The Instigator
shlh1514
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
KevinL75
Pro (for)
Winning
33 Points

The Mitchell Report: Really worth hurting a baseball's player reputation?

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: 12/15/2007 Category: Sports
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,553 times Debate No: 470
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (13)

 

shlh1514

Con

I really think that the Mitchell report is a way to really help stop sterioids, but it really it affects the Hall of Fame ballot to the current players on the Mitchell Report. The link to the full Mitchell report is on www.espn.com keyword Mitchell Report.
KevinL75

Pro

You are correct that it affects HoF balloting, but why is that a bad thing? Steroids are a banned substance in baseball - according to the rules of the game, they are a way for players to cheat.

The Mitchell Report is a way of exposing players who have used steriods (and who therefore have been cheating.) I don't see why steroid use shouldn't be taken into account when considering players for the Hall of Fame. Why should a player be glorified if his accomplishments in the game have been, at least partially, due to substances that are against the rules of the game?

Steriods shouldn't be treated any differently than any other form of cheating in baseball.
Debate Round No. 1
shlh1514

Con

But it isn't worth hurting someone's reputation because even of the player hits 700 HR but if he is linked to the Mitchell report, it can hurt their chances to eternal greatness. And that can hurt feeling to the player that is linked to the Mitchell Report. Even though steroids are a banned substance it all depends on the time period. It had to happened past 2002 when it was legally bad. After that time it can get you suspended or leave you Baseball career to the toilet.
KevinL75

Pro

You said: "But it isn't worth hurting someone's reputation because even of the player hits 700 HR but if he is linked to the Mitchell report, it can hurt their chances to eternal greatness."

Why should we still consider players eternally great if they've been defying the rules of the game since 2002? Steroid use IS something that hurts a player's reputation, and I think that it should.

You said: "And that can hurt feeling to the player that is linked to the Mitchell Report."

That's not a good enough reason not to expose steroid users.

You said: "It had to happened past 2002 when it was legally bad."

That's correct - the Mitchell Report uses all data collected after 2002, so this isn't an issue.

The bottom line is that if a player defies the rules of the game and plays with an unfair advantage, that needs to be taken into account when considering that player's reputation. We can't just pretend that Barry Bonds' home run record holds the same weight as Hank Aaron's, given Bonds' steroid use.
Debate Round No. 2
shlh1514

Con

But even doing something that was once impossible is defeated, but even being LINKED to the Mitchell report can cause it to go to waste because in 2005 have 7 players testify if they took steroids and they lied and later on it found on they did but when they were call by Congress show the voters that their record are tarnished by being called by the Congress. And when Senator Mitchell talked about the report the names were talked about all of the sport reporters min d and they were saying that their records and accomplishments are tarnished due to the Mitchell Report. So you really can't say that many players can be caught and be talked by the media the rest of their careers.
KevinL75

Pro

I don't disagree with anything you're saying in terms of how it will affect these players' careers, I just don't think it's inherently a bad thing.

These players' reputations aren't tarnished because of the Mitchell report - they're tarnished because they used illegal substances (illegal in baseball) in the first place. The Mitchell report was just the vehicle by which this was brought to light.

These players will be associated with steroids in the same way that someone like Gaylord Perry is associated with doctoring pitches - they cheated in some way, and that is part of their reputation. No one is trying to lynch these players, but steroid use does deserve some sort of demerit on one's reputation.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
The FBI investigation might be a better and logical choice...but still the taxpayer's money. Football or baseball as America's favorite pastime is debateable.
Posted by jathan 9 years ago
jathan
Alright, your right. In terms of every thing that Congress should be doing with its time a baseball drug investigation ranks in the top tier. If you really want an investigation, why not have the FBI investigate it as possession of steroids without prescription is a federal crime? Finally, only people that have watched baseball for a while believe it to be America's past time. In terms of viewers, that title belongs to football now.
Posted by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
Sometimes, it takes a neutral party to investigate any wrongdoing. If baseball conducted the investigation, they may have been biased by fears of bad publicity. As America;s favorite pastime, I can see congress's involvement.

KevinL75 presented a better debate.
Posted by jathan 9 years ago
jathan
I agree with Chuckles. Congress should stop wasting tax payer money investigating baseball. This report, if needed, should have been produced entirely by major league baseball.
Posted by Chuckles 9 years ago
Chuckles
i think hall of fame ineligibility is not harsh enough. and why does congress have to waste their time on baseball. who CARES?!!
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by BornDebater 9 years ago
BornDebater
shlh1514KevinL75Tied
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 ojmartinez25 9 years ago
ojmartinez25
shlh1514KevinL75Tied
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 Tavadon 9 years ago
Tavadon
shlh1514KevinL75Tied
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 Wharrel 9 years ago
Wharrel
shlh1514KevinL75Tied
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 Schnozberry 9 years ago
Schnozberry
shlh1514KevinL75Tied
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 PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
shlh1514KevinL75Tied
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 revleader5 9 years ago
revleader5
shlh1514KevinL75Tied
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 asian_invasion 9 years ago
asian_invasion
shlh1514KevinL75Tied
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 nrw 9 years ago
nrw
shlh1514KevinL75Tied
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 Ineffablesquirrel 9 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
shlh1514KevinL75Tied
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