BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Heavy punishments such as striping an athlete of their medal should be person-specific.

Opp would like to emphasize that the motion deals with first, not just docking some points, but stripping a team of their medals, and second, stripping the "entire" team of their medals. As prop conceded in their argument, taking away a medal is a strong punishment. We don’t wish to protect athletes who use dope, however, believe that such harsh punishment potentially ruining an athlete’s career should not be aimed at the entire team. Instead, punishments as such should be person-specific, targeting the individual who made the irresponsible choice. Especially when the team was not notified of the member using dope, which is usually the case, it is extremely unfair to reflect an individual team member’s decision on the entire team and dismiss the other athletes’ efforts so lightly. For instance, American sprinters who were stripped of their 2000 Olympics relay medals because teammate Marion Jones was doping won an appeal in 2010 to have them restored because International Association of Athletics Federations ruled that entire team should not “be disqualified because of doping by one athlete.” [[http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/2010-07-16-marion-jones-teammates-appeal_N.htm]] We also want to point out that these athletes who have and are going to use dope are willing to risk their career for the glory of winning. Putting their team’s victory at risk to create ‘social pressure’ is not going to decrease motivation for an athlete to use dope. We would like to remind that the other athletes in the team who are being stripped of their medals have played safely and accordingly to the regulations and deserve the medal as every other athlete. The proposition has failed to prove why these athletes also deserve to lose their medals and get the same punishment as the athlete who has made the life changing decision and we believe that this is not going to prevent any athletes who are willing to risk their career from risking their team's career.
1. Not being harsh on doping forces athletes to choose between life and Olympic Glory

An Athlete should not have to choose between his life and Olympic Glory. If doping is not harshly punished, it can come down to deciding between your life and health or beating the competition. Athletes should not be able to get an advantage out of something that will surely harm them. In Boxing, you can be banned for life for using plaster of paris bandages under your gloves. This is because it both harms both your opponent and your own hand. [[http://bit.ly/n17k59]] So you cannot enhance your performance by sacrificing your health. Suicide should not be permitted as a winning strategy. As we have said, sports should be about human beings achieving their potential of strength and speed while maintaining their health. It is a mandate for the Olympic Committee to minimize health risks. When Nodar Kumaritashvili, a luger competing for Georgia died in a Olympic training run, the Olympic Committee inmediately did the following Comittee Report 1. Increase the height of the outside wall (sliders left side) by 2.26 meters for a distance of 18 meters. 2. Addition of a 1 meter high wall on the outside wall (sliders left) for a distance of 10 meters from the end of the current wall. 3. Increasing the height of the inside wall (sliders right) by 40cm for a distance of 46 meters. 4. Squaring off the curve of the ice between the base of the track and the side walls of the outrun.. [[http://bit.ly/dnQ601]] This is why even in a sport where your opponent is supposed to hit you, there are regulations that punish certain punches, for example to your genitals. The idea is that you can both be a boxer and have kids. Hockey rules have changed to reflect the need to protect players by "now making any hit to the head — where the head is the principal point of contact — illegal" [[http://bit.ly/kThCOT]] We believe this is a good thing. Harshly punishing teams communicates doping is not condoned and that the rules of the game will be changed to make it a very risky vent
Categorical Team Punishment Jeopardises Team Network

Despite the fact that IOC has always been a committee to prevent drug use in Olympics, there have been various cases of IOC failing to detect doping cases such as Michel Phelps and Rick DeMont. According to articles from the year 2010 revolving around WADA, every year, athletes are constantly “finding new ways to get around the tests.” If organizations dealing with drug use such as IOC and WADA are sometimes fallible, then why should the teammates be expected to know all the time? Relays demand exceptional teamwork and cooperation between teammates. Building bonds and having faith in each other is what leads to a team to the top. Therefore, the team does not worry about teammates making mistakes nor do they worry about members using drugs. So, if the teammates did not know, why should they be stripped of their medals; their pride? Are teammates supposed to worry, suspect, and inspect on each other to find out which member is doing drugs and eventually destroy teamwork trust? Was it wrong with them for trusting and believing in each other? The Proposition plan will only serve to blur the bonds between the teammates. The Opposition does not see what the Proposition wishes the teams to become of, but we claim that the whole team should not necessarily be punished for one member's wrongdoing, for the sake of the team network. A team must be blamed and punished as a group only when the teammates were actually aware of the cheating. Otherwise, the blame should befall the member who failed to abide by his responsibilities and threw away trust. If the pro’s plan was to go through, conflicts will arise between teammates, after all they had their medal stripped after however many years, unable to understand why somebody chose to use drugs and break the trust. As well, in the future, teammates will have to choose between trust with risks of disqualification and shame, and suspicion that will create unnecessary stresses and destroy their key to winning.
In order to work the risk has to be too big to take

