The Instigator
Candid_atheism
Pro (for)
Winning
42 Points
The Contender
sputnick1
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Alcoholism is actually not a disease!

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 7 votes the winner is...
Candid_atheism
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/28/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,126 times Debate No: 72512
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (7)

 

Candid_atheism

Pro

Definitions:
Alcoholism: A chronic disease including uncontrolled drinking and preoccupation with alcohol!
Alcohol: A substance subject to abuse.
Source: 'Google Definitions'

Con your job is to prove the contrary, that Alcoholism is a disease induced by Alcohol abuse.
sputnick1

Con

To put in simple terms, Alcoholism is the compulsive addiction to alcohol. Addiction is a form of Chronic Disease.
Therefore Alcohol is a disease.

Sources: [copy and paste if links don't work]
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Candid_atheism

Pro

No, you will debate using the definition I provide not your own. This debate is mean't to be debated against the widely accepted Alcoholism, separate from addiction. The "allergy".

Argument 1

Again, Alcoholism is not real. But, you can have an addiction to alcohol. At the time when AA was started back in the 30's it contained a doctor's OPINION. Fast forward to 1953 and NA was formed. More research had been done into the topic of addictive substances and so on. What separates NA from AA as a whole is that NA recognizes alcohol as a drug and an addictive substance that can cause addiction and dependence not a disease of its own. If there was a person with a 25-I NBOMe addiction, they would not be recognized in today's society as a 25-I NBOMeoholic nor will they be diagnosed with the disease of 25-I NBOMe-lism. If someone actually said that though, first we would think they are crazy and that they are trying to seem unique. It is important to keep in mind as a person that the disease theory is in fact just a theory.
sputnick1

Con

Aren't you trying to disprove that definition though. If you deem that definition inadequate it shouldn't be the established definition of the debate. Anyway, it shouldn't matter because I have already provided evidence verifying that definition so I have already won the debate. By the way NA does recognize Alcoholism as a disease. I know this because:

1. You said they think it causes addiction and addiction is a chronic disease.
2. They say it is a disease

Sources:
http://www.na.org... [ at the bottom of the quiz]
http://en.wikipedia.org... [NA program; the nature of addiction]
Debate Round No. 2
Candid_atheism

Pro

Con made three fatal mistakes in his/her opening statement. They did not go by the definition I provided from Google. Second, they committed a fallacy, Petitio Principii to be exact by saying, "Alcoholism is the compulsive addiction to alcohol. Addiction is a form of Chronic Disease. Therefore Alcohol is a disease." He had no evidence to prove this. Also he referred to Alcohol as a disease. Not Alcoholism like he's trying make an argument with. And I can definitely prove alcohol is not a disease.
The definition of Alcohol:
Alcohol is an intoxicating ingredient found in beer, wine, and liquor.

Source: http://www.drugabuse.gov...

I should win by default.
Vote Pro, thank you!
sputnick1

Con

1[ definition thing]-.Do you not understand anything, we were debating that definition and I provided evidence that verified it was true. I never disregarded it. If someone defines cat as an animal and their contender says a cat is a 4 legged animal, the contender isn't "not going" with the supplied definition.
2.[lack of evidence/ fallacy] Yes I do have evidence look at my sources! They are there for a reason. In a true Petito Principii the evidence is the past argument in the "circle of reason" whereas in my argument I sited other sources.
3.[typo]- I admit that this was a mistake on my part, but you can clearly see that was a typo and I meant alcoholism. Just goes to show how desperate this guy is for a win.
4. Your entire second argument was a straw man argument and had no evidence
5. I cannot put the allergy-addiction thing into sense but both allergies and addictions are considered diseases.If you are referring to Alcohol intolerance you are misguiding me because Alcohol intolerance and Alcoholism are 2 distinct conditions and Alcohol intolerance is not an allergy. I did not understand what you were saying and just assumed you were talking about the definition you already had.
6. He had no acceptable rebuttal of my argument and I had sufficient evidence to take care of the burden of proof.

conclusion: The only half decent point he made was the typo thing which I have already clarified. he has no evidence to support his claim that the Google definition was invalid and I had evidence that it was valid so, I win.
VOTE CON!!!!!!

Sources:
https://www.google.ca... [allergy is disease]
http://www.mayoclinic.org... [ alcohol intolerance is not an allergy]
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Candid_atheism 2 years ago
Candid_atheism
Hey sputnick1, you and I should debate more often. :)
Posted by Candid_atheism 2 years ago
Candid_atheism
Oh you win? Hmmm, I don't see where it says that.
Posted by sputnick1 2 years ago
sputnick1
I proved an allergy is a disease. I WIN!!!!!!!.
Posted by Candid_atheism 2 years ago
Candid_atheism
Again, he didn't even use the terminology I defined. It was to imply an allergy not an addiction. He should never joined. Then he said alcohol is a disease. That should account for automatic disqualification.
Posted by sputnick1 2 years ago
sputnick1
Thank you.
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
=================================================================
>Reported vote: qwzx // Moderation action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (arguments, sources). {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: Read my quote}

[*Reason for Removal*] The quote on this user"s profile says, "I have no idea what I"m doing." Basically, this user has no idea how to vote and is admitting it.
==================================================================
Posted by sputnick1 2 years ago
sputnick1
He said something about an allergy. I did not understand what he was trying to say but I said and cited evidence that an allergy was a disease for assurance.
Posted by sputnick1 2 years ago
sputnick1
He said something about an allergy. I did not understand what he was trying to say but I said and cited evidence that an allergy was a disease for assurance.
Posted by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
Allergy was used as an example of what alcoholism is right? Perhaps, I am wrong. nevertheless....

you are still arguing that Alcoholism is NOT a disease, however you are adamant that your Round One definition is to be used in this debate. That very definition that states Alcoholism is a "chronic disease"
Posted by Candid_atheism 2 years ago
Candid_atheism
But the thing is Domr. Alcohol has not been proven to cause an Allergy ;) So therefore this can't be a disease.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Sputnick1hadmelike 2 years ago
Sputnick1hadmelike
Candid_atheismsputnick1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Reason I'm voting Pro is because Con made mistakes. Pro had a more convincing argument. I agreed with him before and after.
Vote Placed by Take_that_Sputnick1 2 years ago
Take_that_Sputnick1
Candid_atheismsputnick1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made those 3 errors so his whole argument fell apart.
Vote Placed by Combatofawombat 2 years ago
Combatofawombat
Candid_atheismsputnick1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not follow what Pro was originally saying. He also said Alcohol is the disease, not alcoholism.
Vote Placed by GEEZUS 2 years ago
GEEZUS
Candid_atheismsputnick1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not follow the original definition. He also comitted the Petitio Principii fallacy without any evidence. He also said Alcohol is the disease.
Vote Placed by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
Candid_atheismsputnick1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro immediately defined Alcoholism as a disease.
Vote Placed by WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW 2 years ago
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
Candid_atheismsputnick1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con said "Alcohol" is a disease and didn't even use the original definition Pro stated.
Vote Placed by AgnosticDeism 2 years ago
AgnosticDeism
Candid_atheismsputnick1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not follow the original definition and said Alcohol is a disease not Alcoholism.