The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

"ADHD" is no more than misunderstood children, parenthood problems and a bad society.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/29/2015 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 596 times Debate No: 74485
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




Since ADHD has no accepted aetiology, and no basis is reality (brain abnormalities, gene mutations), I invite my opponent to provide reason for its existence.


The argument is ADHD isn't real, but a social construct to explain energetic children. This does not account for the fact that those diagnosed with ADHD usually have a relative who was also diagnosed. It is also statistically accurate to say that families who don't have a history of ADHD have a lower chance of having offspring with it.

This means that not only is it real, but it is also genetic.

My second point is the chemical differences in the ADHD brain VS the non-ADHD brain. It has been proven that there are chemical differences, and I will provide a link as proof.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 1


Tommy.leadbetter forfeited this round.


Uh........ This is all I've got ATM......
Debate Round No. 2


Oh, I left the debate up and didn't realise the time wasn't changing lol. Apologies. I know people will probably vote against me on this anyways, but I will continue any who. Because I'd like to have this debate. This argument is not quite finished but il send it anyway.

You say this does not account for the fact that some people with ADHD have family members that are also diagnosed. On the contrary, parents with 'ADHD' provide a more chaotic environment for the child than 'normal' parents. So the children are more likely to develop hyperactivity disorders and attentional deficit disorders because they: 1. follow their parents example. 2. Grow up with less routines, encouraging them to be less structured in their own lives. 3. More likely to have similar diets (bad) to their parents, that cause erratic moods.

Why, when a child copies their parents, do we always assume genetics are the cause? Is it not more likely that the child just learns the behaviour? We know the child would just learn it anyway, even if it was genetic. Can behaviours even be genetic?

The public opinion of genes is over simplistic. We can thank newspapers and media for that: the idea of a 'code' embedded in everyone that determines their behaviour and entire self that can read, is an exiting prospect. Not least because of its possible health ramifications, the idea was beneficial to corporate America because it builds a context in which certain behaviour is inevitable. This is beneficial because it draws attention away from the real causes of metal health/violence/poverty, which is societal, and encourages the public to view these things as solely the fault of the individual. People are thusly encouraged to feel as though these people are not worth spending resources trying to help, and that nothing is wrong with society. If people realise that behaviour is the result of the environment, then people would begin to question the society. This is an idea that has not been suppressed by accident. The reality of genes and their relationship with behaviour is far more complicated than the general opinion suggests. That opinion is that behaviour is rooted in biology, is unchangable, and predetermined by genetics.

So what do we realy know about genes? Well we share 30% of our genes with houseflies and not much less with mushrooms. So this suggests that genes are not very specific. Also, rice has more genetic material than humans: it has a more complex genome. So it seems that genes are not clear determinants of much, indeed we don't quite understand them, for how could a piece of rice be more complex than a human? What this is believed to show is that genes are less specific and more general. For instance, if you take the gene that makes an eye from a bird and put it onto a flies leg (to grow a birds eye on a flies leg), then a fly eye grows on the leg. So the gene 'says' 'make eye', but the rest of the system (RNA etc.) makes the specific characteristics of the fly's eye. Another study shows, and its also a well known fact, that we share 99% of our genes with chimpanzees. So with all this in mind, consider the notion of a gene 'causing' a specific behavioural trait.


While it is true, and I totally agree with you, that genes cannot be blamed for behavior. They do, however, increase the chance that the children will develop whatever disorder, bodily malfunction the parent had. Diabetes, Down Syndrome, and Cystic Fibrosis. All of those things can be developed without the genetic heritage, but if there is family history, the chances are higher.

On the note of ADHD parents generating that attitude. What of the children that DON'T develop the traits that someone with ADHD would develop? What about situations where one is ADHD and his/her sibling isn't? I know from a personal experience that there are situations like these. My best friend has ADD (this makes him an incredible theologian and creative writer btw) But his brother does not. Same parents, same environment. I grew up around him and his mother was always at constant battle; trying to get him to focus and whatnot. Also, to my knowledge, neither of the parents had ADHD either. Another shining example is my girlfriend (gotta boast about that every once and a while ;P) both her and her brother are diagnosed with ADHD, and it shows. She was on Ritalin forever, but made a conscious decision to get off of it. She manages, but can still struggle occasionally in school due to lack of focus. She is super fun to be around though because she doesn't stand still, and the same goes for her brother. Again, the parents are in constant OPPOSITION to their behavior, they did not influence it. In fact, there are a great many books written for parents so that they can understand how to relate to their child who is diagnosed with ADHD. Just google "How to deal with ADHD child" and observe.

A side note, ADD and HD are two subsets of ADHD. They stand for attention deficit disorder and hyperactivity Disorder respectively.

I am not a scientist, but from my research thus far, they still have not discovered the "cause" of ADHD. They can, however, identify it using methods other than observing the child, such as brain scans.

Debate Round No. 3


I see your understanding is not scientific as you admit, your observations are intelligent but how can one be right without the correct information? Aristotle was clever, but he didn't know about evolution, astronomy or modern morality.

I will re-state my points in light of our discussion to end this debate.

ADHD, and sub-categories, are only seemingly 'caused' by family background. This, in light of knowledge about genetics, suggests that these children are learning their behaviour rather than it being predetermined at birth. This is not an epidemic or some new evolution, its a response to ever changing society that is not exactly 'healthy' for human psychology (despite the relative abundance). Remember that 1 in 4 people suffer from depression at some point in their lives and suicide is far more common in industrial societies than community-based societies. Big cities isolate more than communise, the opposite is true to logic. The immensely stimulating world of today, that kids are experiencing, is stifled in school and children are no longer engaged with education. This lack of engagement, coupled with many other factors in society that I have not the room to get into, make us psychologically sick. This shows in many ways, but one way is through total lack of engagement in structured education and an inability to relax and by content. The culture of capitalism is fast paced, big profit, live life to full. Other cultures disregard such behaviour, preferring meditation, prayer and communion.

ADHD is not a problem. Its a symptom of a problem. People with ADHD are often 'better' than others, for they do things their own way and have passion. Have you noticed people with ADHD always have passions? your friend (creative writer, theologian) Most regular people are passionless and dull. To call ADHD a problem is to marginalise the portion of the society who are keen, independent, think for themselves and outside the box thusly, and passionate. All things that make ridged, structured, boring education that 'fits all and none' unbearable.

I love people with ADHD, this is not a dig at them.

Thank you for the argument I apologize for the lack of content I have been very busy.

All the best.


"ADHD is not a problem. Its a symptom of a problem."

Every debate has a common ground. This is as close as we got. though I'd like to modify it to say "ADHD is not a problem. Its an advantage". It is not negative, or a symptom of anything, it is a special way of operating that only a few get.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 3 years ago
Exactly my point
Posted by Hiskid 3 years ago
Let it be known that I absolutely adore those who are diagnosed with ADHD. I think they are some of the coolest people alive, and they are super fun to be around.
Posted by ImaRealMeanie 3 years ago
I'll be rooting for you once con comes, pro.
No votes have been placed for this debate.