Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Round 2. sublime620 v GAOTU789: Performance-enhancing subtances

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 02:20 AM
link   
The topic for this debate is "Performance-enhancing substances help athletes give the fans what they want, and should be allowed in professional sports, with strong prescription controls in place to limit the associated risks".

sublime620 will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
GAOTU789 will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.


There are no limits on the length of posts, but you may only use 1 post per turn.

Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations


Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each invidual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources.
Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.


The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.
When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceeded by a direct answer.

A new time limit policy is in effect
Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extention of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extention begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extention request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.


Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.




posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   
First, I need to thank Vagabond for picking a great question here. It will surely lead to a heated debate, and I must wish my opponent good luck, as he challenged me to bring my A game. I don’t know if I have an A game, but we’ll find out.

Opening Statement

Steroids have taken center stage in most sports lately. None are more affected than baseball players. It seems that baseball players are the scapegoat of our era. Who has not seen Roger Clemens furiously licking his lips as he seemingly lied through his teeth about his innocence?

List of Steroid Users in Baseball

Above is a reference list of some of the alleged steroid users in baseball. There could be more, of course. This trend is not wholly owned by just baseball, however. In fact, it transgresses to most of the sports we watch today, except maybe golf. Oh, and NASCAR, which I do not consider a sport anyway.

Mixed martial arts, football, baseball, boxing, wrestling, and basketball are just a few of the sports dealing with this controversy. I have even heard some go as far to say they have banished sports from their minds until this issue gets resolved. Really? These hardcore fans apparently thought that Barry Bonds doubled in size due to a late growth spurt.

So, should performance-enhancing substances be allowed in professional sports with prescription controls in place? Absolutely.

  • Proper usage is key

    I believe prohibition proved beyond a shadow of a doubt what happens when a substance is banned. If prohibition is not enough evidence, just take a look at 20+ years worth of the US war on drugs. Banning substances leads to a black market. Black markets lead to crime. Crime leads to violence.

    Besides those obvious side effects, the end user also gets a dirty and often diluted version of their drug of choice. It is irresponsible to allow crime syndicates to control the drugs that we as a country use. Imagine if your best friend’s depression medicine came from the same source. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. Sometimes it makes him more depressed, sometimes it seems to be mixed with a different drug -- and I do not need to stress the danger in mixing of medication. Every time a drug is banned, this is what we end up with.

  • The Terminator and Steroids


    The Terminator Took Steroids


    You know who took steroids? That is right, the former seven-time Mr. Olympia: Arnold Schwarzenegger. Did Arnold go crazy and punch everyone he saw in the face? Have any of those players listed above been known to go out and commit mass murder? The fact is, the steroid’s side effects are clearly overstated. Just as with every other medication, the side effects most often come from abuse or misuse of the drugs.

    When Arnold took steroids, they were legal. Also, the players above usually had some sort of a trainer or doctor prescribing and administering the steroids. That means they were usually getting the correct amount of the correct drug. That is key. When you put steroids, or any other drug for that matter, in the hands of your typical layman, misuse will occur.

    In Arnold’s day, the drugs themselves were not very sophisticated. Though I am sure Arnold had his professionally administered, many did not. It is common practice today to both “stack” and “cycle” steroid use to minimize side effects.

    In fact, Arnold has no problem with athletes supplementing their diet:


    But he said he had no problem with athletes taking nutritional supplements and other legal substances to improve their performance.


    Of course he did use the word legal. However, did you know many of the “legal” alternatives can be just as deadly? Human Growth Hormone, HGH, for instance, can cause damage to body tissue and organs. Some say it promotes the growth of cancer.

  • This is what we pay them for!

    May we also not forget who we are talking about? Professional athletes. The title says it all. These people are paid to be in the best shape they can possibly be.

    Should we start drug testing writers for acid use? We do not want any of our nation’s writers having a leg up on the rest of the crowd. Or maybe we should start testing our actors for coc aine. Hey, that buzz really gives them the upper hand on getting the part.

    Many can make it to the top level without enhancements. But as the numbers increase, more and more people are resorting to steroids to keep up.

    I don’t know about you guys, but I don’t remember anyone complaining when Barry Bonds was hitting a homerun every game. No one was complaining when the Rocket was striking out side after side. Currently, no one is whining about any of the awesome knock outs and rear-naked-chokes performed by our MMA athletes.

    That is, until someone is busted. Then there is a frenzy, the players are reprimanded, and we all go back to watching the new breed of players on steroids.

    It’s a dog eat dog world folks. If you aren’t willing to take a cycle or two of steroids to get to the next level, I guarantee you there is someone who will. And that is what I will be discussing in my remaining posts. We cannot punish our players for giving us what we asked for.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 11:47 PM
link   
First of thanks to The Vagabond for making this the best forum on ATS. Also, good luck to my opponent Sublime620.

 


Topic of debate: "Performance-enhancing substances help athletes give the fans what they want, and should be allowed in professional sports, with strong prescription controls in place to limit the associated risks".

Performance enhancing substances have become prevalent throughout North American sports to the detriment of the games. Many athletes see these drugs as a short cut to becoming a top tier athlete with all the trappings that that status brings, money and fame being the most prominent. Yet, by using these substances they are putting their health and their careers at risk.

The risks associated with these drugs are many. Some of these include high blood pressure, heart disease, liver damage, cancer, stroke, depression, paranoia and hallucination's.

American Academy of Pediatrics

Now knowing that these drugs can cause these affects, I have to ask:

Socratic Question 1

Do you believe that the short term gains to an athlete these substances provide outweighs the long term heath risks using the same substances can cause?

Most fans of sports aren't looking for their heroes to end up dead or causing death due to their abuse of these substances. Fans are looking for their idols to be the best at their sport of choice but not at the risk of their life. Look at Barry Bonds. Although it hasn't been proven, it is widely accepted that he used steroids or Human Growth Hormone to prolong his career. Yet, before his alleged use of these substances began, he was widely considered one of the best baseball players ever to play the game. Now, he is considered a cheat and a liar by most fans. He has probably destroyed any chance he had at getting into the Baseball Hall Of Fame due to his use and denial of that use of illegal substances.

There has been many other cases of abuse throughout sports, so much so that the US Congress has gotten involved in the investigation of steroids in Baseball.

