The Instigator
Thetan
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

Psychiatry

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...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/24/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 654 times Debate No: 91780
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (4)

 

Thetan

Con

I'll be debating two basic contentions:
Contention 1: Psychiatry does not know the cause of any mental illness.
Contention 2: Psychiatry has never cured a mental illness.

Now allow me to define some crucial terms:
Psychiatry-The practice or science of diagnosing and treating mental disorders.
Mental illness-Any of the various forms of psychosis or severe neurosis that psychiatry recognizes the existence of.
Cure-Successful remedial treatment; restoration to health

Now let's address our first contention, that Psychiatry doesn't know the cause of a single mental illness. On this subject, Dr. Rex Cowdry a psychiatrist and director of National Institute of Mental Health says the following- "We do not know the causes [of any mental illness]. We don"t have the methods of "curing" these illnesses yet." This astounding concession however, is not unorthodox! Factually speaking, the professional field of psychiatry admits that it doesn't yet know the cause of their own propounded mental illnesses that are literally voted into existence. Rather than attack straw man at this point I'll wait and see what the other side has to say.

Now contention number two, that psychiatry has never cured a single mental illness.
I'll begin by quoting Dr. Joseph Johnson, a California psychiatrist during a court deposition in 2003-What"s a cure?"it"s just that it"s a term that we don"t use in the medical [psychiatric] profession." Now notice the contention here isn't that Psychiatry isn't able to sometimes mask symptoms(often times the placebo's they use work as well or better than their actual drugs.) Rather the contention is that they have never CURED a mental illness. Even if some of the patients symptoms are masked some of the time, this does absolutely nothing to cure the actual malady, for when a patient builds a tolerance to the drugs, or when they stop taking the drugs( even when done properly,) the mental illness comes back at the severity that it was, or often times even worse than it was. This would be like a doctor "curing" a broken leg with pain killers. Again, rather than attack straw men at this point I'll see just see what the opposition has to say.
Danielle

Pro

Introduction

Psychiatry is the branch of medicine devoted to the diagnosis, prevention, study, and treatment of mental disorders [1]. Knowing the cause of these disorders and curing these disorders are not part of the description. If I can prove that diagnosing, preventing, studying and/or treating these disorders is useful, I will have affirmed the utility of psychiatry.

"Mental illnesses are very common. In fact, they are more common than cancer, diabetes, or heart disease. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, about 25% of American adults (those ages 18 and older) and about 13% of American children (those ages 8 to 15) are diagnosed with a mental disorder during a given year" [2].

1. Studying Metal Disorders Is Useful

We do not currently have sufficient information on mental disorders, but studying them through psychiatry allows us to learn more and promote mental health. Mental health is important for our personal and societal well-being. Psychological problems increase the likelihood that people will make poor behavioral choices that affect themselves and others.

We do not know the specific cause of mental illness; however, through study we have assessed some possible factors that consider the relevant biological and environmental factors [3]. The more we learn about these conditions, the better equipped we will be to prevent or treat them. Understanding them is also important for making important decisions.

For example, forensic psychiatrists are experts frequently cited in criminal trials. They perform a competency evaluation on the accused in order to determine that a defendant has the mental capacity to understand the charges and assist his attorney [4]. In the United States, this is a Constitutional right that is protected by the Fifth Amendment, which ensures the right to be present at one's trial, to face one's accusers, and to have help from an attorney. A forensic psychiatrist provides the Court an opinion as to whether a defendant was able to understand what he/she was doing at the time of the crime or in the present. While it may be just one's opinion, it is an educated, informed and well-thought out opinion based on years of study and peer-reviewed academic research, meaning it's better than just one's frivolous opinion.

2. Treating Mental Disorders Is Useful

Research shows that when people receive mental health care, their use of medical services declines. Anxiety, stress and other mental factors can contribute to physical problems such as heart disease, ulcers, colitis and particularly harm the immune system. After psychological treatment, the number of medical visits for people with anxiety/mental health disorders decreased by 90%, laboratory costs decreased by 50%, and overall treatment costs dropped by 35 percent [5].

