These arguments were made as part of the game on The Internet, Debate an AI.
The human arguments are from users on The Internet, and the AI arguments are produced using OpenAI's large language models.
Performance-Enhancing drugs or PEDs can show humanity what the peak of human athleticism can truly mean. For multiple reasons they should be allowed. Before I get into the main arguments, I must elaborate on the fact that medical supervision means that there will not be any form of overdosing, or unhealthy usage of the PEDs as they will be under direct doctor supervision, and those issues should not be discussed. Firstly they can help those with certain deficiencies overcome the gap and catch up to the rest of the field. Some people are born with hormone deficiencies and thus are not able to have as high level of development. Take for example Messi, he was able to start hormone replacement therapy early on in life, however, that opportunity is not available to everyone, and those who still struggle with hormone deficiencies later on in life won't be able to compete at the same level as others without PEDs. Secondly it will increase entertainment. The main reason sports are so popular is because they are intended for entertainment. Who doesn't enjoy watching a good ol' baseball game, or football game in the evening. Well imagine if athletes were at the peak of human athleticism and were truly at the max. We could see the best sportsplay of all time. Think of the golden age of baseball, it was so popular because of how good the gameplay was, and that's primarily because everyone utilized PEDs.
Argument by john33
Tuesday April 18th, 2023
Performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) should be allowed in sports under strict medical supervision for the following reasons: leveling the playing field, enhancing the quality of the competition, and ensuring athlete safety. Firstly, allowing PEDs under medical supervision would level the playing field for all athletes. Today, a significant number of athletes take PEDs illegally, leading to unfair advantages that defy the principles of sportsmanship. If regulated by medical professionals, each athlete will have access to the same resources, and victory will be determined by the competitors' skill, talent, and dedication rather than by who has the best underground connections to obtain PEDs. This would lead to a more just and equitable sporting competition. Secondly, by allowing athletes to manage their use of PEDs under the supervision of medical professionals, the quality and spectator appeal of the competition will likely increase as athletes push the boundaries of human performance. As long as safety is prioritized with the assistance of medical experts, audiences will be able to witness more incredible feats, breaking records and inspiring the next generation of athletes. Finally, the safety of athletes will be placed in competent hands when the use of PEDs is regulated by professional medical practitioners. Currently, those using PEDs covertly compromise their well-being due to improper dosing or avoiding tests by abruptly ceasing usage. With expert supervision, athletes will be properly monitored to avoid long-term health consequences from PEDs, and suitable options will be considered based on the individual's needs. This would promote both athlete safety and ethical sportsmanship while allowing sports to advance to new heights.
Argument by gpt-4
Tuesday April 18th, 2023
Both players present substantial arguments, however, the AI's response is more well-rounded and emphasizes the fairness that would be achieved by allowing PEDs under medical supervision. They also address the safety of the athletes more thoroughly than the human. While the human makes valid points on the enhancement of entertainment and helping those with deficiencies, the AI strengthens the argument by discussing how allowing PEDs can level the playing field, enhance the quality of competition, and ensure athlete safety with proper oversight.
No because it’s unfair for people that don’t use performance-enhancing drugs and we don’t know in the long run if it’s safe
Argument by Tggv
Performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) are drugs that artificially improve an athlete's performance. There are many different types of PEDs, and they can be used for a variety of reasons, such as to increase strength, speed, and endurance. Some people argue that PEDs should be allowed in sports under medical supervision because they can be used to help people who have legitimate diseases that affect their performance. Others argue that PEDs are cheating, and that they should not be allowed in sports because they give an unfair advantage to the athletes who use them. There is no clear answer to this question, and it is up to the individual sports organizations to decide whether or not they want to allow PEDs.
Argument by text-curie-001 (GPT-3)
The human's argument is based on the notion that allowing performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) would create an unfair environment for those who don't use them and raises concerns about long-term safety. Although the AI presents an overview of both sides of the debate, they do not provide a clear personal stance on the issue. Thus, the human is the winner of this debate because their argument is more focused, addressing specific concerns tied to the use of PEDs in sports, while the AI's response lacks a definitive position on the topic.
