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

There is no such thing as Alcoholism!

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 918 times Debate No: 72471
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




Looking for someone who wants to challenge my claim!


I Accept.

I look forward to Pro proving that alcoholism doesn't exist.

I will assume round one is for acceptance.
Since Pro has not set up any definitions I will present the oxford dictionary definitions of words that may come up in this debate.

Alcoholism: An addiction to the consumption of alcoholic liquor or the mental illness and compulsive behavior resulting from alcohol dependency.

Dependence: The state of relying on or being controlled by someone or something else

Addicted: Physically and mentally dependent on a particular substance, and unable to stop taking it without incurring adverse effects.

Best of luck to Pro!
Debate Round No. 1


Again, Alcoholism is not real. But, addiction is. At the time when AA was started back in the 30's it contained a doctor's OPINION. Fast forward to 1953 and NA was formed. More research had been done into the topic of addictive substances and so on. What separates NA from AA as a whole is that NA recognizes alcohol as a drug and an addictive substance that can cause addiction and dependence not a disease of its own. If there was a person with a 25-I NBOMe addiction, they would not be recognized in today's society as a 25-I NBOMeoholic nor will they be diagnosed with the disease of 25-I NBOMe-lism. If someone actually said that though, first we would think they are crazy and that they are trying to seem unique. Also it is important to understand that the disease theory is just that - a theory. Additionally, it is important to understand that this theory is only accepted as fact by the rehab, rehabilitation, and treatment industry here in the United States. The rest of the world considers the disease theory for alcoholism pure bunk. In his book Why We Should Reject The Disease Concept of Alcoholism, Herbert Fingarette, Ph.D., makes the following observations: In the United States, but not in other countries such as Great Britain (Robertson and Heather, 1982), the standard answer is to call the behavior a disease - 'alcoholism' - whose key symptom is a pattern of uncontrollable drinking. This myth, now widely advertised and widely accepted, is neither helpfully compassionate nor scientifically valid. It promotes false beliefs and inappropriate attitudes, as well as harmful, wasteful, and ineffective social policies. The myth is embodied in the following four scientifically baseless propositions:
1) Heavy problem drinkers show a single distinctive pattern of ever greater alcohol use leading to ever greater bodily, mental, and social deterioration.
2) The condition once it appears, persists involuntarily: the craving is irresistible and the drinking is uncontrollable once it has begun.
3) Medical expertise is needed to understand and relieve the condition (cure the disease) or at least ameliorate its symptoms.
4) Alcoholics are no more responsible legally or morally for their drinking and its consequences than epileptics are responsible for the consequences of their movements during seizures.
The idea that alcoholism is a disease has always been a political and moral notion with no scientific basis. It was first promoted in the United States around 1800 as a speculation based on erroneous physiological theory (Levine, 1978), and later became a theme of the temperance movement (Gusfield, 1963). It was revived in the 1930s by the founders of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), who derived their views from an amalgam of religious ideas, personal experiences and observations, and the unsubstantiated theories of a contemporary physician (Robinson, 1979).1 Another observation is offered by Jeffery Schaler, Ph.D. in June of 1995: Extensive research supports the idea that addiction is a voluntary process, a behavior that is better explained by individual psychological and environmental factors, than physiology and the chemical properties of drugs. 2


Pro has plagiarized his entire round from his source. This alone warrants an automatic concession on his part.

Pro is also referring to alcoholism as a disease, something that was never specified from the start, I posted the ox ford dictionary definition alcoholism in case something like this had happened. I do believe though that you the reader will see that simply being addicted or dependent on alcohol qualifies as alcoholism.

I will none the less post an argument anyway.

According to the National Counsel on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence (NCADD), "Alcohol is the most commonly used addictive substance in the United States- 17.6 million people, or one in every 12 adults, suffer from alcohol abuse or dependence along with several million more who engage in risky, binge drinking patterns that could lead to alcohol problems. More than half of all adults have a family history of alcoholism or problem drinking, and more than 7 million children live in a household where at least one parent is dependent on or has abused alcohol."[1]

This is a staggering number of people who are affected by alcoholism. Pro will need to present some kind of evidence to dispute that the 1 in 12 Americans who suffered from alcoholism, are actually not dependent or addicted. This indeed is a daunting task on his part.

Additionally, I will put forth evidence that suggests genetics may also play a roll in developing an addiction or dependence on alcohol to humor Pro's disease arguement.
"Twin studies offer a chance to compare the influence of genetics versus environment. Identical twins (one-egg twins) share exactly the same set of genes while fraternal twins (two-egg twins), like ordinary siblings, share only one-half their genes. A higher rate of concordance (similarity) between identical twins compared with fraternal twins would argue for heredity. In other words, how often are both twins affected together rather than only one. The evidence favors heredity with figures like 60% (identical) versus 39% (fraternal) in one Scandinavian study"

Robert M. Morse, MD who has written the article I use states that, "Certainly heredity cannot account for all causation in alcoholism but in that manner it is much like diabetes or heart disease that also have an inherited component."

Even if he were to refute the statistics I present here, it doesn't stand from him to win due to his plagiarism in round 2.

Vote Con.

Debate Round No. 2


80% of what i put above is from the source, which is sited, you are correct about that it's from a source. However, you are missing the point. What I was including with my argument was evidence not plagiarism. Like Istated before if Alcoholism was a real thing in your dictionary sense, people around the world would be acknowledging someone with a a meth problem as someone with Metholism and they're a methoholic.



Pro drops all of my arguments and simply re-affirms his plagiarism is not plagiarism. Despite the fact that everything he wrote was not quoted, and as I read it, it would most definitely comes of as if he is the one who came up with the idea.

The oxford dictionary definition of plagiarism.
"the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's"

To be honest, I'm not to concerned with this though. I know anyone who votes here understands that copy and pasting an entire article as ones argument simply isn't acceptable.

Most of this confusion on what alcoholism is could have been prevented had Pro simply given his definitions in R1. I do him a courtesy of posting the official definitions and accepts them (by not responding), but simply goes on about how it's a disease instead.

Regardless, Pro' plagiarism ought to result in an automatic concession.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Kozu 2 years ago
Thanks Ragnar, going to have to keep that link in my pocket.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by PatrickTheWise 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: Pro's disregard for Con's arguments looks appears to be concession.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
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: Plagiarism is plagiarism, no matter the intent. Discounting all non-sourced but copy/pasted material... Pro elected to not make a case, con even politely showed how to properly quote and cite material. Pro then decided not to attempt to counter any of cons points on the debate topic, leaving arguments entirely non-contested.