query: Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports?

positive: Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) should be permitted in professional sports. I affirm that PEDs should be permitted in sports. Legalizing PEDs would serve to level the playing field. According to the New York Times, more than a third of the top Tour de France finishers since 1998 have been confirmed to be doping while racing, despite efforts to stop them (1). So, the statistics clearly indicate that those who obey the rules and do not dope have a relatively low chance of performing well. If those who did not not use Performance Enhancing Drugs in the Tour de France were instead allowed to dope, those racers would have had the same advantages as those who currently dope illegally, and the playing field would have been more even. One of the primary reasons people enjoy watching professional sports is because they showcase the highest level of human achievement. Allowing PEDs to be used would raise the level of competition and skill in professional sports. This would thus make achievements in sports seem even more unthinkable and impressive, which would thus make more people attend these sporting events. As described in Forbes, "A huge part of watching sports is witnessing the very peak of human athletic ability, and legalizing performance enhancing drugs would help athletes climb even higher (2)." This shows that Performance Enhancing Drugs can raise the level of sports, which can make sports even more of a spectacle. For example, during the 1990's, when Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa used steroids, their respective games were usually sold out with people who wanted to see their heightened abilities (2). I will now refute my opponent's arguments. My opponent argues that PEDs provide with a large risk for athletes. However, Athletes who are using PEDs are already in a dangerous industry, and frequently become injured regardless of whether or not they use drugs. In the year 2013 alone, the NFL reported at least 152 concussions, and was forced to spend up to 765 million dollars to settle claims of traumatic head injury brought by former players (3). So, PEDs do not provide with a large injury risk compared to the inherent risk of professional sports. My opponent also argues that allowing PEDs takes away from true human achievement. However, being an athlete requires a high amount of skill regardless of whether or not you use PEDs. Hitting a home run, for example requires excellent timing and a perfect swing. Using PEDs may increase the distance of this home run, but hitting a it is still a spectacle of your own human, not chemical precision. So, performing in sports requires intricate skill, no matter what. It is thus clear that PEDs do not take away from human achievement. As such, I affirm. 1- http://www.nytimes.com... 2- http://www.forbes.com... 3- http://www.pbs.org...

positive: Drug Use in Sports My last round arguments was seen mostly jokes, But however in this round I will get more serious. DRUGS IN SPORT The use of performance enhancing drugs in the modern Olympics is on record as early as the games of the third Olympiad, When Thomas Hicks won the marathon after receiving an injection of strychnine in the middle of the race. 1 The first official ban on "stimulating substances" by a sporting organisation was introduced by the International Amateur Athletic Federation in 1928. 2 Using drugs to cheat in sport is not new, But it is becoming more effective. In 1976, The East German swimming team won 11 out of 13 Olympic events, And later sued the government for giving them anabolic steroids. 3 Yet despite the health risks, And despite the regulating bodies" attempts to eliminate drugs from sport, The use of illegal substances is widely known to be rife. It hardly raises an eyebrow now when some famous athlete fails a dope test. In 1992, Vicky Rabinowicz interviewed small groups of athletes. She found that Olympic athletes, In general, Believed that most successful athletes were using banned substances. 4 Much of the writing on the use of drugs in sport is focused on this kind of anecdotal evidence. There is very little rigorous, Objective evidence because the athletes are doing something that is taboo, Illegal, And sometimes highly dangerous. The anecdotal picture tells us that our attempts to eliminate drugs from sport have failed. In the absence of good evidence, We need an analytical argument to determine what we should do. CONDEMNED TO CHEATING? We are far from the days of amateur sporting competition. Elite athletes can earn tens of millions of dollars every year in prize money alone, And millions more in sponsorships and endorsements. The lure of success is great. But the penalties for cheating are small. A six month or one year ban from competition is a small penalty to pay for further years of multimillion dollar success. Drugs are much more effective today than they were in the days of strychnine and sheep"s testicles. Studies involving the anabolic steroid androgen showed that, Even in doses much lower than those used by athletes, Muscular strength could be improved by 5"20%. 5 Most athletes are also relatively unlikely to ever undergo testing. The International Amateur Athletic Federation estimates that only 10"15% of participating athletes are tested in each major competition. 6 The enormous rewards for the winner, The effectiveness of the drugs, And the low rate of testing all combine to create a cheating "game" that is irresistible to athletes. Kjetil Haugen7 investigated the suggestion that athletes face a kind of prisoner"s dilemma regarding drugs. His game theoretic model shows that, Unless the likelihood of athletes being caught doping was raised to unrealistically high levels, Or the payoffs for winning were reduced to unrealistically low levels, Athletes could all be predicted to cheat. The current situation for athletes ensures that this is likely, Even though they are worse off as a whole if everyone takes drugs, Than if nobody takes drugs. Drugs such as erythropoietin (EPO) and growth hormone are natural chemicals in the body. As technology advances, Drugs have become harder to detect because they mimic natural processes. In a few years, There will be many undetectable drugs. Haugen"s analysis predicts the obvious: that when the risk of being caught is zero, Athletes will all choose to cheat. The recent Olympic games in Athens were the first to follow the introduction of a global anti-doping code. From the lead up to the games to the end of competition, 3000 drug tests were carried out: 2600 urine tests and 400 blood tests for the endurance enhancing drug EPO. 8 From these, 23 athletes were found to have taken a banned substance"the most ever in an Olympic games. 9 Ten of the men"s weightlifting competitors were excluded. The goal of "cleaning" up the sport is unattainable. Further down the track the spectre of genetic enhancement looms dark and large. UNFAIR? People do well at sport as a result of the genetic lottery that happened to deal them a winning hand. Genetic tests are available to identify those with the greatest potential. If you have one version of the ACE gene, You will be better at long distance events. If you have another, You will be better at short distance events. Black Africans do better at short distance events because of biologically superior muscle type and bone structure. Sport discriminates against the genetically unfit. Sport is the province of the genetic elite (or freak). The starkest example is the Finnish skier Eero Maentyranta. In 1964, He won three gold medals. Subsequently it was found he had a genetic mutation that meant that he "naturally" had 40"50% more red blood cells than average. 15 Was it fair that he had significant advantage given to him by chance? The ability to perform well in sporting events is determined by the ability to deliver oxygen to muscles. Oxygen is carried by red blood cells. The more red blood cells, The more oxygen you can carry. This in turn controls an athlete"s performance in aerobic exercise. EPO is a natural hormone that stimulates red blood cell production, Raising the packed cell volume (PCV)"the percentage of the blood comprised of red blood cells. EPO is produced in response to anaemia, Haemorrhage, Pregnancy, Or living at altitude. Athletes began injecting recombinant human EPO in the 1970s, And it was officially banned in 1985. 16 At sea level, The average person has a PCV of 0. 4"0. 5. It naturally varies; 5% of people have a packed cell volume above 0. 5, 17 and that of elite athletes is more likely to exceed 0. 5, Either because their high packed cell volume has led them to success in sport or because of their training. 18 Raising the PCV too high can cause health problems. The risk of harm rapidly rises as PCV gets above 50%. One study showed that in men whose PCV was 0. 51 or more, Risk of stroke was significantly raised (relative risk R02;=R02; 2. 5), After adjustment for other causes of stroke. 19 At these levels, Raised PCV combined with hypertension would cause a ninefold increase in stroke risk. In endurance sports, Dehydration causes an athlete"s blood to thicken, Further raising blood viscosity and pressure. 20 What begins as a relatively low risk of stroke or heart attack can rise acutely during exercise. In the early 1990s, After EPO doping gained popularity but before tests for its presence were available, Several Dutch cyclists died in their sleep due to inexplicable cardiac arrest. This has been attributed to high levels of EPO doping. 21 The risks from raising an athlete"s PCV too high are real and serious. Use of EPO is endemic in cycling and many other sports. In 1998, The Festina team was expelled from the Tour de France after trainer Willy Voet was caught with 400 vials of performance enhancing drugs. 22 The following year, The World Anti-Doping Agency was established as a result of the scandal. However, EPO is extremely hard to detect and its use has continued. Italy"s Olympic anti-doping director observed in 2003 that the amount of EPO sold in Italy outweighed the amount needed for sick people by a factor of six. 23 In addition to trying to detect EPO directly, The International Cycling Union requires athletes to have a PCV no higher than 0. 5. But 5% of people naturally have a PCV higher than 0. 5. Athletes with a naturally high PCV cannot race unless doctors do a number of tests to show that their PCV is natural. Charles Wegelius was a British rider who was banned and then cleared in 2003. He had had his spleen removed in 1998 after an accident, And as the spleen removes red blood cells, Its absence resulted in an increased PCV. 24 There are other ways to increase the number of red blood cells that are legal. Altitude training can push the PCV to dangerous, Even fatal, Levels. More recently, Hypoxic air machines have been used to simulate altitude training. The body responds by releasing natural EPO and growing more blood cells, So that it can absorb more oxygen with every breath. The Hypoxico promotional material quotes Tim Seaman, A US athlete, Who claims that the hypoxic air tent has "given my blood the legal "boost" that it needs to be competitive at the world level. "25 There is one way to boost an athlete"s number of red blood cells that is completely undetectable:26 autologous blood doping. In this process, Athletes remove some blood, And reinject it after their body has made new blood to replace it. This method was popular before recombinant human EPO became available. "By allowing everyone to take performance enhancing drugs, We level the playing field. " There is no difference between elevating your blood count by altitude training, By using a hypoxic air machine, Or by taking EPO. But the last is illegal. Some competitors have high PCVs and an advantage by luck. Some can afford hypoxic air machines. Is this fair? Nature is not fair. Ian Thorpe has enormous feet which give him an advantage that no other swimmer can get, No matter how much they exercise. Some gymnasts are more flexible, And some basketball players are seven feet tall. By allowing everyone to take performance enhancing drugs, We level the playing field. We remove the effects of genetic inequality. Far from being unfair, Allowing performance enhancement promotes equality.

positive: Steroid Users Should be in The Baseball Hall of Fame I will agree with you that anabolic steroids cannot speed up the healing process. However, Human Growth Hormone (HGH) is a drug that athletes use to hopefully speed up the healing process. Despite the positives or negatives HGH has on the human body it is an illegal substance according to Major League Baseball. It does not matter the reasons why these athletes used PED's the fact of the matter is that they were illegal and athletes like them should be punished. If you take a look at the Home Run Leaders All-Time in MLB History, it is interesting to note that within the Top 10, Three of them had been caught using PED's and a Fourth was linked to PED's but has never been officially caught, Home Run King Barry Bonds. Within the Top 25, Seven were linked to PED's. These men do not belong to be enshrined in the Hall of Fame with the other Hundreds of Players that played the game fairly and cleanly. http://www.webmd.com... http://www.cbsnews.com... http://www.baseball-almanac.com...

