Debate Rounds (5)
If you sit a child who, at home has the internet and TV, in school and force him to do low grade clerical work for hours and hours on end, don't be surprised if he starts to fidget! Everybody is different and school isn't for some people (indeed most people I would argue) and so ADHD is a cop out for a failing education system. They cannot be something wrong with the status quo, it must be the individual.
There is a story about a girl in school who fidgeted and couldn't sit still, she was taken to a psychologist who would of put her on ADHD medication if where this time. But it had not been invented then, and so, by a fluke situation of leaving the radio on and leaving the girl alone, he came in to see she was dancing. She was put into a dance school and became a world famous dancer and the founder of a prestigious dance school. Now if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will think its whole life it is a failure. How many kids like her have been miss diagnosed just because they where not interested in school and passionate?
Another point about ADHA is that we are incredibly susceptible, I mean a hypnotist can make you think you are a chicken! And so what effect on the child, does telling them they have a disorder that causes them to be rowdy and they are forgiven because they cannot help it? what effect do you think that would have on a tender mind?
I would like to ask you for evidence suggesting that ADHD is something more than just a personality type, (exacerbated by self-fulfilment). Also don't be fooled by the extremities of 'sufferers' of this condition, people can be lead to believe and act in extreme ways if they are brought up in certain environment's. And a child who is already forward, told that he can be excused for it and that he is programmed to do it, from a very young age, will certainly have EXTREME effects on their personality. Funny how in the days where kids would be hit for being like people with ADHD are, begs the question; are children hard wired to push the boundaries? Also now we don't hit are kids and many are confused about how to discipline children, could this be in part responsible for this increase in essentially spoiled, boundary-free or inconsiderate children?
Also the diets of westerners are shown to have three effects on personality, and guess what? They are the three traits of ADHD, what a surprise. An increase in ADHD correlating with an increase in foods that result in the symptoms of ADHD. Also an increase in 'bad' behaviour correlated with a decrease in discipline, okay. And also an increase in ADHD (low attention in school) correlated with an increase in the stimulation common to all children when at home. (internet TV) So these are more sober, realistic explanations for in increase in so called ADHD than the actual explanation that there is some new gene that has come in and done this. Its dismissive, illogical, un supported by evidence, vague, short sighted and narrow minded. Drugs aren't the answer, better schools and more wholesome society is!
So do you believe its in the genes and its unchangeable and inevitable? do you think it is genetically programed and those with it have no choice? Predisposition is not the same as predetermination.
What is scientifically proven? That kids can be mischievous? Yes ino. But if you label getting jealous in a relationship as 'acute jellosic syndrome' does that mean that is exists? Technically, from a language point of view, yes. But it doesn't mean anything else. It doesn't mean its rooted in the genes, or actually IS something more that a personality.
Gene biology has come along way recently and I don't know how much you know about genes and biology, but lay people typically have an oversimplified understanding of them. For example Robert Sapolsky (genius, renowned, biological and behavioural psychologist) says 'to say a behaviour is genetic is shear nonsense' also that that argument between nature and nurture is ridiculas as both are false. It is not even the case that genes effect to a degree, and environment effects to a degree and the outcome is the sum. Enviroment completely effects behaviour, and biology learns how to survive in the setting its in, genes change to fit the settings and it is much much more complicated that this I cannot go into it here.
But no, treating it like an inevitable fluke that cannot be fixed but only reduced, is what is damaging. Trying to solve the social circumstances that facilitate this behaviour is a step towards understanding it. I don't want this to be personal, but its not fair on the sufferers of ADHD. For one the problem, however much a gene influences the behaviour, is facilitated and nurtured in the home. Now parents don't have to be bad, it could just be that discipline was low or they had certain role models, they where not suited to school (intelligent in other ways, not stupid) their personality is a complex mozake of of all factors, stimulated, concontrated and re-enforced by self fulfilment.
Again I ask you, what evidence is there and what is ADHD? Can you explain to me what, physically, ADHD is and what proof is their that it is not mearly a name given to people who exercise an extremely broad spectrum of behaviours?
To call ADHD genetic and predetermined is not only simply and scientifically proven to be fase, but it is damaging, ineffective at preventing it and makes the problem worse some of the time. Accepting that children who have trouble concentrating in school, behavioural problems, or are hyperactive-are either misunderstood and not being helped in the way they need, lashing out at some other conflict, or are just spoiled children who know no bounds. Therefore we can start looking at active, sensible ways to reduce these effects. To call it inevitable is dismissive and harmful
Jake996897 forfeited this round.
Jake996897 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||2|
Reasons for voting decision: Con put no effort in refuting pro's claims. He also forfeited a few rounds conduct and arguments to pro. Sources to con, because he at least used one.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.