Hearing on Steroids in Major League Baseball and the Mitchell Report

You know that things have gotten out of hand when Congress is involving it's self into drug use in sports.

One thing we have to consider is that these drugs are illegal and for good reason. They are harmful to the body and to the mind and as such are listed as controlled substances in both Canada and the US. Also, many sports bodies including the NBA, NFL, IOC and IAAF amongst many others have banned these substances use amongst there athletes.

Socratic Question 2

If strong prescription controls could minimize the health risks, wouldn't these bodies have them in place instead of outright bans?

The last thing I will touch on in my opening is the image that the use of steroids sends to kids. Showing our children the win at all costs mentality that performance enhancing substances promote is dangerous. Young sports fans look up to there heroes in sports. They see them as almost godlike. So much so that they are used as a huge marketing tool to sell products to kids because of this influence. Everything from soft drinks to clothes, cereal to cell phones. Marketers realize the power that athletes have over kids and use them to sell them their products every day.

I will finish my opening with one last question.

Socratic Question 3
Do you feel with the influence that professional athletes have over young people that it would be safe to show kids the win at all costs attitude that these substances portray and why?

Thank you. The floor is yours Sublime.



posted on Mar, 3 2008 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Response to Socratic Questions

    Socratic Question 1: Do you believe that the short term gains to an athlete these substances provide outweighs the long term heath risks using the same substances can cause?

    These are side effects. Major side effects. They come with practically all medication on the market if the drug is misused, or if initial symptoms are not handled appropriately. See below.

    As with many legal drugs today, the health risks can be great. The most important concept with drugs is watching the patient’s response. Correct dosage must be given. The correct dosage and frequency can vary from person to person. This is why drugs come with waivers such as this:

    Asperin Side Effects

    All medicines may cause side effects, but many people have no, or minor, side effects. Check with your doctor if any of these most COMMON side effects persist or become bothersome when using Aspirin/Caffeine/Propoxyphene:

    Constipation; dizziness; drowsiness; lightheadedness; nausea; vomiting.

    Seek medical attention right away if any of these SEVERE side effects occur when using Aspirin/Caffeine/Propoxyphene


    Those are the common side effects, by the way. I left the major ones out because they would have taken up too much room.

    Notice it says: “check with your doctor if any of these COMMON (emphasis not mine) side effects persist.” Any drug on the market has potential risks. It is important when first taking the drug for the patient to be aware of possible side effects. If the patient is educated by his/her doctor about what to look for, if an issue does arise, then it can be handled appropriately.

    Socratic Question 2: If strong prescription controls could minimize the health risks, wouldn't these bodies have them in place instead of outright bans?

    They do not have outright bans. Currently use of anabolic steroids is being looked into for patients with AIDS and also to help repair torn tendons. Also, according to UNC Health Care – Go Tarheels – they are currently being used:

    Anabolic Steroids Aren’t Completely Banned

    Anabolic steroids benefit millions of people a year, said Karas, including those with deficiencies in sex hormones and burn victims who need to build up their metabolism to repair musculoskeletal tissue. They also are FDA-approved for treating anemia for their ability to help the body rebuild blood.


    Socratic Question 3: Do you feel with the influence that professional athletes have over young people that it would be safe to show kids the win at all costs attitude that these substances portray and why?

    I feel as if this question is asked too much in society today. Parents are responsible for what their children do! At the early ages of 8-14, any parent should be able to tell if their child is using steroids. There does come a point where parents lose that grip, but at that point parent’s need to just hope that their children make the correct choice.

    We cannot base all of our decisions off of “what if our children see us do it and copy us?!?!” Children idolize rockers. Many rockers use heroine. Should we ban rock? Children idolize teen pop stars. Many pop stars sing about sex. Should we ban pop music?

    Sure, society has a responsibility to children. However, there are some things that just can’t be changed. Sex will always be there. Drugs will always be there. Shows like “Jackass” will exist. It’s the parents job to teach children to make correct decisions.

    I could go on about that topic all night.


First Rebuttal

    True, most fans aren’t looking for their favorite star to die from an overdose. Of course, the same could be said of people like Heath Ledger. Are we banning oxycodone, hydrocodone, diazepam, temazepam, alprazolam and doxylamine? I hope not. It was an accident. It’s what happens when a layman controls his medication and dosage. And yes, those are the results that showed up on his toxicology report.

    Ledger’s Toxicology report

    Accidents with drugs happen. It is a result of poor and uneducated choices.

    What is sad is not that people like Barry Bonds may have used steroids, but that they have been subjugated to this witch hunt to begin with. People complain now. They didn’t complain when he was hitting the homeruns. Why do they care? Because the media cares. The media is having a field day.

    My opponent says:

    You know that things have gotten out of hand when Congress is involving it's self into drug use in sports.


    No sir, I don’t know. Perhaps I am alone in feeling that my tax money is being wasted. What I do know, is that Congress likes to involve itself in meaningless investigations. See Clinton sex scandals of the ‘90s for more info.

    Personally, I’d much rather they investigate our current administration’s defilement of the Constitution than my entertainment sources. The same goes with my media. Leave it to ESPN please CNN and Fox News.

    Lastly, I’d like to address my opponent’s statements about the side effects of steroid use:


    The risks associated with these drugs are many. Some of these include high blood pressure, heart disease, liver damage, cancer, stroke, depression, paranoia and hallucination’s.


    Firstly, these are associated risks. That needs to be mentioned. I’m glad you put it that way. Most people talk of steroids as if those are associated definites, which they are not.

    Also, many of the reported “side effects” have already been disproven but are still widely accepted. For instance:

    Anabolic Steroids and Behavior

    at Weeks 0, 4, and 8. No significant changes in aggression or mood levels were found in the eugonadal-treated group. Significant reductions in negative mood (tension, anger, and fatigue) followed by an increase in vigor were found in response to T treatment in the hypogonadal group. These results demonstrate that inability to control one's behavior when such control is required by a particular situation (impulsivity) was found to significantly predict levels of aggression over and above age and T level. These data do not support the hypothesis that supraphysiological levels of T (within this range) lead to an increase in self- and partner-reported aggression or mood disturbances.