positive: Performance Enhancing Drugs Would be Legalize in World Sport Tournament But, in this case, we talk about the athlete whose have so many fans. For example, the football player, they have so many fans all around the world, from those who already old, mid-age, or even the children. If the using of PED is allowed in this case, of course what the athlete did is being adapted by their fans. For example, Child "A" said "Oh, my idol use that drugs to improve the energy during the match, I will try it too" Isn't it will be dangerous for the children under age? And for your information, eating healthy diets and exercising more efficiently = Is natural ways :-)

positive: Performance-enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports. " They do apply to the resolution, "Performance-enhancing drugs should [not] be allowed in professional sports". They show that using these drugs is unsafe." Doing unsafe things is allowable. People have the right to do unsafe things with their own bodies. " No, I'm saying that performance-enhancing drugs should not be allowed because they set a bad example for children. " Athletes are not slaves, existing for the sake of their examples to children. They exist for their own sake and are to be treated as such, as human beings, so long as they treat others as such. This means they are not to be forced to a course of action just because it will benefit someone else, only them initiating force can justify such force. " No, I'm saying that performance-enhancing drugs cheat users out of hard work and practice that other players have to go through. " "Have to?" No one "has to" do such a thing. They are perfectly able to take the drugs themselves, or work hard, or not condition themselves, as they please. And the use of drugs by one party does not delete the hard work by another, they are separate bodies, separate phenomena. " Uh, no, it's whether "Performance-enhancing drugs should be ALLOWED in professional sports." "Allowed" and "legal" are very different. "Allowed" means allowed within the sport's rules; "legal" means allowed within the law." This would be a permissible arguments if your round 1 argument did not already concede you were talking about what THE LAW should allow. As it stands it is not, it is merely a tool of deception, and I quote (emphasis mine:) " Said drugs should stay ILLEGAL for use in sports, for a few reasons." That was at the beginning of your first round argument. That leaves no room for weaseling out of it, the resolution was explicitly clarified by you as meaning allowable by the law, not allowable by the sports league. You made your bed now argue in it. "and not actually presented an argument, you vote CON at this point." Read second paragraph from the bottom of my Round 1. I did in fact present an argument, as relates to the resolution as you clarified it's meaning at the beginning of the debate. If you are going to state the resolution is anything other than what I have stated it is, you will be forced to admit the statement at the beginning of your Round One argument was deliberately dishonest.

positive: Professional athletes using Performance-Enhancing drugs In todays world the temptation to use performance-enhancing drugs is too great for too many athletes. Performance-enhancing drugs are self explanatory, it is a drug to enhance physical performance. Usually associated with professional athletes striving for perfection. There are many risks that come with taking performance-enhancements there are many types of PEDs, all of which are illegal. The United States Anti-Doping agency should keep performance-enhancing drugs illegal to keep professional athletes safe. Breaking the law is not worth the risk. when a professional athlete uses performance-enhancing drugs, they have got a lot to lose. The wrong choice almost brought an end to many athletes careers. One tragic example is Lance Armstrong, stripped of his seven Tour de France titles. Jim Thorpe was denied two gold medals in the olympics, The list is endless. Athletes do not only lose their awards but it destroys their reputation that they have built. Life for professional sports organizations focused on managing the anti-doping policies would be easier. That might be true, but the people who manage the organization would no longer have a job there. Legalizing PEDs would not only negatively affect the athletes, but the people around them. There is an overwhelming amount of negative side effects that can occur from using performance-enhancing drugs. "Simply put PEDs have the ability or potential to drastically alter the human body, and biological functions, including the ability to considerably improve athletic performance" These drugs, however, can be extremely dangerous and in certain situations, deadly" (USADA). Other negative side effects include muscle weakness, hallucinations, liver abnormalities and tumors, etc. Yet, with all those factors in play, many still choose to go down that dangerous road. Professional athletes are already risking a lot when playing the sport, so why does it matter if they use performance enhancements? If athletes are already taking so many risks, then they should absolutely try to keep themselves as safe as possible. The danger of using PEDs outweigh the gains in muscle mass or strength. When an athlete uses PEDs, it defeats the purpose of the competition altogether. "Success in sports takes talent...using steroids is a form of cheating and interferes with fair competition"(littleleague). There are other ways to improve performance; train safely, eat healthy, and get plenty of rest. To be a truly great athlete you have to work hard. There is no shortcut to success. "Steroids and doping will help pitchers to throw harder, home runs go further, cyclists to charge longer and sprinters to test the very limits of human speed(Smith).In the moment that might be exhilarating, but it can cause a whole lot of problems later in life. using performance-enhancing drugs is not worth the risk at all. To keep athletes safe, performance-enhancing drugs should stay illegal.The bottom line is professional athletes have too much to lose, the risk is too great, and it is cheating the game."Life is full of grays, but sports are black and white. There is always a clear winner in the end and everyone expects that the winner achieved the success in a fair and ethical way"(little league).It is important to understand the facts about Performance-enhancing drugs. Works Cited "Fitness." Performance-enhancing Drugs: Know the Risks. Web. 18 Nov. 2014. "Why Steroids Are Bad for Major League Baseball." Why Steroids Are Bad for Major League Baseball. Web. 18 Nov. 2014. "Effects of Performance Enhancing Drugs | U.S. Anti-Doping Agency USADA." US Anti Doping Agency USADA. Web. 28 Nov. 2014. .

positive: Performance-enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports. "Your "Part one arguments," to the extent they raise true symptoms (which is not clear, because data on the symptoms of the usage of steroids at recommended dosages in healthy people is in a shortage and rather conflicting, which is perhaps why you have cited no scientific data), apply to the resolution "Should you use steroids? " Or "Is hiring a steroid-using baseball player a good investment? "" . http://en.wikipedia.org... They do apply to the resolution, "Performance-enhancing drugs should [not] be allowed in professional sports". They show that using these drugs is unsafe. "Your part two arguments apply to "Should children be encouraged to look into athletes as role models? " No, I'm saying that performance-enhancing drugs should not be allowed because they set a bad example for children. "Your part three argument applies to "Should sports leagues concerned with an image of 'hard work' or 'fairness' allow steroid users to play? " No, I'm saying that performance-enhancing drugs cheat users out of hard work and practice that other players have to go through. "The resolution at hand, however, is whether it should be ILLEGAL for professional athletes to use these drugs. " Uh, no, it's whether "Performance-enhancing drugs should be ALLOWED in professional sports. " "Allowed" and "legal" are very different. "Allowed" means allowed within the sport's rules; "legal" means allowed within the law.

positive: Steroids in sports. To clarify, I use 'advanced training' to denote the accepted methods and measures that pro athletes take to reach the top of the sport. I'll go point by point here, with some responses. You make a couple of key arguments. 1) Purity You argue that steroids would taint the pure nature of professional sports and allowing external 'alterations' would skew human performance. This argument would work great, if it hadn't already happened. It would only be true if regular people, who were athletically talented, were our pro atheletes. This is obviously not the case. Gone are the days when guys like Babe Ruth could rely on natural human ability. Todays pro athletes already use extensive, extra-human workout routines and get their hands on any kind of herbal substance, protein formula, or other legal aid that might give them a boost. Do you think that a guy who has been hardcore training since adolescence, takes dozens of supplements a day, and is paid ridiculous amounts of money to do nothing but find some kind of edge that will make him a better player is a 'pure' representation of human ability? You can not find one single professional athlete that is free from outside alteration, legal or not. If pros were pure human beings I would agree, but anymore, they are just engineered muscle. Any notion of purity went out the window decades ago. 2) Allowing Steroids is not fair to those who don't want to use them. You argue that, if we allow steroids, players who don't elect to risk their health would be unfairly ostricized from the sport, because of lower performance. Again, isn't this already true? Players who do not choose to adopt the newest and most performance beneficial supplements and training techniques are left in the perverbial dust as well. If an athlete elects not to train intensely or receive the legal aid available, his skills are not on par with others and he/she is not able to compete. Now, it seems I am avoiding the obvious. "Training isn't harmful to their health, steroids are harmful. We shouldn't make people harm themselves in order to compete professionally." This seems like a reasonable objection, but in reality, again, this is already true. It seems like common sense that being in good physical condition would be good for you. But, new studies and literature show that living the life of a professional athelete leads to more severe injuries, a shorter lifespan, and worse health sooner(http://www.eric.ed.gov...) (http://www.informaworld.com...). Professional athletes may seem like they are in peak physical condition, but the risk they assume with 'natural' and 'traditional' training regiments are harmful to their health as well. Again, I would agree with you here if we were not already to this point. As professional athletics stands now, the effects that steroids has on the body, are a drop in the pond compared to the risks and trials that it faces now. Those athletes who do not want to take steroids are free to choose not to, if that renders them obsolete (which is arguable), then professionalism will leave them behind, just as your 'natural' methods have done to so many athletes before them in the past. 3) Fairness and being a good-role model You argue that allowing steroids would eliminate fairness and poorly influence kids. This however, as I stated in my first round, is merely a consequence of steroid's current illegality. No one looks down on A-Rod for drinking protein shakes, even though high-protein diets have been shown to increase risks on bone cancer and osteoporosis (http://manbir-online.com...) (http://www.futurepundit.com...). If protein supplements were banned, we would have the same terrible view of them as we do steroids. But, since they are legal, and widely accepted, we are cool with them. The same goes for numerous other legal aids. The only reason steroid use has a bad connotation is because of its illegality. Steroid users are looked at as cheaters because they used an illegal substance. If steroids were legal, these athletes would no longer be cheaters as everyone would be on a sanctioned, level playing field. I'm not saying this would happen immediately, but as time grew on and steroids were more accepted, the bad label would fall away. The message to kids has already been molested, and steroids would not send a 'do drugs' message. If kids model athletes that closely, why do we allow ball players to chew tobacco? Why are people like Ricky Williams, Michael Vick, and Tank Johnson still allowed to play, despite numerous arrests, prison sentences and admitted use of narcotics? Its not like proffessional sports has some kind of role-model clause. This argument would only hold weight if the image of the professional athlete hadn't already been skewed beyond recognition. Still, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to send the right message, I agree. The fact is, kids DO look up to athletes. But again, where is the line here? With proper understanding and parenting, kids are already told that some things are strictly for professionals. Do we tell kids to spend eight hours in the gym and dedicate their entire lives to training, or do we tell them that its a game and that they should have fun with it? Do we tell little kids who like to ride horses that jockeys need to be bulimic in order to get a job, or that track stars use a 'puke index' to measure how hard they should train? Or, do we tell them to try hard, but have fun? Obviously, steroids would function in the same way. It is already understood and told to kids, that pros take measures that they should not. Steroids would just be lumped into this existing category. We obviously don't tell kids to use testosterone enhancers and synergistic muscle volumizers, which are legal. Why would steroids be an exception here? Again, I think this loops back to the negative connotation that steroids carry, rather than the differences they have with already legal training methods. In short, steroids ARE just the next step in professional sports. There is no denying the health risk involved, but that hasn't stopped us from legalizing other extreme training methods. We shouldn't force steroids on our athletes by any means, but that avenue should be open to those who seek it, just as other extreme avenues are open to those who are willing to use them. Athletes would remain the terrible role models they are, or at least sports would handle this advance as it has handled every other one, with caution and responsibility. Any notion of purity or fairness is all relative. Athletes of the past could, in no way, compete with the legal ones of today because of the progression sports has taken. Our athletes are more athletic because of the then taboo methods that are now legal. Sports needs to take the obvious next step. I realize that this position seems terrible, but that is only because of the bad rap steroids have gotten as a result of their illegality. We need to get past this media-painted image of steroids and realize that science has allowed athletes to progress before and is doing it again. Barry Bond's wouldn't be such a terrible guy if steroids were legal, then again, maybe we would have more guys putting up his numbers too.

