The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
failedALIAS
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

It's time to bring back open days at lunatic asylums

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
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...
brian_eggleston
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/2/2012 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,182 times Debate No: 23333
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

What families really need in these dark days of economic austerity is something to cheer them up. Obviously, there are lots of sources of entertainment: theatres; zoos; sporting events; circuses; amusement parks and so on, but they all cost money – and that's often in very short supply at the moment.

However, the government is in a position to provide free entertainment to the public at no cost to the taxpayer. How? Well, in the 19th Century lunatic asylums, such as Bedlam in London, opened their doors to the public. According to one BBC report "People used to visit Bedlam to see the lunatics - there were 96,000 visits in 1814. Entry was free on the first Tuesday of the month. Visitors were permitted to bring sticks to poke and enrage inmates." (1)

What great fun that must have been, and there's no reason why mental institutions couldn't open their doors to the public again.

Imagine what a lovely time the kids would have down at the loony bin taunting the nutters with sticks – I bet some of those mental cases would be much funnier than any clown - and all that fun and frivolity would be for free!

So why not? It costs a lot of money to house and feed mental patients and it's time the taxpayers got something back – it's time to bring back open days at lunatic asylums.

Thank you.

(1) http://news.bbc.co.uk...
failedALIAS

Con

Well, given the fact that those practices were some of the most publicly humiliating and sickening events since Ancient Rome, when citizens would gather to witness (with much excitement, I might add) the poor be ripped to shreds. Only with this it's towards the mentally ill to whom treatment has been promised.
Besides the basis of morality that I have so far pressed, let's examine the stupendous amount of logical fallacies that your argument brings to the table. (Mmm, food.)
1. MISUSING A MEDICAL CENTER FOR CHEAP ENTERTAINMENT:
Why does it appeal to you, to turn a Mental Care Facility into a Human Petting Zoo? This is on the same level as traveling to a Nursing Home with a group of psychopaths; beating the sh*t out of defenseless seniors, then drinking Chocolate milk on your victims bruised bodies while peeling off their liver-spots with a can opener! (I said no more moral arguments, but Come On!)
2. WHAT ABOUT THE FAMILIES:
This is a thought that might not have occurred to you, but there might very well be people who love the poor souls you're torturing. So if people are paying to have their dearest helped, and (hopefully) live his/her life to the fullest- where exactly do you see a poking-stick anywhere in this equation? Sick person + Good Treatment = Um, life?
3. WHAT A WASTE:
I know you may see it as "A darn shame" that we don't take advantage of the fact that there are millions of worthless punching-bags across this country, and how it should be made legal for anybody to violently harass someone who doesn't even know what's going on, for sick thrill. (America!) But on the other hand, doesn't it seem a waste to torment someone who could be a wonderful addition to society? Also, you may even go the extra mile and develop a new mental disorder in your name!
4. KINDA AGAINST THE WHOLE IDEA OF "TREATMENT":
If trying to treat a schizophrenic to overcome their fears and mistrust, would you: A.) Talk to them on a daily basis to try to get to the source of the problem; assigning them pills to lessen stress. B.) Try stretching and exercise routines to loosen them up every week, prior to your nature walk together of course. C.) Throw rocks at them whilst screaming profanities. :D
5. WTF!?
No seriously, that's it.
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

I would like to thank failedALIEN for accepting this debate and for posting such an eloquent response.

Firstly, on the subject of morality, I think it is important to remember that this is merely a competition and the views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the actual views held by the contenders. With this in mind, I would urge you not to judge my opponent too harshly for his apparent callous desire to deprive financially-disadvantaged little kiddies of what could be their only regular treat in life: a lovely trip out to see the loonies.

Now, I would like to address my opponent's contentions in turn as follows:

1. MISUSING A MEDICAL CENTER FOR CHEAP ENTERTAINMENT
This statement is totally misleading. I did not propose misusing a medical center for cheap entertainment; I proposed misusing a medical center for FREE entertainment. Furthermore, I didn't suggest anything as cruel as my opponent's nursing home abuse scenario: as the BBC report I referred to in the opening round stated, visitors would be "permitted to bring sticks to poke and enrage inmates", that is to say, they would use the sticks to goad the more placid nutters into going bonkers, not to hurt them.

2. WHAT ABOUT THE FAMILIES:
My opponent points out that some of the inmates' families might be unhappy about people coming and baiting their retarded relatives, but he ignores the plight of the many more deprived families for whom gawping at insane people may be their sole source of entertainment. In the final analysis, the greatest amount of good should be for the greatest number of people.

