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

Is self harm ok

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/18/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 973 times Debate No: 68530
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)




I dont think self harm is good because you might end up hurting yourself realy bad that you need to got to the hospital. Or you might kill yourself in the process


Let's d-d-d-d-d-duel! Since my opponent made a very brief opening, I shall do the same for the sake of fairness.

=========My Case========

Firstly, self-harming can be a net positive force in someone's life. It can act as a coping mechanism, that, in turn, helps the person psychologically. Many people, who have self-harmed, can vouch that self-harming makes them feel good. It distracts them from the psychological pain that they already suffer. It makes them feel good, and who are we to take that away from them? Let them channel their pain into something that is overall beneficial to their psyche.

Additionally, it should be one's choice to have the right to do what they want with their own body. If, hypothetically, someone took away a knife that I CHOSE to SELF-harm MYSELF, that would anger me. That is clearly a violation of human rights. Self-harming has the word 'self' in it for a reason. "The definition of self is the following: a person's essential being that distinguishes them from others, especially considered as the object of introspection or reflexive action." [1]. This would mean that self-harm would not harm others. Since there is no infringement on the rights of others, it should be their choice to harm themselves. To tell someone that such a thing is wrong is violating their freedom.

Furthermore, self-harming can achieve happiness that one would otherwise not be able to obtain without self-harming [2]. It is both immoral as well as against what the Declaration of Independence. As the DoI so eloquently states, we have the right to: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." [3]. <---- If self-harming is not okay, then we are not allowing the self-harming people to pursue their happiness, which is not only contradicting the declaration of one of the most prominent countries in the world, but is also wrong on many moral levels.

========To summarize my contentions: ========

I. It is overall beneficial to psychologically disturbed individuals. By my opponents introduction, they are, for some reason, against psychologically disturbed people committing an act that helps them live without feeling bitter. It is a helpful way to feel better. Taking that away from them is very wrong.

II. It is a *HUGE* violation human rights to not allow them to engage in victimless self-harming where it bears no effect on others. My opponent is against people being able to make their own decisions.

III. We, as people, have the right to pursue happiness, and self-harming, in some cases, leads to happiness. My opponent is unfortunately against that.

========Rebutting my Opponent's Case========

My opponent's sole argument revolves around the fact that the individual could hurt or kill themselves. However, this argument is largely refuted above. It is their choice, so why prevent a victimless crime? Also, they will likely die happy. Con, why are you so against happiness? It is clearly better to die happy than live miserably.

Second, even in the case that my opponent is right (I'm talking hypothetically) then them harming themselves and getting very hurt, then getting to the hospital would likely lead them to a psychologist after healing. This is a very positive thing, as they would then learn other coping strategies with their psychologist.

I thank Con for the debate. If he wishes for me to go more into depth in the next round, I will be happy to do so. However, this is the summary of my thoughts on the issue.

I would like to note I am playing Devil's advocate for fun, but that doesn't make my arguments any less viable.


[3]: (near the beginning of the second paragraph).
Debate Round No. 1


I understand that people may like it but it is very dangerous and it does not do anyone anygoood.

Ps i dont care if I loose i only like to put my oinon out there


My post this round will be VERY short for obvious reasons.

The fact that you don't care about losing or winning is highly respectable, as a side note.

My opponents doesn't really properly refute any of my arguments... however I will refute what little Con has written this second round for the sake of the concept of debating.

======My Final Refutations=====

My opponent states that it is very dangerous and it does not do anyone any good. However, I have made very descriptive contentions on why it DOES do some good. It does many positive things such as:

Release psychological distress.

Gives them the right of engaging in a victimless crime of their own free will, where nobody is harmed.

It makes the self-harmed person happy as proven by one of my sources. We all have the right to pursue happiness.

Also, the dangers from it could lead to a hospital visit, which can further turn into a therapy visit where they get the psychological help that they need.

Lastly, my opponent concedes the fact that it makes some people happy, and any other arguments brought up were dropped by Con.

Thanks for the debate, Con.

And, with that, this debate is over.
Debate Round No. 2
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by lexie9675 2 years ago
Self harm is dangerous. Harming yourself or ot respecting yourself can lead not only to massive injuries but can lead to harming others. It can be under the topic of depression which is a disease. No matters what age you are, it's not acceptable by anyone.
Posted by RealCS 2 years ago
Unfortunately the reason why the instigator is losing is because his argument is too personally biased, and it is also too short, compared to the challengers well written argument.
Posted by laughy 2 years ago
is not OK ! yes it's the way an individual cope but it's just a physical expression of distress this doesn't make it okay. An individual that self harm needs help. Self harming is OK for psychologist to know if a person have got problems yet it's not OK for the person, it reinforces your idea that you are not worth it, I had a friend that self harm and she her thoughts was that she wasn't good enough.
A person that self harm is person that its psychologically vulnerable. Also if an individual starts self harm, it's difficult for her or him to stop the just self harming can become the end of his or hers life I don't understand what it's OK about it, he makes you hate your body its a way of saying that you need punishment.
Posted by Asburnu 2 years ago
Consenting adults, who are completely autonomous, providing for themselves independently, should be allowed to abuse themselves in any way they imagine, so long as they are fully responsible for their own actions and CANNOT rely on anyone else to come to their rescue. THAT'S WHAT BEING AN ADULT IS, CHILD. So, hurt thyself as much as you like. Pay the medical bill or wait for the government to wipe your butt for you at taxpayer expense.
Yes, self harm is fine, so long as the Emo martyr takes responsibility for their selfishness and doesn't rely on others to to take over their medical bills.

"I wish my lawn were Emo, so it would cut itself." - Dated trendiness. Sigh, for Black is such a tired old theme.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: A lot of concession.
Vote Placed by gannon260 2 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: It seemed like con was only debating so he could vote later on. Pro tried to have a logical debate while con just stated that he wanted to get his ideas out there. It was such a "hard" decision, but in the end, i vote pro