positive: All drugs should be legalised, change my mind. I believe that all drugs should be legalised, whether it is dangerous or not its irrelevantI challenge anyone to change my mind.The only downside I see with the legalisation of drugs is that there might be a 1-2% more drug addicts.

positive: Marijuana should be legalized The "Drug war" is costing billions of dollars and yet, is it all worth it? Is it worth the billions of dollars? IS it worth the invasion of individual civil liberties? Is it worth the wasted effort? First of all, prohibition does not help and may be increasing drug use in itself: Here is a scenario. A group of kids from high school want to host a party and want to get completely drunk in it. But they find out that it is extremely difficult to obtain alcohol, since it is regulated to keep it away from people under 21.But, they know a dealer who willl happily sell them weed. "You don't have to be 21 to buy marijuana -- marijuana dealers usually don't care how old you are as long as you have money. It is actually easier for many high school students to obtain marijuana than it is for them to obtain alcohol, because alcohol is legal and therefore regulated to keep it away from kids." http://www.mjlegal.org...Prohibition as a weapon to prevent drug abuse has not proven or has any provided evidence, to be a deterrent in drug abuse.When Alcohol was prohibited, it certaintly did not work eitherMarijuana has been proven to be less dangerous than cigarettes and alcohol. "Safer for the Consumer Many people die from alcohol use. Nobody dies from marijuana use.The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that more than 37,000 annual U.S. deaths, including more than 1,400 in Colorado, are attributed to alcohol use alone (i.e. this figure does not include accidental deaths). On the other hand, the CDC does not even have a category for deaths caused by the use of marijuana. People die from alcohol overdoses. There has never been a fatal marijuana overdose. The official publication of the Scientific Research Society,American Scientist, reported that alcohol is one of the most toxic drugs and using just 10 times what one would use to get the desired effect could lead to death. Marijuana is one of – if not the – least toxic drugs, requiring thousands of times the dose one would use to get the desired effect to lead to death. This “thousands of times” is actually theoretical, since there has never been a case of an individual dying from a marijuana overdose. Meanwhile,according to the CDC, hundreds of alcohol overdose deaths occur the United States each year. The health-related costs associated with alcohol use far exceed those for marijuana use. Health-related costs for alcohol consumers are eight times greater than those for marijuana consumers, according to an assessment recently published in theBritish Columbia Mental Health and Addictions Journal. More specifically, the annual cost of alcohol consumption is $165 per user, compared to just $20 per user for marijuana. This should not come as a surprise given the vast amount of research that shows alcohol poses far more – and more significant – health problems than marijuana. Alcohol use damages the brain. Marijuana use does not. Despite the myths we've heard throughout our lives about marijuana killing brain cells, it turns out that a growing number of studies seem to indicate that marijuana actually has neuroprotective properties. This means that it works to protect brain cells from harm. For example, one recent study found that teens who used marijuana as well as alcohol suffered significantly less damage to the white matter in their brains. Of course, what is beyond question is that alcohol damages brain cells. Alcohol use is linked to cancer. Marijuana use is not. Alcohol use is associated with a wide variety of cancers, including cancers of the esophagus, stomach, colon, lungs, pancreas, liver and prostate. Marijuana use has not been conclusively associated with any form of cancer. In fact, one study recently contradicted the long-time government claim that marijuana use is associated with head and neck cancers. It found that marijuana use actually reduced the likelihood of head and neck cancers. If you are concerned about marijuana being associated with lung cancer, you may be interested in the results of the largest case-controlled study ever conducted to investigate the respiratory effects of marijuana smoking and cigarette smoking. Released in 2006, the study, conducted by Dr. Donald Tashkin at the University of California at Los Angeles, found that marijuana smoking was not associated with an increased risk of developing lung cancer. Surprisingly, the researchers found that people who smoked marijuana actually had lowerincidences of cancer compared to non-users of the drug. Alcohol is more addictive than marijuana. Addiction researchers have consistently reported that marijuana is far less addictive than alcohol based on a number of factors. In particular, alcohol use can result in significant and potentially fatal physical withdrawal, whereas marijuana has not been found to produce any symptoms of physical withdrawal. Those who use alcohol are also much more likely to develop dependence and build tolerance. Alcohol use increases the risk of injury to the consumer. Marijuana use does not. Many people who have consumed alcohol or know others who have consumed alcohol would not be surprised to hear that it greatly increases the risk of serious injury. Research published this year in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, found that 36 percent of hospitalized assaults and 21 percent of all injuries are attributable to alcohol use by the injured person. Meanwhile, the American Journal of Emergency Medicine reported that lifetime use of marijuana is rarely associated with emergency room visits. According to the British Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, this is because: "Cannabis differs from alcohol … in one major respect. It does not seem to increase risk-taking behavior. This means that cannabis rarely contributes to violence either to others or to oneself, whereas alcohol use is a major factor in deliberate self-harm, domestic accidents and violence." Interestingly enough, some research has even shown that marijuana use has been associated with a decreased risk of injury. http://www.saferchoice.org...The drug war costs too much money for it's own good:The drug war is costing taxpayers billions of dollars just to have weed smoker imprisoned. The money could be used for more useful, important things that would improve out society or pay for even education about drug use that would prove to be more effective than "prohibition"Drug prohibition also invades civil liberties as it invades the "Fourth Amendment" in "searches and seizures"Why should marijuana be illegal?Why? Don't individuals have the right to choose to smoke weed or not? Just as individuals have the right to use alcohol and cigarrettes? People deserve the freedom to smoke weed as the please whether or not the government agrees with their decisions. Why should the government force their beliefs down people throats and jail people for simply doing something that they do not agree with but has no huge, harmful consequences towards society?There are also many other reasons Marijuana should be legal "Medicinal use: Marijuana can be used as medicine because it helps to stimulate apetite and relieve nausea in cancer and AIDS patients. Hemp: The hemp plant is a valuable natural resource. Legalizing marijuana would eliminate the confusion surrounding hemp and allow us to take advantage of hemp's agricultural and industrial uses. Religious Use:Some religions instruct their followers to use marijuana. Just like Christianity and Judaism instruct their followers to drink wine on certain occaisions, some Hindus, Buddhists, Rastafarians, and members of other religions use marijuana as part of their spiritual and religious ceremonies. These people deserve the freedom to practice their religion as they see fit. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that the government cannot 'prohibit the free exercise' of religion, and so marijuana should be legal." http://www.mjlegal.org...

