The Instigator
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
SirDave
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Bryan Mullins: Disability isn't even a real thing as shown in The Roast Game Skeptic's video

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 1/18/2018 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,181 times Debate No: 106849
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (123)
Votes (0)

 

BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

Pro

Watch this video, then let's debate

Link: https://m.youtube.com...

It is very interesting.
SirDave

Con

Throughout the video, he does nothing but asserts that disability is not even a real thing, without actually proving that.

Disabled is defined as
(of a person) having a physical or mental condition that limits movements, senses, or activities.

I'd like to hear an argument as to how disability isn't a real thing.
Debate Round No. 1
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

Pro

If you were really "disabled" of life, you would be dead. Not still able to live, the opposite of living is death.

Let me define to you what as skeptic is.

Skeptic:
"a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual" [1]

I am skeptical, therefore I am only questioning the validity of "disability." I am disproving disability by being skeptical and using my skepticism to debunk "disability." You don't understand skepticism and skeptics in general. Skeptics use their skepticism to debunk other things like Christianity, Flat Earth, and Feminists. I am just the same as these other people, but in this case, I am debunking "disability."

Here is my main argument, If you are able to do anything without the help of others, you are not disabled. If you are choosing to be in a wheelchair, but not having the chance to get out, you're still not disabled, you're just refusing to get out of the wheelchair. If the word "disability" has no legitimate meaning, it is illegitimate and it has been debunked.

Your argument is just a definition of "disability," but just because it is easily definable in a dictionary, does not make it a fact. It is just a term, not necessarily purporting itself as fact.

I want to hear your defense argument, so I will debunk it.

Sources:
[1] http://www.dictionary.com...
SirDave

Con

No one is claiming to be "disabled of life." Way to take something out of context.
Skeptic:
"a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual"

I am a skeptic, I am skeptical of religion, flat earth, and supernatural claims. Skepticism is the position of doubt or disbelief of an argument or position. Skepticism can not in and of itself disprove anything. You can question it all you want, but you must actually demonstrate it to be true or in this case false, which has not been done.

"Here is my main argument, If you are able to do anything without the help of others, you are not disabled. If you are choosing to be in a wheelchair, but not having the chance to get out, you're still not disabled, you're just refusing to get out of the wheelchair. If the word "disability" has no legitimate meaning, it is illegitimate and it has been debunked."

Disability as we have already defined limits movements, senses or activities. So if someone like Stephen Hawking, who has ALS, is not able to walk, does he have a disability? Yes. He is confined to a wheelchair and is not able to move around like he would normally be able to. If someone is deaf, is one of their senses impaired? Yes.

If you are going to say that the word disability has no meaning, therefore disability is not a thing, then you need to show that it has no meaning. Just because you feel like it doesn't mean anything, doesn't make it so.

https://www.ninds.nih.gov...

http://www.scientificamerican.com...
Debate Round No. 2
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

Pro

You sound like you are not getting the point you're trying to get across yourself.

Here are my first rebuttals.
1. "Disability as we have already defined limits movements, senses or activities. So if someone like Stephen Hawking, who has ALS, is not able to walk, does he have a disability? Yes. He is confined to a wheelchair and is not able to move around like he would normally be able to. If someone is deaf, is one of their senses impaired? Yes.

If you are going to say that the word disability has no meaning, therefore disability is not a thing, then you need to show that it has no meaning. Just because you feel like it doesn't mean anything, doesn't make it so." You are only asserting that he does, that doesn't prove your point, it only means that you asserted without legitimate proof. ALS is a disease, not a disability. Let me quote from one of the sources you provided. "Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a group of rare neurological diseases that mainly involve the nerve cells (neurons) responsible for controlling voluntary muscle movement. Voluntary muscles produce movements like chewing, walking, and talking. The disease is progressive, meaning the symptoms get worse over time. Currently, there is no cure for ALS and no effective treatment to halt, or reverse, the progression of the disease.

ALS belongs to a wider group of disorders known as motor neuron diseases, which are caused by gradual deterioration (degeneration) and death of motor neurons. Motor neurons are nerve cells that extend from the brain to the spinal cord and to muscles throughout the body. These motor neurons initiate and provide vital communication links between the brain and the voluntary muscles.

