Conclusion: Construction of good arguments would assist me in the professionally. It would ensure that I develop arguments that are hard to dispute. It would ensure that I leave no lop holes that counter-critics may use to discredit my argument. It would make me a credible and formidable presenter and analyst.
Considering the objections to my original argument on whether athletes should be allowed to use performance-enhancement drugs assisted me to realize that a weakly presented argument can be easily opposed and disregarded. It could make my audience judge me as a shallow thinker. My original argument was that founded on two perspectives. A) Steroids and other doping or performance-enhancing drug used by athletes have adverse long-term effects on the athletes. B) Use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs offer an unjust competitive advantage over those who do not use them. The respective counter-arguments were as follows. A) If steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs are legitimized, the perceived adverse health effects can be mitigated through using professional doctors to prescribe and prevent self-prescription by the athletes. B) There will be no unfair advantage if the use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs is allowed because all athletes would have access to the drugs. I would rubbish the first counter argument by pointing out that drugs are used only because the repercussions of not using them are greater than the effects of the drugs themselves. Otherwise, drugs or medications should not be used be used at one's whim because of their side effects. Similarly, using them for sports when no negative effect of not using them is clear is misuse. I would counter the second counter-argument by pointing out that trying to level the playing field by allowing everybody to use the performance-enhancement drugs ultimately forces or coerces those who want to avoid the unnecessary drug effects to use them.