positive: Transwomen Should Be Eligible to Play Sports in the Women's League Apparently, In round one, Autocorrect mistook my commas for periods and capitalized the first letter of every word following them. I'm sorry to anyone who found this glitch distracting. If it happens again, Please forgive me, As it is beyond my control. To my opponent, That was actually a well thought out argument. No one could argue with that, The fact that a lot of thought went into it. I'm not going to argue with you for the sake of arguing with you. I'll give credit where credit is due and give you credit for not sounding as absurd as I would imagine someone on your side of the debate to. Know that your argument is not going in one ear and out the other; I'm listening. If you can prove me wrong, By all means, Please do. I want to take this matter in the right direction, Whether that's in my direction or not. You did your research, Which I appreciate, And you provided me with information of which I didn't have prior, So shame on me and more power to you. While you've yet to convince me of your argument, You've further explained it, And I'll admit, I understand it a little better. Now that I know what your problem is, Allow me to assure you that it doesn't have to be a problem. "The statistic we should be looking at is that Male athletes tend to outperform female athletes by a consistent 10% in most categories. "1. While most of the time, One cisfemale athlete is as good as the next, Every now and then, Few will be 10% better than the rest, And transwomen would simply be among those few; if we're allowing their superiority, I don't see why we can't allow that of a transwoman's. "That means trans women will on average be 10% superior to females. "1. It shouldn't be a matter of whether transwomen are "superior" to ciswomen but whether transwomen are women themselves. If transwomen are women, Then they should be allowed to compete in the women's league by default. Even if transwomen are biologically 10% superior, Some cismen are genetically 10% superior to other cismen, But because they're still men, They're still eligible to compete in the men's league, Despite their genetic superiority, Just as transwomen should still be eligible to compete in the women's league, If they're still women, Which you admitted they are. It's women verses women, And if a transwoman is a woman, Then she's a women, Point blank; even if they win game after game, Athletes are allowed to have winning streaks. So long as the transwomen aren't performing at a level that ciswomen are medically advised not to keep up with, Their capabilities should only push ciswomen to work harder. "Females can win against any male in many cases. However, This doesn't mean the playing field is even. "1. The playing ground isn't even, Nor is it supposed to be. Advantages are what differentiate the winner from the runner-ups. If no one had any advantages, There'd be no competition; everyone would run at the same speed and finish the race at the same time. "This is the whole reason we have separated sports based on biological sex. Because females would nearly all be eliminated from competition if they were forced to compete with the more than. 1% of males that have this advantage over them. "1. We separate males from females because the average cisman is significantly stronger than the average ciswoman, But even if a ciswoman proved herself to be as strong as the average cisman in the men's league, We would have her remain in the women's league regardless, Simply because she's a woman, Just as we should place transwomen in the women's league, Simply because they're women, Also. 2. Transwomen would not outnumber ciswoman; there's not that many of them in general, Let alone pursuing the sports industry. This is why transwomen can't compete among themselves; the competition would be scarce. If transwomen are to populate and outnumber ciswomen over time, Then I agree that they could start their own league and compete among themselves, But until then, I see nothing wrong with sharing. 3. Just as biological sex contributes to one's performance, So does race. Because African-American men have been said to have higher bone mass density, They're thought to accumulate greater muscle mass. Since 77% of NBA players (according to ESPN) are African-American, It could be said that they're dominating the men's basketball league in the same way you fear transwomen will dominate the women's league, Meaning that, Unless you're racist and think we need to exclude African-American men, You're contradicting yourself in saying we need to exclude transwomen. "The types of transwomen who this actually effects will probably be more athletic than other transwomen on average. "1. While average transwomen are stronger than average ciswomen, They're not inherently stronger than athletic ciswomen, Meaning that if a transwomen is dominating the women's league, It's because of her athleticism, Rather than her biological disposition, Which wouldn't stand a chance against the physicality of a pro athlete, Even if a ciswoman. "Biological sex and genes make 100% of the difference between two athletes who train optimally. "1. If both (biological sex and genes) make 100% of a difference, Then disqualifying one and not the other is a contradiction of which can only be rationalized by either accepting both or accepting neither. 2. First, You say that no one should have biological/genetic advantages, And then you say, Because everyone is training optimally, That that's all anyone has to rely on, Which is another way of saying no one should have the only thing anyone has. "Your argument, To prove your point, Has to be for the annihilation of sex-based sports. "1. Your argument, To prove your point, Has to be for the annihilation of diversity in sports. 2. You can't allow certain types of women to complete in the women's league without being prejudice against those of whom you're excluding. "Do we allow performance enhancing drugs or not? "1. No, Because people would overdose trying to one-up each other. "Drugs are prohibited largely. "1. More so because athletes would overdose on them than because it'd give them an unfair advantage. Even pro wrestlers in the sports entertainment industry aren't allowed to take drugs, And drugs wouldn't change their performance because it's predetermined, But because they're dangerous, They're prohibited. 2. Water or any form of hydration improves an athlete's performance more than anything, But because everyone has access to fluid, We don't see it as being an advantage, But if drugs were safe, Everyone would have access to them, As well, And then we wouldn't see them as being an advantage, Either. "Currently in most leagues we try to be 'fair. ' The definition of fair in this case is that everyone competes with what their body naturally does, "1. If this makes sense to you, Then, By your logic, Having transwomen compete in the women's league is only fair, Because they're women (as you agreed) who are simply competing 'with what their body naturally does. '"When it comes to 'fair' sports, Transwomen are allowed to control their levels of testosterone and estrogen. Biological females are not. "1. They're only allowed to lessen their level of testosterone. "This comes into play even more when transmen are concerned. They are literally using performing enhancing drugs. "1. They're using prescribed drugs? This is like accusing an athlete with asthma of cheating for opening their airways and allowing oxygen to flow freely in and out of the lungs with the use of an inhaler. If they're deprived of oxygen, We have to provide them with some, Just as we have to provide testosterone to transmen because they're deprived of that. "Why do you think there is such a large disparity in transwomen victories and transmen victories? "1. I'm not arguing whether transwomen have an advantage but whether it's okay that they have an advantage, And according to your definition of "fair, " it should be. There's my second argument. Here's to round two.

positive: Steroids in sports. I believe steroids should be allowed in sports. It would maximize the skills of most players and is the next step in advanced training. The primary reason steroids get a bad rap is because they are against the rules and viewed as cheating. Players who don't want to take steroids can be free to make that choice, just as some players don't choose certain training methods now. Players who want to take the health risks associated with steroids should be able to do so.

positive: Statistics, Performance Enhancing Drugs, and Major League Baseball–II. "It naturally follows that unless otherwise stated, this training is restricted to the upper body, because that's the part of the body that steroids affect. " Ah, but who has the burden of proof? You. Also, you said that the core-abs is the "key muscle group," which implies that there are other groups that make a difference in baseball. All statements you made assuming that any effect made to the upper body does nothing are irrelevant because you never really proved them to be irrelevant. "Just because it's statistically significant, does not mean it's important enough to make the statistics UNABLE to reflect a player's true natural ability. " We're talking about comparisons. If two guys would have had the exact same batting average, but one guy's batting average went down because he weighed more, and therefore couldn't reach first base as quickly, I win. "I'm picking factual phrases. You're picking opinions. " However, your factual phrases do not eliminate steroids as a factor. They only show that it could have been a combination. The guy you cited though so. Why can't you? You have BoP, after all. "If one article says that 2 2=4, and then ALSO says that all non-Caucasian people should be murdered, does that mean I can't cite the factual 2 2=4 part without agreeing with the later opinionated part that non-Caucasian people should be murdered. " It would obviously mean that the narrator is unreliable, and you should get a more reliable source to confirm that 2+2=4. There are plenty out there. "It says in the ESPN source, [3] in the R2 argument. "Of the last dozen seasons. " The article was written in 2005. So, about 1993-2005. That's exactly my time frame. " Your factors don't exclude steroids. They could have all worked together. "Uh, I'm not going to counter that example by quoting it because you used it as a clarification. .. " "Other factors" does not mean "only factors. " "This is a completely irrelevant argument. .. " Where have you shown that steroids have no effect? You assume that they have no effect, and you have the Burden of Proof, and the BoP alone loses you this debate. "You haven't come close to winning that first contention. You'd have to show that steroids have an effect, and that the effect resulted in a few extra home runs. " Extra home runs? Because guys who use steroids weigh more, they would be slower. Therefore, they would score fewer singles, and perhaps more home-runs. However, the fewer singles would be a significant change in statistics. Even the negative effects mess things up. "You still haven't provided any evidence that it would lead to an increase in home runs. Your whole argument here lacks any basis in fact. " You haven't provided any evidence that it doesn't. Let's go with the BoP. Which is on you. "Because they're straight, and because they're easy to throw, and because the hitter will know what's coming. .. " In that case, they'd throw change-ups. Why fastballs instead? Because they're fast. It's physics. "Throwing hard is good. Throwing hard is good because it makes it hard to hit. Faster pitches are harder to hit. " In that case, pitchers would have more strikes. Steroids don't have any effect on a player's reaction time, so the playing field wouldn't be even. It would be lopsided, and all of the statistics would change up or down in some way. "First of all, quit with your [sic]s. It's called the subjunctive tense. .. " See my evidence locker for why this is incorrect. . http://www.debate.org... "You haven't shown anything that says a faster ball is hit for home runs more often that a slower ball. " Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. A fast ball bounces off of the bat with more power. . http://en.wikipedia.org... "IRRELEVANT. The rules don't matter. " Yes, they do. Playing by the rules is considered to be natural ability at using the rules to one's advantage. Breaking the rules is not. "Sorry, but you've just misunderstood your source. The source OUTRIGHT SAYS that a 'statistically significant' difference IS NOT the same as a 'significant' difference. " Yes. It says that any difference is statistically significant so long as it is consistent. That goes my direction, not yours. "You haven't shown it's significant IN TERMS OF MAKING THE STATISTICS ILLEGITIMATE. " If a guy is weighed down by his steroid use and is called out at first more often, his number of singles is no longer correct. Although, you've never shown anything about the statistics being legitimate in the first place. "1. No, because I cited a factual statement from the article, and you're citing an opinionated statement. " What makes it an opinion? You never established that. "2. Statistically significant does not mean that it is significant enough to change the statistics. " Actually, that is basically what statistically significant means. Read it out loud. Statistically significant effects have significant effects on statistics. "3. No, because you haven't shown that steroids have an effect. " You haven't shown that steroids don't have an effect. "4. You have not shown this. " The rest of his step rebuttals seem to count on the above points being rebutted, so. .. "He did not show that steroids affected a player's performance, misinterpreting his own source. " I could say the same about you, except with the lack of an effect. "Then, his other arguments were easily refutable, and often based off nothing. " Your arguments don't even exist. "His arguments regarding the even playing field either reflected a lack of understanding of baseball (specifically, his arguments about the fast pitches being easier to hit for home runs). " Not only does this sentence need another clause, but I never said that fastballs are easy to hit. They just fly further. "His arguments about statistical significance displayed a lack of understanding of what statistically significant means. " My opponent seems to be looking in a mirror. "His own source says that statistical significance does not equate to actual significance, meaning importance. " All I've needed is a statistically significant source. I don't need it to be important. I need it to be statistically significant. After all, this is a statistical debate. Nowhere have I said that it was actual significance. You've just assumed that it takes actual significance, which it does not. "I have refuted all of his arguments. The resolution has been affirmed. Vote PRO. " He's forgetting something again. He thinks that by refuting all of my arguments will win him the debate. He is wrong. He may be able to attack my arguments, sure. But after that, we have nothing. He has not affirmed the resolution. He has only tried to stop it from being negated. As the Instigator and PRO, and having said nothing earlier, he has the Burden of Proof.

