Drugs In Sport

327 Words2 Pages
“Performance enhancing drugs in sport should be legalised.” Tim Chappell won the initial vote with 86% of students voting against drugs in sport. Steve Olivier started the debate by stating the five main arguments against his case which were that using drugs is against the nature of sport, drugs are unfair, it is unnatural, loss of freewill and causes harm. He continued by breaking down each point and highlighting its flaws. His first point stated that drugs were not against the nature of sport because sport is already an unnatural practice. He then went on to argue that sport is already economically unfair and poorer nations are disadvantaged. Olivier also indicated that he felt that the £300 million spent on drug testing at the Olympics could have been better spent. He concluded by saying that most of us applaud musicians who produce their best work whilst under the influence of drugs which shows hypocrisy as we single out and punish athletes for the same behaviour. Tim Chappell fought his corner by not referring to any of the points made by Olivier, but starting by saying that 'sport is glorious.' He explained with the point with the idea that sport is about creating extraordinary moments and drug taking would simply be cheating. He explained that drugs have long term effects and can cause excessive damage to the body. Olivier then stated a very good point for the argument against drug taking for sports: that sports will be all about money and not talent. The richest individuals will be better than the ones who cannot afford it. Both debaters used imagery to convey characters demonstrating either sides of the argument. Chappell and Olivier had highly effective arguments although Olivier's view seemed more in depth and had very good points, Chappell still won the debate with the majority of students voting against drug taking in sports. Ben

More about Drugs In Sport

Open Document