

Con

Thank you, Kabirgrover.


Negative Case


Premise: Peer pressure

Not objected to. My opponent agrees that teenagers are poor decision makers whom are often swayed by their peers.


A1: Lax governmental regulation

Whilst my opponent argues some of the points under this heading (addressed by me under counter-arguments), my opponent never addresses the sources I provided, hence they are conceded.

The idea that teenagers are inexperienced decision makers, in regards to consumer products, was also an issue that went uncontested.


Counter-arguments


"Sometimes , what you talked about can happen."

My opponent concedes that this issue of toxic ingredients is a real possibility, that it happens "sometimes". Is it okay that sometimes, people's health is put at serious risk due to this problem?


"But the rules are strict now. The company called "ConsumerLab" tests rach and every supplement that is made."

Does this company test products made in various countries? To what standard does this company test things to? Is the company free of corruption? Does this company even exist? Without citing any information, all we are presented, via my opponent, is that there might be a company that might test "each and every" supplement made to perhaps an acceptable degree. My opponent provides absolutely no evidence to support his claim, making it a bare assertion, which is a logical fallacy [1].


"Parents can check the reputation of the company and also go into the depth of the ingredients used."

No they cannot. As both of my uncontested sources showed, companies are not required put much information about the ingredients imbedded within their products.


"Parents don't want teens to take supplements because they think that they are shortcuts and "steroids" where as they are not."

My opponent now begins to psychoanalyse all parents without a shred of evidence; to give my opponent this point, you would have to believe that he is able to read the minds of parents from all over the world. Again, this is merely another bare assertion.



"Supplements arae sometimes important for teen bodybuilders because they add an amount of protein that is difficult to obtain from a natural diet."


Just another bare assertion.


"
I do agree that supplements should be used not abused, but doesn't that apply for everything in our life? Even consuming 15 apples a day can harm you."
My contention was never that consuming in excess was an issue, rather that consuming at all was the issue, due to the potential toxicity of the products. Remember that my opponent conceded "sometimes" the product being consumed is toxic.


Conclusion

My argument that teenagers are poor decision makers, due to peer pressure and beng inexperienced consumers, sets the context for this debate (and went unaddressed). In the event that parents are making the decision, my sources indicated that they are an a poor position to make decision due to companies not being required to provide much information about the ingredients of the product (sources were never contested). Due to this poor position, it "sometimes" happens that toxic ingredients are able to slip past minimal governmental checks and potentially harm anyone who takes the product. For these reasons, teens should not be allowed to take body-building supplments.

In opposition to this argument, my opponent has largely provided bare assertion after bare assertion, of which are logical fallacies. If my opponent's claims were substantiated with sources like mine were, then he/she might have had a case, but they were not. Hence, my arguments still stand and there is very good reason a vote my way is the right way.

Thank you kabirgrover for the debate and thank you for reading =)


Reference
[1] http://www.toolkitforthinking.com...
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by AtheistPerson 2 years ago
AtheistPerson
Please be more specific
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Lee001 2 years ago
Lee001
kabirgroverZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: FF
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
kabirgroverZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Fofeiture
Vote Placed by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
kabirgroverZarroetteTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro drops too many points, the one regarding poor regulation of unlisted components to steroids carried most weight. Moreover Pro's case was barely coherent and barely made an impact even without mitigation.