Performance-enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports.

"Doing unsafe things is allowable. People have the right to do unsafe things with their own bodies. " Did you not see what "allowed" refers to? Rights or not, steroids are not allowed in professional sports. "Athletes are not slaves, existing for the sake of their examples to children. They exist for their own sake and are to be treated as such, as human beings, so long as they treat others as such. This means they are not to be forced to a course of action just because it will benefit someone else, only them initiating force can justify such force. " I didn't say that. Obviously, an athlete should be expected to be a role model for children, since many kids will look up to him/her. This does not dictate the way they live; it simply means they should not do stupid things, cheat, etc. because that will negatively influence kids. This is why, for example, Michael Phelps got a lot of crap for doing drugs. ""Have to? " No one "has to" do such a thing. They are perfectly able to take the drugs themselves, or work hard, or not condition themselves, as they please. " Do you see any unconditioned professional athletes? They all have to do some sort of tough conditioning to stay sharp at their sport. And most people consider steroids cheating, or do not use them because of the aforementioned side effects. Professional athletes who do not use steroids HAVE TO work hard to stay in shape and up to expectations. "And the use of drugs by one party does not delete the hard work by another, they are separate bodies, separate phenomena. " EXACTLY - one party still has to go through hard work, while the other can just take drugs. "This would be a permissible arguments if your round 1 argument did not already concede you were talking about what THE LAW should allow. As it stands it is not, it is merely a tool of deception, and I quote . . . That was at the beginning of your first round argument. That leaves no room for weaseling out of it, the resolution was explicitly clarified by you as meaning allowable by the law, not allowable by the sports league. " Well, first, if something is illegal for use in sports, then it is not allowed for use in sports. So I can relate these arguments to the resolution even if you were right. Second, you just contradicted yourself. First you state that I conceded that I was talking about what the law should allow. But then, you say I "explicitly clarified [it] as being allowable by the law, not allowable by the sports league". But really, I was laying the latter all along. The very first sentence says "illegal for use in sports". That means that their use is punishable by law if used in sports. Now before you start saying that we should not jail people for steroid use, that's not what "punishable by law" means. Loitering is punishable by law; do you get thrown in jail for it? What about littering or violating curfew laws? =============================================================================== My opponent has spent all of his arguments attempting to not relate my arguments to the resolution. However, I have showed how he has misinterpreted all of my arguments. Furthermore, he has not attempted to argue with my position, and is giving contradictory and misleading "reasons" on why I have "not" supported the resolution.