Socratic Questions

    Socratic Question 1: Many writers and directors use drugs and other "enhancers" to come up with ideas. Should we start drug testing them? Do keep in mind that this provides an unfair advantage, kids do idolize writers, and they can be dangerous if misused.

    Socratic Question 2: If it was found that Barry Bonds did use steroids, do you believe he should have any chance at being inducted into the Hall of Fame revoked?

    Socratic Question 3: Soon, many steroids will be virtually undetectable. Athletes will be able to use with almost no chance of beign caught. What then of Barry Bonds and company then?

    Socratic Question 4: Risks aside, do you still feel that performance enhancers should be banned?


My time is up. Go ahead GAOTU789.



posted on Mar, 3 2008 @ 10:52 PM
link   
"Performance-enhancing substances help athletes give the fans what they want, and should be allowed in professional sports, with strong prescription controls in place to limit the associated risks".

It appears that my opponent's reading comprehension may be lacking.

I stated


Also, many sports bodies including the NBA, NFL, IOC and IAAF amongst many others have banned these substances use amongst there athletes.


then asked:


If strong prescription controls could minimize the health risks, wouldn't these bodies have them in place instead of outright bans?


To which my opponent replied:


They do not have outright bans. Currently use of anabolic steroids is being looked into for patients with AIDS and also to help repair torn tendons. Also, according to UNC Health Care – Go Tarheels – they are currently being used:


Umm, yes, yes they do.

A partial list of governing sports bodies with outright bans on steroids.

IAAF
US Track and Field
FIFA
UEFA
NHL
NFL
MLB
FINA
IRB
NCAA
IOC
CFL
UCI

We aren't debating whether steroids should be used for AIDS patients or in controlled medical treatments to help patients recover from serious injury. The debate question is stated clearly at the start of Vagabonds opening post. I will post it once more for clarities sake.

"Performance-enhancing substances help athletes give the fans what they want, and should be allowed in professional sports, with strong prescription controls in place to limit the associated risks".

Now please re read the question at hand and answer me this:

Socratic Question 1

If strong prescription controls could minimize the health risks, wouldn't these bodies have them in place instead of outright bans?

Now with that out of the way, I will answer my opponents questions.

Socratic Question 1: Many writers and directors use drugs and other "enhancers" to come up with ideas. Should we start drug testing them? Do keep in mind that this provides an unfair advantage, kids do idolize writers, and they can be dangerous if misused.

I haven't a clue what this has to do with the question we are debating but since it is posed, I will answer it.

NO.Writers and director's aren't competing against each other on a playing field in a sport. If caught with these drugs, then they should be charged according to the laws of the jurisdiction that they are in.

Socratic Question 2: If it was found that Barry Bonds did use steroids, do you believe he should have any chance at being inducted into the Hall of Fame revoked?

Yes. If it is indeed found that Bonds used performance enhancing substances then his shot at the HOF should be taken away. If Pete Rose can't get in, neither should Bonds.

Socratic Question 3: Soon, many steroids will be virtually undetectable. Athletes will be able to use with almost no chance of beign caught. What then of Barry Bonds and company then?

Then it is up to the World Anti Doping Agency to come up with new tests to catch cheaters and expose them. Science will catch up to the criminals, it is a matter of when not if.

Socratic Question 4: Risks aside, do you still feel that performance enhancers should be banned?

Yes. Simple as that. Cheating shouldn't be rewarded.

Ok now that is out of the way, onwards we go.


It’s the parents job to teach children to make correct decisions.


This we can agree on. It is our jobs as parents to instill the proper values into our children. Parents also have a love of sports. Well not all but many. Our kids see us cheering and booing these athletes all the time. We instill a love of sports into our children all the time. Lets face it, these athletes are role models, for both adults and children. Most go out of there way to promote a healthy image of themselves because they understand the power that they hold.


Children idolize rockers. Many rockers use heroine. Should we ban rock?


Of course not. Heroin is illegal though because it is harmful, addictive and can destroy lives.


Children idolize teen pop stars. Many pop stars sing about sex. Should we ban pop music?


I fail to see the relevance to the subject but no we don't ban pop music. We have laws that state the age of consent for sex though and as responsible parents we should be teaching our kids about sex and not letting some air head on tv or the radio do it for us.

My opponent seems to want to focus on just baseball in this debate. The plain truth is that steroids affect most sports around the world and as I have shown earlier, most governing bodies have banned them. Also athletes from many sports have been caught cheating.

Jones pleads guilty, admits lying about steroids


She was a liar and a cheat, she told the judge, her eyes never straying from his face.


Berard gets 2-year ban for steroid use

The list is extensive.

They all say the same thing. I cheated.

In my next reply, I will go into the dangers that these substances pose and show you, the reader, why they can't be safely integrated into professional sports.

I will end this rebuttal with a couple more questions for my opponent. I'll try to make them a little clearer this time.

Socratic Question 2
Do you feel that these substances are a better way to make it to the big time than good old fashioned hard work and determination?

Socratic Question 3
What would you consider tight prescription regulations on these substances?

Socratic Question 4
Do you believe that athletes would still try to abuse these substances if these controls were in place?

Thank you.
Again, the floor is yours Sublime.



posted on Mar, 4 2008 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Response to Socratic Questions

    First, I must apologize to my opponent for misreading one of his previous questions. I understood his question to mean that anabolic steroids were banned by the FDA. So I will respond to the question again now that it has been clarified.

Previous Socratic Question: If strong prescription controls could minimize the health risks, wouldn't these bodies have them in place instead of outright bans?

    I do not think so. In fact, the main reason they are banned is due to the unfairness issue, not health. Also, Baseball did not have outright bans on steroids until recently. They did not update their rules until faced with pressure.

    Steelers Player Pushes For Steroid Ban in Baseball


Monday, June 03, 2002
By Ed Bouchette, Post-Gazette Sports Writer
Steroids have been banned for the past 13 years in the National Football League, and at least one Steelers player believes it's time for baseball to follow.


    That was four years ago. Also, if you read the article, you’ll see that health issues are mentioned briefly. The players and league were more concerned with the issue of fair play.


Socratic Question 2: Do you feel that these substances are a better way to make it to the big time than good old fashioned hard work and determination?