Ask anyone with a decent knowledge of sports and current events, and they will tell you: doping in sport is a problem. Nearly every week, another high-profile doping story makes its way to the headlines of newspapers around the world. A quick Google News search for “doping” revealed over 7,500 results from the past week alone. The stories ranged from the lesser known 2 Youth Olympic Games Wrestlers who were recently suspended to the more famous 2010 Tour de France winner Alberto Contador’s positive test. Earlier this month, Brent Musburger (an ABC/ESPN sports commentator) told a group of students at University of Montana that steroids work. Musburger blamed “journalism youngsters” who “got too deeply involved in something they didn’t know too much about” for the negative image steroids and doping now have. He went on to say that steroids had no place in high school, but “under the proper care and doctor’s advice, they could be used at the professional level.” (Quotes take from the Missoulian article.) If you know me (or have been in a class with me), you know how I feel about doping in sports. In fact, anti-doping was one of the reasons I came to law school, and more specifically to Marquette. My view is that doping has no place in sport. The story of how I came to become so staunchly against doping is for another day (and perhaps a different venue), but basically involves my love for the sport of cycling and the systematic doping that plagues that sport. Suffice it to say that I take a firm stance against doping in all sports in all forms. It probably goes without saying that I could not disagree with Musburger more. Doping, least of all in the form of anabolic steroids, has no place in sports – amateur or professional. I think all anti-doping arguments come down to two basic principles, only one of which Musburger addresses in his blanket approval of steroid use in professional athletes. First, doping threatens the health of athletes. Musburger argues that with proper medical supervision, steroids can be healthy. While this might be true in some (and I would suggest limited) cases, it would certainly not be true in all cases. The use of steroids can have serious health repercussions, including affected liver, endocrine, and reproductive function, tumors of the liver and kidneys, heart conditions, and psychiatric symptoms. Additionally, the article just linked goes on to mention the increased probability of side effects when 1) steroids are used more than the recommended dose, 2) steroids are used in conjunction with other performance enhancing substances, and 3) counterfeit or tainted steroids are used. Legalizing steroid use would not solve these problems. The side effects listed in the National Center for Biotechnology Information (a part of the National Institute of Health) article are not restricted to improper use of steroids. I will not detail out the side effects of not only steroids, but also the use of hGH and EPO (often used in cycling), the NCBI does a nice job of listing those and providing citations to studies. Furthermore, the drive to win will always encourage athletes to take “just one more.” Sure, proper medical supervision would ensure that an athlete receives the proper dose from that doctor, but when that athlete fails to win the next race, game, or match, he or she is more likely to increase the dose or combine other methods of doping. Second, and unaddressed by Musburger, doping affects the integrity of sport. Sport is not about simply winning. The saying “It’s not about whether you win or lose, it’s how you played the game,” although cliché, is absolutely correct. The Olympic Movement identifies the Olympic spirit – mutual understanding, spirit of friendship, solidarity, and fair play – as fundamental to sport. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) was founded on the principle that integrity of sport is fundamental to the spirit of sport, and that integrity is threatened by doping. The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) division on anti-doping believes that “doping jeopardizes the moral and ethical basis of sport and the health of those involved in it.” The National Football League itself created its own steroid policy because steroid use threatens “the fairness and integrity of athletic competition” and “sends the wrong message to young people who may be tempted to use them.” Sports are about competition on equal footing, with respect for the opponent, and with respect for the rules of the game. Permitting the use of steroids under proper medical supervision would threaten the fairness and integrity of the game. First, athletes who choose not to use steroids are at an unfair advantage – most will be unable to compete at the same level as athletes who are using steroids. Second, the integrity of the game is compromised because it is no longer about which athlete has the best skills or talent, it’s instead about which athlete has the best steroid cocktail or the money to buy the best steroids. Thus, steroid use is contrary to the spirit of sport – fairness, respect, and solidarity. The concept of mutual respect between competitors is thwarted when one (or both) athletes would rather use steroids to improve his or her performance than compete based on individual strength, skill, or talent. However, if health and integrity concerns aren’t enough to convince you, consider this final point. Law students, and indeed lawyers, are fond of the slippery slope argument. I think it finds a comfortable place in this debate. It’s a slippery slope between allowing steroid use with proper medical supervision and eliminating anti-doping regulations. Where is the line to be drawn? Will it now be illegal to use steroids only if taken without proper medical supervision? How can proper medical supervision be proven? How does an athlete prove that the steroids in his or her body were as a result of proper medical supervision and not other means? What about athletes who use more than the recommended dose? What about other forms of doping (hGh or EPO)? Are those next to be permitted under proper medical supervision? It’s difficult to see how regulating the use of steroids in sport is workable. The only way to preserve integrity in sport and protect the health of athletes is through a serious anti-doping approach. Anti-doping efforts are most successful when the “law” (anti-doping policy) sets forth clear, bright-line rules about when and what substances are prohibited. Although a long way from perfect, WADA has created the most comprehensive anti-doping program in the world (indeed the only anti-doping program most of the world outside of the US models and implements). American professional sports leagues should be looking at ways to model the WADA code in its own anti-doping policies (like the United States Anti-Doping Agency is doing), not seeking ways to excuse steroid use or compromise anti-doping efforts. Steroids have no place in sports.
Argument by beeeee
Friday April 12th, 2024
While some may argue that allowing performance-enhancing drugs in sports under medical supervision may level the playing field or support athletes to reach their peak performance, I would argue against this. The foundational principles of sports revolve around fair competition, advancing through dedication and naturally gained skills, and respecting our bodies' limits. Introducing performance-enhancing drugs could undermine these values. Firstly, this could create an unfair advantage, as not all athletes would have equal access to these drugs or the best medical supervision, thus creating discrepancies that go beyond natural abilities and training. Secondly, the message we send to younger athletes is vital. Encouraging the use of drugs to improve performance can signify the prioritizing of achievement over health and ethical considerations. Finally, even under medical supervision, prolonged use of such substances may pose serious health risks that may not be fully understood or underlined. Therefore, focusing on holistic ways to enhance performance through nutrition, mental health, and effective training regimen should be our focus instead.
Argument by gpt-4 (Easy Mode)
Friday April 12th, 2024
The winner of the debate is the human. This participant provided complex arguments with substantiated evidence to back their points up. They covered multiple aspects of the debate topic including the health ramifications of drug use, the threats to the integrity of competitive sports, and the ethical implications of allowing the use of these substances even under medical supervision. Their argument also delved into the feasibility of regulating such use, preventing a possible "slippery slope" scenario. Even though the AI also made valid arguments against the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sports, their points were not as detailed and lacked the supportive evidence provided by the human. The AI's argument relied more on ethical and abstract considerations than concrete evidence or examples, which made their position less well-supported and convincing compared to the human's.
Comment Section