That doping should be permitted in all sports

RebuttalCon’s only argument is that if doping were to be permitted, and if everyone were to dope, that would eliminate the already existing unfair advantage that is created by some people doing it illegally. The problem with this is that the argument only works if everyone in the sport did steroids, and that steroids works the same for every person. If these two premises are kept true, the argument works, if even one of them is negated, the entire argument falls. Firstly, if there is a reason that one person cannot do steroids, that excludes that one person from everyone, and since Con needs everyone to take steroids in order for the argument to work, the argument falls.Some people cannot do steroids because they are allergic to them. “Steroids can induce hypersensitivity reactions. The number of reports on contact allergy or anaphylactic reactions is increasing. Steroid hypersensitivity should be considered in any patient whose dermatitis becomes worse with topical steroid therapy, or in patients who develop systemic allergic reactions after the use of systemic steroids. The diagnosis can be confirmed by skin testing, in vitro evidence of specific IgE, oral or parenteral challenge, or an allergic patch test.” [1] Since we cannot have every athlete take steroids, the argument is negated.Secondly, the argument assumes that everyone responds to steroids the same. This is false, see my argument “Unfair Advantage” in R1. Since everyone has varying success with steroids, the unfair advantage would still exist, negating the argument. Defense of HealthFirstly Con attacks my source showing that 14-19% of athletes dope. This is pretty pointless because he concedes that athletes dope in his first contention.His reasons for why it was false was because the study in general was on methods to find athletes that dope. Con does not effectively discredit the fact that 14-19% of athletes dope, it has no relevance to the validity of the statistic. In order to discredit this he would have to attack the statistic, which he didn’t do.Con then says that my argument doesn’t work because these side-effects only occur at high-doses, and athletes won’t dope to a point where these side-effects occur. The problem with this is that there isn’t a “point” at which this occurs, it happens when you use it period, no matter the amount of dosage.Defense of SuicideCon responds to the argument by saying that there are treatments to help prevent suicide, and therefore suicides would be prevented. The problem with this is that although treatments may reduce the amount of suicides done by steroids, it will not prevent all of them. And this argument does not negate that fact that severe depression is caused in users. As with Efrain Marrero, his death was not prevented, the argument is demonstrably false. Defense of Unfair AdvantageCon says that my source saying that steroids affects people differently is false because it is about steroids treating arthritis. This does not discredit the source, I used the source in order to show that steroids affects people differently, which was dropped. Con then says that people react to nutrition supplements differently too, so it doesn’t matter because people react differently anyways. This is not any excuse to allow steroids. We should strive to minimize factors that give athletes unfair advantages as much as possible, not expand on them. Defense of Purpose of SportCon drops my argument, it is irrelevent. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...