The Instigator
crazypenguin
Con (against)
Winning
39 Points
The Contender
Cindela
Pro (for)
Losing
19 Points

Steroids should be legal in baseball

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: 1/11/2008 Category: Sports
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,554 times Debate No: 1679
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (3)
Votes (14)

 

crazypenguin

Con

First thank you for joining this debate

I will like to state my points just about steroids in general:

1) Multiple kids around the world are getting the wrong message from people such as Barry Bonds by taking steroids to do better in their sports. They not only end up getting caught, suspended and then they lose any respect they had for cheating. Also research shows that "Regarding the ease by which one can obtain steroids, 17.0% of eighth graders, 27.7% of tenth graders, and 40.1% of twelfth graders surveyed in 2006 reported that steroids were "fairly easy" or "very easy" to obtain. " Even more encouraging by watching big league players take them

2) Steroids are also pretty harmful by causing a wide range of adverse side effects ranging from some that are physically unattractive, such as acne and breast development in men, to others that are life threatening. The important part is the life threatening which means that players are risking their lives just to get better at their sport.

Also since there currently is the 5 strike rule that means multiple players are taking steroids after being caught multiple times, boosting their playing level greatly. Also since there is a 5 strike rule people don't care if they get caught because they know they will only get a minor suspension or miss a game or two while the more strikes that pile up the more severe the consequence. If there was only a 2 strike rule player's wouldn't do it that often knowing they would get suspended for a season or two for taking it once and then officially not allowed to play baseball for taking it twice.

The two strike rule would reduce the amount of steroids taken greatly and make baseball a better sport.

Also to the 2 strike rule steroids just ruin the game and make it worse when you know that your favorite player was actually cheating by taking steroids.

Thank you,
Cindela

Pro

Before I begin my argument, I would like to ask everyone who will eventually vote in this debate to vote based upon te debate itself, not your own opinions. Thank you
Now to my argument:
When my opponent says steriods, I am going to assume that he is reffering to anabolic steriods, seeing as my opponent has not said what he means be steroids. There are many kinds of steroids, but I am going to assume he is talking about anabolic steroids. From the Merriam Webster Medical Dictionary comes a definition for anabolic steroids: anabolic+steroid
One entry found for anabolic steroid.
Main Entry: anabolic steroid
Function: noun
: any of a group of usually synthetic hormones that are derivatives of testosterone, are used medically especially to promote tissue growth, and are sometimes abused by athletes to increase the size and strength of their muscles and improve endurance
As you can see, anabolic steroids are used medically to promote tissue growth.
My rebuttals to my opponents argument:
His first arguement: His facts are incomplete. I did a little research, and I found the percentages that my opponent stated.
Regarding the ease by which one can obtain steroids, 17.0% of eighth graders, 27.7% of tenth graders, and 40.1% of twelfth graders surveyed in 2006 reported that steroids were "fairly easy" or "very easy" to obtain. Furthermore, 57.4% of twelfth graders surveyed reported that using steroids was a "great risk" during 2007.7
As you can see, 57.4% of 12th graders see steroids as a great risk. Would you do something that you see as a great risk? Jumping off a cliff into raging waters might be fun for some, but would you do it? No. You would not because you know that there is a great risk involved. Same concept with teens taking steroids. This argument has now been refuted.
>>2) Steroids are also pretty harmful by causing a wide range of adverse side effects ranging from some that are physically unattractive, such as acne and breast development in men, to others that are life threatening. The important part is the life threatening which means that players are risking their lives just to get better at their sport.
This is well known. Many people know that if you take too many steroids, which is a drug, it will harm you. Too much of any drug will harm you. Most people learn this be high school. I learned it in 3rd grade. The people who take steroids do so at their own risk. I am in no way justifying taking them, however. Taking steroids is a choice that all of these athletes made.
>>Also since there currently is the 5 strike rule that means multiple players are taking steroids after being caught multiple times, boosting their playing level greatly. Also since there is a 5 strike rule people don't care if they get caught because they know they will only get a minor suspension or miss a game or two while the more strikes that pile up the more severe the consequence. If there was only a 2 strike rule player's wouldn't do it that often knowing they would get suspended for a season or two for taking it once and then officially not allowed to play baseball for taking it twice.
This argument would be better off in your other debate, the one about the 2 strike rule. This debate is not about how many strikes players should have. This debate is about whether or not steroids should be legal in baseball. This point is irrelevant to our topic. (I am in no way limiting the topic. I am just debating from what I interpret from the topic. The number of strikes is not in the topic.)
>>The two strike rule would reduce the amount of steroids taken greatly and make baseball a better sport.
Again, look above.

