5 Ways of framing debates about doping
The purpose of this next activity is to use doping as an example to show ways to develop a coherent argument about the topic.
Activity 5 How to argue about doping
Timing: Allow about 40 minutes
Read ‘How to argue about doping in sport [Tip: hold Ctrl and click a link to open it in a new tab. (Hide tip)] ’ by Fry (2015). This is a niche article and, as far as we know, nothing similar has been written since 2015 that discusses how to argue about doping. Respond to these questions:
- How does this explanation about different arguments show the complexity of the issue?
- How does the author achieve balanced perspectives in the article?
Interactive feature not available in single page view (see it in standard view).
Discussion
- The author used a relatively simple definition of doping, which is appropriate for this type of publication. He sets out the different approaches that people take to discussing doping in an accessible way and uses terms like ‘another claim’ or ‘they claim’, i.e. these are positions people take rather than absolute fact. It is noticeable that people place emphasis on different perspectives on doping with broad categories of ‘protection from harm’, ‘fairness’ and ‘integrity’ (i.e. morally principled) arguments often being used. Perhaps the integrity argument needed more explanation and you will attend to this in the next activity. The author suggests people sometimes mix their position, which may weaken an argument.
- The article is a well-balanced piece of writing that is not overly strident or biased one way or the other. The author shows dislike of people mixing arguments using inconsistent thinking and he critiques some aspects of taking a middle ground on doping issues. Notice it is published in an online academic-related news platform, which has reasonable credibility.
Now you have seen some of the different arguments about doping, you’ll hear an academic talking about a different type of doping and see if similar arguments are used.