    Steroids are certainly not the optimal choice for making it. What steroids do is take athletes to a new level. Let us examine:

    Bonds before


    Bonds after


    Was this just the process of maturing… you know, getting older? Take a look at how long this transformation took on Sports Illustrated’s chronological picture gallery of Barry Bonds.

    Barry Bonds Picture Slide Show
    You’ll see the same old Bonds all the way through 1998. Then bam! All the sudden in ’99, Bonds has doubled in size. He’s gone from a small statured guy to Mr. Universe.

    So, to answer your question in a straight-forward manner:

    Is it the best way? Certainly not, but the results speak for themselves.


Socratic Question 3: What would you consider tight prescription regulations on these substances?

    I feel sort of hypocritical answering this question. I did previously just state that laymen should not control dosage or length of use. However, to answer your question, it would seem that low doses frequently or medium to high doses rarely (1 or 2 cycles a year) would be the best fit.

    It may not produce the Barry Bonds look, but it would be safe and help produce more strength at the same time. The rest is really up to the doctors.


Socratic Question 4: Do you believe that athletes would still try to abuse these substances if these controls were in place?

    It has, and always will be, my contention that you cannot stop people from doing what they want. If steroids were unbanned in sports, it would be up to the players to follow their doctor’s orders. I think what we would see is more players using steroids in a safe manner.


Second Rebuttal

    My opponent continuously touts the risk factor. He wants you to believe that steroids cannot be taken in a safe manner. Because of this, I will use my first Socratic Question to put an end to this quickly. I would like the judges to place specific emphasis on this:


Socratic Question 1: Considering that an estimated 40 to 50 percent of MLB players take some sort of anabolic steroids, why are we not seeing deaths left and right?

Fox News Blogger Asks: Why Are Steroids So Bad?
    According to this article, that is around 2,000 players using anabolic steroids to enhance their game. If 5% of steroid users faced serious health risks, there would be somewhere around 100 deaths due to steroids.

    Of course, this is just 2,000 players now. As previously mentioned, steroids weren’t even banned in Baseball until very recent pressure was bestowed upon the commissioner. Steroid usage was probably more prominent in those days. That means, since steroids have been used, at least 40% of Baseball’s players have been using – allegedly.


    That should be plenty of time for those “long term side effects” to have kicked in. Yet… we see nothing.

    The author of the previously mentioned article says that two thirds of NFL players leave with permanent injuries. Perhaps if more NFL players used steroids, there would be fewer injuries. You see, steroids improve muscle strength, and also expedite the healing process.

    I must make it clear. It is not a miracle drug! You cannot just inject it and become Superman. It must be done professionally. What my opponent doesn’t want everyone to know is that this is why MLB players are not dying. They are getting proper dosage and using cycles. Whereas amateur hopefuls use the drug incorrectly and often overdose.

    My opponent stated:


    My opponent seems to want to focus on just baseball in this debate. The plain truth is that steroids affect most sports around the world and as I have shown earlier, most governing bodies have banned them. Also athletes from many sports have been caught cheating.


    I believe I was the first to display just how many sports have steroid use. I don’t need to be patronized on that issue. I simply use baseball as an example because isn’t that why we are having this debate? Besides the small scandal that occurred with the Tour de France, baseball is where the steroid debate is at. It has the most examples of noted steroid users, the highest percent of known steroid use, and it is what is in the news.

    Pardon me for being relevant.

    And in response to my question about whether we should start drug testing all jobs for performance enhancers in the name of fairness my opponent said:


    I haven't a clue what this has to do with the question we are debating but since it is posed, I will answer it.

    NO.Writers and director's aren't competing against each other on a playing field in a sport. If caught with these drugs, then they should be charged according to the laws of the jurisdiction that they are in.


    I cannot disagree more. Almost every person who walks into their job is competing against other people. That is what many careers are about. Getting to the top. Whether it is in sports, entertainment, business, sales, or retail, people are competing versus one another.

    These people often use performance enhancers. Some take drugs that improve their ability to concentrate, some take drugs for ideas, and some take drugs to stay awake longer. Whatever your poison is, it is relevant to the debate.

    In respond to my question about Barry Bond’s not being eligible for the Hall of Fame:


    Yes. If it is indeed found that Bonds used performance enhancing substances then his shot at the HOF should be taken away. If Pete Rose can't get in, neither should Bonds.


    I want to examine some facts. I like facts. Here are some statistics for Barry Bonds:

    Bonds’ Stats
    AVG OBP
    .262 .389
    .303 .438
    .291 .446
    .308 .461
    .294 .431
    .312 .426
    .336 .458

Socratic Question 2: Viewing those stats, is there any input you have about the affect of the steroids he took in relation to his stats?

That's it for my turn. I look forward to your response, GAOTU789.



posted on Mar, 4 2008 @ 10:55 PM
link   
My apologies folks but I need to invoke my extension due to RL problems today.

Sorry for the delay.



posted on Mar, 5 2008 @ 10:52 PM
link   
"Performance-enhancing substances help athletes give the fans what they want, and should be allowed in professional sports, with strong prescription controls in place to limit the associated risks".

Reply 2

Thanks to Sublime for the patience. My apologies again for the delay.
 


First I will answer my opponents questions.

Socratic Question 1: Considering that an estimated 40 to 50 percent of MLB players take some sort of anabolic steroids, why are we not seeing deaths left and right?

We aren't seeing deaths left and right due to the fact that most baseball players, such as Andy Petite, admitted to using performance enhancing substances for a short period then stopping. Petite admitted to using them twice. The serious health risks involved come from prolonged use and abuse.I'll touch on this some more in my rebuttal.

Socratic Question 2: Viewing those stats, is there any input you have about the affect of the steroids he took in relation to his stats?


Interesting that you didn't date those stats. They begin in 1999 and go backward to 1993. Bonds allegedly didn't start using steroids until after the 1998 season. Before then, he won 8 Gold Gloves, 3 of his 7 MVP's, was the only member of the 400 HR-400 SB club. Bonds was obviously one of the best players in baseball before he started taking steroids. As the substances in question are called "performance enhancing", it would stand to reason that Bonds should get better while using these substances. Especially with the level of natural talent the man obviously possesses. His batting stats have gotten much better but the other aspects of his game that made him such a complete player have deteriorated. He hasn't won a gold glove since starting 'roids. Stolen bases dropped considerably immediately after he started taking them. Players like Ricky Henderson and Lou Brock were stealing 30+bases late into there careers and players like Chuck Finley, Omar Vizquel and Ozzie Smith were winning Gold Gloves late into their 30's. So there is a case to be made that Bonds use of steroids may have improved his hitting but took away from other parts of his game.