Aside from individual health, interpersonal relationships and potential criminal dealings in society, mental health stability is also good for business. It is associated with higher productivity, better performance, more consistent work attendance, and fewer workplace accidents [5].

Treating mental illness has come a long way in the last 20 years. Medication, psychotherapy, cognitive-behavior therapy, group therapy, hypnotherapy, creative therapy, mindfulness therapy, exposure therapy, etc. are all things that have been relatively successful at managing mental illness [6]. Your treatment depends on the type of mental illness you have, its severity and what works best for you - all things to be measured by psychological experts in the field of psychiatry. There are many physical disorders that have no cure and yet people still recognize the benefits of treatment, i.e. AIDS.

Conclusion

Studying and treating mental disorders is useful, so the fact that we cannot (YET) know the precise cause or necessarily cure mental illness is moot.

[1] https://www.psychiatry.org...
[2] http://www.medicinenet.com...
[3] http://www.apa.org...
[4] http://learn.org...
[5] http://www.ripsych.org...
[6] http://www.samhsa.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
Thetan

Con

If you'll remember, I said that I would be debating two basic contentions. Contention one was, "Psychiatry doesn't know the cause of a single mental illness;" contention two was, "Psychiatry has never cured a mental illness." Now amazingly enough pro concedes that both contention one and two are true! Pro then gives a definition of "Psychiatry" and, to my astonishment, falsely claims that the definition has nothing to do with finding the cause of mental illness or curing it! I have three rebuttals that make Pro's position on this matter indefensible and internally inconsistent. Rebuttal one-by Pro's own definition, Psychiatry deals with the "prevention," "study," and "treatment of mental disorders." Since one cannot consistently and effectively prevent a medical disorder from occurring without knowing it's cause; and since finding the cause of something is part of studying it and could lead to the medical disorders resolution; finding a mental disorder's cause would fall under the domain of Psychiatry. Rebuttal two- by Pro's own definition, Psychiatry deals with the "treatment" of mental disorders; since(medically speaking) the "treatment" of mental disorders includes the curing of them, curing mental disorders does fall under the domain of Psychiatry. Rebuttal number three will be expressed as a syllogism.
THE ARGUMENT OF FRAUDULENCE:
Premise 1: All cases of a medical field not dealing with the causes of the disorders that pertain to it or with how to cure those disorders, is a fraudulent medical field.
Premise 2: Pro thinks that Psychiatry(which is a medical field) does not deal with the causes, or cures of the disorders that pertain to it.
Conclusion: Therefore, Pro thinks that Psychiatry is a fraudulent medical field.
Now after Pro gives their own definition of Psychiatry and uses it to falsely circumvent the topics of debate, Pro tries to lure us away from the debate again with two Red Herrings.
RED HERRING 1: "Studying mental disorders is useful."
RED HERRING 2: "Treating mental disorders is useful."
These two Red Herrings are not the topic of this debate and I would never argue against either of them, in fact, I agree with them! I repeat it again because it is so central to this debate, by Psychiatry's own admission it does not know the cause of any mental illness and cannot cure any either.

Summary: Pro has conceded that I am right about both contention one and contention two, which are the topic of this debate. Pro propounded a definition of "psychiatry" which included both my contentions, but Pro falsely claimed that the definition did not; I then proceeded to prove that if Pro was right about this matter(which they were not,) that Psychiatry by Pro's own argument, was a fraudulent field. Pro then proceeded to attempt to lure us away from the topics of debate with two Red Herrings.
Danielle

Pro

My opponent makes the false assumption that accepting his contentions somehow means I have lost the debate. That is patently false. Indeed I need only prove my contentions have more value than Con's in order to win.

For example, suppose this debate was about compulsory voting and my opponent was for, while I was against. He might contend that voting has utility as one of his contentions. I might agree with that contention, but make several arguments in response about how just because voting is useful does not necessarily mean it should be forced.

