The Instigator
nonentity
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bluesteel
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Psychotherapy vs. Pharmacotherapy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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...
bluesteel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/25/2010 Category: Health
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,103 times Debate No: 14147
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (23)
Votes (3)

 

bluesteel

Con

Thanks for the topic TulleKrazy.

==Definitions==

Psychotherapy: talk therapy

==Burden of Proof==

As instigator/pro, my opponent has the burden to prove that drugs should not be used to treat depression except as a last resort.

==Intro==

I intend to argue that a combination of drugs and talk therapy is the most effective solution (my opponent said in the comments section that this was a valid Con argument) and that the "first response" must be tailored to the patient and the situation, specifically in cases where the patient refuses to take talk therapy seriously or the patient is suicidal and needs quick results.

I look forward to an interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 1
nonentity

Pro

REMOVED nac
bluesteel

Con

Removed

==BOP==

My opponent accepts the burden to prove that drugs cannot be used to treat MDD, unless talk therapy is used first.

I will advocate that the first response be adapted to the patient, meaning it could be talk therapy only, drugs only, or both talk therapy and drugs.

---MDD is caused by chemical imbalances in the brain---

First, I'd like to draw a distinction. My opponent makes it seem like we're talking about people who just have a bad case of "the blues." Clinical depression (MDD) only exists in people who have serious imbalances in their brain chemistry (much lower levels of norepinephrine, dopamine, and serotonin). It should be distinguished from people who are just going through a "bad time in their life," which is a temporary bout of regular (non-clinical) depression. Drugs are often needed to increase norepinephrine, dopamine, and serotonin levels.

My opponent brings up a twin study showing that only 37% of clinical depression is attributable to genes. However, even "completely genetic" diseases like schizophrenia only have a 50% concordance rate in twin studies.[1] The "environmental" causes of a mental illness, according to the Handbook of Psychology, means that the mental illness has an environmental trigger, such as a traumatic event, that causes the genetics to manifest itself.[2] This does NOT mean, as my opponent suggests, that most clinical depression is caused by having stressful or difficult life experiences that one must learn to cope with. What her study means is that if one twin has MDD, there is only a 37% chance the other twin will get it, because the second twin might not engage the environmental "trigger." But once the trigger is engaged, MDD is just as much a problem in brain chemistry as is schizophrenia, and thus it must often be treated with drugs to correct the imbalance.

To further illustrate the degree to which MDD is caused by brain chemistry, consider the following. It was discovered a few years ago that smoking cigarettes can raise norepinephrine and dopamine levels; it turns out many people with MDD were actually self-medicating by smoking cigarettes. When Wellbutrin came out, the first drug to act on norepinephrine/dopamine instead of serotonin, many people with MDD found the drug also eliminated their cigarette cravings.

Keep this in mind throughout the debate: many studies of talk therapy's effectiveness fail to take smoking (self-medicating) into account.

---The best treatment is BOTH---

According to Laura Pinsky of Columbia University's Psychology Center, "The best treatment for both major depression and dysthymia is a combination of medication and talk therapy. . . A recent study (and a great deal of clinical experience) indicates that a combination of the two is most effective in treating depression . . . Many therapists report that patients who are treated with antidepressants make more progress in talk therapy because they have the ability to grapple with emotional and practical problems when the depression is lessened with medication." So drugs actually enhance the effectiveness of talk therapy because patients (on anti-depressants) can more readily confront and cope with their "issues."

---Miracle cures---

Sleeping pills are one less well-known treatment for depression. Clinical depression can often be caused by problems in the sleep cycle. According to Psychology Today, "among the depressed, REM sleep typically occurs too early, lasts too long, and is marked by excess activity. Interestingly, the sleep disturbance correlates with prognosis for both recovery and relapse."[4] 5-HTP is a pill that is used to treat both clinical depression and sleep problems simultaneously; studies show it is quite effective.[5] If a patient is having severe trouble sleeping due to his or her depression, his talk therapy sessions will not be effective, due to his extreme exhaustion, and 5-HTP or a similar pill will be necessary.

In addition, scientists at Yale have recently discovered that an injection of ketamine can permanently cure depression within 7-10 days and even re-grow neurons that have been damaged from constant stress. [6] When this treatment reaches market, it may well be the most effective and quickest cure for MDD.