3. WHAT A WASTE:
It may well be true that some inmates will recover from mental illness and be released into society: I'm not a doctor so I don't know whether interactive open days would either help or hinder their recovery; but I suspect that many mental patients would be incentivised to get better by dreaming of the day when they can return to the asylum as an ordinary member of the public to aggravate their former housemates.

4. KINDA AGAINST THE WHOLE IDEA OF "TREATMENT":
Have you ever wondered how people end up in lunatic asylums in the first place? A good many of the inmates are probably admitted after having nervous breakdowns caused by stress, and a great way to release stress would be to go and laugh at mental patients going doolally: they say ‘prevention is better than cure', don't they?

5. FTW

Thank you.
failedALIAS

Con

This is, of course, in response to my opponent's replies to the questions and points I presented earlier.
1. Do you see an Asylum as a safe haven or a prison? The entire point is to give the insane a shelter where they may interact with other people happily and healthily. In the book Mad In America, it explains a period of time that can be referred to as the "Golden Age of Insane Treatment", it was a time of respect and agreement with the mentally ill. This period was founded by the Quaker society, which remained secluded from others whom were not their own. (A likely reason that they found their own solutions to many problems, including the insane.) They rejected modern medical treatment for the disabled as it went against the teachings of morality. (Nearly drowning, beating, bleeding, terrifying, and binding to chairs roped to the ceiling to spin around.) Now while I disagree with practically everything in the Bible, I can't say that the Quakers were bad- as a child I was raised in a Friend's Church, they taught that Jesus was within everyone, thus everyone was equal. The Quakers didn't view homosexuality as a sin, nor did they consider ethnicity a relevant matter; accepting of the disorderly began the creation of Quaker Asylums.
"It isn't a matter of the patients fearing and obeying us, instead to love and understand us, a we must do with them."
One French psychologist shortly after the events of The Bloody Revolution, stated, "The insane were some of the greatest human beings I have ever met, inquisitive and talented, morally spectacular people. I shall never be moved as much as I was those years of my life. For, rather than the scum of society, they were it's shining stars."

2. Retarded? I believe my opponent is confusing many of the aspect of the various branches of mental illness. I simply believe that a asylum is for those that cannot operate in society without the possibility of harming themselves, others, or they seek help. There are many more preferable means of coping with retardation than that which is given at asylums. You seem to think that if we open the gates to alternatives than everyone will scramble to appease their appetite for release. I truly believe that if that's what the mass is like than not only is the ill superior in most ways, but we should move society to them as they are much more capable. (Just think about how effective it would be; a schizophrenic in charge of security, OCD file organizers, and Bipolar drama producers!)

3. That sounds strikingly similar to the "Terrify to Treat" which was regarded the most effective method of treatment, uh, a hundred years ago. Only it demeans the patients to mere dogs. Actually the two are the same.

4. Wow. I respect you as a good debater, and I consider you a fellow human but, wow. Another treatment is talking about problems, stress balls, a healthy sexual life, other non-sociopath means.

5. No, thank you!
Debate Round No. 2
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by brian_eggleston 4 years ago
brian_eggleston
Thanks, obviously I won't vote either. I didn't spot any spelling or grammar mistakes in your arguments, by the way. And thanks for being a good sport in this debate.
Posted by failedALIAS 4 years ago
failedALIAS
I'm not going to take part in the voting process for obvious reasons. But I do think you had better spelling and pronunciation- which doesn't make sense when writing.
Posted by Chrysippus 4 years ago
Chrysippus
Admit it; you do this anyway. You're the one behind all those break-ins at Maudsley Hospital, aren't you?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Travniki 4 years ago
Travniki
brian_egglestonfailedALIASTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Besides the fact that Brian was completely hilarious, witty and altogether persuasive, he presented better arguments and rebuttals. Con got tricked into playing his game and didn't give nearly enough analysis on why the needs of the small number of patients outweigh the greater benifits Brian outlined. I liked Brians point about relieving stress from the inmates.
Vote Placed by OberHerr 4 years ago
OberHerr
brian_egglestonfailedALIASTied
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: BE, I love you man, in a clean manly way, but FA DID actually present better arguments.
Vote Placed by zach12 4 years ago
zach12
brian_egglestonfailedALIASTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: He made me laugh, and presented good arguments