The Instigator
Pro (for)
2 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
9 Points

That doping should be permitted in all sports

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/27/2016 Category: Sports
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 873 times Debate No: 85260
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)




In light of recent events in all sports, I believe that there is an easy solution. Allow doping.


Doping = Use of (currently) banned performance-inhanced drugs in sports
Sports = Can mean 'an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.'- but for this debate sports shall be taken to mean athletics
Athletics = The sport of competing in track and field events, including running races and various competitions in jumping and throwing.

1.) No Wikipedia
2.) No trolling
3.) No kritks/semantics
4.)Begin in 1st round.
5.)FF is concession unless same number



Doping: administering drugs to an athlete in order to enhance sporting performance.

If doping were to be permitted (I will refer to it as legal), this would mean unrestricted use. The drugs would not be allowed to be regulated, the use would be unrestricted.

Since the topic is normative (“should”), the BoP is shared. My case for why doping should not be permitted in all sports is as follows.

It is truism that doping enhances sporting performance. Already, 14-39% of athletes dope [1]. If it is legalized, this number will undoubtedly increase. The sports industry is extremely competitive, athletes are pushed and constantly pressured to go out there and perform, if they fail in that aspect, they are benched, or worse, dropped from the team.

Also, if doping were made legal, then those who dope will have an advantage over those who don’t, and thus those who don’t will have to dope in order to stay in the athletic industry.
From this we can conclude that in order to keep their jobs, and their fame, athletes are going to take all opportunities to increase their performance. Thus, if doping were to be legalized, there would be a very large increase in the amount of athletes that dope.

The most popular doping drug is anabolic steroids. If doping was to be made legal, the usage of steroids would have a tremendous increase. This is bad, as steroids are very dangerous.

The use of steroids can lead to baldness, infertility, impotence, prostate gland enlargement, severe acne, increased risk of tendinitis and tendon rupture, liver abnormalities and tumors, increased low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (the "bad" cholesterol), decreased high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (the "good" cholesterol), high blood pressure (hypertension), heart and circulatory problems, aggressive behaviors, rage or violence, psychiatric disorders, such as, drug dependence, infections or diseases such as HIV or hepatitis, inhibited growth and development, and risk of future health problems in teenagers [2].

Use of steroids can also cause severe depression, which leads to suicides [3]. This is devastating for the families of the victims, and anyone around them.

“Brenda Marrero came upon her son Efrain surfing the Internet one day last October. When Efrain hid what was on the screen, she asked what he had been looking at. He turned and said he wanted to tell her something: He was using steroids.

She called her husband, Frank, and they told Efrain he needed to stop, because steroids are dangerous.

"But Barry Bonds does it," his parents remember Efrain saying.

"That doesn't make it right," his father responded.

To please his parents, Efrain retrieved a dozen pink pills, a vial of liquid and two syringes. His mother flushed the pills and kept the vial. Efrain, who played football, promised to stop using steroids. It was a promise that no one doubts he kept.

Three and a half weeks later, Mrs. Marrero found Efrain in a bedroom at home, a bullet in his head, a .22-caliber pistol in his hand. He left no explanation for his suicide. He had no history of depression or mental illness. He was 19.” [4]
There are thousands more stories like this. If doping were to be made legal, this would increase drastically. As well as the other health related issues associated with it.

Unfair Advantage
Everyone responds to steroids differently [5]. If doping were to be legal, this would give athletes an unfair advantage over others, based not on skill, but on doping.

Ruins Purpose of Sport
The meaning of sports is in the values that it exhibits. The forms of human excellence it promotes, and how each athlete strives to perfect his or her skill. Doping ruins this purpose, and thus should not be permitted.

Debate Round No. 1


Thank you con for that excellent speech.


If we examine the study that we have been linked to[1], we find that it in fact is not a study that (as Con would claim) shows a widespread prevalence of doping in sports, it is in fact a study studying methods for finding out the prevalence of doping in sport- 'a review of numbers and methods'

So here's the conclusion that Con has given us. (As I understand it). 'If doping is legalized then everyone would do it, leading to unrestricted use etc etc'. This is a classic example of the slippery slope fallacy. We can agree that everyone would wish to use doping drugs, as they give an advantage - we can draw this belief from what happens currently when a new training method or nutritional supplement is developed. The slippery slope is that of unrestricted use.

Athletes and their trainers are not stupid. They know what is good for them and what is less good. This therefore limits the slippery slope that Con is relying on for his argument - as athletes will therefore not dope to a level which is harmful to their health, as this would be a bad thing for them and their future prospects. The parade of horrors that Con has shown us is only based upon taking excessively large doses - but, as the mayo clinic says, 'The effects of taking anabolic steroids at very high doses haven't been well-studied'[2], meaning there is no evidence to back up this claim whatever.

Now, the reason that steroids are claimed to cause depression is from the fact that they stop the pituitary glands from producing testosterone - however, the website that Con links us to [2] states that ' Scientists are not completely sure why low testosterone causes depression, but they do know there is a link between the two.' They then go on to say that ' To offset this, it is important to run a proper post cycle therapy (PCT) and bridge.'. So this alleged bad effect of steroids is actually preventable and therefore would be prevented.

While the anecdote provided by Con was indeed sad, it is of dubious relevance to his actual case. Sure, there was one person who responded badly to steroids, but the plural of anecdote is not data. This means that this is not actually evidence towards the claim that is being made here.

