for aplus writer only

Conclusion of the counter-arguments

The counter-argument premises lead to the conclusion that use of steroids and other performance-enhancement drugs by athletes should be allowed and legitimized in conventional sports competitions. The two premises and their subsequent conclusions are derived and developed from the weaknesses of the argument/premises of the critics arguing against the legitimization of the use of steroids and the other enhancement drugs. For instance, the first premise of the counter argument argues that legalization would mitigate the adverse effects of steroids use by calling upon professional doctors to prescribe the drugs as opposed to the dangerous athletes' own self-prescription. This premise builds on the argument that steroids have adverse effects. Instead of disputing this premise, the counter argument premise illustrates that, indeed, the adverse effects are witnessed due to the prohibition of the drugs. Similarly, the second counterargument premise builds on the anti-use premise. It argues that while the drugs offer an unfair advantage to some athletes, legitimization ensures everybody uses the drugs thus leveling the field for all athletes.

Primary points of disagreement

The first premise of the anti-use stand and the first premise of the counter argument disagree on one main point. The anti-use premise claims that using the drugs result in long-term adverse effects and as such, athletes should not be allowed to use them. On the other hand, the counter-argument claims that the adverse effects are not witnessed because athletes use the steroids and other enhancement drugs, but rather because athletes are not allowed to use the drugs openly and safely. It is good to note that both agree that the drugs have side effects on health but disagree with the legal stance that each proposes arguing that that stance is the actual cause of the adverse effect cases.

The second premises of the anti-use and counter-argument positions disagree on the instance where unfair advantage arises. The anti-use premise argues that those who use the drugs gain an unfair or artificial advantage over those who do not use the drugs. The counterargument premise offers the solution of legitimization to counter the unfair advantage. Here, while the anti-use sentiments see the use as a way of giving an unfair advantage, the counter argument view legitimization of the drugs as the solution to unfair advantage because all athletes would be allowed to dope.

Best objection

The best objection to the original argument revolves around the adverse effects of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs. The original argument posits that the use of these drugs results in long-term adverse effects (Penn State University, 2017). It thus recommends that athletes should not be allowed to use them. The counter-argument brings a wider perspective that explores the reasons why the athletes' health is affected. It argues that prohibition of the use of the drugs make athletes use them secretly where they self-prescribe devoid of the professional knowledge needed to ensure positive effects while minimizing harmful effects (Katz, 2008). As a result, many athletes suffer later from the effects of these drugs. The objection further argues that allowing its use would make professional doctors to openly prescribe, advice, and guide the athletes on dosage and other relevant activities, which would greatly minimize the adverse effects of these drugs.

References Katz, J. (2008, January 23). Should We Accept Steroid Use in Sports? Retrieved from NPR Web site: https://www.npr.org/2008/01/23/18299098/should-we-accept-steroid-use-in-sports Penn State University. (2017, November 10). Should Athletes be Allowed to Use Performance Enhancing Drugs? Retrieved from Penn State University Web site: https://sites.psu.edu/siowfa16/2016/10/17/should-athletes-be-allowed-to-use-performance-enhancing-drugs/