The Instigator
Candid_atheism
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
AgnosticDeism
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Alcoholism is 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 3 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: 654 times Debate No: 72508
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

Candid_atheism

Pro

Definitions:
Alcohol - A substance that is subject to abuse.
Alcoholism: A chronic disease including uncontrolled drinking and preoccupation with alcohol.
SOURCE: 'Google definitions'

If you accept, The Con must prove that Alcoholism is a real disease!
AgnosticDeism

Con

The doctors theory that we are 'allergic' to alcohol interests us for it explained many things which we could not otherwise account. Alcoholism is a disease very much so, as it says in the definition of Alcoholism.
Debate Round No. 1
Candid_atheism

Pro

Alcoholism is not a real disease. But, addiction is. 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.

From a sober source:
"it is important to understand that the disease theory is just that - a theory. Additionally, it is important to understand that this theory is only accepted as fact by the rehab, rehabilitation, and treatment industry here in the United States. The rest of the world considers the disease theory for alcoholism pure bunk. In his book Why We Should Reject The Disease Concept of Alcoholism, Herbert Fingarette, Ph.D., makes the following observations: In the United States, but not in other countries such as Great Britain (Robertson and Heather, 1982), the standard answer is to call the behavior a disease - 'alcoholism' - whose key symptom is a pattern of uncontrollable drinking. This myth, now widely advertised and widely accepted, is neither helpfully compassionate nor scientifically valid. It promotes false beliefs and inappropriate attitudes, as well as harmful, wasteful, and ineffective social policies. The myth is embodied in the following four scientifically baseless propositions:
1) Heavy problem drinkers show a single distinctive pattern of ever greater alcohol use leading to ever greater bodily, mental, and social deterioration.
2) The condition once it appears, persists involuntarily: the craving is irresistible and the drinking is uncontrollable once it has begun.
3) Medical expertise is needed to understand and relieve the condition (cure the disease) or at least ameliorate its symptoms.
4) Alcoholics are no more responsible legally or morally for their drinking and its consequences than epileptics are responsible for the consequences of their movements during seizures.
The idea that alcoholism is a disease has always been a political and moral notion with no scientific basis. It was first promoted in the United States around 1800 as a speculation based on erroneous physiological theory (Levine, 1978), and later became a theme of the temperance movement (Gusfield, 1963). It was revived in the 1930s by the founders of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), who derived their views from an amalgam of religious ideas, personal experiences and observations, and the unsubstantiated theories of a contemporary physician (Robinson, 1979).1 Another observation is offered by Jeffery Schaler, Ph.D. in June of 1995: Extensive research supports the idea that addiction is a voluntary process, a behavior that is better explained by individual psychological and environmental factors, than physiology and the chemical properties of drugs.2 "
Source: http://www.soberforever.net...
AgnosticDeism

Con

Alcohol isn't addictive. If it was addictive most people around the world would be addicted.
Debate Round No. 2
Candid_atheism

Pro

Obviously this person is not educated on the subject and has failed trying to prove alcoholism is a disease over my claim that it is in fact an addiction to alcohol.
AgnosticDeism

Con

Most people In the world don't become addicted. Alcohol is not an addictive substance. People that regard themselves as alcoholics are people that have an abnormal reaction to alcohol that makes them want more. It doesn't make them addicted it makes them allergic.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Kozu 2 years ago
Kozu
Yep, their both the same person.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
@candid, are you pro or con on drunk driving?
Posted by StalinIncarnate 2 years ago
StalinIncarnate
Post everyone thinks that it's a disease. My mother is a potatoe. I'll take con.
Posted by Kozu 2 years ago
Kozu
Feels like this is the same guy who plagiarized in my debate

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Varrack 2 years ago
Varrack
"Con must prove that Alcohol is not an addictive substance."

Congrats. You figured out how to get no one to accept your debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by GEEZUS 2 years ago
GEEZUS
Candid_atheismAgnosticDeismTied
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: Pro had a better argument!
Vote Placed by WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW 2 years ago
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
Candid_atheismAgnosticDeismTied
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 really disn't have a rebuttal.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Candid_atheismAgnosticDeismTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not refute Pro.