Now to my arguments. I believe that in certain cases, if prescribed by a doctor, anabolic steroids should be used to help speed up recovery time. Anabolic steroids help regrow tissue, and if a doctor prescribes it for a player, I do not think that we should not let them use the steroid because they play baseball. If it helps to speed up the recovery, and let them be playing sooner, then why shouldn't we allow steroids? I agree, we shouldn't let people abuse anabolic steroids. However, this debate is about whether or not it should be legal or illegal in baseball, regardless of the situation. If used correctly, I think that steroids should be legal in baseball. This topic was very broad, so I am sorry if you think I am limiting the topic in any way. It was so broad, it was very hard not to limit it. Thank you
Debate Round No. 1
crazypenguin

Con

First I will rebutt your points and then move on to more of mine,

I agree with you that that is the definition of steroids I am using, but instead of saying anabolic all the time I'm just going to say steroids.

And my refute to your argument is that even if they think it's still a great risk people still do it. Is cheating a big risk? Yes, and still many people do it in all forms, maybe cheating off a test, stealing the answers, taking steroids always taking the risk because they think it's worth it for what they will achieve. Also you still haven't rebutted the part about the Regarding the ease by which one can obtain steroids, 17.0% of eighth graders, 27.7% of tenth graders, and 40.1% of twelfth graders surveyed in 2006 reported that steroids were "fairly easy" or "very easy" to obtain. You answered about the 12th graders but what about all the other grades. If you see even in 8th grade you can see people starting to get steroids and that early age.

You exactly proved my point that athletes are taking it at their own risk just to become better, even going back to the first paragraph that people still do it despite the risk, so yes they would "Jump off a cliff into raging waters might be fun for some, but would you do it" in that concept just they're doing it to be better at baseball.

You are right that this is not about the topic but it is point that steroids should be illegal in baseball but I brought it up because it would reduce the amount of steroids taken in general.

This debate is not about that anabolic steroids healing a persons injury it is about whether steroids should be legal or not so like you said this is irrelevant to this debate. Also when you say "If it helps to speed up the recovery, and let them be playing sooner, then why shouldn't we allow steroids?" that's another case which would be arguing that we should allow steroids to speed up injury recovery. This debate is whether to make them legal to everyone or no one you can't just allow select few to speed up injuries because even if their injury is gone they will still get the part of the enhancement that others wouldn't.

Now to a few of my points:

Steroids should be made illegal just because it sucks when you know your favorite player who was doing the best and about to break the record is accused of taking steroids after a test. All that joy of watching him win, and break the record is gone when you know he cheated all along. Also this leads me to my second point

Why do we have to think everyone is taking steroids when they are doing good? If people were just honest or even just not take steroids, we wouldn't have to accuse everyone about it. When someone hits 25 home runs a month and is consistently hitting well, suddenly he will have a test run over him because he must have been taking steroids when he might not have. So if steroids were gone forever we wouldn't have to accuse everyone.

Also kids around the world would not be getting the wrong message from big league players. The Barry Bond's issue was all around the media, for example 3 LA Times newspaper in a row had Barry Bond's picture in the front and how he took steroids. Also it was all over the internet, and other sources so basically everyone knew about it. Especially kids who saw that he broke the home run record while taking steroids, which would give them a bad idea.