Therefore, just because I accept that psychiatry does not necessarily know the specific causes of every mental health disease, and that psychiatry does not necessarily cure mental illness, does NOT in any way whatsoever serve as a concession. After all, my entire rebuttal was premised on that studying and treating mental orders is useful and therefore makes psychiatry useful, contrary to my opponent's claims and what the resolution implies.

==

My opponent writes, "Since one cannot consistently and effectively prevent a medical disorder from occurring without knowing it's cause; and since finding the cause of something is part of studying it and could lead to the medical disorders resolution; finding a mental disorder's cause would fall under the domain of Psychiatry."

Prevention is not the only utility of psychiatry. I've explained that through study, we have assessed some possible factors that consider the relevant biological and environmental factors. The more we learn about these conditions, the better equipped we will be to prevent or treat them. My opponent has completely dropped this contention. His logic is flawed. He says that just because we don't have a cure or prevention means we should stop trying to cure or prevent it which is unfounded. Once again we do not know the precise causes and cures for cancer; however, we continue to research cancer and other diseases in the hopes we will learn more.

Con writes, "Psychiatry deals with the 'treatment' of mental disorders; since (medically speaking) the 'treatment' of mental disorders includes the curing of them." This is an oversimplified perception. We treat cancer patients despite not having an exact cure. We treat the common cold despite not having a cure. We treat viruses despite not having a cure. There is absolutely utility in treatment -- that is, minimizing the effects and suffering of -- disease and disorder.

Moreover, I've argued that understanding mental health is important for making important decisions. My opponent completely dropped this point as well. He drops the entire argument about forensic psychiatry being useful in a court of law. Other types of psychiatry have different uses as well -- for example studying the effects of combat on PTSD to know how to better help soldiers who suffer. Just because we do not know how to cure one's PTSD, should we stop providing study/help to the soldiers who suffer from it? Con would have to argue yes.

==

Re: The (Alleged) Argument of Fraudulence

Premise 1 - All cases of a medical field not dealing with the causes of the disorders that pertain to it or with how to cure those disorders, is a fraudulent medical field.

That is false. Here's just one example - Orthopedics is the branch of medicine concerned with conditions involving the musculoskeletal system. When people suffer traumatic brain injuries that cause disorders with their skeletal systems, orthopedists deal with the skeletal disorder even though the brain injury is the cause of that disorder.

This premise has been negated.

Premise 2 - Pro thinks that Psychiatry (which is a medical field) does not deal with the causes, or cures of the disorders that pertain to it.

This is a blatant straw man. I will copy and paste quotes of mine from last round to prove that I do think psychiatry deals with the causes and cures of disorders...

"The more we learn about these conditions, the better equipped we will be to prevent or treat them."

"Studying and treating mental disorders is useful, so the fact that we cannot (YET) know the precise cause or necessarily cure mental illness is moot."

Clearly I have noted that psychiatry looks to study mental disorders in order to figure out what causes or cures them in the future.

==

Con accuses me of red herrings, however, it's clear there was a misunderstanding about the resolution.

My opponent accepts that studying and treating mental disorders is useful. I assume that's why he has not challenged the benefits of working through one's mental health with psychiatry. I believe the problem is that Con did not make the resolution clear; he presented CONTENTIONS in Round 1 which is NOT the same as a RESOLUTION. Contentions support the resolution. Therefore, Con is arguing against Psychiatry while I am arguing for it. I can accept his contentions while still affirming the resolution which is what matters. If Con intended to debate "Psychiatry has never cured a mental illness" then he should have made that the resolution, not contention.

And furthermore Con would have a hard time proving this anyway. If one's mental illness somehow suddenly subsided never to return again -- which has been the case in many instances -- then who is to say that psychiatry was not effective in curing these particular disorders for these specific individuals? Insomnia is a mental disorder than has been cured [1] and depression is another [2]. Just because they cannot always be cured for all, doesn't mean they haven't been cured for some.

==

In conclusion, please consider my points about the resolution and my opponent's burden.

