The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

The only solution to changing a destructive lifestlye is making a quality decision

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/10/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 570 times Debate No: 66685
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




All this nonsense about " treatment" and "therapy" for those who want to escape the consequences of bad behavior has only one solution.Quality decisions.

A quality decision is a decision from which there is no turning, about which there is no more debate.

Con is free to refute that statement.


Pro says the only solution to changing a destructive lifestyle is making a quality decision. All I have to do is find one alternative solution, and I win.

I agree that, in the main, a "quality decision" is required. However, the government succeeds in changing destructive lifestyles all the time. You know how? Jail for life. What was a destructive lifestyle before (murder and drugs and rape and other horrible things) may now still not be moral (jail isn't that great) but it is not destructive to anyone outside the jail. That constitutes a substantive change.

So, I have proved Pro wrong. Happy day, everyone.
Debate Round No. 1


Jail is not a valid argument either. Even in jail you have choices to make which can be healthy or destructive. They are people just like us.Even for life you can make the most of it.You can be friendly or bitter. It is always a choice.


Pro, we're debating: "The only solution to changing a destructive lifestyle is making a quality decision."

But Pro did not specify that the lifestyle must by mainly destructive to the individual practicing it or anything like that. In fact, Pro did not even specify that the change must be for the better.

Going to jail would change the destructive lifestyle substantively. I'm not saying that the PERSON would necessarily change, but their lifestyle would. In the right jail at least that person would be unable to access drugs, alcohol, or victims. That would constitute a substantial improvement in the destructive lifestyle. That's all I needed to prove for the debate.

Pro, debates like this are hard for Pro because the contentendor only needs to point out one exception and then Pro's case is lost.
Debate Round No. 2


Even in solitary confinement a person can have a destructive or a constructive lifestyle. They both will have different outcomes.Nothing ever just happens. We all reap what we sow.It takes a quality decision to change our future.Not to continue sowing destruction.


Depends how you define "destructive." I'm defining it as "tending to cause harm to yourself or others," in this context. A murderer who makes deep cuts in his own arms in his spare time will be less destructive in a prison cell. That's a change. I'm not saying he will be constructive, but he won't be as destructive.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
A quality decision is one from which there is no turning back to the lifestyle that got you in trouble. Like drinking or smoking. I have heard people say, " I quit smoking for 5 years. No, they did not quit. They just paused. Because it was not a quality decision.If it was quality, then no amount of pressure would they take up smoking again.And there would be no debate about it, either in your own mind or with others. I remember swearing off drinking after every time I woke up with a hangover. But one day in 1974 I made a decision of quality ,and alchohol has not crossed my lips since. Smoking was the same thing. I gave up breathing smoke on purpose and replaced it with fresh air.

I have seen people go to drug rehab for years and never free from it. Because they never made a quality decision to quit.The same with going to shrinks.Ot putting on those stupid cigarette patches. Now true therapy will move you to make that kind of decision.

A friend of mine said in November that on December 1st he would quit smoking. I knew it would not hold up. Quality decisions are never in the future. NOW is the only time that it has power to affect the mind that would anchor it to that decision.
Posted by gomergcc 2 years ago
I would like to debate about the how therapy and treatments are very useful, and how they change peoples lives. My problem with this debate is this:

A quality decision is a decision from which there is no turning, about which there is no more debate. Con is free to refute that statement.

This does not really mean anything having to do with quality decisions. I am left wondering how does a decision turn and what is it turning. Also wondering no more debate about what?
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
I said " destructive", did I not?That takes in a wide range of behavior, all of which are chosen by the person.I also said that most " treatments" are useless.
Posted by FaustianJustice 2 years ago
-has the feeling that the terminology of this debate was left vague to a choice of decisions for a reason-

What lifestyle are we talking, here? Being addicted to the gym and fitness are 'quality' decicions on their own right, but I have this creeping suspicion you have something else in mind, but would rather not say it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
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: Conduct - Tie. Both had proper conduct throughout the debate. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar. I would caution Pro to pay attention to spacing though, as some of his sentences lacked spaces between each other. Arguments - Con. While pro presented a compelling case, Con is correct in that he only has to provide one alternative solution. He did so with the jail example, thus showing that there is another solution to changing a destructive lifestyle other than by making a quality decision. Pro's biggest mistake was not providing additional clarification at the beginning of this debate. Due to these reasons, Con wins arguments. Sources - Tie. Neither utilized sources in this debate.