Historically, some athletes have decided to get an edge against their competition by utilizing illegal substances or have been negatively influences to do so by their social network, trainers, teammates or peer pressure. This goes against the maxim of what healthy competition represents. Council of Europe in the Code of Sports Ethics The potential benefits to society and to the individual from sport will only be maximised where fair play is centre stage. The truth is that whenever doping is discussed the debate is centered around why do athletes fall into the temptation that banned substances represent, but the main reasons why athletes do not cheat are rarely mentioned. Fact is that the main reason athletes choose not to cheat is the risk of being caught, so this leads to the argument that the risk of cheating has to be so big and the consequences so harsh that more athletes will choose to remain clean. Sociologist Howard S.Becker published a classic work in 1963 called Outsiders which illustrates that athletes' main reasons to avoid taking illegal substances hardly ever relate to moral standards or health issues, though they may factor in the decision. The reason for not doping back when the study was made that was given repeatedly was the fear that it would be socially excluding; that it would ruin the athlete's reputation if he or she were caught. The best way to illustrate how the larger risk represented through the removal of all medals to an Olympic Team will further deter the use of banned substances will be to analyze the situation from a trainer's point of view. In most cases, athletes are either recommended to use the substances by their trainers or at least the trainer is aware of the use of said substances. So, if a trainer knows than one of his athlete's does not stand a chance to win, he may support the use of banned substances. However, if that athlete's decision could hurt the entire team, he would prevent it from happening.
There's no I in team

It's important to understand the role of the non doping members of the team: We oppose the notion that they are all innocent in the SQ of doping. Opp wants us to believe that if you don't do it you probably don't know anything about it. But you can be an accomplice both by action or by omission) to the cheating. You can know but keep the secret, even be in favor of the doping but choose not to do it. You're an enabler. This kind of culture has been discovered from US's to east German's Olympic teams [[http://bit.ly/o21fN4]] where a organized cheating developed. As Carl Lewis said in 2000, admitting his own drug use: Carl Lewis "There is no commitment to stopping the drug problem. People know the sport is dirty, the sport is so driven by records." In these cases all that knew and didn't say anything were in the wrong: the dopers, the team-mates and the coaches. Wen you're on a team, what can be considered just? No matter what you know or ignore, you shouldn't by principle expect to benefit from anything but fair play from your team. Team sport athletes know that each of their contributions could help them win or cause them to loose. If one of their members is doped they can't expect to win. Even in the case of individual sports,athletes in the Olympics go to represent a team and a nation, and they shouldn't expect to be considered apart from them as they could at Wimbeldon. Team-mates can be part of the solution. How does peer pressure fare against money and just wanting to win? Money is tempting, but you need the favor of your team in order to perform at all. If this policy is enacted and your team-mates see you are doping, you will have a hard time on practices and this will affect your performance. And you need this to win. We're sure that Marion Jones has a rough time in sporting events today. The clear role team mates would play in solving the problem for good dwarves the pain the elusive truly innocent individual sport team member could feel.
"Fortune" Allows Certain Teams, as well as Certain Athletes, to Take Unfair Advantages

The first part of the argument is thus responded: we don't oposse more and better doping tests. Let's test each and every athlete if possible. AND let's use peer and social pressure to insure fewer people try it. Their example of Michael Phelps is easily crushed when you find that the "photo of him doping" was taken in 2009 [[http://on.today.com/q1Z9CL]] and the Olympics were in 2008 [[http://fxn.ws/nh0LN4]], so opp is saying either that the drugs that he consumed in 2009 affected him retroactively on 2008, or that he had been on a continuous doped state for months. In any case, the fact that some athletes might cheat without a consequence has no bearing that cheating has to be castigated first and foremost in order to greatly reduce the number of people that will chance it. We believe that after just the first incident of this policy being enforced as a agreed upon policy, the peer pressure will work as disincentive. Of course its It is unfair some teams that do not get caught. But in the balance doping is dangerous and it’s unfair for ALL the teams that participate and don't cheat, the fans, the IOC. Even if the policy could affect completely innocent team-mates (and many aren't innocent as we explain in our 5th point) we think that possibility pales in comparison to the unfairness in the SQ where just one team member is justly punished but his team, country, fans might benefit from the medals. Lastly, Opp seems to be saying that since some teams will get away with doping because of luck and some won’t, this policy shouldn’t be implemented. But the same risk present in the SQ but with individual punishment. This is like saying that since there are criminals and their collaborators that aren't caught, then we shouldn't prosecute anyone. We think once you have a couple of "unlucky teams" that get stripped of medals you'll see a reduction of people trying their luck.
Punishing the entire team is unjustifiable especially when an athlete who doesn't even participate can ruin the whole team's career.