positive: Statistics, Performance Enhancing Drugs, and Major League Baseball. "If the effects really were minimal, then players wouldn't be using them." Non-sequitur. This conclusion does not follow. Many players will use whatever they BELIEVE to help, even if it is minimal. In a cutthroat world such as professional sports, athletes will be doing whatever they can to gain any sort of edge. "Furthermore, the effects are known [1]:" You just showed me the effects of using steroids. We are arguing the effect of using steroids on baseball playing ability. I have questioned how much this muscle mass and strength helps baseball players, specifically. "There's a simple answer here. The poor players decided that they would use PEDs to give themselves an advantage. Plus, the side effects of steroids may lead people to stop using them, which would lead to a decrease in performance, which would put them out of the major leagues." Uh... aren't you making my point? If the side effects of steroids eventually resulted in a decrease in performance, then steroids could have actually resulted in a decrease in performance, which means that those statistics should NOT be thrown out due to supposedly being artificially inflated. "1. They were bad, which made them use PEDs. 2. They eventually quit, and therefore could not stay in the [sic] MLB." So they barely got better. That's my point. "Increased muscle mass helps increase the strength of the core-abs, which would immediately lead to better performance in baseball." No–the increased muscle mass is largely located in the "thorax, neck, shoulders and upper arm." [1] "Obviously, a pitcher would want to stay away from steroids, but a batter would use them." I provided an extra argument to show why pitchers specifically shouldn't use steroids–however, this is unrelated to whether or not a batter should use them, and you have not provided any extra argument here why batters should use them. Just pointing that out. "Yes, but they can also be attributed to steroids." You have not shown why. "The PF thing is interesting, but it does not account for any increase at all in pitching strength." I don't know what you're trying to say here. Accounting for the ball change, offense was level–therefore, PED benefit was minimal. The only argument you could be trying to make that seems relevant would be to say that since it doesn't account for pitching strength, if the trend is level, then the pitching strength was balanced would be balanced by the hitting strength. To this, I would say that you have not shown evidence of any supposed increase, and even if there were an increase, it would support my balanced playing field argument. "Great. Let's just let everybody use steroids. That way, we can have every single MLB player suffer the side effects of steroids [2], which many players would rather not do." Straw man. This is completely irrelevant. We are arguing about the validity of statistics. "According to a source that seems to be biased towards PRO [3], there is always a risk of side effects with PEDs. Why not avoid having to take such a risk? Plus, most players don't use steroids. This puts them at a disadvantage against the steroid-abusing players." If by biased, you mean it agrees with me, then yeah. I don't see why that's important though, especially when the things I cite are based in fact. You have not at all qualified the claim that "most players don't use steroids." You have not shown why that puts them at a disadvantage–in fact, you seem to have argued that it would put them at an advantage, due to the numerous side effects. "2. These players believed that steroids in baseball were a significant enough factor in statistical evidence to influence decisions on which players were the best or worst. (Re-wording of 1)" This is not a rewording. You are operating under the assumption that players who used steroids expected massive gain, when it is clear that many athletes would do anything to gain any sort of edge, no matter how small. "So, basically, they think that the PEDs have a significant effect on their stats. Well, let's give them the benefit of the doubt. Let's punish them for what they believe to be true. They took that risk when they took the PEDs. It's really only fair." No, they do not necessarily expect a significant effect. You have not shown that. Your benefit of the doubt argument is unreasonable. Statistics are meant to accurately show who played well and who did not. We who use statistics for this purpose are not concerned with the morality of throwing out certain stats just to punish players, because that distorts the truth, that distorts what actually happened. "A "level playing field" in which the cheaters always win isn't a level playing field at all." PED users don't always win because basically everyone's a PED user. That's the point. In conclusion: My opponent has not really provided evidence for why a PED user would necessarily benefit in terms of his baseball skills. Many of his arguments seem to prove my point, especially the ones about the negative effects of steroids–in these, he seems to show that the statistics of PED users were adversely affected, which would make it absolutely absurd to throw them out due to artificial inflation. Some of his other arguments don't really seem to make much sense, and hopefully he'll expand on them in the next round. Overall, however, my opponent does not seem to have refuted any of my arguments, relying mainly on non-sequiturs or straw men. I eagerly await my opponent's response. Vote PRO. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... (the part I'm citing cites source 25)

positive: Performance Enhancement Drugs in Professional Sports Performance Enhancements are Putting Athletes in Danger Athletes are cheating more and more now by taking performance enhancements for their professional sport. An athletes health could be at risk while taking performance enhancement drugs, we already have the great technology to support them, plus the athletes are playing their sport for the determination it takes, and the love of the game. Therefore, Performance Enhancement Drugs (PED) in professional sports should remain illegal for the players to keep them safe. Athletes already have great technology to help them with their performance while playing their sport. Athletes will use scientific diets, and oxygen tents as a healthier way of helping them improve. Sports have the technology to push the athletes bodies to extents. "Athletes already use technology to push their bodies to the edge of human capability. Scientific diets, oxygen tents that stimulate high altitudes and supplements that fine-tune already genetically superior bodies are all simple-- and legal"examples." (Duncan). None of those examples are illegal to use for the athlete to help improve their performance. On the other hand, when using PEDs for the extra technology it will help them become better, faster, stronger, then it will make the sport more interesting for both the players and the crowd. "Scientists and engineers have recently developed devices that bump up cognitive performance by dousing the brain in low levels of electricity and using magnetic fields to stimulate the brains nerve cells." (Duncan). This is saying that now because of the help of scientists and engineers athletes can use certain devices to encourage the brain to keep going. Instead of risking their health, they have other ways to improve their performance. PEDs could cause multiple health problems that could be very dangerous. The website of the World Anti-Doping Agency gives warnings on what steroids could do to the athletes ad their body. "The website of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) for example, warns that steroids increase the odds of mood shifts, reduced sperm counts, damage to the heart, and masculinization in women." (Duncan). There are many different problems that could occur while taking PEDs, they only list a small amount of possible health risks. If a player were to have one of these problems, then they could be taken out of the sport because of the damage to the body. Yet, athletes could want to use these in order to get stronger to help prevent any injury that could happen while playing. Some athletes are willing to take the chance to help with making the sport safer for the player. The purpose of having the sport is for competition. When an athlete uses PEDs, that purpose is no longer there and with competition the love of the game remains. "Any thoughtful person who plays a sport understands the connection among talent, dedication, and excellence. Every sport sets limits." (Murray). While the athlete is playing the sport each time he/she plays the love of the game should grow. The determination and competition will still be there, but when taking PEDs the athlete forgets about why they are playing in the first place. But, when the athlete uses PEDs it does make them become stronger and better at their sport making it a little bit easier on them, the athlete will then be able to play longer and practice longer because of their strength. To have athletes remain safe, PEDs should remain illegal. Athletes have amazing technology to help them improve in their sport, and there are many different health problems that can occur. Lastly, athletes are playing for the love and competition of the game. Hard work and determination will get the athlete farther than risking the athletes career with taking PEDs.

positive: Steroids should be legalized in sports. First of all, steroids gives one the ability to be stronger, it doesn't automatically make on stronger, it heals muscles after workouts quicker, letting you work out more--work harder.This is false. A review spanning more than three decades of experimental studies in men found that body weight may increase by 2–5 kg as a result of short-term (<10 weeks) AAS use, which may be attributed mainly to an increase of lean mass. Animal studies also found that fat mass was reduced, but most studies in humans failed to elucidate significant fat mass decrements. The effects on lean body mass have been shown to be dose-dependent. Both muscle hypertrophy and the formation of new muscle fibers have been observed. The hydration of lean mass remains unaffected by AAS use, although small increments of blood volume cannot be ruled out.[5] The upper region of the body (thorax, neck, shoulders, and upper arm) seems to be more susceptible for AAS than other body regions because of predominance of androgen receptors in the upper body. The largest difference in muscle fiber size between AAS users and non-users was observed in type I muscle fibers of the vastus lateralis and the trapezius muscle as a result of long-term AAS self-administration. After drug withdrawal, the effects fade away slowly, but may persist for more than 6–12 weeks after cessation of AAS use.[5] The same review observed strength improvements in the range of 5–20% of baseline strength, depending largely on the drugs and dose used as well as the administration period. Overall, the exercise where the most significant improvements were observed is the bench press.[5] For almost two decades, it was assumed that AAS exerted significant effects only in experienced strength athletes, particularly based on the studies of Hervey and coworkers.[23][24] In 1996, a randomized controlled trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine demonstrated, however, that even in novice athletes a 10-week strength training program accompanied by testosterone enanthate at 600 mg/week may improve strength more than training alone does.[5][25] The same study found that dose to be sufficient to significantly improve lean muscle mass relative to placebo even in subjects that did not exercise at all.[25] A 2001 study by the same first author, showed that the anabolic effects of testosterone enanthate were highly dose dependent. [http://en.wikipedia.org...] So, you are wrong in your claim that steroids simply heal muscles. Empirical data shows that steroids can significantly increase lean muscle mass and improve ability in exercises such as the bench press. Steroids directly increase athletes' strength. You say sports is a judge of someone's athletic prowess, and that is how much they practice and how much of an affinity one has for the sport. So, amount of time practiced is actually increased with steroids as I mentioned before. Judging the athletic prowess of a person and the athletic prowess of a person enhanced with steroids are very different things. This isn't to say that there would be no reason to test the athletic prowess of various people enhanced with drugs. But this implies that each person participating is taking the exact same amount of the exact same drug. Even if this could be monitored, that EVERY SINGLE ATHLETE participating in a given sport is taking the same stuff to preserve fairness, what you have now done is corrupted the sport. Now it is virtually impossible for someone who doesn't take the drug to go pro when everyone else is using drugs. In essence, you're forcing people who want to play professional sports to mess with their bodies and take drugs with questionable effects. And what if someone wants to watch sports where you don't have a bunch of artifically enhanced druggies? Also, steroids show the affinity of players-- it shows how they would take risks to succeed in something they love. With all due respect, are you serious? First, that isn't what I meant by affinity, although this is just a misunderstanding I suppose. By affinity I meant moreso talent. But regardless, why in the world would we want long-term and permanent damage to be mandatory for professional athletes? Who in their right mind wants to watch a ton of people do something RECREATIONAL while slowly harming their bodies? There are enough diseases and wars in the world that hurt people, that we don't need to add to damages with our recreational activities. Yes, steroids are harmful to the user's body, that is known, but are smoking and alcohol outlawed? Also, athletes know the risks of taking steroids, and that is their choice, we can't go making choices for them, they need to make their own decisions. In addition, stepping on any professional sports field is screwing up your body. In football and hockey, players crush each other, leaving brain and other injuries. In baseball, players put nearly 100 pounds of stress on their arms each time they throw. Every time someone plays pro sports, they are "screwing up their body" as you said. Players know this, but still take those risks, just like they should be allowed to for steroids. The only reason smoking isn't outlawed is because it is a custom borrowed from before we knew it was harmful. Alcohol isn't outlawed because it has little to no harmful effects at all if used reasonably. If we are comparing to other substances, how about illegal drugs like meth and crack cocaine? But that isn't even the main problem with steroids in sports. Even if you are a libertarian and hold that people should be able to do whatever they want to themselves as long as it doesn't affect others, the primary problem with steroids, as I have mentioned, is corruption of every sport in which they are allowed. Your speech about "choice" makes you come off as some sort of libertarian. But any reasonable libertarian knows that the key qualification is that whatever the person does does not harm others. Corruption of sports in general and essentially kicking out anyone who doesn't also want to participate in your self-destructive actions is harmful to others. Hockey and football are unfortunate cases. I'll speak about football. Part of the essence of football is the violent tackling that occurs. This is a major problem and not a good thing. There are cases of children who received concussions that could cause massive permanent damage if not treated, but whose coaches hid the fact so that the children could continue playing. This is exactlly the sort of corruption of sporting I mean. It isn't worth it any more when the costs outweigh the small benefits of entertainment. If we allow steroids in sports, the same thing will happen, where coaches will make sure their children get on steroids while young. Do you know what kind of damage that does to the bodies of adolescents? You would have to ban steroids for younger people and allow it for older, but this is simply unreasonable. Steroids will make sports even more entertaining then they are now. Fans absolutely love records being broken and athletes playing at a higher and higher level. This is what players can achieve with steroids. If they don't want to risk their health in the future by taking steroids, then maybe they aren't cut out for an industry where it is all about doing everything to succeed. It is definitely going to make fans more appreciative of different sporting events. People will love it? Then why was there such a violent backlash when it turned out Lance Armstrong had used drugs? Fans liked it at the time because they thought it was legitimate, and this perfectly supports my point. When people found out the real reason for some of his success, he was removed from the Hall of Fame and even lost support for his cancer foundation. There is a common understanding among people that what athletes do means nothing if they are simply artifically enhanced to do so.