Messages from motor neurons in the brain (called upper motor neurons) are transmitted to motor neurons in the spinal cord and to motor nuclei of brain (called lower motor neurons) and from the spinal cord and motor nuclei of brain to a particular muscle or muscles.

In ALS, both the upper motor neurons and the lower motor neurons degenerate or die, and stop sending messages to the muscles. Unable to function, the muscles gradually weaken, start to twitch (called fasciculations), and waste away (atrophy). Eventually, the brain loses its ability to initiate and control voluntary movements.

Early symptoms of ALS usually include muscle weakness or stiffness. Gradually all muscles under voluntary control are affected, and individuals lose their strength and the ability to speak, eat, move, and even breathe.

Most people with ALS die from respiratory failure, usually within 3 to 5 years from when the symptoms first appear. However, about 10 percent of people with ALS survive for 10 or more years." [1] It is only saying that it's a disease that can't be cured. That doesn't make it a disability just because it attacks muscle cells and lose their ability to speak, move, or eat.

2. "I am a skeptic, I am skeptical of religion, flat earth, and supernatural claims. Skepticism is the position of doubt or disbelief of an argument or position. Skepticism can not in and of itself disprove anything. You can question it all you want, but you must actually demonstrate it to be true or in this case false, which has not been done." Yes, it has been done. I made sure that my argument made sense, in order to verify it to be true. So, you are a flat earthed and a believer in aliens. No one can trust a person like you, because most people don't believe in a flat earth, they believe in a round earth (oblate spheroid). No one wants to believe in someone that does not exist. No one wants to believe in supernatural things in this world. Therefore, you are not a skeptic.

3. "No one is claiming to be "disabled of life." Okay, so what is your point of arguing otherwise, instead of defending this point. It is not out of context if it makes sense or if it is clear within the context debunking that word.

Sources used:
[1] https://www.ninds.nih.gov...

Your next round, if you please.
SirDave

Con

"You are only asserting that he does, that doesn't prove your point, it only means that you asserted without legitimate proof. ALS is a disease, not a disability."

ALS is a disease, disability is an effect. Things cause disabilities, not being able to walk is a disability as defined by the word that is used.

"It is only saying that it's a disease that can't be cured. That doesn't make it a disability just because it attacks muscle cells and loses their ability to speak, move, or eat."

Yes, it's almost like the disease limits movement and activities, fits the definition of a disability.

"Yes, it has been done. I made sure that my argument made sense, in order to verify it to be true."

Has it?

"I am disproving disability by being skeptical and using my skepticism to debunk "disability." You don't understand skepticism and skeptics in general."

As I explained, skepticism doesn't disprove (falsify) anything, it's questioning the validity, authenticity. If I doubt the claim that the supernatural exists, does it automatically disprove the supernatural?

"Here is my main argument, If you are able to do anything without the help of others, you are not disabled. If you are choosing to be in a wheelchair, but not having the chance to get out, you're still not disabled, you're just refusing to get out of the wheelchair."

The keyword is choosing. If you are choosing to be in a wheelchair, I don't think you are disabled. Keeping with my example, people with ALS who survive don't choose to be in a wheelchair, they don't have a choice.

It sounds like you are asserting that disability is not a thing because those who claim to have them are not necessarily disabled, that doesn't make disability not a thing. This seems a lot like cherry-picking to serve your argument.

"So, you are a flat earthed and a believer in aliens. No one can trust a person like you, because most people don't believe in a flat earth, they believe in a round earth (oblate spheroid)"

I'm not sure if this is an example or you are calling me a flat-earther. If you are calling me a flat-earther, you're mistaken, cause I said I'm skeptical of that claim. If this is an example, no one believes flat-earthers that is because there's already evidence to the contrary.

"No one wants to believe in someone that does not exist. No one wants to believe in supernatural things in this world. Therefore, you are not a skeptic."

Yet a lot of people do believe in something that doesn't exist. Actually, it's better to say that a lot of people believe in things that has not been demonstrated to exist. Many people believe in god, the supernatural, aliens, and a flat earth, these claims have not been demonstrated to exist, therefore I'm skeptical of these claims, I do not accept these claims.

"Okay, so what is your point of arguing otherwise, instead of defending this point. It is not out of context if it makes sense or if it is clear within the context debunking that word."