You’ll see the same old Bonds all the way through 1998. Then bam! All the sudden in ’99, Bonds has doubled in size. He’s gone from a small statured guy to Mr. Universe.

So, to answer your question in a straight-forward manner:

Is it the best way? Certainly not, but the results speak for themselves.


Yes, they do indeed.


Rebuttal.

My opponent asked earlier why aren't we seeing players dropping dead left and right. Well, there seems to be a relationship between steroid abuse and death.

www.athletesagainststeroids.org...

www.athletesagainststeroids.org...

These links offer a list of some steroid users that have died at a young age, some as young as 16. Lets also consider some of the serious health risks that steroids cause. Using the same link that my opponent used earlier, we can find many conflicting reports to what he claimed...

Advers e effects of anabolic steroids in athletes.

Effec ts of androgenic-anabolic steroids in athletes.

and the list goes on and on. The fact of the matter is that there are risks involved with using and abusing these drugs. Some of the side affects aren't well known because some of the case studies don't look at the actual amount that the users are taking, just that there taking them. They still come to the conclusion that these drugs are not safe.

Something else to consider in this debate is that the boost affects of these drugs are taken away once the drugs are no longer used. So in essence, if these substances were allowed in sports to "give the fans what they want", then the athletes would have to use them continuolsly to keep the benefits rolling.


But what goes up must come down and that was never truer than with steroids. The very muscle and strength that you chemically build with drugs will begin to diminish immediately the day you stop using them. And therein lies the hook that is going to get you hooked. No matter what you do short of staying on drugs year round, the minute you come off a cycle, whatever gains you’ve made will start to disappear.





Socratic Question 1
Knowing of the adverse affects that these drugs cause over long term use, are you willing to take a chance on other people's health for your own personal enjoyment?


My opponent continuously touts the risk factor. He wants you to believe that steroids cannot be taken in a safe manner


On the contrary. Steroids can be taken safely but only for short periods of time and at low doses. The problem with that safe approach, as I have shown earlier is that is of no benefit to pro athletes. They need to keep taking them to keep the few positives.


It has, and always will be, my contention that you cannot stop people from doing what they want. If steroids were unbanned in sports, it would be up to the players to follow their doctor’s orders.

(emphasis mine)

Yes athletes have really shown how reliable they can be on following the rules. If they could, we wouldn't be having this debate would we. Steroids are illegal in many countries and banned by most of the world's sporting governing bodies, yet we always hear about someone getting caught using them.

I would list scandals involving athletes busted for using performance enhancing drugs but there isn't enough space. So I'll give you this article instead as it has a partial list starting at the Ben Johnson scandal and finishing with the latest in baseball.

www.thestar.com...

Your up Sublime.



posted on Mar, 6 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   
No problem there, GAOTU789. I was excited to see your response, and you did not disappoint. Excellent post.

Response to Socratic Question

    Socratic Question 1: Knowing of the adverse affects that these drugs cause over long term use, are you willing to take a chance on other people's health for your own personal enjoyment?

    It is my contention that no fan should feel responsible for athletes taking steroids. I have never asked anyone to take steroids, nor does anyone else.

Final Rebuttal

    I would like to point out a major error in my opponent’s argument to start off:


    We aren't seeing deaths left and right due to the fact that most baseball players, such as Andy Petite, admitted to using performance enhancing substances for a short period then stopping. Petite admitted to using them twice. The serious health risks involved come from prolonged use and abuse.I'll touch on this some more in my rebuttal.



    On the contrary. Steroids can be taken safely but only for short periods of time and at low doses. The problem with that safe approach, as I have shown earlier is that is of no benefit to pro athletes. They need to keep taking them to keep the few positives.


    I am a bit confused at what my opponent is saying here. Is he saying that pro athletes do not take enough steroids to be harmed, and because of that, do not reap any benefits? Or is my opponent saying that they do reap the benefits, and should be dying?

    If they all take steroids for such a short period of time in small doses, and the effects are so small that it is not beneficial, why are we having this discussion?

    The simple fact is, my opponent is playing both sides of the field. He is saying they use steroids and it is unfair to the rest of the players, and then saying they are not dying because they do not use them enough.

    He then points to body builders for his proof that steroids are dangerous. Yes, body builders are known to die randomly. Is that really all that surprising? These guys, and gals, push themselves far beyond logical limits. It’s amazing these people can even walk:



    Body builders take anything and everything to get the perfect body. That means they eat too much, work out too much, take too much steroids, too much HGH, etc. Life is about balance, and they do not lead balanced lives.

    I mean, look at them. The bodybuilders of today dwarf the bodybuilders of the ‘70s, and yes, the ones in the ‘70s took steroids too. They are an example of excess to the extreme.

    I will not argue that steroids help cause death in bodybuilders. Do I think they take them responsibly? Of course not. I would imagine the cocktail of drugs and extremely hard lifestyle they leave are too much for the body to handle. The human body is not supposed to look like that.

    Again, this proves that steroids can be taken in a healthy manner. We have one sport, bodybuilding, where people use steroids and other drugs to maintain unthinkable sizes. Then we have another sport, baseball, where players use them to get a little extra muscle mass. In bodybuilding we see deaths all the time, and in baseball, we never see them.

    There are certainly more baseball players taking steroids than bodybuilders. Baseball is a much larger sport. Less deaths in baseball, more in bodybuilding… you do the math.


    Yes athletes have really shown how reliable they can be on following the rules. If they could, we wouldn't be having this debate would we. Steroids are illegal in many countries and banned by most of the world's sporting governing bodies, yet we always hear about someone getting caught using them.


    Yet, while they are illegal, we still see them using them in a safe manner.


    Interesting that you didn't date those stats. They begin in 1999 and go backward to 1993. Bonds allegedly didn't start using steroids until after the 1998 season. Before then, he won 8 Gold Gloves, 3 of his 7 MVP's, was the only member of the 400 HR-400 SB club. Bonds was obviously one of the best players in baseball before he started taking steroids.


