The Instigator
InVinoVeritas
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
wierdman
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points

Psychiatry is a hoax and should be abolished

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 4 votes the winner is...
wierdman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/13/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,006 times Debate No: 21110
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (4)

 

InVinoVeritas

Con

Is psychiatry (as practiced today) a hoax, and should it be abolished as a medical specialty?

Pro argues that psychiatry is a hoax (and should be abolished as a medical specialty.) Con argues that it is not a hoax (and should not be abolished.)

Definitions:

Psychiatry: medical specialty devoted to the study and treatment of mental disorders
(Note: The matter of debate is the MODERN practice of psychiatry, as upheld by the American Psychiatric Association)
Hoax: deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth.
Abolish: Formally put an end to
Medical specialty: branch of medical science

---

First round is strictly for acceptance, definitions, and discussion of terms of debate.

Thank you.
wierdman

Pro

I accept all terms conditions and definitions. I look forward to a good and fruitful debate. I will however; use the same opening case as I did in our previous round. If my opponent has any problem with this, please feel free to pm me or fined some other way to contact me personally before the beginning of my next round. opposing this in his next round will not be acceptable. Please Pm me for acceptance of these parameters. Thank you and Good Luck.
Debate Round No. 1
InVinoVeritas

Con

Psychiatry is not a hoax, or, as the aforementioned definition states, a "deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade truth."

Psychiatry saves lives
Through prescribing medications and talk therapy, psychiatrists are able to help people and prevent serious problems involving health risks related to stress, suicide, and anxiety. It has saved lives of any sufferers of mental illness.

Psychiatry works
The medications work. They are tested. Some common examples? Ritalin. [1] Or Prozac. [2] Or Paxil. [3] When a medication goes through its trial period and has detrimental or Placebo-like effect, then it is thrown out; that's how it works with medications in any medical field.

Psychiatry is a medical science
Modern medicine involves diagnosing and treating diseases. [4] Psychiatry does just that. Hence, it is a medical science and should be considered a medical specialty.

In conclusion, psychiatry, as a whole, is not a hoax, since its primary purpose is to relieve suffering, and there is no deliberate trickery. Moreover, psychiatry should continue to be considered a medical specialty, since it fits the definition of a medical science.

Thank you.

[1] http://psychcentral.com......
[2] http://www.brainphysics.com......
[3] http://anxiety.emedtv.com......
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org......
wierdman

Pro

Since My opponent did not message me to oppose my use of the same case, I will then proceed with the same case I used in our previous debate.

My Case
++++++++++++|)
==================D
While psychiatry might be looked upon with awe and revere for whatever work it may do, the fact remains that there are aspects hidden from us. Aspects created for the sole purpose of clouding the hidden truth behind psychiatry. Aspects created to cover the savage truth that psychiatry is a hoax.

Contention one: Effectiveness
Psychiatry should not be abolished as it has a place in our society, however certain reforms need to take place to further the effectiveness of this practice. When looking into the resolution at hand, we find that the question is not to abolish psychiatry itself, but to abolish psychiatry as a medical specialty. Psychiatry itself is not a hoax, it only become a hoax when medical solutions are used to solve non biological problems. With this said, lets now look into the link between the topic of effectiveness and the given resolution. Although psychiatry might have a place in our society, medical education itself does absolutely nothing to aid this practice. Why is this? The answer is simple, the perception of mental illness as a biological entity is highly mistaken, thus psychiatric treatment's such as drugs and electroshock are proven infective as they are unable to properly diagnoses the real problem or the real cause of the so called mental illness. Now when looking into non medical form of treatment used by modern day psychiatrist such as counseling and psychotherapy, we find that these methods are more efficient as they are not focused on solving a physical or chemical disorder. Breaking this barrier, they are now able to properly diagnose the cause of the "mental illness."