Apparently we have to explain yet again how it is fair to be stripped of your medals with another illustration: A friend calls you and says: "My uncle died, left me everything in his apartment. Help me move the stuff out and I'll give you some of it". You go and work hard and then turns out your friend lied: he was stealing the stuff. You acted in good faith but is not rational to expect to be given your work's worth. Still, you wont go to jail.The team mate wont be fined or such but cant take the proceeds of cheating. A whole team can win just with one person’s contribution. Recently Venezuela lost the Copa America in the SF because of one missed penalty. On Alernate participation: they're on team but if they don't participate in the game/race they won't be tested/win medals. So no harm there. We want to denounce they used their evidence deceitfully in their rebuttal of our race to the bottom point. As judge knows, when you compare the highest level of a series to another you will always conclude that a trend is downwards; even when this is wrong. They took 1976 (1.4%, the highest) and compared it to 2008 to conclude that there was no evidence of a race to the bottom. If you take another starting date (let’s say Barcelona 1992) you would see a significant increase. So, there's no clear evidence that cheating has decreased in recent years or that it will decrease. Even more, if we look closer at the 20 suspended athletes in Beijing 2008, 6 were previous Olympic champions, world champions or finalists in the bigger events in their sports before 2008 (Moreno [[http://bit.ly/qlWAtv]], Halkia [[http://bbc.in/oNPMNa]], Alves [[http://bit.ly/r0Pfdz]], Pessoa [[http://bit.ly/qwI3kK]], Seroczynski [[http://bit.ly/nIOfUv]], Tsoumeleka [[http://es.pn/rnbV0i]]) and 5 actually got a medal before being DQ [[http://bit.ly/PgeMK]] so this comes to 11 out 20, which shows a race to the bottom between top performers or those who won in past.
Not being harsh on doping causes a race to the bottom

The Proposition is pessimistically exaggerating the consequence here, without any given warrants that such consequence will take place unless the motion is passed. First and foremost, they have failed to prove that how the Olympics in the Status Quo is destined to “a Race to the Bottom.” The Opposition does concede that there are cases of dope-cheating in the Status Quo, but the Proposition has not proved that the situation is getting worse. They stated that “Those who are desperate to win, would voluntarily start putting themselves in harms way by using performance-enhancing, yet health-endangering drugs in order to beat their competition. If they are allowed to succeed by choosing medals over health, then any competitor athlete wanting to win as well would be forced to choose between losing the competition or losing his own health. Thus, the consumption of these substances would go from voluntary to necessary.” But we have not seen a significant increase in dope-cheating during the past 106 years, since the first documented use of drugs in 1904. In fact, only 0.42% of drug tests in Summer Olympics 2008 was positive, compared to 1.4% in 1976 Summer and 0.8% in 1984 Summer; similarly, only 0.08% in 2006 Winter, compared to 5.1% in 1976 Winter. [[http://sportsanddrugs.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001298]] So around when does the Proposition prognosticate will “The consumption of these [dopes] go from voluntary to necessary?” Then the Proposition predicts that “In the end everybody loses: all athletes would end up using drugs -and suffering the health drawbacks- without gaining any real edge over their competitors,” which the Opposition sees as an overblown conclusion drawn from the unsubstantiated presumption that the rate of dope-cheating cases has been on the upward slope. There is no warrant of such deterioration of Olympics in Proposition case, nor is there any in the Status Quo.
Summary- punishing the 'entire' team by taking away their medals not going to bring intended benefits prop suggests.

Two main clash areas in this debate seem to be: 1. Whether social pressure is going to decrease motivation for athletes to dope 2. Whether it is fair to punish the entire team. Only advantage to this motion prop suggests is how stripping the entire’s team will put pressure on both the teammates and athletes to not dope. In SQ, motivation that drives these athletes is one&only, the Olympic glory. This motivation remains the same even if this motion were to pass thus athletes would still want to dope. Also, an athlete is not likely to voluntarily tell the team that s/he is doping, especially with social pressure. Motivation remains firm and teammates will not know, so this will not prevent an athlete from doping, but prevent him/her from telling. We wish to emphasize that when athletes dope, they risk their own career. If athletes are willing to risk their own career, they will not be more hesitant in risking others’. Prop talks about how it is unfair for other teams who didn’t have a doped member in their team. As entire team does not lose/win because of an individual, a team’s result can’t be singularly credited on one member who used dope. Prop concedes that it is unfair for the team who did not dope, yet they persistently argue that it's fair to punish the other members who equally didnt dope. We first talked about how it is unjust to punish the entire team especially if they weren'tt aware of dope usage in their team. Prop relies on heavy assumption that they were aware of their teammate using dope. Even when this is the case, prop defines striping the medals as a ‘harsh punishment’, and opp is not convinced at all why these other teammates deserve the same punishment. Also, having exceptions adds onto unfairness disad. Having some athletes escape with dope usage leads some athletes believing doping and not getting caught is plausible, and it gives an unfair advantage to teams that do not get caught. Later, opp also brought up the problem of whether we should strip the entire team even when an alternate teammate is on dope yet has no influence on the group’s performance. Opp argue that this harsh punishment should be person-specific; prop’s says athletes who dope get harsher punishments and this will only result in ‘sadness and disappointment, ..and a lot of sympathy from the public’. This resolution deals with not just docking some points but ‘stripping’ a team of their medals, ignoring the rest of the team who chose to stay clean. There will not be any ‘sympathy from the public’ unless they concede it’s unfair. Prop outlined this as a punishment. What did the teammates do to deserve any punishment? Lastly, we believe this jeopardizes a team’s relationship with one another. It will arouse more suspicion and bring down team cooperation. Opp supports trust they have for each other – reason for not noticing occasionally – therefore today's motion will not bring the intended benefits prop wants.
This policy creates the social pressure needed to stop someone from cheating