---Speed of effect---

Talk therapy takes at least 13 sessions (approximately 3 months of sessions) to have any significant effect; in contrast, anti-depressants can have a profound effect as quickly as 1 week. [7] For someone who is suicidal already, 3 months might be too slow of progress. This individual might be frustrated by the lack of results and commit suicide in the interim. Suicidal people should be prescribed drugs to quickly restore their brain's chemical balance before they attempt suicide.

---Stigma---

Many people "aren't comfortable with the idea of psychotherapy." [8] There is a stigma in our society for going to a psychiatrist, and thus, many people refuse to engage in talk therapy. If we adopt my opponent's approach, we would be forced to deny drugs to people with MDD (even if they wanted the drugs) if the patient refused to try talk therapy first.

---Quality of therapist---

Drugs have consistent results because every pill has the same composition. The quality of therapist varies greatly, which can be problematic. Freud, for example, was notorious for making the sane feel insane and spending his therapy sessions fantasizing about his female patients. Patients who cannot find a quality therapist that they trust should be allowed to try drugs first.

==Rebuttal==

Benefits of Psychotherapy – Con side subsumes all these benefits because I advocate patients seek both talk therapy and drugs, when possible and if they so desire.

(I) Relapse rates are the same. This isn't surprising, since people who are on medication must continue taking their medication for it to be successful.

(II) Not every clinically depressed patient is the same. Many have feelings of helplessness because of imbalances in their brain chemistries; these feelings will go away with the introduction of drugs.

(III) The "teach a man to fish" analogy is interesting, but not applicable. Would you rather have one easy vitamin pill or learn the correct combination of 20 different foods to get the same nutrients? Many people prefer the quicker method.

Downsides of drugs

(IV) My opponent got her study completely wrong (especially the 63% statistic). Of the people with suicidal ideation (SI), 74% improved on anti-depressants, only 4% worsened. Of the "normal" people with no SI, only 7% had SI emerge, and OF THESE 7%, 63% had it go away again by their final visit. The study notes that most of the "normal" people who became suicidal were either drug abusers or suffered clinical depression. [9]

My opponent thus drastically exaggerates how often SSRI's cause suicidal thoughts; also, SSRI's act on serotonin. She does not address drugs, like Wellbutrin, that act on norepinephrine and dopamine.

Lastly, my opponent's study proves that SSRI's have a 74% success rate in stopping suicidal thoughts in the suicidal. That's quite a ringing endorsement for my side.

(V) My opponent provides no evidence on how common manic episodes are. I wouldn't mind being "too happy."

(VI) It is possible to have good coping skills and still have a chemical imbalance in the brain. Drugs alone would solve this. Others should do both talk therapy and drugs.

(VII) Sorry, won't debate something that's not explained in the debate itself

I look forward to my opponent's response.

==Citations==

[1] Handbook of Psychology (p. 69), http://tinyurl.com...
[2] Ibid
[3] http://tinyurl.com...
[4] http://tinyurl.com...
[5] http://tinyurl.com...
[6] http://tinyurl.com...
[7] http://tinyurl.com...
[8] http://tinyurl.com...
[9] http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 2
bluesteel

Con

Thanks TulleKrazy.

Extend the BOP. My opponent continues to argue in favor of robbing patients of their choice by forcing them to attend extensive talk therapy sessions before they can try drugs. I argue for no such restriction.

+ . . . + will denote an argument my opponent made

---MDD is caused by a chemical imbalance---

In Psychology 1 in college, you learn that mental illnesses have a genetic and environmental component. An environmental "trigger" turns on a certain combination of genes, which then permanently alter the person's brain chemistry. Let's say the "trigger" is a parent yelling really loudly at his child for 5 minutes straight. If the child is genetically pre-disposed to schizophrenia, the "trigger" will cause the child to develop schizophrenia. If the child is pre-disposed to MDD, the "trigger" will cause the child to develop MDD. Once MDD or schizophrenia is developed, the child will need medication to fix the brain chemistry imbalance or the mental illness will persist. Even if the child later receives counseling for the "severe yelling incident," the underlying brain chemistry alteration will not completely subside without medication.

My opponent continues to refer to "depression" interchangeably with MDD ("clinical depression"). They are not the same. Depression can be overcome with solely talk therapy. My opponent has yet to provide evidence that talking to someone can cure serious imbalances in brain chemistry.