"What"s a cure?' It's just that it's a term that we don't use in the medical [psychiatric] profession.'" -- Dr. Joseph Johnson, California psychiatrist during court deposition, 2003 ... Just because psychiatrists prefer not to use the term (for technical reasons) does not mean cures have not been found or are not possible to find.


[1] http://www.prevention.com...
[2] http://www.amazon.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Thetan

Con

Pro is under the impression that this debate is about the utility of the Psychiatric field as a whole. Pro is incorrect! This debate is about, and is only about, the two contentions that I presented in my opening statement,which Pro agrees with. I have maintained this line of reasoning throughout the whole debate. If Pro wants to have a debate with me about the utility of Psychiatry as a whole, I would be more than happy to debate that; however that is not the topic of this debate. Now let's dig into Pro's arguments.

If you'll remember in Pro's first rebuttal, she gave a definition for "Psychiatry" and then (using the definition) attempted to show that the "causes" of mental illness and "curing" mental illnesses did not fall under the domain of Psychiatry. I gave two arguments which exposed the illogic of my opponents attempt to circumvent the two contentions of debate, and a third argument, which I named "the argument of fraudulence;" that demonstrated that if Pro was right( but Pro is not right) then Psychiatry was a fraud. Let's review these three arguments and Pro's response to them.
ARGUMENT 1: I stated that finding the causes of mental illnesses DOES fall under the domain of Psychiatry because by Pro's own definition, Psychiatry deals with the "prevention" and "study" of mental illnesses; which both include the causes of mental illnesses.
PRO'S REBUTTAL: Pro actually does not give a rebuttal; and to make matters worse, devises a strawman argument. Pro claims that I said since we are not able to prevent or cure mental illness, we should stop trying to prevent or cure mental illness. Factually, I never made that argument and it is merely a strawman.
ARGUKENT 2: I stated that curing mental illnesses DOES fall under the domain of Psychiatry.
PRO'S rebuttal: Pro, once again, does not have a rebuttal. Pro say as that I'm making an "oversimplification," but this is not an argument! Merely stating that I am "oversimplifying" things does nothing to show how my argument is incorrect. Now Pro says that we treat cancer, viruses, and the common cold without having exact cures. This, factual speaking, is not a refutation; it is not a refutation because it does not show in any way how "curing" a mental illness does not fall under the domain of Psychiatry.
THE ARGUMENT OF FRAUDULENCE: I stated that if Pro is right, and Psychiatry has nothing to do with the causes and cures of mental illness, then Psychiatry is a fraudulent medical field.
PRO'S REBUTTAL'S: Pro does have some rebuttals here, it is just that her rebuttals are unsound. Pro attempts to negate Premise one by bringing up Orthopedics. Pro says that Orthopedics does not deal with the causes such as traumatic brain injury, but only the unpleasant effects of such an affliction. This is a patently false rebuttal for two reasons. One, Oropedic specialists have to know the causes( such as brain damage) of the afflictions that they treat; Psychiatirsts could not tell you what the causes of the afflictions they treat are. Two, Orthopiedics do have to know the causes of the afflictions that they treat so as to know the best way to treat the affliction; again, Psychiatists literally never know the causes of the afflictions they treat, so they can't use the information of the cause to mitigate the unpleasant effects. Now that I've shown Pro's rebuttals to premise one to be false, let us look at Pro's rebuttals to premise two. Pro states that contrary to my premise, she DOES believe that Psychiatry deals with the causes and cures of mental illness. However this contradicts her original position! In Pro's opening rebuttal, she attempts to show that Psychiatry has nothing to do with the "causes" or "cures" of mental illness; Pro is contradicting herself by turning around and claiming that Psychiatry does deal with "causes" and "cures of mental illness.

Summary: Pro has failed to make a single sound rebbuttal against any of my arguments and has employed many logical fallacies. Pro has agreed with the two contentions that I've put forth. I look forward to debating the resolution that Psychiatry is a fraudulent medical field and is, factually speaking, not a science( if Pro wants to debate that.). I think that my opponent is a very worthy adversary and has done a great job. In the end however, it is clear that I have won this debate. Thank you, it was a fun debate!
Danielle

Pro

Unfortunately my opponent contests the purpose of this debate.