I have refuted all your and made points of my own and that's why the con side has won this debate,

Thank you,
Cindela

Pro

Before I begin my argument, I would like to ask everyone who will eventually vote in this debate to vote based upon te debate itself, not your own opinions. Thank you
Now to my argument:
When my opponent says steriods, I am going to assume that he is reffering to anabolic steriods, seeing as my opponent has not said what he means be steroids. There are many kinds of steroids, but I am going to assume he is talking about anabolic steroids. From the Merriam Webster Medical Dictionary comes a definition for anabolic steroids: anabolic+steroid
One entry found for anabolic steroid.
Main Entry: anabolic steroid
Function: noun
: any of a group of usually synthetic hormones that are derivatives of testosterone, are used medically especially to promote tissue growth, and are sometimes abused by athletes to increase the size and strength of their muscles and improve endurance
As you can see, anabolic steroids are used medically to promote tissue growth.
My rebuttals to my opponents argument:
His first arguement: His facts are incomplete. I did a little research, and I found the percentages that my opponent stated.
Regarding the ease by which one can obtain steroids, 17.0% of eighth graders, 27.7% of tenth graders, and 40.1% of twelfth graders surveyed in 2006 reported that steroids were "fairly easy" or "very easy" to obtain. Furthermore, 57.4% of twelfth graders surveyed reported that using steroids was a "great risk" during 2007.7
As you can see, 57.4% of 12th graders see steroids as a great risk. Would you do something that you see as a great risk? Jumping off a cliff into raging waters might be fun for some, but would you do it? No. You would not because you know that there is a great risk involved. Same concept with teens taking steroids. This argument has now been refuted.
>>2) Steroids are also pretty harmful by causing a wide range of adverse side effects ranging from some that are physically unattractive, such as acne and breast development in men, to others that are life threatening. The important part is the life threatening which means that players are risking their lives just to get better at their sport.
This is well known. Many people know that if you take too many steroids, which is a drug, it will harm you. Too much of any drug will harm you. Most people learn this be high school. I learned it in 3rd grade. The people who take steroids do so at their own risk. I am in no way justifying taking them, however. Taking steroids is a choice that all of these athletes made.
>>Also since there currently is the 5 strike rule that means multiple players are taking steroids after being caught multiple times, boosting their playing level greatly. Also since there is a 5 strike rule people don't care if they get caught because they know they will only get a minor suspension or miss a game or two while the more strikes that pile up the more severe the consequence. If there was only a 2 strike rule player's wouldn't do it that often knowing they would get suspended for a season or two for taking it once and then officially not allowed to play baseball for taking it twice.
This argument would be better off in your other debate, the one about the 2 strike rule. This debate is not about how many strikes players should have. This debate is about whether or not steroids should be legal in baseball. This point is irrelevant to our topic. (I am in no way limiting the topic. I am just debating from what I interpret from the topic. The number of strikes is not in the topic.)
>>The two strike rule would reduce the amount of steroids taken greatly and make baseball a better sport.
Again, look above.

Now to my argument. I believe that if prescribed by a doctor to speed up the healing process, steroids should be allowed for baseball players. Anabolic steroids has medical uses, and we should not deprive baseball players from using it if they need it for a medical reason. I agree, abusing the use of anabolic steroids is bad, but using it to help in speeding up the recovery of an injured player is good. Would we stop a normal person from taking anabolic steroids even though they need it for a specific medical purpose? Of course not. Then why should we not allow baseball players to use anabolic steroids even though it is for a very specific medical reason, and is prescribed by a doctor? Thank you
Debate Round No. 2
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by crazypenguin 9 years ago
crazypenguin
Cindela how are you winning when all you did was copy your argument again so you didn't rebutt any of my points or state anything new. That's really wierd.
Posted by Cindela 9 years ago
Cindela
Sorry about the repition of my arguments. I forgot that I had placed an argument, and when it was my turn, I placed the same argument again, sorry. But the crux of my argument is in the bottom paragraph, both times, so you can see where I am going with my argument.
Posted by crazypenguin 9 years ago
crazypenguin
Hey cindela I like the fencing part of your picture
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by padfo0t 8 years ago
padfo0t
crazypenguinCindelaTied
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 sagarous 8 years ago
sagarous
crazypenguinCindelaTied
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 crazypenguin 8 years ago
crazypenguin
crazypenguinCindelaTied
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 burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
crazypenguinCindelaTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by bigbass3000 8 years ago
bigbass3000
crazypenguinCindelaTied
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 balluh 8 years ago
balluh
crazypenguinCindelaTied
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 sdcharger 9 years ago
sdcharger
crazypenguinCindelaTied
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 smelll4545 9 years ago
smelll4545
crazypenguinCindelaTied
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 ballplayer 9 years ago
ballplayer
crazypenguinCindelaTied
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 toytakover 9 years ago
toytakover
crazypenguinCindelaTied
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