Oppositional defiance disorder is a fictional disorder created by statists who want to control peopl
Debate Rounds (4)
ODD has nothing to do with "statists." There are no laws restricting the freedoms of people with ODD; no mandatory treatment. To the extent any treatment is necessary, it mostly involves therapy.  Nobody uses ODD as a way to "control" anybody. In addition, ODD is mostly diagnosed in children and adolescents.  If ODD was a "statist" conspiracy, it'd be a poor one - you'd think the "statists" would want to go after people who can vote and exercise political power.
My opponent doesn't talk about ODD at all in his argument, but only about "free thought" and "examining a variety of ideas." I agree! Free thought is not a disorder, and everyone should be (and, you know, is) free to examine their own beliefs and form new ones. But ODD has nothing to do with free thought or expressing unconventional opinions. It's about a particular symptom set that makes it difficult for some people to succeed in academic and social contexts. People with ODD may be politically radical or completely conventional; it has no bearing on the diagnosis. Treatment for ODD - which again, is therapy, and voluntary - would only make it easier for someone to succeed in social contexts. Presumably, this means that people with unconventional opinions would become better and more effective at communicating their ideas and putting them into action.
No one is stopping people with ODD from believing whatever they want. No one is using ODD as a fig leaf for "control." No "statist" bogeymen are hiding in the hallways of psychiatric offices to send people with ODD to re-education camps. It's just a childhood psychiatric disorder, and children with it benefit from seeking therapy to correct it.
In any event, the DSM never listed homosexuality as a "sin." "Sin" is a religious concept, not a medical one. At one point, the DSM listed homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder. That diagnosis was removed in 1973 as studies of human sexual behavior demonstrated homosexuality to be a natural part of the spectrum of human sexual expression.  That is the nature of all science; revisions are made as new studies and new information lead to better understanding of how the world operates.
But again, none of this has anything to do with whether ODD is "fictional," "created by statists," or used to "control people." It would be nice if my opponent would make an argument, any argument at all, supporting any one of those central contentions.
1) I agreed with you that homosexuality used to be in the DSM - I just disagreed that it was a "sin" in the DSM, since the DSM does not catalog "sins"
2) The DSM is certainly open to revision as we learn and study more, as it was when it eliminated homosexuality as a disorder. That does not make ODD "fictional." Even if it did, that doesn't mean it was "created by statists who want to control people," which is a ridiculous claim for which you've adduced no evidence.
3) Agreed, liberty of thought is not a disorder. But ODD does not pathologize "liberty of thought." You can have all the off-the-wall opinions you want, and it won't lead to a diagnosis of ODD. You can have completely conventional opinions and be diagnosed with ODD. ODD has nothing to do with what a person believes, but with chronic exhibitions of anger, vindictiveness, and defiance. Those behaviors are not the same as "freedom of thought"
My opponent has yet to advance a single argument in support of the actual contentions of the resolution, which is that ODD is "fictional" and "created by statists" as a means of "control."
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.