The Instigator
Nieva_Wilson
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
RyuuKyuzo
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

steriods in sports

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...
RyuuKyuzo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/19/2012 Category: Sports
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,076 times Debate No: 26376
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

Nieva_Wilson

Con

i think sterids should be ban from all sports. its very unhealthy for the body.
Those who oppose the use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs say that the athletes who use them are breaking the rules and getting an unfair advantage over others. Opponents of the drugs say the athletes are endangering not only their own health, but also indirectly encouraging youngsters to do the same.
RyuuKyuzo

Pro

I accept this debate and I thank my opponent for setting it up. Keep in mind that my opponent must successfully argue that steroids should be banned entirely (from sports) to win this debate.

=======Counter Arguments=======

-----Unhealthy for the Body-----

Con's first argument for why steroids should be banned is that steroids are unhealthy. Con is going to have to outline in what way and to what extent they are unhealthy because I'm not entirely convinced that this is the case, but more importantly, being unhealthy is not enough to get something banned, especially from ALL sports. If that where the case, then French-fries or smoking would also be banned. Given this, it's clear that something being "unhealthy" is not enough of an argument on its own to be persuasive of Con's case.

-----Breaking the Rules-----

Con points out that, in competitions that ban steroids, using steroids gives the player an unfair advantage. This is true, but this isn't actually an argument for why they should be banned, all Con is saying here is that if steroids are already banned then using steroids gives an unfair advantage. Furthermore, there are specific leagues in certain sports specifically designed for the purpose of allowing steroid-users to compete. Consider power lifting, for example. In power lifting there are "drug tested" divisions and "non-drug-tested" divisions [1]. Obviously, the steroid users gravitate towards the non-tested divisions. These divisions can't come out and say "steroid division" given the legal standing of steroids in the U.S. currently, but within power lifting circles it is understood that these are the leagues meant for those on steroids.

In such a case as this, banning steroids wouldn't make any sense as the whole point of that division is to give drug users a league to compete in. In this case, the drug use in entirely voluntary and no one is getting an unfair advantage, undermining Con's complaint.

=======The Case for the Juice=======

Up until now I have been counters Con's opening arguments. I will now present my case for why steroids should be allowed 9at least some of the time) and why they are not as harmful as most think.

-----Steroid Safety-----

Steroids are not nearly as dangerous as they are made out to be. In recent decades, steroid quality has increased and cycle methods have become perfected -- with all the necessary information available online, even for free in some cases [3][4]. We are now at the point where one needn't suffer any adverse side-effects from their steroid cycle so long as they are willing to do the necessary research. Furthermore, there is virtually no real scientific evidence backing up the dangers most people associate with steroid use:

"In fact, Dr. Fost claims very few studies have been done to say that steroids are bad and not one single test definitely links steroids to all the problems that people claim it does to the body.

"The so-called risks of steroids are wildly exaggerated, and often just made up," said Dr. Fost." [2]

The real dangers of steroids aren't due to the steroids themselves, but due to uneducated people (mostly young teens) who don't know how to properly cycle their drugs.

-----The Turn-----

Banning steroids from all sports won't stop steroid use. This much is incontestable. However, what Con fails to realize is that banning steroids entirely will actually result in more steroid-related deaths.
There are two main ways of taking steroids; orally and via injection. Oral steroids are the original steroids, they are also the least healthy. They have a high toxicity and are generally much harder on your liver than injection-based steroids since they have to work through your digestive system in order to hit your bloodstream. The issue is that when you inject steroids, the drugs stay in your system longer, which means it's easier to fail a drug test. Given this, many athletes resort to taking oral steroids despite the enormous increase in health risks.

The solution to this problem is, as I've touched on earlier, to allow for steroid divisions à la power lifting. This way, steroid users can get the performance benefits of using steroids without needlessly risking their health, and natural athletes can compete in a drug-free division. There's no need to completely ban steroids.

=======Conclusion=======

Con's arguments for banning steroids from all sports don't hold up. The first of Con's arguments, health reasons, is not enough to justify his resolution even if it were true and his second argument is a non-sequitur. Furthermore, I've shown that steroids are not as dangerous as they are made out to be, that banning steroids will actually make the problem worse and I've presented a superior alternative to Con's given solution.




1. http://www.criticalbench.com...
2. http://www.todaystmj4.com...
3. http://www.elitefitness.com...
4. http://tnation.t-nation.com...
5. http://www.billdobbins.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Nieva_Wilson

Con

Nieva_Wilson forfeited this round.
RyuuKyuzo

Pro

Extending arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
Nieva_Wilson

Con

Nieva_Wilson forfeited this round.
RyuuKyuzo

Pro

Extending arguments, claiming victory.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 4 years ago
Ore_Ele
Nieva_WilsonRyuuKyuzoTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con completely forfeited all rounds, so all points to Pro.
Vote Placed by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
Nieva_WilsonRyuuKyuzoTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
Nieva_WilsonRyuuKyuzoTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.