My opponent claims that we can't know which came first, the chemical imbalance or the depression. However, according to the British Medical Journal, 68% of depression is endogenous, meaning a sudden onset with no external cause. [1] This means that the alteration in brain chemistry occurred first and caused the person to become depressed, without any external life problems that could have caused this sudden onset.

---Best treatment is BOTH---

My opponent claims that medicines are used to treat non-specific symptoms. This is actually the nature of diagnostic medicine. Anyone who has watched the show House knows that you cannot always be certain which targeted medication to choose. Doctors must sometimes test a few different medicines to see which will work best. However, the University of Michigan Medical School explains that two-thirds of doctors get the very first anti-depressant prescription 100% correct. [2] The success rate continues to go up as patients who don't react to the first anti-depressant try a second anti-depressant.

My opponent should also tell you the very high failure rate of talk therapy, especially if a patient does not attend at least 13 sessions.

Lastly, my opponent doesn't answer my evidence from Laura Pinsky of the Columbia University Psychology Center, which says that studies and interviews with therapists prove that without medicine, many patients are too broken down emotionally to confront the problems in their past and the current stresses in their lives. Anti-depressants help patients talk through issues they otherwise would break down discussing.

Any patient who "tries" talk therapy for 13 straight sessions and sees it fail (because of the lack of drugs) will probably conclude that talk therapy doesn't work and never try it again.

---Miracle cures---

My opponent claims that suicidal patients might take too many sleeping pills, but these pills obviously wouldn't be prescribed to patients who are suicidal. By law, doctors cannot prescribe sleeping pills to someone who is showing suicidal tendencies. These pills can however help the many clinically depressed people who are not suicidal but suffer from serious problems in their sleep cycles. A recent study at UC Berkeley found that sleeping disorders can cause MDD and other mental illnesses. [3] Without allowing psychiatrists to prescribe drugs like 5-HTP, patients will make no progress in therapy because the underlying sleeping problems will not go away.

My opponent's only response to the incredible ketamine study at Yale is:
+ Although the chemical imbalance in the brain may be remedied, alone, it doesn't change a person's thinking style, or propensity for negative cognitive disortions. +

Actually, the balance of neurotransmitters in our brains directly affects our thought patterns. That's why hallucinogenic drugs have such an effect on our thoughts.

---Speed of effect---

My opponent doesn't contest that talk therapy takes at least 3 months to have any effect. Most suicidal people cannot wait this long; if you're suicidal, you don't even want to live until tomorrow. To someone who is suicidal, 3 months would seem like an unacceptable eternity if each day is such a burden that the person doesn't want to live anymore. Her link on Wellbutrin doesn't say anything about anti-depressants; also her facts are wrong – Wellbutrin acts on norephinephrine and dopamine, not serotonin. Either way, an immediate cure within two weeks is far more promising to someone who is suicidal than the hope of a slight improvement 3 months down the line. Extend my opponent's study that anti-depressants cure suicidal thoughts in 74% of patients.

Lastly, if the suicidal person WANTS medicine, denying it to him for 3 months might prompt him to commit suicide in retaliation. The denial of medicine might be seen as the last straw in a cruel, cruel world.

+ placebo effect +

The FDA won't approve a drug unless human studies prove that it is statistically significantly more effective than a placebo. The experimental group is typically given the drug; the control group is given a placebo.

---Stigma---

In an online poll, 26 percent of people said they would refuse to see a therapist either because of stigma or because "they wanted to solve their problems themselves." [4] If these people wanted medicine but not therapy, my opponent would deny them treatment.

---Quality of therapist---

Psychologists (talk therapists) often only have a college degree (often in sociology). You don't need a medical license to practice talk therapy. In contrast, psychiatrists are required to have a medical degree in order to prescribe drugs, but they often do not offer talk therapy services. The people who prescribe drugs are much more qualified than the people who do talk therapy.

==Rebuttal to my opponent's case==

(I) My opponent doesn't like that people with illnesses need to keep taking medicine. If someone is diabetic, we should not expect him to be able to stop taking insulin injections. In the same way, if someone suffers from MDD, we should not expect him to be able to stop taking anti-depressants.

(II) My opponent doesn't bother explaining her new source here.