Allow me to repeat my points from the last round.

Con did not make the resolution clear; he presented CONTENTIONS in Round 1 which is NOT the same as a RESOLUTION. Contentions support the resolution. Therefore, Con is arguing against Psychiatry while I am arguing for it. I can accept his contentions while still affirming the resolution which is what matters. If Con intended to debate "Psychiatry has never cured a mental illness" then he should have made that the resolution, not the contention.

My opponent did not clarify his position in R1, and I have argued from the most logical assumption of his intent based on the definitions he provided.

==

And furthermore Con would have a hard time proving this anyway. If one's mental illness somehow suddenly subsided never to return again -- which has been the case in many instances -- then who is to say that psychiatry was not effective in curing these particular disorders for these specific individuals? Insomnia is a mental disorder than has been cured, and depression is another. Just because they cannot always be cured for all, doesn't mean they haven't been cured for some.

This is something I brought up in the last round which has essentially won me the entire debate either way. My opponent dropped it.

==

My opponent's last round was unclear and a mish-mash of accusations.

The only thing I can make out was Con's repetition of his so-called Argument of Fraudulence.

He writes, "I stated that if Pro is right, and Psychiatry has nothing to do with the causes and cures of mental illness, then Psychiatry is a fraudulent medical field." Once again, I have clearly stated (and explained - which Con does not deny) that psychiatry looks to study mental disorders in order to figure out what causes or cures them in the future. Ergo, psychiatry does indeed have to do with the causes and cures of mental illness. Con does not contest this.

My opponent states, "In Pro's opening rebuttal, she attempts to show that Psychiatry has nothing to do with the 'causes' or 'cures' of mental illness; Pro is contradicting herself by turning around and claiming that Psychiatry does deal with "causes" and "cures of mental illness.

This is 100% false.

I will copy and paste quotes from R1 to show that I specifically outlined how psychiatry relates to the causes and cures of mental illness:

"We do not know the specific cause of mental illness; however, through study we have assessed some possible factors that consider the relevant biological and environmental factors. The more we learn about these conditions, the better equipped we will be to prevent or treat them."

"Medication, psychotherapy, cognitive-behavior therapy, group therapy, hypnotherapy, creative therapy, mindfulness therapy, exposure therapy, etc. are all things that have been relatively successful at managing mental illness... There are many physical disorders that have no cure and yet people still recognize the benefits of treatment, i.e. AIDS... Studying and treating mental disorders is useful, so the fact that we cannot (YET) know the precise cause or necessarily cure mental illness is moot."

As you can see, Con is completely lying in saying I noted psychiatry has "nothing to do with" the causes and cures. In fact what I said was that psychiatry studies these things, and as we continue to study them, we will learn more.

==

Con brings up the fact that I noted his oversimplification, but completely misrepresents how I have framed the accusation.

I'll copy and paste exactly what I explained last round:

Con writes, "Psychiatry deals with the 'treatment' of mental disorders; since (medically speaking) the 'treatment' of mental disorders includes the curing of them." This is an oversimplified perception. We treat cancer patients despite not having an exact cure. We treat the common cold despite not having a cure. We treat viruses despite not having a cure. There is absolutely utility in treatment -- that is, minimizing the effects and suffering of -- disease and disorder.

As you can see, I did explain his oversimplification whereas he says I haven't.

==

On the "Argument of Fraudulence" premises, Con contests my orthopedic rebuttal but ultimately this point distracts from the entire debate. As a reminder, Con's first premise was "All cases of a medical field not dealing with the causes of the disorders that pertain to it or with how to cure those disorders, is a fraudulent medical field." However I've argued against this premise throughout this debate. Just because Psychiatry doesn't YET know the exact causes or cures for some mental disorders, doesn't mean it doesn't DEAL WITH the causes and cures (look for them).

Clearly I have noted that psychiatry looks to study mental disorders in order to figure out what causes or cures them.