    Yes, I did not date the stats and for a good reason. Most people view that stats and assume that they progressively got better due to steroids. Yet, they are fairly even keel.

    If you take an average of his remaining years through 2007, his average is .317. Not too far off from his career.

    Barry Bonds did not get any better, or get any worse. His style of play just changed. He traded speed and agility for strength. Is it a good choice? Depends on your point of view. My opponent seems to think not.

    The original Bonds was quick, good in the field, and good on the bases. Also, he was a good contact hitter. The latter Bonds was slower, but more powerful. He may not have gotten the diving catch, but was more likely to throw someone out at home. He was also walked more due to him being a threat at the plate.

    It is up to the fan to decide which player they would rather have, but in no way did Bonds get any better or worse. He just changed.

    You cannot take steroids and then become a pro player. You still have to be able to hit a 95 MPH slider. You cannot dunk on Lebron James after taking a cycle. You still have to be able to get by the man.

    And that is really my point. Baseball has proven that steroids can be taken safely. It has basically been a guinea pig, a test trial if you will. Two thousand players, on average, constantly using steroids. No freak deaths.

    And if nothing else, Bonds proves that taking steroids does not provide you with any sort of unfair advantage. It simply changes your style. Do you want to be quick and agile? Or do you want to be a powerhouse but slow? Each comes with its downsides and upsides, neither better or worse than the other.

Gene Doping

    And there is one last topic I would like to discuss, before I pass the floor to my esteemed opponent. I promised I would talk about steroids becoming undetectable. So we will now discuss:

    Gene Doping


    In 1998, the press jumped on H. Lee Sweeney's first study showing that gene therapy could enhance mouse muscle. Soon, the calls and e-mails started flowing in, first as a trickle, then as if from a fire hose. They're still coming, Sweeney says. Some people beg him to reverse their muscle degeneration caused by disease or aging. However, about half of the calls and e-mails come from healthy individuals—professional power lifters, sprinters, and weekend wannabe athletes of all stripes. They want bigger, higher-performing muscles. One caller offered $100,000 for muscle enhancement, and a high school football coach asked Sweeney to treat his whole team.


    Are there any questions still about how many athletes use these substances?


    Gene doping could someday provide extra copies of genes that offer a competitive advantage, such as those that increase muscle mass, blood production, or endurance. The products of gene doping would be proteins similar, if not identical, to the body's versions and would therefore be less detectable in an athlete than are performance-enhancing drugs such as steroids and insulin. Consequently, rules against gene doping might be difficult to enforce.


    According to this article, the World Anti-Doping Agency has already banned gene doping. We still have no clue how they plan to enforce this, since the only way to test for it will be through biopsy of the muscle.

    It is quite amazing really. Besides the effect it will have in sports, idea of gene therapy is revolutionizing medicine. However, you can promise that it will spill over to sports, and we will be seeing athletes in the near future with these spliced genes.

    Good luck catching them.



posted on Mar, 6 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link   
"Performance-enhancing substances help athletes give the fans what they want, and should be allowed in professional sports, with strong prescription controls in place to limit the associated risks".

Reply 3


I am a bit confused at what my opponent is saying here. Is he saying that pro athletes do not take enough steroids to be harmed, and because of that, do not reap any benefits? Or is my opponent saying that they do reap the benefits, and should be dying?


Let me make it clear for you.

I am saying that athletes that are taking these drugs, are taking them in such small quantities and for such a short period of time that they are receiving neither the positive or negative affects of them. Hope that clears it up for you.


The simple fact is, my opponent is playing both sides of the field


Really? I think I have made it abundantly clear that I believe that the use of performance enhancing drugs is illegal and dangerous.


He is saying they use steroids and it is unfair to the rest of the players


Yes I am. It is unfair to the players that are trying to give the fans what they want within the rules.


and then saying they are not dying because they do not use them enough.


No, in fact I am saying that they are not dying because they aren't abusing them. Most of the athletes that take them, do so for a short period of time not the extended use/abuse needed to cause the serious side affects. That is what we are debating here isn't it? The continual use of these drugs so the benefits/side affects that they can have are felt?


There are certainly more baseball players taking steroids than bodybuilders. Baseball is a much larger sport. Less deaths in baseball, more in bodybuilding… you do the math.


Lets try this again.

It isn't the number of people using the drugs that matter; it's the level of use that's relevant.

Here's some math for you.

1000 athletes use performance enhancing substances one time. Lets say at the age of 25.Chances are that's going to equal no deaths. It's also going to equal no benefits. It is also going to mean that most of them will live long lives.

1000 athletes use performance enhancing substances everyday for years and years starting at 25. Chances are that is going to equal a lot of deaths. A lot of deaths at an unnaturally young age because of the prolonged use of these drugs.

Let me try to use an example that may be easier for you to understand.

1000 people smoke 1 cigarette at age 25 and never smoke another. I doubt any will die from the diseases that smoking causes from that one cigarette.

1000 people smoke 15-20 cigarette's every day starting at age 25. I know that many of those same people will die from the diseases that smoking cause long before their natural life span would be up.


You could also take professional wrestling as an example of what happens to abusers of steroids. Take a look at this list.

Dead wrestlers

Look at the ages of some of these people dying from heart failure and heart attacks. Than have a look at this study.

Steroids linked to higher heart disease risk

It seems obvious to me that the risks that taking performance enhancing drugs far outweigh any good they may do. Do we want to see our athletes dropping like flies at 40 because we wanted them give us what we want? Is hitting home runs or recording 25 sacks at 30 worth their life at 40? Do we really want to adopt the "live fast, die young and leave a beautiful corpse mentality as official policy in pro sports? I know I don't.


Ok let's touch on something that we haven't gone into yet. The psychological affects of performance enhancing drugs.

The Psychological Affects of Anabolic Steroids


In a study of 41 anabolic steroid users recruited from gyms in the Boston and Santa Monica areas, a high proportion reported symptoms of mental illness. During periods of anabolic steroid use, five subjects experienced psychotic symptoms and four other subjects experienced milder symptoms. Five subjects reported a manic episode and nine subjects a serious mood disorder. During withdrawal from steroids, five subjects experienced a major depression. No psychiatric symptoms were reported outside periods of steroid use


The mental side affects associated with steroid use can be many. Depression, mood swings, psychotic episodes, anxiety, paranoia, suicidal behavior and the list goes on. These symptoms are usually seen in individuals who take these drugs on an ongoing basis. So is this what we want for our pro athletes?


