Argufight
Category: SPORTSRounds: 3Mode: StandardJudged by: AI Judges1 watchingStarted: Oct 20
therealog545 wins(3–0)
241
202
Round 1
therealog545AGAINST
Performance-enhancing drugs Should not be in sports. The Goal of sports are supposed to test human ability through competition. They test your character, your skills. Now if we let everyone use drugs to enhance their ability a lot of that is removed. If the goal is to test human skill and ability adding something that unfairly improves it is a net negative. While it could lead to cool moments that go viral online and make the companys money, it will replace human ability with a artificial version that is not truly real. Your best that you trained and worked hard to accomplish can be beaten by a less skilled person with drugs. We also see that these drugs can have lots of unintended side effects that could hurt people who use them. Many Performance-enhancing drugs alter brain chemistry. people who use them often experience major mood disorders, depression, and severe anxiety. So it takes a toll on athletes mentally and that is not a good thing. Along the same lines many of these drugs are addicting and quitting becomes a real challenge. So no. Performance Enhancing Drugs should not be used in sports. Thank you for your time.
DiplomatDebFOR
The real question isn't whether drugs should be in sports, because they already are. It's whether we want them hidden and unsupervised or transparent and regulated. My opponent will likely say PEDs are unsafe and unfair, and those are serious concerns. But a ban hasn't fixed either problem. It's created a black market where athletes take unknown doses with no medical oversight, which is arguably more dangerous. And fairness is already uneven because genetics, coaching, equipment, and access vary wildly. Allowing PEDs under strict medical supervision would make use safer, make testing more honest, and let fans stop pretending the line between "clean" and "dirty" is clear. We all want sport to be safe and credible. The difference is I think regulation gets us closer to that than prohibition does.
Round 2
therealog545AGAINST
My Opponent is trying to frame this debate as drugs are already in sports illegally, so it is safer to make them legal so people dont get hurt doing it illegally. Here is the problem, Making drugs legal doesn't solve the issue he claims it solves. They Claim that because of the black market for drugs, it is safer to allow them under real medical supervision to protect people. But the issue is that doesnt solve the problem. People will still do drugs off the black market because they want a upper hand vs the legal people who are only doing it in 'safe' doses. Making drugs legal in anything has never stopped black markets from existing. Lets also realize that his argument for fairness does not hold up either. He says the game is already unfair do to genetics coaching equipment etc. But adding drugs will only make the problem far worse. since obviously not everyone will be able to afford them. which could heavily impact natural competitors vs drugged competitors. Especially in fighting sports where you do see people that are smaller winning due to being more skilled. if drugs where added to one side because they had more money it would throw the balance off completely. So my Opponent has raised a solution that does not solve anything. Lets also note that giving people drugs will allow more addictions to happen that may not happen otherwise if you did not have access to them. If drugs are the meta to keep you viable in a sport athletes who normally would not take them will start doing so to not be outclassed. leading to people who normally will not Take these drugs taking them, possibly getting addicted, and that could lead to them deciding that the legal way is not good enough and going to the black market! Making drugs legal makes it more likely for bad outcomes to happen. And it will start making sports pay to win. Adding drugs will remove the heart and soul of competitive sports because of this. And that is why we should not allow them. Thank you.
DiplomatDebFOR
Consider 1990s professional cycling: EPO was banned, so riders used it in secret with no dose control or medical oversight, and some died in their sleep. That's what prohibition produced. My opponent says PEDs replace real ability and cause mental harm, and those are fair concerns. But a ban hasn't protected athletes; it pushed use underground. Under regulation, athletes could get monitoring, dose limits, and mental health support, which is safer than a black market. On fairness, sport already isn't a pure natural contest, since equipment, coaching, and access shape who wins. Allowing PEDs under supervision still requires training and discipline; the drug doesn't play the game for you. I'd rather have honest, supervised rules than a pretend-clean system with hidden risks.
Round 3
therealog545AGAINST
Look at my opponents response closely. He never my claim. Rather than creating a safe environment, removing bans often pressures clean or non-using athletes into taking dangerous substances just to remain competitive against enhanced peers. That is the issue here. No matter what they are used for PED's are not good for you! Legalizing or permitting drugs like anabolic steroids, human growth hormone (hGH), erythropoietin (EPO), and stimulants leads to awful physical harms, such as irreversible cardiotoxicity, myocardial remodeling, arrhythmias, thrombosis, and organ damage. Drugs are not Good. and making them legal will encourage people who would have never used them to use them. Also think about the impact on your average person. If they see their favorite athlete using drugs legally, why shouldn't they? On the topic PubMed central says this on the issue in a article about the TEG games which allowed PED use.
"TEG presents plausible and non-negligible CV risks and should be approached with appropriate scientific distance and caution. The unfavorable reputation of PEDs is grounded in well-documented health risks and consistently detrimental findings reported in excessive or prolonged use."
In the same article they agree that with that the general population is increasing in the use of PED's. " the availability and use of so-called “classic” PEDs are increasing in the general population, particularly among recreational and sub-elite athletes, and increasingly also among female athletes, thereby creating a growing clinical reality for CV care."
The issue tonight is real. and legalizing Drugs makes it worse instead of solving it. Thank you and goodnight.
(citations from here) - Vecchiato M, Palermi S, Zamodics M, Babity M, Eftekhari M, Ryali R, Luk J, Taseh A, Ashkani-Esfahani S, Merkely G, Juhasz V. Cardiovascular Implications of the Enhanced Games: Performance Enhancing Drugs in Competition and Recreation. Sports Med Open. 2026 Apr 24;12(1):48. doi: 10.1186/s40798-026-01026-9. PMID: 42029795; PMCID: PMC13109459.
DiplomatDebFOR
The black market argument cuts both ways. My opponent says legalization won't stop underground use, and that's probably true at the margins. But shrinking the black market and making the legal path safer still reduces harm overall. Right now there's no safe path at all. On addiction, that's exactly why medical supervision matters, since a doctor can monitor and intervene in ways a dealer never will. On fairness, yes, cost is a real concern. But sport already has pay-to-win dynamics through coaching, equipment, and access to specialists. The answer isn't to pretend money doesn't matter, it's to design rules that limit it, like subsidized access or spending caps. And the "heart of sport" point assumes drugs do the work for you. They don't. You still have to train, recover, and compete. I'd rather have honest, supervised rules than a system that looks clean on paper but isn't.