"You also know, I am sure, that there is no physical or chemical abnormality to be found in life, or at autopsy, in 'depression, bipolar disorder and other mental illnesses'. Why then are you telling the American people that 'mental illnesses' are 'physical' and that they are due to 'chemical disorders'?" {1}

"The fact that a depression can be caused by a disease like cancer doesn't mean depression as such is a disease. And the fact that certain depressions are "maintained" (not "caused") by disturbances in the body's energy system, which is shown by the fact that they can be resolved with EFT (which I'll discuss in a moment) also doesn't mean that depression is a mental or physical disease. In that case it just means it's a condition that can be resolved by a manipulation on the body together with the mind."{1}

In conclusion, psychiatry should be abolished as a medical specialty. In doing this, we are now able to reform it in a manner that it is able to properly diagnose mental illness as a mental problem and not a physical problem.

Contention two: Necessity
Like explained in my first contention, the use of medical procedures in terms of psychiatry is highly flawed. Now lets expand on how the practice harms the patient. After going t5o medical school for several years and graduating with a doctorate degree, one cannot help but add the knowledge acquired to everything they do. When this individual becomes a psychiatrist, he/she is now unable to solve any mental problems without having the urge to use a more medical approach. This now leads to many prescriptions which we all know is an ineffective way to solve psychological problems. This could in turn harm the patient as they were misdiagnosed and given the wrong solution. Thus the following conclusion is made:a) Abolish psychiatry as a medical specialty to save multiple life and
B)Abolish psychiatry as a medical specialty to create a reform in modern psychiatry thus transforming the precise of psychotherapy and counseling from a hoax and into a well respected practice. Abolishing psychiatry as a medical specialty will allow psychiatrists to focus more on helping someone deal with there psychological problem rather than an imaginary physical or chemical disorder.

"But it does more: it given them a false and detrimental attitude. ...analytic instruction would include branches of knowledge which are remote from medicine and which the doctor does not come across in his practice: "{2}

"In fact, Ethan Watters & Richard Ofshe in their book "Therapy's Delusions" report that "In a review of forty-two studies comparing professional therapists with paraprofessional therapists (such as teachers given the job of counseling students), only one study showed that the trained therapists got better results. Twenty-nine studies showed no difference between the two groups, and the remaining twelve studies showed that the paraprofessionals actually outperformed the professional therapists." {1}

This proves that psychiatry is more about helping people deal with there original problems rather than using medical solutions. Thus, psychiatry should be abolished to allow for both maximum and accurate treatment of psychological problems.
My opponents Case
==========================D
My opponent does make a valuable point that psychiatry saves lives; however, like I mentioned in my early citations as well as contentions, psychiatry saves lives through the use of open conversations such as counseling rather than medical solutions. The resolution states that psychiatry is a hoax and should be abolished as a medical specialty and thus eliminating the medical part of psychiatry will fulfill both my burden of proof by proving that modern practice of using medicine in psychiatry is a hoax and should be abolished as it threatens the safety of many and hinders the understanding of human psychology.

"Modern medicine involves diagnosing and treating diseases. [4] Psychiatry does just that. Hence, it is a medical science and should be considered a medical specialty. "{3}

My opponent misunderstands psychology in every way. There is absolutely no prove that psychological issues can be or rather is a disease, thus according to my opponents definition of medicine, can not be consider medical in any way.

In conclusion, psychiatry practiced in the modern day is a hoax and in an effort to reform this hoax, we must abolish the psychiatry as a medical specialty.

Sources:
{1}http://3rddimension.online.fr......
{2}http://www.antipsychiatry.org......
{3}http://www.debate.org......

Thank you and I hope to receive your rebuttal soon.
Debate Round No. 2
InVinoVeritas

Con

My opponent states: "Psychiatry itself is not a hoax."
And: "Psychiatry should not be abolished[,] as it has a place in our society."

Whether or not the other complaints of the opponent are sound or not, my resolution stands, and my stance on the matter at hand prevails.