According to this article, the World Anti-Doping Agency has already banned gene doping. We still have no clue how they plan to enforce this, since the only way to test for it will be through biopsy of the muscle.


I said earlier, science will catch up with the cheaters.


It is quite amazing really. Besides the effect it will have in sports, idea of gene therapy is revolutionizing medicine. However, you can promise that it will spill over to sports, and we will be seeing athletes in the near future with these spliced genes.


Yes thats what we want isn't it. More ways for the dishonest to cheat so they may reap the benefits that there ill gotten prowess will give them. Instead of the athlete that trains there entire life to make it to the top, we will see a bunch of mutants battling it out for our viewing pleasure.


Good luck catching them.


Thats my point. Athletes have already shown that they are willing to go to any lengths to get ahead, even if it means cheating. Safe prescription controls aren't going to stop the abuse, it will just push athletes farther to try untested and unsafe methods to get a step up on their opponents. Allowing these drugs in sports would just increase the risks to those willing to break the new rules. Will there be anybody left to compete in this new environment?

Thank you.



posted on Mar, 7 2008 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Closing Arguments

Well, there is definitely an elephant in the room. My opponent is continuing to try to trick us into believing that steroids are not safe, but can be used in a safe manner. However, if they are used in a safe manner, it does not help the players, but it is still unfair – even though no one is gaining anything real.

I believe that sums it up. If it did not, maybe his words will:


I am saying that athletes that are taking these drugs, are taking them in such small quantities and for such a short period of time that they are receiving neither the positive or negative affects of them. Hope that clears it up for you.


Well there you have it folks. This debate has been all for nothing. They are receiving no positive effects from the drug, therefore, it is not unfair to anyone else.


Yes I am. It is unfair to the players that are trying to give the fans what they want within the rules.


Well there you have it folks. The players are taking enough steroids for it to give them an unfair advantage.

Wait. The elephant has again revealed itself.


No, in fact I am saying that they are not dying because they aren't abusing them. Most of the athletes that take them, do so for a short period of time not the extended use/abuse needed to cause the serious side affects. That is what we are debating here isn't it? The continual use of these drugs so the benefits/side affects that they can have are felt?


If my opponent thought I’d be arguing that players should be abusing steroids, then he was gravely mistaken. My opponent has fallen into a trap, but it is only to be expected.

The media has trained us to believe that steroids are terrible, that there are no positives to be gained. Yet, they never speak of its use in Medicine to treat sick patients. They always seem to mention it when it is tied to some freak death of a body builder who would have died from a stout fart.

Players are currently using steroids exactly how they should be. They are not abusing them. They are not trying to look like Superman. They use them to get a little extra boost, and a little extra muscle.

This is especially true in baseball where players are forced to play games almost every other day. Has anyone ever tried to throw 100 pitches as hard as they can? I’m just talking about fast balls here, no snapping of the wrists for curveballs or sliders. Now imagine trying to do that every 8-10 days, and sometimes less.

Steroids help our favorite stars maintain good physical condition. They help keep them healthy and free of injuries. They keep them playing the game longer. All the things fans want, without the terrible side effects.

1000 athletes use performance enhancing substances one time. Lets say at the age of 25.Chances are that's going to equal no deaths. It's also going to equal no benefits. It is also going to mean that most of them will live long lives.


So we are assuming that the 50% only took steroids once? Why? Are baseball players and their trainers dumb? What purpose would it serve for 50% of athletes to take steroids one time?

Nothing.

These people are not just taking steroids one time and then going on with their lives. Again, they cycle them to a couple to a few large doses a year, or they use them many times a year in small doses.

All the gains, without the liver damage. Pretty smart eh?


1000 people smoke 1 cigarette at age 25 and never smoke another. I doubt any will die from the diseases that smoking causes from that one cigarette.

1000 people smoke 15-20 cigarette's every day starting at age 25. I know that many of those same people will die from the diseases that smoking cause long before their natural life span would be up.


Comparing steroids to smoking… nice try. I’ll play along.

Say smoking had some sort of positive effects also. Now, if you were to smoke 1 cigarette, that’d be kind of useless. However, if you were to smoke, let’s say, 10 a year, you would not be endangering your life, but you’d still be doing enough to reap the benefits.


You could also take professional wrestling as an example of what happens to abusers of steroids. Take a look at this list.

Dead wrestlers


Did you even look at the list? The first half of it is before steroid use was prevalent.

I added that up in excel and took the average. Out of those wrestler, a few with very short lives to weigh down the results, they still lived to be an average of 55 years old.

That’s not bad considering the sport. The dangers involved. Let’s examine some of the lower age deaths dragging that number down:

23 – Motorcycle accident
22 – Car accident
31 – Heart attack*
39 – Sleep apnea
38 – Drugs and alcohol
37 – Heart failure*
33 – Blood clot after surgery
35 – Breast cancer
32 – Asphyxiation
36 – Drug Overdose
30 – Brain injury

*Though heart attacks, they were not tied to steroids as far as I could tell. I searched for toxicology reports or speculation and found nothing.

The list goes on. I stopped because it is getting redundant. These people live like rock stars, first of all. Many of them not only abuse steroids, but hardcore drugs and alcohol. Even with that, the average life span is 55 years, dragged down by normal causes of death.

Also, the deaths start at 1988. That seems coincidental as the time steroids became popular. Well, actually that’s because the WWF started in 1963:

WWF Birth

Hmm, since the WWF started in 1963, you’d expect people to start dying a lot around 1988. They’d be in the age range of 45-55, a popular time to get heart disease.

Summing it all up

We’ve talked about a lot of stuff here. What I want to remain focused in the judges mind is this:

When steroids are used safely, they are nothing but beneficial. We have the sport of wrestling, where it is known to have drugs and steroids rampant, and the average life expectancy is 55 years old! These people are living on the edge and still making it to 55.

