The Instigator
crazypenguin
Pro (for)
Winning
35 Points
The Contender
defleppard1691
Con (against)
Losing
31 Points

There should be a 2 strike rule for steroids 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
Pro Tied Con
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: 1/10/2008 Category: Sports
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,436 times Debate No: 1650
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (8)
Votes (18)

 

crazypenguin

Pro

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.

Thank you,
defleppard1691

Con

I agree with everything you say, thus why should there be a 2 strike rule, it should be 1 and done no exceptions, you have supported my case with actual evidence, its just that 2 strikes is to leinant thus i can only see a vot in negation on this debate thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by defleppard1691 9 years ago
defleppard1691
wow, look at the resolution, it say's There should be a 2 strike rule for steroids in baseball. I negated it by saying no there should be a 1. I wouldnt be negating it if the resolution said this instead There should be a 2 strike rule OR LESS for steroids in baseball. or something along those lines.
Posted by defleppard1691 9 years ago
defleppard1691
wow, look at the resolution, it say's There should be a 2 strike rule for steroids in baseball. I negated it by saying no there should be a 1. I wouldnt be negating it if the resolution said this instead There should be a 2 strike rule OR LESS for steroids in baseball. or something along those lines.
Posted by Dapperdan2007 9 years ago
Dapperdan2007
I agreed with you. I'm not dumb!!!! keke

Seriously though, what is there to not understand. The pro posed a 2 strike rule, the con was against and posed a 1 strike rule. It's not rocket science.
Posted by defleppard1691 9 years ago
defleppard1691
wow ur all dumb, how am i not negating the topic, i am against having a 2 strike rule. idiot
Posted by defleppard1691 9 years ago
defleppard1691
wow ur all dumb, how am i not negating the topic, i am against having a 2 strike rule. idiot
Posted by Dapperdan2007 9 years ago
Dapperdan2007
"THIS DEBATE IS NOT ABOUT THE NUMBER OF STRIKES IN THE RULE. IT IS ABOUT WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE A TWO STRIKE RULE, NOT IF IT SHOULD BE A 2 STRIKE RULE OR 1 STRIKE RULE"

That is the same exact thing.
Posted by Cindela 9 years ago
Cindela
>>I agree with everything you say, thus why should there be a 2 strike rule, it should be 1 and done no exceptions, you have supported my case with actual evidence, its just that 2 strikes is to leinant thus i can only see a vot in negation on this debate thank you.
This is the Con's entire argument. As you can see, it is very simple. However, this argument is invalid because it is debating something other than the topic. PEOPLE! READ THE ARGUMENTS!!! defle only said that he agrees and that there should be a 1 strike rule instead. THIS DEBATE IS NOT ABOUT THE NUMBER OF STRIKES IN THE RULE. IT IS ABOUT WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE A TWO STRIKE RULE, NOT IF IT SHOULD BE A 2 STRIKE RULE OR 1 STRIKE RULE. The con side did not address the arguments presented by the Pro, and therefore the PRO SHOULD BE WINNING, NOT LOSING.
Posted by Dapperdan2007 9 years ago
Dapperdan2007
I really wish this were longer than a round 1 debate -- 2 or 3 and I'd definately be in on it. If this is still up tomorrow, which I'm sure it won't be, I'll take up the debate.
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by crazypenguin 8 years ago
crazypenguin
crazypenguindefleppard1691Tied
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 Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
crazypenguindefleppard1691Tied
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 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 burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
crazypenguindefleppard1691Tied
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 bigbass3000 8 years ago
bigbass3000
crazypenguindefleppard1691Tied
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 figoitalia 8 years ago
figoitalia
crazypenguindefleppard1691Tied
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 9 years ago
balluh
crazypenguindefleppard1691Tied
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
crazypenguindefleppard1691Tied
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 Dapperdan2007 9 years ago
Dapperdan2007
crazypenguindefleppard1691Tied
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 sagarous 9 years ago
sagarous
crazypenguindefleppard1691Tied
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 chris0705 9 years ago
chris0705
crazypenguindefleppard1691Tied
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