The Instigator
mayrivershark
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points

Should Facilitated Research be used to Prevent Teen Suicide/Depression

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 553 times Debate No: 70779
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

mayrivershark

Con

NO-
By making the issue of teen suicide evident to the public, it allows teens to be pressured to "get better" by their peers and family. When the issue is expressed to the World then teens feel trapped and surrounded, being watched by everyone thinking they are going to kill themselves and bystanders think they can help by watching. While this may not be the case for most issues it is on teen suicide.
What do you think?
Yes or No?
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Pro

I accept.

CON argues, "By making the issue of teen suicide evident to the public, it allows teens to be pressured to "get better" by their peers and family. When the issue is expressed to the World then teens feel trapped and surrounded, being watched by everyone thinking they are going to kill themselves and bystanders think they can help by watching. While this may not be the case for most issues it is on teen suicide."

There are several notable problems with this assertion. First of all, what's the value or the optimal moral system within which CON is arguing? It cannot possibly be saving teen lives, because his side of this debate requires that he take a position whereby he's effectively indifferent to saving teen lives--he's presented with a possibility to save their lives, but flat-out rejects that. Is it making their lives, while they still live, as comfortable as possible? He seems to be arguing for that, but he nevertheless misses the mark entirely because his plan allows teenagers to suffer through their depression and close themselves off to the outside world, in spite of the fact that there is a solution--doing something to help them, whether that's advocating therapy which would also "making the issue of teen suicide evident to the public" or research to better address this very salient issue. The fact of the matter is, by even making this debate, CON is making the issue of teen suicide evident to the public. It's *already* evident to the public. What he wants to do is shove the problem under the rug and pretend that it doesn't exist in lieu of tackling it head-on with the intention of actually addressing it and rectifying it.

Further, because the issue is already evident to the public, CON's contention already falls apart. But, even if it weren't, what does he hope to accomplish by concealing the truth? He claims this will cause teens to feel trapped and surrounded by people who want to help them.

First, even if I buy that they will feel trapped--and I don't--they'll feel more trapped in CON's world where no one is willing or aware of a very deep-rooted problem with requires psychiatric help.

Second, he assumes that whatever help is offered will necessarily "trap" those teenagers and lead to a deluge of people surrounding them. Medical issues are necessarily confidential, so this isn't even the case. Further, research into this matter could even find the best, most effective, and most efficient ways to actually not only help these teenagers, but also as to how best to interact with them whilst they are still going through Depression.


With that, CON's arguments fall apart. Therefore, you're voting PRO. I will however, offer a contention.


C1) Saving Lives

This is the strongest impact in the debate. First, Depression is extremely prevalent not only in the US, but in children:

"A number of epidemiological studies have reported that up to 2.5 percent of children and up to 8.3 percent of adolescents in the U.S. suffer from depression. An NIMH-sponsored study of 9- to 17-year-olds estimates that the prevalence of any depression is more than 6 percent in a 6-month period, with 4.9 percent having major depression. In addition, research indicates that depression onset is occurring earlier in life today than in past decades. A recently published longitudinal prospective study found that early-onset depression often persists, recurs, and continues into adulthood, and indicates that depression in youth may also predict more severe illness in adult life. Depression in young people often co-occurs with other mental disorders, most commonly anxiety, disruptive behavior, or substance abuse disorders, and with physical illnesses, such as diabetes." [http://www.about-teen-depression.com...]

Under my system, we address the problem early, save lives, develop strategies to prevent Depression in later generations, and prevent problems from getting worst. You cannot possibly hope to solve a problem of this magnitude--or any problem--by pretending that it doesn't exist.


Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 1
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by YoshiBoy13 1 year ago
YoshiBoy13
So, one round.
Therefore, no time for rebuttals.
Therefore, no time for Con to defend his arguments.
GG.
Posted by TheSymbiote 1 year ago
TheSymbiote
I think that other peoples lives don't matter. I don't really care about the teens who kill themselves. They're weak and they're cowards
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Blade-of-Truth
mayriversharkResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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: Conduct - Tie. Neither had poor conduct in this debate. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar. Arguments - Pro. Con presented an argument which I felt was only partially relatable to the resolution at hand. With that said, Pro came in and not only rebutted Con's only argument to the point where it stood defeated, but additionally presented further arguments which Con had no chance of rebutting. This was a clear win for Pro. Sources - Pro. Con did not utilize sources in this debate whereas Pro did.
Vote Placed by MyDinosaurHands 1 year ago
MyDinosaurHands
mayriversharkResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Con proposed some almost completely unsupported claims in the first round, which were completely dismantled by Pro's response, therefore arguments go to Pro. Sources go to Pro as well. He did not use many, but his opponent didn't use any, and in a debate about a psychological disorder, scientific data is helpful, as such it is a detriment to Con that he/she doesn't have any. I give conduct to Con because Pro, a high level debater, had to have known based on the one round set up, inadequate arguments, and general evidence that Con did not know what he/she was getting into. Given this, it is kind of unsporting for Pro to have taken this debate. Tip to Con: in the future, give yourself more rounds, and take a less relaxed approach. Debate to win, not just to hear someone else's view.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
mayriversharkResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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: Pro is simply dominant in this debate. Con's position is barely explained and Pro punches a number of holes in it quickly while establishing a much more solid case. Con, in the future, if you're going to make a 1 round debate, be as complete as possible in that single round. Better to increase the number of rounds, though, and give yourself a chance to defend your arguments and rebut your opponent's.