You're making the claim that disabilities don't exist. However, you narrow disability to mean you have to be essentially dead. Yet that is not what the word means. We don't use the word in a context in relation to living, we use the word in context in relation to what you're disabled of. With ALS the disability is that they physically cannot walk. It limits movement that they otherwise should have.
Debate Round No. 3
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

Pro

Here are my final rebuttals.

1." ALS is a disease, disability is an effect. Things cause disabilities, not being able to walk is a disability as defined by the word that is used." OK, you said that ALS is a disease, but just because I attacked your argument, doesn't make it approval for you. You committed a logical fallacy of instant approval because someone like me attacks your argument. Does stubbing your toe cause an effect. The only effect of a disease is pain, not disability. You still do not prove that disability is a thing, you won't be able to if you keep asserting this way.

2. "Yes, it's almost like the disease limits movement and activities, fits the definition of a disability." No, it only defines pain, not disability. You only keep asserting that, which still doesn't prove anything. Let me define pain for you.

Pain:
"physical suffering or distress, as due to injury, illness, etc." [3]

Just because you are hurting or sick, doesn't necessarily make you disabled. Another assertion you made.

3. "Yes, it has been done. I made sure that my argument made sense, in order to verify it to be true."

Has it?" Yes, of course. It isn't unsound is it?

4. "As I explained, skepticism doesn't disprove (falsify) anything, it's questioning the validity, authenticity. If I doubt the claim that the supernatural exists, does it automatically disprove the supernatural?" I didn't say that they did, I only said Skeptics used skepticism as a tactic to debunk things purporting to be "facts" or "true" though it is more than just using skepticism to debunk things like I stated earlier. You are clearly not a skeptic, SirDave.

5. "The keyword is choosing. If you are choosing to be in a wheelchair, I don't think you are disabled. Keeping with my example, people with ALS who survive don't choose to be in a wheelchair, they don't have a choice." Yes they do have a choice, as I said before, they refuse. Refusing to get out of a wheelchair does not mean they have no choice. I'm not just picking out keywords to give me points, I'm just arguing your point. Again, you committed another logical fallacy (the same one) again. Just because someone attacks your argument, doesn't make it approval for you. It's not that I don't think they're not "disabled" it's that they're not disabled. That is an irrelevant argument to make.

6. "It sounds like you are asserting that disability is not a thing because those who claim to have them are not necessarily disabled, that doesn't make disability not a thing. This seems a lot like cherry-picking to serve your argument." I'm not asserting, I am arguing your point. This is the most irrelevant argument you ever made in this debate. Arguing my point is not the same as just asserting my point. If I was asserting my point I would just clearly say this. "Disability isn't a thing and you know it" or "It is not a thing. Stop arguing a fact." I am clearly not asserting, just another irrelevant argument you have made.

7. "I'm not sure if this is an example or you are calling me a flat-earther. If you are calling me a flat-earther, you're mistaken, cause I said I'm skeptical of that claim. If this is an example, no one believes flat-earthers that is because there's already evidence to the contrary. Yet a lot of people do believe in something that doesn't exist. Actually, it's better to say that a lot of people believe in things that has not been demonstrated to exist. Many people believe in god, the supernatural, aliens, and a flat earth, these claims have not been demonstrated to exist, therefore I'm skeptical of these claims, I do not accept these claims." Yes, you accepted yourself to believe these things. Here, let me quote you. "I am a skeptic, I am skeptical of religion, flat earth, and supernatural claims. Skepticism is the position of doubt or disbelief of an argument or position. Skepticism can not in and of itself disprove anything. You can question it all you want, but you must actually demonstrate it to be true or in this case false, which has not been done." You are clearly a believer in all these things you stated, though you deny it. Being skeptical doesn't always mean, you disagree or disbelieve in anything, another assertion you made, in this quote you meant that you believed in these things because you said you are a skeptic of religion, flat earth, and supernatural beings. Then word "Skeptic" and "Skepticism" are camouflage words. They don't always mean the same all the time.

8. "You're making the claim that disabilities don't exist. However, you narrow disability to mean you have to be essentially dead. Yet that is not what the word means. We don't use the word in a context in relation to living, we use the word in context in relation to what you're disabled of. With ALS the disability is that they physically cannot walk. It limits movement that they otherwise should have." If we don't use the word in a context in relation to living, it has no meaning. The last part of the quote made no sense. Again, it is only pain, not disability. I already defined what "pain" is, and again, ALS is not a disability, it is a disease or a series of diseases. Again, let me quote from one of the sources you provided earlier. "Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a group of rare neurological diseases that mainly involve the nerve cells (neurons) responsible for controlling voluntary muscle movement. Voluntary muscles produce movements like chewing, walking, and talking. The disease is progressive, meaning the symptoms get worse over time. Currently, there is no cure for ALS and no effective treatment to halt, or reverse, the progression of the disease.