==

CONCLUSION

I've explained why my position in this debate is correct. Psychiatry is useful as it seeks to both research the causes and cures of mental illness. My opponent completely dropped my point on the utility of Forensic Psychiatry, etc. because he believed he had to prove psychiatry has never cured a mental illness in order to in this debate.

EVEN IF we were to accept the resolution was Con's Contention #2, I've already challenged this by noting both insomnia and depression have been cured in some instances. Con dropped these examples so the judges must accept them as valid; my opponent did not challenge me here. Therefore I would have won this debate even if we accept Con's misnaming the Resolution. Ultimately I have won the debate either way.

Thanks!
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Bob13 1 year ago
Bob13
RFD:
Con states in the first round that he will prove two contentions to support the resolution of being against psychiatry. If he succeeds, he wins the debate.
Contention #1- Psychiatry does not know the cause of any mental illness.
Con quotes a psychiatrist and argues that, because an expert on the topic explicitly stated that psychiatrists don't know the cause of any mental illness, the contention must be true.
Contention #2- Psychiatry has never cured a mental illness.
Con quotes another psychiatrist who states that psychiatry never cures illnesses and drugs invented by psychiatrists only mask symptoms.
Pro's response is that both contentions are true, but they don't affirm the resolution because psychiatry is still useful. Con, instead of arguing against the resolution as the debate title would suggest, claims that the contentions established in round one were all that he needed to prove. But, as Pro points out, contentions are not resolutions, so Con had to prove more than those two contentions to win the debate.
Pro wins.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
The vote was on behalf of the DDO Voter's Union.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Part 4: Conclusion.

Due to Pro winning all of the arguments in this debate and many due to Con dropping Pro's arguments, I have no choice, but to award the arguments points to Pro.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Part 3: 'Curing an illness' and usefulness

For this Part I shall be conbining both of Con's C2 and Pro's C1 due to a huge interlinking of their arguments that they have both made here. This was a huge part in Con's argumentation as it was his 2nd Contention. Even though Pro did not directly refute the point. She did in several other areas of this debate. Con argued, in Round 1, that Psychology simply provided plecebos to treat, but not really do much for the cure of the disorder. He then moved on to say that people aren't really cured and they have been shown to have some sort of relapse. This is harm to people since if they believe they are really being treated and it's all a facade then Psychiatry can cause more harm then the solutions they provide. Pro couners that even though that may and/or may not be the case, It's still useful. She began off by showing that if we do not go into treating it, it causes problems and these lead to poor choices in people's behavior's. Studying these mental disorders would lead to solutions and possible cures. Con continues to simply argue that this point is mute and useless since we don't have cures. Pro makes the counter by stating that we are researching cures with cancer and even though we don't have a cure, we still treat cancer patients with kemotheorpy. This was a major point and one of many that Con would end up dropping throughout the debate. Another point that Pro brought up is that it helps, Forensic Psychology, helps determine whether or not the defendent understood and were able to stand trial. This is significant to the judicial process. This was another point in this debate that Con had ended up dropping in this debate.

With that. I have no choice, but to give these arguments to Pro.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Part 2: Fraud

In round 2, Con introduces a Fraud syllogism to refute attempt to refute Pro's points. Which was as follows:

"Premise 1: All cases of a medical field not dealing with the causes of the disorders that pertain to it or with how to cure those disorders, is a fraudulent medical field.
Premise 2: Pro thinks that Psychiatry(which is a medical field) does not deal with the causes, or cures of the disorders that pertain to it.
Conclusion: Therefore, Pro thinks that Psychiatry is a fraudulent medical field."

