Hello, I’m Pang Ying. Welcome to the Q&A for Episode 16 of Think Like a Debater.

A：If my criterion is which choice improves team results, I might reject passive competition but permit tactical fouls. My assumption: passive competition can cause disqualification, as when eight women’s doubles badminton players were disqualified at the 2012 Olympics, while tactical fouls do not; in basketball and football, they are practically part of the game.

But if my standard is living up to an extremely demanding moral ideal, I might do neither, even if passive play carried no disqualification.

You may ask why either act is immoral. Is there anything wrong with using rules rationally? Passive play varies in obviousness, while tactical fouls are everywhere.

I share that doubt. Let us examine the underlying criterion.

Recall the 2012 Olympic disqualification of eight women’s doubles players: four South Koreans, two Indonesians, and two Chinese.

Focus on one China–South Korea match.

Both sides wanted to lose because the winner would next face another exceptionally strong Chinese pair. Each sought to avoid them, so players repeatedly made elementary errors, hitting into the net or out while spectators booed.

Supporters of punishment said passive play violated the Olympic purpose and fair competition. They cited sections 4.5 and 4.16 of the Badminton World Federation players’ code: not using one’s best efforts to win and conducting oneself in a manner clearly abusive or detrimental to the sport.

But what is failing to use best efforts to win ‘the match’? Does match mean this one contest or the Olympic tournament? Those athletes played passively precisely because they were trying their hardest to win Olympic gold.

And what conduct is clearly detrimental to badminton? What is the standard? Why does exploiting a loophole in badminton count as harmful, while tactical fouls in football and basketball—deliberately interrupting an attack, for example—do not bring disqualification?

My personal inference is that the real criterion concerns neither athletes maximizing gold-medal chances nor exploiting loopholes, but the audience.