ALS belongs to a wider group of disorders known as motor neuron diseases, which are caused by gradual deterioration (degeneration) and death of motor neurons. Motor neurons are nerve cells that extend from the brain to the spinal cord and to muscles throughout the body. These motor neurons initiate and provide vital communication links between the brain and the voluntary muscles.

Messages from motor neurons in the brain (called upper motor neurons) are transmitted to motor neurons in the spinal cord and to motor nuclei of brain (called lower motor neurons) and from the spinal cord and motor nuclei of brain to a particular muscle or muscles.

In ALS, both the upper motor neurons and the lower motor neurons degenerate or die, and stop sending messages to the muscles. Unable to function, the muscles gradually weaken, start to twitch (called fasciculations), and waste away (atrophy). Eventually, the brain loses its ability to initiate and control voluntary movements.

Early symptoms of ALS usually include muscle weakness or stiffness. Gradually all muscles under voluntary control are affected, and individuals lose their strength and the ability to speak, eat, move, and even breathe.

Most people with ALS die from respiratory failure, usually within 3 to 5 years from when the symptoms first appear. However, about 10 percent of people with ALS survive for 10 or more years." [4]

My conclusion is that the con only asserted that disability is a thing, failed to prove it, and made two irrelevant arguments, and does not know or clarify what Skepticism is.

Here are all the sources used in my arguments.

[1] http://www.dictionary.com...
[2] https://www.ninds.nih.gov...
[3] https://m.youtube.com...
[4] https://www.ninds.nih.gov... (Reinstated source)

Since I have the most convincing arguments, provided more sources than con, con asserted, I destroyed every argument con has made, provided a video that was part of the topic, and made long but accurate rebuttals, Vote Pro!
SirDave

Con

OK, you said that ALS is a disease, but just because I attacked your argument, doesn't make it approval for you. You committed a logical fallacy of instant approval because someone like me attacks your argument."

No, that's not what I am doing. I explained to you the difference between disability and disease, a disease can be the cause of a disability, among other things. I also have never heard of this fallacy before, have searched it, and could not find anything on it. I'd like a link for that please.

" Does stubbing your toe cause an effect."

yes

"The only effect of a disease is pain, not disability"

When a disease renders you paralyzed and unable to walk, I'd have to disagree.

"No, it only defines pain, not disability. You only keep asserting that, which still doesn't prove anything. Let me define pain for you.
Pain:
"physical suffering or distress, as due to injury, illness, etc.""

I agree with you that pain is not disability, yet a disease like ALS causes your voluntary muscles to literally not work, they could be experiencing pain as well, but that doesn't negate the fact that the muscles cease to function.

"Just because you are hurting or sick, doesn't necessarily make you disabled. Another assertion you made."

I've never actually had said that. I said that if you are limited in your movement, senses, and activities, then you are disabled. I used to have cancer, and I never used to consider myself disabled. It had never limited me in any way shape or form, I was able to do what I wanted to do.

"3. "Yes, it has been done. I made sure that my argument made sense, in order to verify it to be true."

Has it?" Yes, of course. It isn't unsound is it?"

There are two parts two an argument, validity, and soundness. Your argument is valid, however, I object to the premise of your argument.

"I didn't say that they did, I only said Skeptics used skepticism as a tactic to debunk things purporting to be "facts" or "true" though it is more than just using skepticism to debunk things like I stated earlier. You are clearly not a skeptic, SirDave."

"I am disproving disability by being skeptical and using my skepticism to debunk "disability."

Skepticism isn't used to debunk anything. Skepticism is what starts the process of debunking. If you are a skeptic of flat earth, you don't accept the claim, because you are skeptical you find a way to falsify it.

"though it is more than just using skepticism to debunk things like I stated earlier"

I hadn't seen you say that.

"If the word "disability" has no legitimate meaning, it is illegitimate and it has been debunked."

That must be what your more than skepticism, a conclusion from an argument, that says " If you are able to do anything without the help of others, you are not disabled."

