A recent argument that I was in, was about Lance Armstrong, and his doping and Human growth hormones (hgh) use. He gained plenty of money and publicity from winning the events he cheated on. Not to mention he put a lot of people, his friends even in jeopardy for covering for him while he lied to millions of Americans. I argued that Lance was wrong in lying about his allegations and wrong for doing them in the first place.
I was arguing against my dad, who thought Armstrong had the right to blood dope and use Hgh because he had cancer. He said it would make it an even playing field. I told him that even though he had cancer, it doesn't make it okay to cheat. There was money involved and publicity which can also be valuable. I focused on the ethics of the situation. I said Lance should not of lied about it when they questioned him. He put his friends in a bad situation, they defended him to the fullest because he lied to them. I told him that one writer even lost his job for defending his lies.
I also used pathos, when I told him many other racers who trained their hardest, using no boosts were cheated out of a fair race, and may never get another chance to win. It is unfortunate that lance got cancer, but he should of hung up racing and focused on his health. I argued that Lance was an American hero before he admitted his lies, and he let down millions of people who looked up to him.
After all the points I