(III) My opponent cites a study (that it costs money to access) to prove that people prefer psychotherapy. The first page of the study, which is available, says anti-depressants are the most popular drug in North America. I ask her to provide the statistics on how many prefer each form of treatment. I also ask how many of these "depressed" people actually had MDD.

And my opponent is the only one advocating we deny people a choice.

(IV) This study is for my side now.

(V) My opponent still provides no evidence that mania is a common side effect. In addition, misdiagnosis of MDD as bipolar disorder doesn't prove anti-depressants don't work.

(VI) Don't deny the patient the choice. 68% of depression is endogenous depression, which is caused solely by chemical imbalance.

(VII) Withdrawal. First, none of the drugs my opponent cites are anti-depressants (antipsychotics, benzodiazepines). Second, why would someone who had his or her depression cured on anti-depressants ever stop taking them?

My opponent takes issue with anti-depressants being popular, but this is the result of patient choice. Let the people decide – vote Con.

[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://tinyurl.com...
[3] http://tinyurl.com...
[4] http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 3
bluesteel

Con

Thanks TulleKrazy.

==BOP==

My opponent should lose the conduct vote for not answering my BOP until the last round and then changing her advocacy. I made clear starting in Round 2 that her BOP was to argue that drugs could not be used unless talk therapy was used first. Her new advocacy is unfair because it suddenly takes out a lot of my points, like stigma and speed of effect.

Her new advocacy:
+ If a patient is diagnosed with MDD and is recommended Psychotherapy, and the patient does not want Psychotherapy, then prescribing drugs would be the SECOND RESPONSE +

This is a silly interpretation of the topic. I can use this same twisted logic for my side. If BOTH talk therapy and drugs are recommended as the first response, and the patient says "no" to the drugs, the second response is then talk therapy. Pro accepts the BOP in this debate; since the world of Pro and the world of Con are now essentially the same – both involve 100% patient choice – you must vote Con on "presumption" (meaning: there is no net benefit to voting for either side, so Con wins by default, since Pro has the BOP).

So either 1) you make her stick to her original advocacy, or 2) Con wins by default. If you as the judge are deciding which to choose, I urge the second :P

---MDD is caused by a chemical imbalance---

+ compar[ing] MDD to Schizophrenia . . . is like apples to oranges +

Talk therapy is also used to treat schizophrenia; it's just not as effective as drugs. [1] The same is true of MDD. My opponent provides no evidence on psychotherapy's effectiveness rate, while I've shown that 2/3 of patients are completely cured on the first anti-depressant prescribed and 80% on the second (University of Michigan evidence).

+ relapse rates are the same +

This doesn't show effectiveness. Talk therapy could lead to a cure 10% of the time, and drugs could lead to a cure 66% of the time, but the relapse rate for both could be 30%.

+ The following link shows that Psychotherapy does have an effect on brain chemistry +

"An effect" is not the same as curing the imbalance in norepinephrine, dopamine, and serotonin levels.

Remember, the seminal study of endogenous depression was done by the British Medical Journal and found that 68% of depression had no external cause and was solely due to brain chemistry. My opponent says this study is old, but it is so well regarded, no new studies on endogenous depression have been needed. My opponent points out the study recommends Electro-shock therapy, but this treatment is still used today to treat the most severe cases of MDD (as my opponent herself suggests in her first Round).

So, 68% of patients need only the chemical imbalance in their brains treated with drugs; they don't need talk therapy. This explains the popularity of anti-depressants in the U.S.

---Best treatment is BOTH---

My opponent points to her personal experience here, but my Laura Pinsky evidence references multiple studies and medical practitioners who all agree that patients get much more out of talk therapy if they are also on anti-depressants. Patients who fail to take anti-depressants often get too stressed out during therapy sessions when confronting sensitive issues in their lives and these topics must thus be avoided, severely impeding any progress.

---Speed of effect---

My opponent agrees that it takes 13 sessions and thus an average of three months for talk therapy to have an effect. Unfortunately, the average MDD patient only attends 9 talk therapy sessions. [2] For someone who is on the verge of suicide, a one-week solution is going to be far more effective than a solution that takes 3 months. Drugs are vital to preventing suicide. Remember my opponent's own study that anti-depressants eliminated suicidal thoughts in 74% of patients who had them.

---Miracle cures---

My opponent never answers my Psychology Today evidence or the UC Berkeley study that sleep disorders and MDD are often interlinked. Drugs are the only cure in this case.

