The Instigator
rross
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Inquisitive
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Most people on antidepressants are being duped

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/4/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 555 times Debate No: 29860
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

rross

Pro

I started this debate before, but got LatentDebater who was banned, so we couldn't finish. I really want to do this debate, so I'm putting it up again. I'll put the link to the other debate in the comments so you can see the arguments I'll probably start with (but may not. It depends).

In the suburb where I live, I've noticed that being on antidepressants is almost as common as not being on them. People are on them and long term and I have SO MANY issues with this.

By "being duped" I mean that they would be no worse off if they weren't taking them, and probably would be better off.

antidepressants: SSRIs, SNRIs. Of course, if you want, you can try to include other drugs, but they have to be proper antidepressants meaning drugs that doctors would be likely to prescribe for depression.

Rounds
1. acceptance
2-3 arguments and rebuttals
4 conclusion no new arguments.

5000 characters per round.
Inquisitive

Con

I think other person on the link you had in comments said everything I would say.

I have the burden of proof in regards to proving that there is a single, rational, benefit to taking them.

My opponent has to anti BOP meaning that she has to counter ALL my points so that even if there is a SINGLE benefit she has not disproved by round 5, I will win.

The reasoning behind this dynamic is her definition of being duped means that people taking antidepressants (for the obvious purpose of being less depressed) would be no worse off if they weren't taking them, and probably would be better off.

I would like us to stick to people who stick to prescribed doses and not people who overdose or under-dose since they are not qualifying as test subjects as they have not obeyed rules of the test.

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
rross

Pro

"Inquisitive"? Rats, you really have to work on your alt names. But I suppose, after a while, you run out of good ideas.
Inquisitive

Con

Inquisitive forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
rross

Pro

There should be a cancel the debate option.
Inquisitive

Con

Inquisitive forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
rofl...

There's a way to make debates "impossible to accept".

The way I do it is to set the parameters so that only "people as good or better than me" can accept the debate, and then make it so that only people who have debated less than 3 times on this website can accept them.

No one fits this criteria (at least for me), so I get to choose who to actually challenge the debate to, all the while keeping the challenge public.

I did it specifically for the RatMan, lol. I got it from Ron-Paul, who also did it specifically for the RatMan... :D
Posted by rross 3 years ago
rross
Sorry. Shouldn't have sneered at your name. It's not that bad. And the photo is cute. I'm just annoyed about this starting debates and getting banned thing.
Posted by Inquisitive 3 years ago
Inquisitive
The word most merely means we both should ignore exceptions.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
Con, I don't think you're being fair in your BoP claims. The title was not "There are no benefits", but that "Most people" are not actually benefitting.
Posted by rross 3 years ago
rross
Here's the link to the other debate:
http://www.debate.org...
No votes have been placed for this debate.