Well, Hawking can move his eye, so he must not be disabled according to you, he can't walk or talk, but he can move his eye, and that fits "anything.

"Yes they do have a choice, as I said before, they refuse. I'm not just picking out keywords to give me points, I'm just arguing your point. Again, you committed another logical fallacy (the same one) again. Just because someone attacks your argument, doesn't make it approval for you. It's not that I don't think they're not "disabled" it's that they're not disabled. That is an irrelevant argument to make"

They literally can't without the help of others, at least he can move his eye. The reason I addressed this is your argument is based on the ability to choose, you assume they have the ability to choose. It's confined to a wheelchair, or a bed, or a regular. They do have a choice, so I guess they're not disabled. (Sarcasm)

"Arguing my point is not the same as just asserting my point. If I was asserting my point I would just clearly say this. "Disability isn't a thing and you know it" or "It is not a thing. Stop arguing a fact." I am clearly not asserting, just another irrelevant argument you have made."

Assertions are arguments made without demonstrable evidence, I have yet to see a demonstration of someone like Hawking being able to choose to get out of a wheelchair unless you count the ones specified above. It's still an assertion.

"You can question it all you want, but you must actually demonstrate it to be true or in this case false, which has not been done." You are clearly a believer in all these things you stated, though you deny it. Being skeptical doesn't always mean, you disagree or disbelieve in anything, another assertion you made, in this quote you meant that you believed in these things because you said you are a skeptic of religion, flat earth, and supernatural beings. Then word "Skeptic" and "Skepticism" are camouflage words. They don't always mean the same all the time."

So when I said, "You can question it all you want, but you must actually demonstrate it to be true or in this case false, which has not been done." That was directly to you, not to the claims of religion or flat earth etc.

"Being skeptical doesn't always mean, you disagree or disbelieve in anything another assertion you made,"

Actually, you said that
"Skeptic:
"a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual"

"Again, it is only pain, not disability"

This is funny to me you quote the article, but it only seems like you read the first paragraph, otherwise you would have seen this:

"and individuals lose their strength and the ability to speak, eat, move, and even breathe."

That is literally the definition of how we define disability.

" does not know or clarify what Skepticism is."

I didn't because you defined skeptic.

In conclusion, disability is real in relativity to how we define it. If disability was not a real thing, individuals who are paralyzed from the waist down would only be choosing to be in a wheelchair, despite having evidence that they cannot physically move there legs. My opponents argument is based on that if we can do anything, we are not disabled, and that anything we classify as a disability is only pain despite the evidence. Individuals with deafness must be choosing not to hear. Individuals with blindness must be choosing not to see. The argument is based on one type of disability without addressing what the word actually means and how we use it.

https://www.ninds.nih.gov...

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

I'm not going tell you who to vote for, it's up to you to decide whose arguments were more valid and sound.
Debate Round No. 4
123 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by frankfurter50 5 months ago
frankfurter50
But they can't walk. Their legs don't work. Their legs cannot move.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 5 months ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
They stand up and walk.
Posted by frankfurter50 5 months ago
frankfurter50
How do crippled people use their legs?
Posted by frankfurter50 5 months ago
frankfurter50
Perhaps, but at least I don't tell lies and expect people to believe them.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 5 months ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
@frankfurter50 you act like THE kindergartener.
Posted by frankfurter50 5 months ago
frankfurter50
If you don't have an apple, you can't eat an apple. If you don't have any legs, you can't use your legs. This is kindergarten level thinking, Bryan. You can't use something you don't have. Tell me how it would be possible to use something you don't have.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 5 months ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
Stop arguing you retard.
Posted by SirDave 5 months ago
SirDave
@BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
No, I'm playing the rational human being that understands debates, the burden of proof, and how logical arguments work.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 5 months ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
@SirDave You're just playing politically correct. Stop it.
Posted by SirDave 5 months ago
SirDave
Lol. If you're going to be irrational then you need to relearn what debates are about. If you can't accept a logical argument, then you are by definition irrational. There is no fallacious reasoning and yet you still basically say "you're wrong, I'm right, I can't provide any evidence outside of me saying its true, but it's true."

If you want to have a debate then you need to be able to accept another person's position, I can't accept yours because it hasn't been demonstrated, yet I demonstrate mine and you still refuse. Why even debate then?
No votes have been placed for this debate.