Thank you.
wierdman

Pro

I stated that psychiatry itself is a not a hoax. My opponents resolution was "Is psychiatry (as practiced today) a hoax, and should it be abolished as a medical specialty?" Psychiatry today has underwent certain changes that not only change the way it should be ran, but also changed it completely. In my previous argument, I stated that psychiatry should not be abolished, but the way in which it is practised today should be abolished and reformed. I also stated that physciary should be abolished as a MEDICAL SPECIALITY. This not only supports my position but also summarize my perevious argument. The fact that my opponent failed to attack my case should be taken as a sign of forfiet and should be taken as my victory.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
InVinoVeritas

Con

Hm, interesting refutation. How does that make you feel? Better yet, what was your early relationship like with your mother?
wierdman

Pro

excuse me?
When I signed up and accepted this debate, I expected an actual debate and not a troll fest so Voters please take in account of my opponents attitude throughout this debate. I wish my opponent a good luck in future endevors and can only hope he takes defeat more likely next time.

Thank you :D
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by nonentity 4 years ago
nonentity
lol How am I rambling? No worries. It will not benefit me whatsoever to have a conversation with you and it is not my job to educate you. Good luck.
Posted by wierdman 4 years ago
wierdman
nonentity, if you want to discuss the topic properly please feel free to PM me, if not stop rambling and save me the effort of reading your complaints.
Posted by nonentity 4 years ago
nonentity
I wasn't aware that, as a voter, I had to provide evidence but ok. You provided no evidence that drugs are ineffective and, in fact, numerous studies would suggest the opposite. For many mental disorders, such as Depression and the Personality disorders, AND mental illnesses, such as Schizophrenia, there IS a biological basis. I dont't need to provide sources, Google it. Wikipedia it. It's common knowledge...
Posted by logicrules 4 years ago
logicrules
@wired.....why it serves no purpose. You assert opposite and contradictory facts and claim both correct, and then win. That estalishes your relativist position where you hold nothings fact but what you "feel".
Posted by wierdman 4 years ago
wierdman
nonentity, you cannot say that my argument is false without providing evidence to back up yoiur point. Provide evidence and then come back to talk to me about it. i would be more than hapopy to engage you in a discussion on which one of our sides is factual or not.
Posted by wierdman 4 years ago
wierdman
logicrules, pehabs you would like to ends this idiocracy by challenging me to a debate on the topic?
Posted by nonentity 4 years ago
nonentity
This debate was hard to judge. Con didn't bother to refute Pro's points, which I believe he could have done easily. Pro's contention that "the perception of mental illness as a biological entity is highly mistaken, thus psychiatric treatment's such as drugs and electroshock are proven infective as they are unable to properly diagnoses the real problem or the real cause of the so called mental illness" is simply false and his source 1 fails to show anything in support of it. However, Con provides no sources.

So because of this, I'm not going to bother voting because I think you tied; I just wanted to put in my 2 cents.
Posted by logicrules 4 years ago
logicrules
@Man....have done that before and it resulted in massive nonsense. I, therefore, choose not to participate. If I see that the principle of non-contradiction becomes prevalent, I shall reconsider. In short voting here is silly as the clear majority ignore objectivity in favor of subjectivism and sophistry.
Posted by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
Logicrules, perhaps you would want to express such a sentiment in a vote rather than a comment...?
Posted by logicrules 4 years ago
logicrules
This debate illustrates the silliness of the majority of voters and debaters on here. Pro's position was completely shut down in the definition phase, mooting any rebuttal or position. Accepting the definitions ended pro's argument for a hoax. Res ipsa Loquitor Another example of our moving towards idiocracy.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 4 years ago
vmpire321
InVinoVeritaswierdmanTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Why are you trolling, :(
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
InVinoVeritaswierdmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Well, InvinoVeritas.....did not refute Pro's arguments at all (the contention that psychiatry should be abolished as "a medical specialty" since not only are emotion-changes and disorders NOT linked to diseases (in Pro's stance) but that such an action would ensure that the specialty be practiced in full efficiency), made a rude response ("Better yet, what was your early relationship like with your mother?"), and so forth. Obvious win for Pro.....
Vote Placed by johnnyboy54 4 years ago
johnnyboy54
InVinoVeritaswierdmanTied
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: The voices told me to vote for pro.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
InVinoVeritaswierdmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con trolled. And well I cannot do anything but say pro had a longer case and refuted the arguments given, con did not.