positive: Legalize Performance-Enhancing Drug for Sportman PEDs should remain illegal. The idea of a performance enhancing drug is to improve immediate ability. This gives and unfair handicap to the players of that particular sport that are not using a drug. This in turn cheats the capitalist system by placing someone who is unfit to be at the top at the top.

positive: WC Debate - RR: Performance enhancing drugs should be legal for use in all major sports leagues Thanks to Actionsspeak for clarifying his case and for his opening remarks. This looks to be an interesting debate. I ask the audience to recognize that even his case is a departure from status quo. He would like to afford the capacity to decide whether steroid and hormone usage is allowed in any given sport to the sporting leagues themselves, and thus take it out of the hands of legislators. Con's third contention made it clear that the league, not lawmakers, should have the right to determine how a sport is played. So what we're really discussing here is whether or not the option should be available to individuals or to sporting leagues, not whether their usage should be legalized or not. This is an important distinction, and one that should be kept in mind that the American legal structures [1] aren't going to be an impediment in either of our cases as this debate goes forward. Now, onto my rebuttals. On Equality: 1. Sports aren't about equality. If it was, we wouldn't have winners and losers. The system of competition is meant to elevate those who are better at what they do, whether that's as a result of inherent capacities or how well they use their resources. No one is entitled to play professional sports " it's a privilege requiring enormous sacrifice and massive risk, whether they use steroids or not, and most walk away. If Con wants equality, sports isn't the place to find it. 2. Sports aren't equal. Recall two things I said in R2. First, I discussed what athletes do in order to get in shape. Flying into the mountains to thicken the blood and increase the flow of oxygen through their bodies isn't something everyone can do before competitions, nor can they all find training facilities above a certain altitude. Even among those that can, not all of them will have access to top of the line equipment, masseuses, trainers, or all the other expenses required to build muscle quickly and efficiently. They don't all have access to the same megadoses of vitamin pills, dietary supplements, equipment, clothing, or medical treatments that are allowed to everyone in status quo. Hell, things like hyperbaric oxygen chambers, which increase the rate of recovery for players, are being purchased by many teams and players at tremendous costs, providing them and only them an appreciable advantage.[2] and would continue to be allowed in Con's case. Why are steroids so special? Second, I talked about how some people just have higher inherent capacities. They produce more testosterone, HGH or erythropoeitin, they can endure a faster heartbeat, or even the fact that they produce normal blood cells. Not everyone has those advantages, and Con has provided no way for anyone to make up for any such deficiencies. Only my plan seeks to solve for these concerns. 3. Con's case is worse for equality. Black market drugs are more expensive, harder to find,[3] and more dangerous, but more on that last point later. But you can look at this point one of two ways. You can accept that steroid usage causes more steroid usage, in which case Con's case is more detrimental there's already a system in place where athletes feel the need to use steroids and hormones to succeed. The only difference is that they can't use the cheapest, safest, and most well-known steroids prescribed directly by doctors at specific doses and lower cost. Con provides absolutely no reason to believe that legalization will increase usage over status quo. Even if he does, recognize that equality is only a larger problem within his case and in the status quo. The only reason why an advantage such as steroids would be considered unfair is if they're unequally distributed, but as I pointed out in the previous round, the distribution is currently as unequal as it gets. Using basic steroids and hormones instead of what's available on the black market will lower, not raise, the barrier for entry, and increase fairness to all athletes. Or you can notice that this argument has no warrant. Con asserts that steroid usage among some athletes will spread to other athletes who want to compete. This is nothing more than an assertion, and one which is not well explained. Mandatory testing programs among MLB players have revealed that a whopping 5-7% of athletes were using steroids[4], which means 93-95% of athletes were able to play at a very high level without coercion. There's no reason to believe that legalization will cause these numbers to balloon out of control. The uncertainty regarding who is using steroids/hormones in status quo, if anything, creates more impetus to use than a transparent system where everyone who does use does so openly. 4. Con also allows sports leagues to create their own barriers to entry for those with anemia, low testosterone production, reduced muscle growth, and anything else that puts them at a marked disadvantage. He allows individual leagues to discriminate against these groups, harming any sense of equality by denying access to those who could easily keep up if they had access to the available resources. On Health Concerns: 1. Athletes are already forced into an incredibly unhealthy lifestyle and die young. I made this clear in the previous round, but there's no significant difference between any of the health harms presented by Con and the ones I presented in R2. Con will have to address my point that these harms are non-unique and my hypocrisy arguments as well in the next round in order to win this point. 2. Health concerns are worse in an environment where black market drugs are the only ones being used. The reality is that the health concerns are far more excessive using designer steroids and gene doping, as I pointed out last round. Worse yet, his case only exacerbates these harms by legalizing their usage in the general community, but not in all sports. In my case, incentive to use designer steroids and gene doping is erased due to their expense and ineffectiveness by comparison. Con encourages the legal usage of the most dangerous doping substances. 3. Each athlete accepts these health concerns the moment they take these drugs. There's no reason why athletes shouldn't be able to take these concerns on themselves, especially if they know about them in advance. Since Con's case encourages athletes to pursue drugs with unknown health harms, his forces a lower capacity to consent than mine does. On "The league's rights": 1. There's no impact here. Con doesn't explain how changes in the way sports are played is actually harmful. Even if this is certain to happen, the lack of a harm makes it unimportant. 2. There's no warrant for this claim. Con doesn't explain how a change in one rule affects another one. The only possible warrant is a slippery slope fallacy, which has no rational basis in this debate. Worse yet, even if it was true that one rule change could link to another, the rules he's trying to link have nothing in common. The rules of what an athlete can do to their own bodies have no effect on whether any player can disregard the basic rules of how a sport is played in competition. 3. The league doesn't have a right to deny access based on any person's characteristics, training regimen, or nutritional intake. This is one of the very few influences they have on what athletes can take and use for playing their sports, and it's done with extreme hypocrisy based on shaky reasoning. Leagues should not be allowed to spurn athletes who they think have an unfair advantage based on other characteristics, and yet Con wants us to believe that this is crossing some special line. With that, I leave it to my opponent to rebut my case and respond to these arguments. 1. http://www.steroidabuse.com... 2. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com... 3. http://www.theguardian.com... 4. http://mlb.mlb.com...

positive: All drugs should be decriminalised Decriminalising drugs will make them safer

positive: Steroids Should Be Legal in Professional Sports 1a. As much as a player may try to avoid injury, there is always still a risk. Likewise, steroids are only a health risk. The difference is that injuries are meant to be avoided, like all health risks, and likewise so should steroids. Players don't accidentally inject themselves with steroids.1b. No one would take steroids just for the aesthetic side-effects. Also, steroids (and other banned substances) are sometimes prescribed during recovery from injury. Therefore, I see no reason why they cannot be allowed for other circumstances.I agree that no one takes steroids for the ugly aesthetic side-effects, it's an unnatural side-effect. By saying "It's someone's choice to look a certain way" is not addressing the fact that it's an unwanted consequence of steroid use.1c. NFL players who had severe concussions also are prone to the same tendencies. That does not mean that football should cease to exist over the risk.Players don't intentionally give themselves concussions. Players intentionally give themselves steroids. But they are both harmful to your health as your example of concussion and my example of roid rage (which you didn't address) points out.1d. Yes, the muscle growth is unnatural, but so is our ability to fly in airplanes. Some people will have better steroids than others is also irrelevant. Some people access to better education, technology, more money than others... I am not arguing that everything unnatural is bad. I'm arguing against steroid use, which is also unntural, is bad for the side-effects and the consequences it has on the spirit of the game.2a. Why is there a difference between achievements related to human bodies and those related to technology? Why not just have high-tech robot arms and legs to play sports for us? It's not the point of competing in sports. It's based on skill, physical investment, competition.. ect.3a. If there was no correlation between interest and steroid use, why are the MLB ratings[changing].Correlation is not causation.

