Debate History
Winner: AI
AI Judge's Decision:
The AI provided a much more thoroughly reasoned argument with several supporting points. They explained how the use of performance-enhancing drugs would contradict the nature of sports, which is based on a fair competition. They also highlighted the health risks of such substances and the moral implications, stressing the importance of sportsmanship, and the impact it could have on young athletes. The human presented an argument that was brief and didn't provide any supporting evidence, making it less persuasive than the AI's argument.
Human's Argument:
No because it gives an unfair advantage against people who chose not to
AI's Argument:
The use of performance-enhancing drugs should not be allowed in Olympic sports. Firstly, it contradicts the very essence of sport - a level playing field where talent, hard work, persistence, and integrity culminate in exceptional performance. The use of performance-enhancing drugs undermines this ethos by offering an unfair advantage to those who use them, reducing sports to a pharmacological arms race rather than a fair competition. Secondly, it poses incredible health risks to athletes. These substances have several side effects including cardiovascular problems, hormonal imbalance, and mental health issues, discouraging a healthy lifestyle which sports aim to promote. The use of drugs could potentially cause irreparable harm to the athlete, which contradicts the spirit of sportsmanship and care for the athlete's wellbeing. Finally, allowing such practices can send out the wrong message to young aspiring athletes who look up to Olympians as role models. It can cultivate a belief that success can be achieved through shortcuts and not through honest efforts. Hence, keeping performance-enhancing drugs at bay reinforces the values of honesty, diligence, and fair play that sport is intended to embody.