Baseball players are more disciplined. They are not as well known for being drug abusers, and are certainly more careful with the use of steroids. As my opponent has conceded, there are no cases of freak deaths due to steroids in baseball.

In fact, if you view my opponent’s “scary list of wrestler’s deaths”, you’ll see there is not one death attributed to steroids. There are quite a few to heart disease, but none to steroids.

Now I don’t know about you, but last time I checked, when people drop dead they do a toxicology report. If steroids were showing up in these people’s systems, the media would be on that like white on rice. Yet I see nothing.

Could that be because the coc aine was a bit more important to the toxicologist?

How bad is the media targeting steroids? Check out this article about wrestlers dying from steroids:

Same list, no causes of death

They list no causes of death! They talk about how the wrestlers are dying so young, and the very first one on there is a suicide (as is the second)! How relevant. Thanks for the great news reporting.

In fact, here’s the first 5 on the list:
Suicide
Suicide
Drug Overdose
Drugs
Cocaine

Maybe they should be talking about the rampant depression and drug use?

Look, you can choose to believe the witch hunt to which you are being subjegated to, or you can use common sense. If steroids are so bad, why aren't more deaths tied to them?

Baseball is the key to this discussion.

Thanks to everyone for listening to me ramble. Thanks to Vagabond for the opportunity. And great job to GAOTU789 for keeping me on my toes.

I especially enjoyed this round.



posted on Mar, 7 2008 @ 10:32 PM
link   
"Performance-enhancing substances help athletes give the fans what they want, and should be allowed in professional sports, with strong prescription controls in place to limit the associated risks".

Closing Statement
 



Well, there is definitely an elephant in the room.


Yes there is and it has a really big syringe with dangerous performance enhancing substances in it. It's too bad you can't see it.


The acts of a desperate man. twisting my words to fit his argument.


My opponent is continuing to try to trick us into believing that steroids are not safe, but can be used in a safe manner. However, if they are used in a safe manner, it does not help the players, but it is still unfair – even though no one is gaining anything real.


I won't repeat the clear and concise statements I have made throughout this debate on the dangers of these performance enhancing substances. If my opponent is having a hard time understanding them, may I suggest a remedial English class at his local community college.


So we are assuming that the 50% only took steroids once? Why? Are baseball players and their trainers dumb? What purpose would it serve for 50% of athletes to take steroids one time?


We aren't assuming anything. It was an example not based on any sport. You know, a hypothetical situation. If you need help looking up those college numbers, I'll gladly give you a hand.


Comparing steroids to smoking… nice try. I’ll play along.


Again, hypothetical. You know, comparing the dangerous side affects of one substance to another.


This is especially true in baseball where players are forced to play games almost every other day. Has anyone ever tried to throw 100 pitches as hard as they can? I’m just talking about fast balls here, no snapping of the wrists for curveballs or sliders. Now imagine trying to do that every 8-10 days, and sometimes less.


Yes they have actually. Thousands of pitchers throughout the history of baseball have done just that.

Because my opponent said...


Baseball is the key to this discussion.


Lets look at the list of the greatest pitchers of all time, as compiled by Tom Seaver, one of there own.

Baseball's Greatest Pitcher's



10Nolan Ryan
9Warren Spahn
8Bob Gibson
7Steve Carlton
6Bob Feller
5Cy Young
4Lefty Grove
3Sandy Koufax
2Christy Mathewson
1Walter Johnson


What do you notice about that list? I'll tell you what I notice. Every one of those pitchers had long, productive, hall of fame caliber careers. They all also happen to have played before the steroid era in baseball.



Of the list of wrestlers I used, I'll show you just the ones that have died that had a "known" history of steroid use/abuse and there ages.

Rick “ Quickdraw” McGraw(30)
Eddie “Hot Stuff” Gilbert (33)
“Ravishing” Rick Rude (39)
“British Bulldog” Davey Boy Smith (39)
Buzz "Mad Dog" Sawyer (32)
Terry “Bam Bam” Gordy (40)

Want to know what they all died from? A heart attack. Now look at the other wrestlers that have died at a young age from heart attacks and think about how rampant steroid use is in professional wrestling.

It's simple folks. Performance enhancing drugs are dangerous, as I have shown you throughout the course of this debate.

I shown you some of the side affects that are associated with these drugs.

I have shown you that athletes are willing to go to any lenghts, regardless of the rules, to gain an edge.

I have shown you athletes that have died from the use of these drugs.

I have shown you that tight prescription controls would be useless.

I have shown you that most of the governing bodies of world sports have banned these substances. Not put tight controls on them but banned them.

I have shown you that arguably, the greatest players to play the game of baseball have come before the steroid era.

I have shown you that prolonged and sustained use of these drugs is what would be needed for any benefits to be gained.

I have shown you that is the exact same way for the dangerous side affects to occur also.

I have shown you, that to give the fans what they want, professional athletes should use the talents that they naturally possess to become the best in their sports.

 


Wow, time flies. Thanks to Sublime for an outstanding debate. Great job mate. You have proven yourself a worthy adversary for whomever you face next, whether it be in this tournament or another.



posted on Mar, 9 2008 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Sublime620 has won and will advance to round 3.


This was a great debate. Early on, Sublime was gaining small advantages on all sides, despite a few noteworthy hangups.
GAOTU seemed to make that up with what felt like a possible knockout punch when he pointed out the tradeoffs that Barry Bonds made, which go right to the heart of the question that Steroids help athletes give the fans what they want. The answer there seemed to be no.

That however was outweighed by the contradiction that athletes were not taking enough steroids to have positive or negative effects, when clearly they have had an effect on Bonds and others.
Sublime sealed the deal when he compared body builders to other athletes, showing the benefits of control and moderation.



posted on Mar, 9 2008 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Not THAT my friends was a DEBATE!!!!!!

Outstanding, informative and complete....

Truly enjoyable reading and full of factual information...

GREAT JOB from both..

It is debates like this where it is a shame there has to be a winner and a loser. Both debaters deserve recognition...

Semper



posted on Mar, 9 2008 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Thanks for the kind words everyone.

Honestly, I thought I had it locked up... that is, until I read GAOTU789's closing statements. I felt like I left loose ends, while he just crushed his summary. I will be refering to his summary for notes in all debates I do in the future.






top topics



 
2

log in

join