THBT Doping Should Remain Illegal in Sports Within US
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
Burden of proof shared, no new arguments in final round. No kritiks.
Dope: administer drugs to an athlete in order to inhibit or enhance sporting performance.
Sports: all forms of competitive physical activity or games which, through casual or organized participation, at least in part aim to use, maintain or improve physical ability and skills while providing enjoyment to participants, and in some cases, entertainment for spectators. Chess is not considered a sport for this debate.
I repeat, opponent cannot argue that chess is a sport.
" Yet he has not shown that the evidence we already have is insignificant."
What do we gain by further affirming steroids’ negative health nature, other than asserting the people as means to an end?
"con tries to say that with regards to fighting that many lack of restrictions infer that the artificial addition of hazards would not be problematic."
"He has dropped the idea that sports should have the least amount of risks possible."
"Here con points out the good old freedom argument..."
"Con shows off a vague "freedom" idea, but does not tell us why we deserve to have this freedom. "
Firstly, the french fries is a self satisfaction, while doping is largely a gain for the masses.
"People would hardly feel accomplished if something else won the race for them."
" if one person doped while the others did not, and he was in poverty, with the gain being fame, countless finances, and prizes that would support his family the rest of the life, then we would have no choice but to support his doping. However, while the individual may dope, when each individual's interest competes against each other, it's clear to see that *everyone* would want to dope (as a result of collectively applying my logic), ridding of the personal benefit, leaving only the masses (audience) gain."
"In the end, Con is left to disagree with my argument that people cannot be treated as means to an end."
"Con has not supported the idea that the more physical ability is generated, the better off the audience is."
"Otherwise, we might even have sports competing who can slice off their own arm the fastest, or eat their own liver the quickest."
"Finally, con says that the athlete has the right to choose how safe he wants to be, but makes no remarks on how they are not allowed to throw away their helmets in football, nor willy nilly crash into others in NASCAR without receiving negative feedback from the public."
" I see only the negative health impact on the sport, and encouraging others to sacrifice their bodies to perform better. Rather than suppose natural training regiment or encouragement of improving your body normally, we would encourage everyone that artificially boosting muscles is the way to go"
"The proportionality of the risk should match the proportionality of the benefit. If I eat french fries but nevertheless perform excellently, then my risk is justified."
"Imagine I was allowed to bring a knife to win MMA"
"Con claims that I cannot know for sure if boxers should wear headgear or not, but this is a completely different comparison to doping vs not doping."
" But with doping there is no upside."
"Why? Under the prisoner's dilemma, everyone would want the same boost of doping."
"Con's sole contention comes down to our "freedom" argument. He thinks that if the competition is fair, then we ought to encourage athletes to ruin their bodies. "
" Con claims that it will help the athletes, but within this, we reduce the audience's entertainment (because it restricts the poor from actually accessing the services... "