In addition, the experimental Yale ketamine study, proving a 100% cure rate with only one shot, is the wave of the future. Isn't an instant cure better than a 3 month, partially effective treatment?

+ placebo effect +

The effect right after taking the first pill doesn't matter. In all the studies of FDA approved anti-depressants, the actual drugs have vastly outperformed the placebo.

---Stigma---

If you stick my opponent to her original advocacy, this is a clear win for me. 26% of patients would refuse talk therapy, meaning the first response for them should be drugs. Medical definitions of "first response" support my definition, that the treatment must actually be administered, not just proffered. [3]

---Quality of therapist---

My opponent questions my facts. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, psychologists only need a college degree (B.A.). [4] They are not exceedingly qualified medical practitioners. Psychiatrists, like any other doctor, need an M.D. to prescribe drugs. Thus my conclusion is valid: the people who prescribe drugs are far more qualified than the people who offer "talk therapy."

==Rebuttal to my opponent's case==

My opponent doesn't really bother extending most of her arguments.

Note: the numbering is from her original case

(I) My opponent says diet and exercise can cure diabetes. Her source is from a question and answer site – it's not a study and doesn't show how many people this works for or what regimen of diet/exercise was followed. I don't recommend that the average diabetic stop taking his or her insulin injections, especially if the Diabetes is Type I, which would quickly result in death.

(II) dropped by my opponent

(III) Her link doesn't work, so I still can't see what percentage preferred each (was it 51% talk therapy vs. 49% drugs), and I can't tell if the group studied were all diagnosed with MDD (clinical depression) or just run-of-the-mill depression ("the blues").

In the beginning of her previous round, my opponent says the topic refers to *all* depression, but when she said in Round 1 "It would be nice if whoever takes this has a working knowledge of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD)," I assumed she meant "clinical depression," and she failed to clear this up in the previous round. Kind of unfair, again.

But the main point here is if you stick my opponent to her original advocacy, patient choice wins the day, so this poll doesn't matter. If she goes with her second advocacy, there is no net benefit to voting for either side, so Con carries the day on presumption.

(IV) Most debaters would consider later indicting your own study in bad form.

(V) My opponent doesn't really extend her own argument here.

(VI) Same

(VII) The drugs cited by name in her source were NOT anti-depressants. She draws the link to anti-depressants outside the quotation marks.

+ Discontinued use +

The Mayo Clinic says most anti-depressants are safe during pregnancy, and stopping anti-depressant use can affect a mother's food intake and energy levels, which can harm the baby. [5]

Only the very oldest brands of anti-depressants have been linked to risk of heart disease. [6]

I still don't understand why the average person who has his MDD well regulated on anti-depressants would suddenly choose to stop taking them.

+ Popularity +

Doctors can't force patients to take anything. In fact, going to a psychiatrist to get drugs instead of a psychologist to get talk therapy is directly a patient's choice. If the patient doesn't want drugs but wants talk therapy, he or she should seek the services of a psychologist, who is legally barred from prescribing drugs due to the lack of an M.D.

Thanks all. Vote Con.

==Citations==

[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://tinyurl.com...
[3] http://tinyurl.com...
[4] http://tinyurl.com...
[5] http://tinyurl.com...
[6] http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 4
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
I think Pro would have had a better chance if they didn't go with MDD, but just depression, which is often just feeling crummy and people wanting to says it is a disease rather then a bad mood.
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
belle,

I'll make a stab at re-explaining what I meant, but I really think that the crux of my case came down to Pro's BOP, ppl who are suicidal, and ppl who don't want talk therapy, so I didn't really think my first contention was all that important.

But, as far as the imbalance thing, a lot of MDD is endogenous, meaning caused by a change in brain chemistry which is not precipitated by an external event. For MDD that is exogenous, it's still not quite as simple as having a therapeutic event. Environmental triggers cause schizophrenia, post-traumatic stress disorder, and many other mental illnesses. Talk therapy has proven very ineffective for many of these because the event often triggered a permanent physiological change in the body, brought about by turning on a certain set of genes.

