posted
Ok, since I arrived here at university, I've been getting very into debating (the style is British Parliamentary, in case anyone's interested). Now, with this particular style, you only have fifteen minutes from hearing the motion to starting the debate. I need practice at this. Motions I've debated or heard of include "This house believes a mother has the right to her frozen embryos" and "this house would elect a gay pope", so the spectrum is fairly broad. Basically Hatrackers, if any of you has a couple minutes to spare, I'd be incredibly grateful if you could post a motion and whether you want me to be proposing or opposing it. Fifteen minutes are reading, I'll post my arguments. Then you get to tear them apart. I'll take the first two (in real debate its recommended that you never allow more than two opposition speakers the chance to make points during your speech) and attempt to rebut them. Then we (if anyone is willing to post one) move onto a new motion.
Posts: 20 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
How about This House Would Legalise Drugs in Sport , you can be opposing.
edit: Given I'd be the proposition, I'll give you the broad model I would run, so you know what you're arguing against / responding to.
My model is legalising all performance enhancing drugs in sport that are legal in wider society - ie steriods would be ok, but heroin wouldn't. So this is not a debate about legalising drugs that are completely illegal, but rather allowing otherwise legal drugs to be used in competitive (both professional and amateur) sports.
Firstly, we believe that a large part of the appeal of sport comes from the joy of ompetition, from facing someone fairly and either winning or losing against them.
It goes without saying that if performance-enhancing drugs are legalised, we would no longer have this level playing field. The vast majority of athletes, the honest ones, would be disgusted with this, and we believe that many would leave the sport. Thus many of the crowd-pullers in sport will no longer be competing. Which brings me to my second point. The economic effects.
The enjoyment of watching sport comes from that element of fair competition also. It just wouldn't be the same if we knew that athletes' edge came from a bottle or a syringe. In addition, as I earlier stated, many of the most popular athletes would, we believe, quit the sport. These two factors combined would massively reduce the spectator appeal of professional sport. Sports teams would haemorrhage money, and many would go out of business, with the large-scale job losses that this implies.
I would also like to address the health issues. Because the problem is that, for many drugs, the dose needed to enhance performance is a dangerous one. For example, long-term steroid users have beautiful bodies, but enlarged hearts. Many have died of heart attacks as a direct consequence of this. ALso, there would be problems of addiction. I realise many of the performance-enhacing drugs are not addictive in the chemical sense. However, imagine you are an athlete. You win, you keep on winning. You love it. The cheers of the crow, the adulation And you know your success is all down to drugs. Far too many people would keep on taking them, regardless of the long-term effects on their minds and bodies.
We also believe that this would be very risky in terms of what it leaves the door open for in the future. I mean, today you say only drugs that are already legal, but it doesn't take that much of a leap to not see any real ethical difference between legal and illegal performance-enhancing drugs. How long before we're debating a motion clamouring to legalise cannabis to help calm players' nerves before matches ?
Also, I can't see this measure being unviersally introduced all at once. Surely this would lead to a two-tier system - the druggie countries and the clean countries. Would we have a separate drug-users world cup ? is this what you really want, ladies and gentlemen ?
My final point concerns the young of today. For example, almost every young boy in England today wants to be a footballer. You see them in the parks, playing games, practising, trying to emulate their heroes. What message would we be sending to them if we said, that's okay, you don't need to do any of that, you don't need to work hard, you can get everything you need out of a bottle.
So, in summary, I object to this motion because :-
it will wreak economic havoc, it will cause major, widespread health damage, it will lend impetus to calls to legalise other drugs, it will lead to a two-tier international sporting system, and it will deprive the young of role models.
posted
I'll just give you two points, as if they were points of information.
Legalising PEDs would provide a level playing field: currently there are drug cheats, who are not caught and are unfairly advantaged. If everyone could use PEDs, wouldn't the advantage be open to everyone?
In terms of health effects, how are PEDs any more dangerous then current methods of training? Elite athletes use ice vests, altitude training, compression training - all methods designed to artificially physiologically alter atheletes bodies. Further, the use of some PEDs could actually provide faster healing times for injuries - thus avoiding the health consequences of competing injured, as is common today.
I know they're not really questions. Just imagine I'm standing up while saying them, and sounding brilliantly witty.
The other thing - if I was rebutting you, I would address your concept of 'honest' athletes: if PEDs were legalised it wouldn't be dishonest to take them, any more than it is to use modern methods of training that alter physiology.
Another argument my team has run in the past is that sport is no longer about fair competition - it is, as the Olympics states, about faster, higher better. This can be seen with the huge amounts of money invested into development of new training methods, equipment and obtaining the best players. (Think Real Madrid's expense in obtaining David Beckham). Allowing PEDs just allows sports people to acheive more - we'll have more spectacular games, faster sprints, higherjumps: and that's what the public really wants. That's what competitive sport is really about.
posted
Point 1 :- so are you saying, if we can't catch them, we may as well join them ? Hell, why stop there. Millions of muggings remain unsolved each year, hell, let's legalise mugging.
Point 2 :- none of the methods you've mentioned cause 25-year-olds in peak physical condition to have heart attacks or psychotic episodes.
If you made those other arguments, I would get my partner to rebut them with;
'honesty' is about more than playing by the rules. It's about abiding by the spirit of the competition. And the competition is designed to be between athletes, not chemists. Perhaps it might be more comprehensible if I said that all the honourable athletes would leave.
Yes, Real paid all that money, and why ? Because he was worth it. Because in our world, the son of a Peckham gas-fitter can become acclaimed and feted, can rise because of his talents. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what competitive sport is all about. About people, through hard work, determination and talent, overcoming impediments to succeed. That's why we cheer David Beckham. That's why we cheer Heile Gabresalassie. Would our cheers be half as loud if we knew that their triumphs came out of a bottle ?
Obliged for your help, Imogen. Another motion, anyone ? plus, feel free to critique what I've done so far
Posts: 20 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A very good exercise (from my old 2-person policy debating days) is to give the case for the other side.
So now, ruthlessly and brilliantly, give the case in favor of allowing PEDs in all sports, directly refuting your points from above and providing constructive arguments in favor of PEDs.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