The problem with the syllogism is the fact that all Pro has to do now is to completely negate and/or properly refute one Premise, then the entire syllogism is to be found false. R2 was surprising as as soon as he posted it, he simply left it there without proper supporting of each premise. Pro could have simply pointed that out and if she did, the syllogism would have been negated in it of itself. Pro counters with bringing up an example of Orthopedics where they treat musculoskeletal system even though they know that it's caused by the brain. This would show that the fact is even though we know that the cause is the brain, we are treating other areas of the body, which completely goes against much of what Con is arguing. This argument is dropped by Con. This, by itself, means that the syllogism is negated due to Pro winning and successfully negating the first premise. The second premise nearly just turned into a "you're wrong" argument. Pro argued in R2 that P2 was simply a strawman that Con was posting. Pro did agree that it was a strawman, but then turned around and stated that Pro was contradicting herself in R1 and R2. In the final Round, Pro posted quotations from both R1 and R2 showing that there was no contradiction aviabable.

With both Premises negated. This argument goes to Pro.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Part 1: Resolution

You'll have to forgive me here for this RFD since the argument lines get a little blurred a bit, so I shall attempt to go over sections of the debate that are highly important to the debate and will attempt to brush over everything.

RESOLUTION

The entire debate goes through the argumentation of whether or not Pro "dropping" Con's arguments were important and if they were to be accepted in this debate. Con's argument was that he defined the debate resolution with his two contentions in Round 1, so that is to be the route the debate was suppose to go. Pro brought up semantics in showing just how vague the resolution is. This was highlighted in R2 by Pro when she used the example of Compulosary voting. Even though the debate topic is under one specific name, the debate still revolves around the resolution and the very broad nature of it means that nearly any arguments can be brought up. Pro had brought up in R3, that under a normal resolution, the arguments by Con would have been stricter and the resolution would have been held to a higher standard. Under this case, the arguments that would have been brought up by Con would have won him the debate assuming they were dropped. In this debate with the vague Resolution of "Psychiatry," Pro doesn't really have to refute Con's arguments, but simply win her case in order to win the debate. Since Con really didn't have a set policy resolution or a specific resolution. We can only go off of the vagueness that is set and Pro wins this argument due to this.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Reading up on the debate at the moment.
Posted by Danielle 1 year ago
Danielle
Yeah, I'm disappointed this turned into somewhat of a semantics debate. That wasn't my intention. I truly thought you were trying to argue that you were against psychiatry in general. The resolution = what you would like to debate. By saying "Psychiatry" alone and that you are Con (against) it appears you are against all of psychiatry. Contentions are statements used to support the resolution. So for example if you wanted to debate "Psychiatry has never cured a mental illness," that would be the resolution, and a contention might be "Psychiatrists admit they have no cures." Another one might be "Psychiatrists treat disorders but without treatment they return," etc. Basically make the subject/title of the debate the position that you want to defend.
Posted by Thetan 1 year ago
Thetan
Ah! An army of voters! Haha.

Question. This was my first debate and what you called the "resolution," I thought was just the title of the debate. Is the title of the debate always a resolution unless otherwise specified?
Posted by Danielle 1 year ago
Danielle
I'm "friends" with over 1,000 members on this site :/
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Bob13 1 year ago
Bob13
ThetanDanielleTied
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: RFD in comments. This vote was submitted in behalf of the Voter's Union.
Vote Placed by kasmic 1 year ago
kasmic
ThetanDanielleTied
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: Vote on behalf of the VU. http://www.debate.org/forums/health/topic/88000/
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
ThetanDanielleTied
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: RFD in the Comments Section.
Vote Placed by Udel 1 year ago
Udel
ThetanDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not make the resolution clear. It seemed like he was arguing against psychiatry. Pro explained why psychiatry was very useful by society and legal standards. Con did not challenge this and said his resolution is that psychiatry does not know the cause or cure of any mental illness. Pro explained why this doesn't count as the resolution, and then she explained that studying psychiatry does lead us to know more about causes and cures. She gave examples of some mental illness or disorders that have been cured like insomnia and Con did not respond. Since Pro showed sources proving that these things were cured, and psychiatry helped, she has won because Con did not prove those things she mentioned were not cured. So he has not proven psychiatry doesn't cure anything or can't cure anything. Pro uses 8 sources to back up her points about what psychiatry does, aims to do and has done in the past but Con does not use any sources to back up any of his claims.