The proposition stated that passing this resolution will improve the status quo by punishing the whole team then the athletes would be more careful and make the right choice. First of all, even if we pass this resolution, we’ll still be testing the athletes the same way; it’ll be done randomly or in cases of suspicion. Second of all, having harsher consequences doesn’t mean that doping will cease to exist in Olympic Games. All the proposition will achieve is actually encouraging this problem to get bigger and stronger. Although, in ancient Greece, Olympics used to be more for entertainment, nowadays, it’s not the Olympics without competition. Winning a medal is and has been their ultimate goal of the athletes’ lives. They’ve been training for years, practicing everyday and dreaming of the glorious moment when they feel the medals in their hands. They’ll do everything in their power to survive and make it to the top finalists. They won’t want to disappoint their families, their coaches and most of all, their country. What can stop them from trying even harder to win? Proposition world will create even more pressure for athletes to win and push their limits since the games will be up for “fair ground”. There’s countless number of athletes using the stimulants. New products are constantly coming on the market and new techs are being offered to them. The temptation to use the products will be significantly high. Since they would have access to new materials and not want to let down their people, they’ll be urged to be more careful and use improved methods not to get caught. The tests will catch only those who are careless. Therefore, like the proposition side has stated, this policy creates peer pressure. It’ll lead this problem into urging and forcing the athletes to try harder and do anything to win. That will definitely include being even more careful not to get caught. Passing this resolution will worsen the problem that we have today.
SUMMARY

This debate centered around three clashes: 1• To paraphrase Seinfeld: So... What's the deal with doping? Dear judge may be confused with what is the SQ according to Opp. They say: That our model isn't neccessary since the percentage of positive results is declining. That “as seen in the past and in the present, cheating is inevitable” That the commercial an popularity incentives to get doped are increasing like never before. That "athletes are getting away without their dope-cheating penalised" That athletes are finding even more ways to get doped and go undetected. We denounced opps wanting to distort the evidence they presented: they didn't show a decline but picked and chose the years that fitted their assertion. We said even if so we want it to be zero. But we gave evidence that it's not declining and that amongst top performers it's very common. If incentives are getting bigger and doping is not declining as a result we need to do something else to avoid the race to the bottom of the top athletes. 2• Will our model be effective? We've shown it will. They completely ignored the coach and the calculation he'll have to do about risk if our model is passed, as explained in our yes point #3. We spoke about the possible new interest of delegation heads to do internal tests in order to prevent their whole team from being stripped of medals. To this we added the peer (from team-mates) and social pressure from a whole country. We explained this will help change the culture inside teams. The athlete himself will have to decide not only to risk himself but his team-mates. Many won't want to have that amount of "blood on their hands" if they are found out. Those who will risk it will have their team-mates and coaching watching in order to avoid it. 3 • Is our model justified? Opp's objections to stripping the team of their medals is their innocence. They even accepted part of our model! We answered their concern about careers being ruined by pointing out that dopers get suspensions and fines the teammates won't. They will just not win medals, just like it would happen if they had been 4th or 5th. We gave you a beautiful illustration of the friend that gives you stolen goods. Is not right for team mates to benefit from the cheaters performance and win medals, those are tainted. And second, that there are two groups of innocents at stake: the cheater's teammates AND teams without doping members. One or the other is going to suffer the consequences of the cheaters action, we should side with the teams where none cheated. Also they aren't there to represents themselves but their country. So they can't expect to be considered individuals. We also gave you the following analysis: even if the rare innocent, knows-nothing-athlete is affected somehow, the harm is smaller to that done to the other teams, country, sport, fans that got cheated out the medals, the fairness and the heroes. And smaller than the health harms we want to avoid