Imagine, for example, that seeing your parents beaten and robbed when you were a child caused you to have a psychotic break and start hallucinating. It might be an important part of your rehabilitation to talk to someone about the incident, but you'd definitely also need anti-psychotic drugs. Talking to someone can't fix the physiological changes to the brain that caused you to hallucinate.
Posted by belle 6 years ago
belle
to expand a bit- if a traumatic event can lead to an imbalance in brain chemistry, why can't a restorative or therapeutic event lead to a re-balancing? con can't have it both ways... either events and thought patterns effect brain chemistry or they don't...
Posted by belle 6 years ago
belle
this one is tough to judge b/c i think con fails to understand how drug therapies for depression actually work, so his arguments in that regard fail. on the other hand pro seemingly accepted the burden to prove that antidepressants should be denied patients until they fail to respond to CBT or other talk therapies, which seems unjustifiable. :/
Posted by nonentity 6 years ago
nonentity
"PRO uses anecdotal evidence too often. Also, her sources are not viewable, so my vote goes to CON for sources."

So you penalized me because I used textbooks and peer-reviewed journals... okay...

"For arguments, CON clearly wins by showing the positive effects of drugs and explaining that MDD is in fact genetic, not environmental."

Con failed to provide evidence that MDD is caused by chemical imbalance, because none exists.

"All of PRO's points were mostly rebutted."

That's not true but lol okay.

"CON also gets conduct points since his rounds were numbered nicely and labeled while PRO did not do it that often."

I don't see how organization plays into conduct but okay.

"PRO also tries to escape her BOP by weaseling out by stating that patients can choose pharmacotherapy over pscyhotherapy."

Haha check again. Con tried to put words in my mouth. In my second round I stated my BOP. Unfortunately, I had to waste enough space repeating myself several times so my apologies for not going over a BOP I had already stated.

Look at the difference in wording:

In my second round, I said: "I accept the burden of proof to prove that psychotherapy should be the first response when treating depressed patients. I'd like to clarify that I do not disagree that different methods should be utilized depending on each patient---what I am proposing is that psychotherapy be applied *first*, as opposed to prescribing medications first."

In the 3rd round, Con uses loaded words: "Extend the BOP. My opponent continues to argue in favor of robbing patients of their choice by forcing them to attend extensive talk therapy sessions before they can try drugs. I argue for no such restriction."
Posted by nonentity 6 years ago
nonentity
I addressed the BOP in my second round. It's not my fault that you kept twisting it around to be in your favour. I'll respond to the rest of this later. I'm in cass.
Posted by darkkermit 6 years ago
darkkermit
RFD
CON gets points for referencing House and having a Dexter avatar. Pro loses points for being a Canadian.

jk. PRO uses anecdotal evidence too often. Also, her sources are not viewable, so my vote goes to CON for sources. For arguments, CON clearly wins by showing the positive effects of drugs and explaining that MDD is in fact genetic, not environmental. All of PRO's points were mostly rebutted. PRO's best argument was for manic, however there wasn't enough evidence on her part to convince that it is too harmful.

CON also gets conduct points since his rounds were numbered nicely and labeled while PRO did not do it that often. PRO also tries to escape her BOP by weaseling out by stating that patients can choose pharmacotherapy over pscyhotherapy.
Posted by annhasle 6 years ago
annhasle
Gah, I was looking forward to this one but I have to get offline. I'll read this and RFD tomorrow. So far, great job to both of you! :D
Posted by nonentity 6 years ago
nonentity
Hmm It said I had 8 characters left and then it cut off the end of my round. These are my sources again.

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

[2] http://www.isps-us.org...

[3] http://www.everydayhealth.com...

[4] http://journals1.scholarsportal.info.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca...

[5] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Posted by nonentity 6 years ago
nonentity
F&^#)(@&

I am so sorry. I'm sort of in a rush but better a crappy round than a forfeited one lol
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
nonentitybluesteelTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: BoP contested in the last round was poor form, arguments presented by BS were not fully refuted.
Vote Placed by darkkermit 6 years ago
darkkermit
nonentitybluesteelTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO uses anecdotal evidence too often. Also, her sources are not viewable, so my vote goes to CON for sources. For arguments, CON clearly wins by showing the positive effects of drugs and explaining that MDD is in fact genetic, not environmental. All of PRO's points were mostly rebutted. PRO's best argument was for manic, however there wasn't enough evidence on her part to convince that it is too harmful. CON also gets conduct points since his rounds were numbered nicely and labeled while PRO di
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
nonentitybluesteelTied
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