positive: Steroids Should Be Legal in Professional Sports I contend that professional sports leagues should legalize steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs. I understand that this position may initially be considered blasphemy, but there are multiple reasons that leagues should legalize performance-enhancing drugs. First of all, throughout history, humans have been trying to stretch the limits of what is possible. This includes through the use of any available technology. The fact that humans cannot physically fly did not stop the Wright Brothers from building the first airplane. Yes, legalized use of steroids would create frequent changes in the record books, but those are all part of human achievement. Furthermore, comparisons between eras are already moot, considering the differences between the rules of today and those of 50 or 100 years ago. Also, it benefits the sports economically to allow performance-enhancing drugs. In 1999, when Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire both broke Roger Maris's single-season home run record, interest in baseball soared. Many casual fans found their accomplishments fascinating, as those men were going to a place no human had been before. A comparable analogy would be when the oldest person ever, Jeanne Calment of France, died at the age of 122 years. She would never have been able to live that long with primitive technology, but people were fascinated by her shattering the record (no other human has even lived to 120). Why should a different standard be applied to sports? Baseball was always the sport most impacted by performance-enhancing drugs. Thus, it saw the biggest excitement around new records. Today, players normally are caught and suspended when they take other performance-enhancing drugs. Thus, there is less opportunity to have the excitement of breaking records. Consequently, baseball's ratings have slipped in a time where football and basketball are basking in rising ratings relative to the average TV show. Thus, steroids should be legal in sports.

positive: steriods in sports 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.

negative: Legalization of drugs Regulated legalization of drugs will improve public health

negative: Anybody who used performance enhancing drugs in the MLB shouldn't be elected to the Hall of fame No, they cheated therefore they shouldn't make the hall of fame. It doesn't matter if a lot of players did it. They cheated therefore they should be penalized. The people who make the Hall of Fame should be in there because of their honor to the game, not for cheating and deceiving people so they can have a physical advantage. You said that there are many "incredible players" in the Mitchell Report. Don't you think maybe they were so incredible because they used steriods and performance enhancing drugs? If they didn't use them they wouldn't be as good as the stats show. I understand players are out there to get theirs and get as much money as they can, but what about the true players of the game who aren't using these performing enhancing drugs. They did the right thing and won't make the hall of fame because they might have decent numbers over their career but the ones who used performance enhancing drugs had better stats than them because they cheated.

negative: Should MLB baseball players be banned from baseball for doing drugs This truly depends on this drugs being used in my opinion. If it's not performance enhancing, it shouldn't even be an issue as it doesn't effect the outcome of a game. Recreational drug use, while illegal depending on the drug and the state, shouldn't result in a punishment in the sports world. I've stated my point and you have yourself, let's begin the arguments!

negative: Performance enhancing supplements are both un-necessary and potentially harmful for teens Extend arguments... I will re-post this debate in hopes that there will be a challenger who will actually post a rebuttal.

negative: Daniel Day-Lewis's Performance in There Will Be Blood is the Best performance in years His performance as Daniel Plainview is one that will live forever and he will be taken home the gold on Feb 24. His career performance and possibly the best of the new millenium.

negative: Raunchy Performance Firstly i would like to add to my first opinion i made earlier. Us as people are meat to have a FREE mind , think FREELY without the help of others , so this going on my previous statement and what my opposition has just made it just clarifies at when parents do overly power their children with their thoughts, They are not avaible to think for themselves so therefore it goes FOR my argument that yet again that if parents have to much control your not the person your mean to be.

negative: Raunchy Performance I would be certain that more people in the world are not actually bothered by this display , and the people that are just love a good moan!

negative: Raunchy Performance Not everyone is just moaning about the problem. The parents who are raising the children up right and making sure they don't get into something that is clearing bad for their underdeveloped minds are not just using moaning they are backing up their words, and ask both your own parents and your grandparents and you will see that it works. My opponent has no piont in her claim. I made it perfectly clear in the comment section that I am Pro. However, I wanted to argue on the side of Con. I am using the traditional Con arguments that have been used for a long time.

negative: Muslims should be accepted in America I will let the opposition make the first move, but my argument is this: -Muslims are unjustly discriminated against in America and most Western Countries and this should stop.

negative: Muslims should be accepted in America i could see snoop dog and ice cube killing people. are you Muslim because you sound like a stupid muslim - jew cross

negative: BBCOR Baseball Bats Should High School baseball players be only limited to using BBCOR certified baseball bats?

negative: Legalization of Marijuana Marijuana should be controlled like other vice products

negative: Should Athletes using performance enhancing drugs be subject to harsh punishment Athletes should be punished for using performance enhancing drugs

negative: Muslims should be accepted in America Over 250,000 Muslims are terrorists. That is a fact. Thousands of Muslims enter the U.S. everyday. That is also a fact. Do the math dumbfuck. For all we know you could be a terrorist.

negative: eSports This is a debate focusing on Esports, aka Pro online gaming. Pro gaming is on the rise, and it's becoming well-known, with a growing fan base. The question is, should esports be a school sport. I'll present my argument in favor in the next round.

negative: gay marriage should be accepted at first, i had thought that gay marriage was all wrong, however i see it differently now. what if you wish to spend the rest of your life with a person you truely love but however is the same gender? you can't help the fact that you're either a male or female. it's all about commitment that matters.

negative: gay marriage should be accepted The proponent unfortunately did not defend her position, which makes it more difficult for me, and any observers to challenge and refine my/their opinions. I have nothing more to add.

negative: Homosexuality should be accepted by humanity 1) Homosexuality is a viable lifestyle. (By this I mean the probability of obtaining and transmitting a venereal disease vs. that of heterosexuals. ) -The perception of homosexuals is that they are a vector for AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhea, etc. -The fact of the matter is that all STDs can be transmitted regardless of sexuality to one's partner depending on the sexual act committed. The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Campus Resource Center stated on its website (accessed 2006): "The truth is that being GLBT does not give you AIDS. Certain sexual practices, certain drug use behaviors and other factors can put you at risk for catching HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, as well as other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). " 2006 - UCLA Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Campus Resource Center -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -Being a homosexual does not increase the probability of being an alcoholic; however, this may appear to be the case only because society throws a spotlight on gay individuals. The act of doing this highlights personal attributes as being the cause of taboo practices or illnesses instead of considering situational factors. Gregory M. Herek, PhD, Professor of Psychology at the University of California at Davis, wrote in a 1991 article in American Psychologist titled "Avoiding Heterosexist Bias in Psychological Research": "Phenomena should not be assumed to result from sexual orientation simply because they are observed in the gay community. Alcoholism, for example, is a serious problem in some sectors of the gay community. Attributing it to homosexuality per se, however, exemplifies the fundamental attribution bias. .. It explains behavior entirely in terms of personal characteristics while ignoring situational factors. " 1991 - Gregory M. Herek, PhD . http://borngay.procon.org... 2) Homosexuals have the ability to effectively raise an adopted child. -The reality is that homosexuals have the same capacity to raise a child as heterosexuals. In fact, it would be beneficial to society if adoption laws in various states ended their prohibition of gay adoption in order to stimulate the increase in adoption. Growing with two parents, regardless of sex, would be more beneficial than growing up in an impoverished home with a single parent. ""Most children in the United States do not live with two married parents. In fact, according to the 2000 census, only 24% homes were composed of a married mother and father with children living at home. The Florida court argues that children are better off raised in a two-parent heterosexual household. In fact, scientific studies have shown that children who grow up in one or two-parent gay or lesbian households fare just as well emotionally and socially as children whose parents are heterosexual. Studies have shown that children are more influenced by their interactions with their parents, than by their sexual orientation. With this in mind, the American Association of Pediatrics supports gay and lesbian couples adopting children. " ""There is no legal reason why gays and lesbians should be denied the right to adopt children. The law only hurts children waiting to be adopted and deprives loving parents who would care for these children. " . http://lesbianlife.about.com... "Many lesbians and gay men are parents; others wish to be parents. In the 2000 U. S. Census, 33 percent of female same-sex couple households and 22 percent of male same-sex couple households reported at least one child under the age of 18 living in the home. Although comparable data are not available, many single lesbians and gay men are also parents, and many same-sex couples are part-time parents to children whose primary residence is elsewhere. As the social visibility and legal status of lesbian and gay parents have increased, some people have raised concerns about the well-being of children in these families. Most of these questions are based on negative stereotypes about lesbians and gay men. The majority of research on this topic asks whether children raised by lesbian and gay parents are at a disadvantage when compared to children reaised(sic) by heterosexual parents. The most common questions and answers to them are these: Do children of lesbian and gay parents have more problems with sexual identity than do children of heterosexual parents? For instance, do these children develop problems in gender identity and/or in gender role behavior? The answer from research is clear: sexual and gender identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same way among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents. Few studies are available regarding children of gay fathers. Do children raised by lesbian or gay parents have problems in personal development in areas other than sexual identity? For example, are the children of lesbian or gay parents more vulnerable to mental breakdown, do they have more behavior problems or are they less psychologically healthy than other children? Again, studies of personality, self-concept and behavior problems show few differences between children of lesbian mothers and children of heterosexual parents. Few studies are available regarding children of gay fathers. Are children of lesbian and gay parents likely to have problems with social relationships? For example, will they be teased or otherwise mistreated by their peers? Once more, evidence indicates that children of lesbian and gay parents have normal social relationships with their peers and adults. The picture that emerges from this research shows that children of gay and lesbian parents enjoy a social life that is typical of their age group in terms of involvement with peers, parents, family members and friends. Are these children more likely to be sexually abused by a parent or by a parent"s friends or acquaintances? There is no scientific support for fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by their parents or their parents" gay, lesbian or bisexual friends or acquaintances. In summary, social science has shown that the concerns often raised about children of lesbian and gay parents " concerns that are generally grounded in prejudice against and stereotypes about gay people " are unfounded. Overall, the research indicates that the children of lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from the children of heterosexual parents in their development, adjustment or overall well-being. " . http://www.apa.org... 3) While a minority, Homosexuality is a natural orientation that has merit. -Many view homosexuality as an unnatural practice that is distorting what nature (or god) intended. The fact of the matter is that homosexuality flourishes in the animal kingdom as an integral and vital aspect of many species. "One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species," explains Petter Boeckman, who is the academic advisor for the "Against Nature's Order? " exhibition. Homosexual behaviour(sic) has been observed in 1,500 animal species. "We're talking about everything from mammals to crabs and worms. The actual number is of course much higher. Among some animals homosexual behavior is rare, some having sex with the same gender only a part of their life, while other animals, such as the dwarf chimpanzee, homosexuality is practiced throughout their lives. " Animals that live a completely homosexual life can also be found. This occurs especially among birds that will pair with one partner for life, which is the case with geese and ducks. Four to five percent of the couples are homosexual. Single females will lay eggs in a homosexual pair's nest. It has been observced(sic) that the homosexual couple are often better at raising the young than heterosexual couples. . http://www.news-medical.net... -If god does exist then he obviously is not concerned with other species being homosexual, because it is rampant in all corners of the world and in a large portion of the animal kingdom. 4) Homophobia is detrimental to any nation that condones such a practice. -Homophobia is continually perpetuated by stereotypes and unfamiliarity with the nature of sexual orientation. Homosexuality is not a disease, it cannot be eradicated with a vaccine. By verbally assaulting an individual based on characteristics that cannot be altered, you are psychologically damaging the individual. The action in the previous statement leads to an increased chance of suicide, alcohol abuse, and a myriad of issues that could have been avoided. "Recently published as a doctoral thesis in clinical psychology, this investigation examined environmental risks and protective factors that counterbalanced them in LGB youth. "Compared to their heterosexual peers, suicide rates are up to 14 times higher among lesbian, gay and bisexual high school and college students," says Michael Benibgui, who led this investigation as part of his PhD thesis at Concordia's Department of Psychology and Centre for Research in Human Development. " "Depression and anxiety are widespread," he continues. "To learn why this occurs, we studied the physiological impact of homophobic social environments on a group of healthy young LGB adults. " . http://www.sciencedaily.com... Because I am running out of room I am forced to end my arguments here. I look forward to hearing my opponent's arguments and again thank him for taking part in my debate.