'Unfair advantage'
While it may in fact be the case that people respond differently to steroids, there are two factors causing this point to become invalid. Firstly, the evidence that Con has produced is about medical steroids for the treatment of arthritis and not about performance enhancing drugs, so it is invalid as a back up to his arguments.

But the second factor is simply - so what? So people respond differently to steroids. So people respond differently to other more 'naturalistic'(notice the quote marks) methods of enhancing performance such as a diet regimen or training! The point is that everybody responds differently to everything, not just steroids, and so any claims of 'unfair' advantage are invalid.

'Ruins purpose of sport'
There is no evidence whatever that the 'purpose' of sport (if indeed it has one) is, as Con claims, ' in the values that it exhibits.' More development is needed for this point to be considerable, and I would encourage the reader to disregard this pending further development.

On to my points.

'That permitting all people to dope would erase the advantage that doping currently confers'
Let's suppose we're all at a level. Let's further assume that we have an arbitrary scale of 'athleticism', with wizards[3] at 1, the average joe at 50, your average athlete at 80, and Usain Bolt (say) at 100. Let us further assume that doping confers a +20 advantage to your score. Under the current paradigm, your average athlete can dope, and reach the level of a Usain Bolt 'artificially'. Both myself and Con are in agreement that this is inherently bad. But now let's assume that everyone is doping. Sure, the guy who was doping before reaches a level of 100, but now a Usain Bolt (i.e. the ones who were already on top under the 'perfect' paradigm) also reach a higher level. This means there is now no net benefit whatever to doping, and so it is not bad.

I look forward to the next round!



Con’s only argument is that if doping were to be permitted, and if everyone were to dope, that would eliminate the already existing unfair advantage that is created by some people doing it illegally.

The problem with this is that the argument only works if everyone in the sport did steroids, and that steroids works the same for every person. If these two premises are kept true, the argument works, if even one of them is negated, the entire argument falls.

Firstly, if there is a reason that one person cannot do steroids, that excludes that one person from everyone, and since Con needs everyone to take steroids in order for the argument to work, the argument falls.

Some people cannot do steroids because they are allergic to them.

“Steroids can induce hypersensitivity reactions. The number of reports on contact allergy or anaphylactic reactions is increasing. Steroid hypersensitivity should be considered in any patient whose dermatitis becomes worse with topical steroid therapy, or in patients who develop systemic allergic reactions after the use of systemic steroids. The diagnosis can be confirmed by skin testing, in vitro evidence of specific IgE, oral or parenteral challenge, or an allergic patch test.” [1]

Since we cannot have every athlete take steroids, the argument is negated.

Secondly, the argument assumes that everyone responds to steroids the same. This is false, see my argument “Unfair Advantage” in R1. Since everyone has varying success with steroids, the unfair advantage would still exist, negating the argument.

Defense of Health
Firstly Con attacks my source showing that 14-19% of athletes dope. This is pretty pointless because he concedes that athletes dope in his first contention.

His reasons for why it was false was because the study in general was on methods to find athletes that dope. Con does not effectively discredit the fact that 14-19% of athletes dope, it has no relevance to the validity of the statistic. In order to discredit this he would have to attack the statistic, which he didn’t do.

Con then says that my argument doesn’t work because these side-effects only occur at high-doses, and athletes won’t dope to a point where these side-effects occur. The problem with this is that there isn’t a “point” at which this occurs, it happens when you use it period, no matter the amount of dosage.

Defense of Suicide
Con responds to the argument by saying that there are treatments to help prevent suicide, and therefore suicides would be prevented.

The problem with this is that although treatments may reduce the amount of suicides done by steroids, it will not prevent all of them. And this argument does not negate that fact that severe depression is caused in users. As with Efrain Marrero, his death was not prevented, the argument is demonstrably false.

Defense of Unfair Advantage
Con says that my source saying that steroids affects people differently is false because it is about steroids treating arthritis. This does not discredit the source, I used the source in order to show that steroids affects people differently, which was dropped.

Con then says that people react to nutrition supplements differently too, so it doesn’t matter because people react differently anyways.

This is not any excuse to allow steroids. We should strive to minimize factors that give athletes unfair advantages as much as possible, not expand on them.

Defense of Purpose of Sport
Con drops my argument, it is irrelevent.

Debate Round No. 2


Well.It seems that I failed to research carefully into this.

Thank you Con for some stimulating points to discuss with myself.

I concede!
Debate Round No. 3


Vote Con, I guess.


Thank you for the debate!
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by condeelmaster 2 years ago
Pro just made one argument: "That permitting all people to dope would erase the advantage that doping currently confers". This argument, as Con showed, has some false premises: 1) everyone uses steroids 2) everyone reacts in the same way to doping. Pro showed the danger to health that the legalization of doping would mean. Lastly, Pro conceded the debate. In conclusion the best argument is the one presented by Con.
Best argument: Con.
The other point are a tie, there's no big writing mistakes, nor big conduct faults nor bad sources used.
Posted by PointyDelta 2 years ago
gl hf Hayd :)
Posted by PointyDelta 2 years ago
Posted by Hayd 2 years ago
I will accept it tomorrow. Too busy today
Posted by PointyDelta 2 years ago
Aight. you got it, Hayd.
Posted by PointyDelta 2 years ago
Ok. Three more days, and Hayd gets it if no one else takes it.
Posted by Hayd 2 years ago
I want to.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by FlamboGus 2 years ago
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: Concession by Pro.
Vote Placed by ColeTrain 2 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession by Pro, Con wins by default -- but conduct to Pro for the gracious concession.
Vote Placed by Valkrin 2 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession by Pro.