negative: WC Debate - RR: Performance enhancing drugs should be legal for use in all major sports leagues !

negative: Birth control given out in schools Fundamentally this argument comes down to a simple question, does teaching abstinence work? I would strongly argue the fact that abstinence has for too long been the accepted method of teaching about sex and wrongly. I firstly want to compare two methods of teaching about sex, the first being the US where abstinence is the generally preferred route and the second being Europe where the sex-positive approach is taken. By sex positive I mean that as the society understands that teenagers are going to have sex, that they will have sex. My case in point being the USA in which the Teenage pregnancy rate was 7% in 2006, now you may think that this number is "low" but when compared to the figure for example of the Netherlands you can clearly see the difference. In Holland only 0.7% of teenagers become pregnant. This equates to only 7 in every 1000 and is 10 times less than in the USA. Now if we look at how sex is taught in each country I think it becomes obvious why. In the USA as mentioned abstinence is the preferred method with 34% of schools teaching abstinence only with _no_ teaching at all of birth control methods. This method is irresponsible as teenagers are going to have sex, however much you teacher them or whatever laws are in place humans are sexual creatures and natural urges are going to prevail. Teaching students about sex and how sex can be positive rather than portrayed as negative will help them to makes better informed choices about what they want to do. Creating a false dichotomy between having children equals having sex and no sex equals no children is a vast simplification which scares people and hides the facts. In your post you make the point that schools should not teach students about sex and it should be the parents' responsibility and to counter this I would like to present an analogy. If you were a farmer and wanted to find out whether to farm sheep or pigs would you either ask your uninformed parents to make the decision for you or an informed expert to present the facts about which is best? I would argue that it is better that someone who was informed taught. In order to make informed choices it is important that contraceptives are readily available and if needs be free. Removing the barriers to create a simple choice in which everyone can make.

negative: Legalize Performance-Enhancing Drug for Sportman wait, sir. you're not consistent with your position. Disadvantages : - Performance enhancing Drugs could have an impact on the body if left or the sportsman quits sport. - Any sport is expected to be fair and based on your natural talent and training. - There are athletes that can"t consume performance enhancing drugs. This makes their chance of winning, bleak. - A sport is usually considered as a passion. The essence of the sport is lost if performance enhancing drugs are legalizes - Be legalizing such performance enhancing drugs, athletes could be motivated and get addicted to other forms of drugs. - The athletes can take it for granted that these drugs will enhance their performance and thus, the hard work that could be put otherwise can be hampered. and it can kill the sportman who consume it. For example, some German athletes who took anabolic steroids in the 1970"s and 1980"s are having health problems now. A famous NFL player, Lyle Alzado, died at the age of 43 after having taking steroids for more than 2 decades. And the sciensist's research : "Performance enhancers, like steroids and other forms of doping, have a negative effect on long-term health. For then users of these enhancers are hurting themselves in the long run without on the average improving their short-term rewards from athletic competition, as long as competitors also use harmful enhancers. This is the main rationale for trying to ban steroids and other forms of doping from athletic competitions." Gary Becker, PhD Professor in the Departments of Economics, Sociology, and the Graduate School of Business at the University of Chicago "Doping in Sports," Becker-Posner blog Aug. 27, 2006 THINK MORE !

negative: Performance Enhancing Drugs Would be Legalize in World Sport Tournament Performance-enhancing drugs (PED) are substances used by athletes to improve their performances. These drugs are addictive and if we use it for a long time it will be affect our heart-health. And these regulation will not appropriate with the purpose of sport which is Be Healthy By Natural Ways. Because if the athlete use these PED it will insist them to do more than the energy they have. And of course it is not healthy.

negative: permit the use of performance enhancing drugs in professional sports There is no distinction between "natural" and synthetic methods of performance enhancement

negative: Controlling, rather than ignoring, performance enhancing substances will improve competitive standards in sport The use of performance enhancing drugs is based on advances in science. When new drugs and therapies are found, athletes turn to them and as a result are much of the time ahead of the anti-doping organizations, which need to develop methods of athlete testing whenever a new drug that is meant to be untraceable is created. In 2008 it was a big shock when Riccardo Ricco (a cyclist) was caught using the performance-enhancing drug Mircera, which had been considered undetectable for a number of years. The fact is that a ban of performance enhancing drugs enables mainly athletes from wealthy countries and teams that can afford the newest technology to go undetected, whilst others are disadvantaged (1). So because it gives an unfair advantage to the wealthy one who can pay for the undetectable drugs, we should legalize it.   Millard Baker, Riccardo Ricco Tests Positive for Undetectable New Drug Mircera at 2008 Tour de France, 07/18/2008, http://steroidreport.com/2008/07/18/riccardo-ricco-and-mircera-pegylated-epo/, accessed 05/20/2011

negative: permit the use of performance enhancing drugs in professional sports Drugs will undermine the central philosophy of sport

negative: Legalize Performance-Enhancing Drug for Sportman Oh, than simply, sir, LOL. I disagree with what I accepted to, but it is their own damn fault for using performance enhancing drugs, if they know the effects, both long and short term, than I guess it should be legal because they are stupid, the end.

negative: HOF Players that used Steroids Hello again. I have done a bit more research and found at least, 150 sports Halls of Fame worldwide. As I do not know if you are specifically referring to one particular sport. I will proffer a brief reflection on the use and issues surrounding the use of performance enhancing drugs, in sport generally. A quick analysis indicates that worldwide, there is now a total ban on the use of performance enhancing drugs in sport. Also testing for steroid abuse, especially at a professional level is now very vigorous. I would therefore suggest that it is unlikely that, any one inducted into a professional sporting Hall of Fame today, is unlikely to have slipped through the drugs testing net. It is fair to assume that a sportsman/woman inducted into a professional sporting Hall of Fame in the past, especially in the latter half of the 20th century was using performance enhancing drugs. Though we must pay regard to the fact, that the use of steroids to enhance sports performance, was not always considered inappropriate or illegal. Would it therefore be just, to retrospectively impose bans on our veteran sporting heroes and as a consequence, strip them of their Hall of Fame status? Con. Would suggest that we let bygones be bygones. Move forward and put our trust and faith in the ability of our sports governing bodies, to thoroughly and rigorously police our modern professional sports organisations.

negative: Current rules are very arbitrary and unfair:e.g. cold remedies denied to athletes, even in sports wh... What about the children? Even if performance-enhancing drugs were only legalised for adults, the definition of this varies from country to country. Teenage athletes train alongside adult ones and share the same coaches, so many would succumb to the temptation and pressure to use drugs if these were widely available and effectively endorsed by legalisation. Not only are such young athletes unable to make a fully rational, informed choice about drug-taking, the health impacts upon growing bodies would be even worse than for adult users. It would also send a positive message about drug culture in general, making the use of “recreational drugs” with all their accompanying evils more widespread.

negative: WC Debate - RR: Performance enhancing drugs should be legal for use in all major sports leagues I graciously accept Actionsspeak's concession. I greatly appreciate his willingness to debate this with me, and I think it's very big of him to concede, despite the fact that he made points that I felt were reasonable points of debate on this contentious subject. I hope that we will have another opportunity to debate in the future, but for now I honor his concession, and I urge voters to duly respect it by awarding him a conduct point in their votes.

negative: Permitting the use of performace enhancers would have a coercive effect on athletes who would otherwise avoid drug use Once some people choose to use drugs to enhance their performance, other athletes have their freedom of choice infringed upon: if they want to succeed they have to take drugs too. Athletes are very driven individuals, who would go to great lengths to achieve their goals. The chance of a gold medal in two years’ time may out-weigh the risks of serious health problems for the rest of their life. We should protect athletes from themselves and not allow anyone to take performance-enhancing drugs. An example of the pressure is cycling. The American Scientific magazine explains: “Game theory highlights why it is rational for professional cyclists to dope: the drugs are extremely effective as well as difficult or impossible to detect; the payoffs for success are high; and as more riders use them, a “clean” rider may become so noncompetitive that he or she risks being cut from the team.” (1)   Michael Shermer, The Dopping Dillema, 03/31/2008, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-doping-dilemma accessed 05/15/2011

negative: There is no distinction between "natural" and synthetic methods of performance enhancement It is true that it is difficult to decide where to draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate performance enhancement. However we should continue to draw a line nonetheless. This line should be drawn at protecting athletes from harmful drugs and preserving the spirit of fair play and unaided competition between human beings in their peak of natural fitness. The special diet and sport training equipment, which may seem very hard and exeptional, have been designed based on serious scientific research proved and tested to fit with long-term training of athletes. Hard practice to achieve the best performance with help of these professional methods is completely a different from taking steroids and growth hormones for immediate result.

negative: Doping should be allowed I will accept your challenge, and I will argue on the pro side: doping should be allowed in sports. While it may be unfair currently, where athletes are strictly forbidden to athletes and only those who are willing to win by cheating will dope, if the practice is open for everyone, it will create a fair, level playing field since every athlete will have the ability to use the substances. Sporting events are spectator events, meant to showcase the most athletic individuals in the world for the entertainment of the viewers. If there is a substance that is able to enhance the performance of an individual and therefore make the spectacle more impressive, and the athlete consents to using it after being educated on any possible ill side effects, then they should absolutely be allowed.