The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Career debate: 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  
Debate Round Forfeited
GodTier has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 499 times Debate No: 101269
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




Rules of debate:
1) Con should name a career that they will be arguing for in round 1. Since we will both be arguing why our career is better than the other, we both have a burden of proof.
2) No insults, personal attacks, ad hominem
3) The total number of rounds used for argument should be the total you see here minus 1. This is to keep the total number of rounds used for argument even between us, since I am not using round 1 for argument
4) The last round used for argument should just be rebuttal to your opponent's arguments and/or conclusions: no new arguments in this round. New facts and information can be introduced, but only in rebuttal to your opponent's argument.

If any of the above rules are violated by either side, this is justification for voters to choose the one who did not violate them for the point in conduct.

My choice of career is of course, psychiatry. For those of you who don't know, that is what I am currently studying to become.

Pretty much any argument that doesn't use a logical fallacy is valid. I will point out logical fallacies if they are used, so I suggest brushing up on your logical fallacies. Here're are some examples of what you can argue for: you can argue your career makes more money, yours provides more happiness to the person in that career, yours benefits society more, yours has a higher demand and need in society, yours is more enjoyable, etc. All of those would be positive reasons for why your career should be prefered to mine. You can also try to bring attention to negative aspects of my career, for example, is it one that requires too much education, is it one that doesn't make a lot of money, is it one that doesn't provide happiness to oneself or others, is it one that isn't needed in society etc. All of those would be potential negative reasons against my career. However, keep in mind, the burden of proof we share means you need to prove your career is better than mine, so you'd also need to provide positive reasons for your career. So don't just focus on attacking my career, do a little of that and a little of supporting your career.

Have fun!


Terrorist leader or high rank (not soldier, leader of the group).
Debate Round No. 1


There is a great need for psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses

There is a large shortage for those in the psychiatric field. 77% of US counties have a severe shortage of prescribers of psychiatric medication(which includes both psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses) and 96% had at least some sort of shortage[1, pg 1325] In other words, 72% of all counties in the US have their psychological needs met, while only 4% have their psychiatric needs met. There is a much greater need for psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses than psychologists, therapists, etc.

I would argue there is not a need for terrorist leaders since they are viewed as terrible people by society. I don't even know where to find if there is a need for them, I contend that there is not a need for terrorist leaders since terrorism is an evil and not necessary for the improvement of life(if anything, it is a detriment to life)

Psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses earn substantial incomes

The average psychiatrist yearly income in the United States ranges from $171,660 to $195,510, depending on who you work for[2]. The average yearly earnings of a person who takes on an advanced degree beyond a master's degree, is $69,588. [3] This means that a psychiatrist is paid much more than other advanced degrees which require the same amount of education. Overall, it is profitable to become a psychiatrist in the long-run in comparison to other advanced degrees.

A psychiatric nurse, which only needs a master's degree earns $91,963[4] while the average income for someone with a master's degree is $57,264 annually.[3]

Clearly, in terms of what you can earn in these jobs, psychiatry is a good choice since those in the field of psychiatry earn much more than other people with equivalent education requirements.

The field of psychiatry is growing substantially

In the next 10 years, psychiatry is expected to grow by 15%[2], which is substantially higher than the average for most jobs.

Benefits of psychiatry outweigh terrorism for society

It should be obvious that having doctors and nurses around that can prescribe needed psychiatric medication is definitely a good thing, however, having terrorists or terrorist leaders would be detrimental to society’s desires. More people would be killed by terrorism if we had more terrorists and terrorist leaders, but more people would benefit from having more psychiatric prescribers.

Conclusion of this round:

Due to that there is a growing need for psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses, psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses earn more income, and the benefits of psychiatry for society are far better than any that could come from terrorism, this is why psychiatry should be preferred to terrorism as a career.








Shortage (Lack of Supply) is more for Terrorist Leaders.

While USA is not the world, I'm also not entirely sure that the statistics mentioned by Pro match the ones in his overly long reports.

If we take the world as a whole and countries where the government have the most arms, the most ability to get intelligence (meaning there are actual unobtainable permissions required to even get to their level of gathered intelligence) and worst of all, only they can propose a canon of legislation let alone allow it to become law we have an issue. Currently the entire world excluding uninhabited areas such as Anterctica, are officially non-anarchies and thus there are people with badges and titles in countries that cannot equally compete with the super-mafia that, in any given nation, is its government.

If you ask what proof I have, there is countless.

NSA admits its own existence:
NSA has nothing keeping it in check and annihilates any opposition (which there is from majority of Americans):
Similar organisations exist for all nations but even worse, USA's NSA was permitted at one point to spy on the entire world bar four countries:

Since there is no opposing 'force' to governments and even totally ideologically opposed governments such as the secular USA and tyrannical Islamic government of Saudi are close allies:
Well, if two such countries are allies, there is no clear purpose for governments as there is some larger game at play nothing to do with the wellbeing of the ideologies the parties represent.

Terrorism, in history, is the only, I repeat only reason why India became freed (even the physical protests Gandhi led wereconsidered terrorism) and in any given situation where there was a nonviolent speaker such as Gandhi, it was only that they had more violent rivals fighting fo rthe same cause that anyone listened to them to begin with (so as to go with the lesser of the two evils opposing the government of the time).
Mandela was both the violent and nonviolent leader for his protests:

To say that there is no longer a shortage or need for terrorism is to say that anarchy and freedom for humanity is no longer a thing worth fighitng for, which makes no sense because all that a government is, is the most organised and resourceful gang of any given nationstate. Without terrorists, people like Kim-Jong-Un and the Sheikhs of the middle east would rule on forever passing down their undeserved corrupt power to other non-elected corrupt officials. That isn't to say that being a democratic nation makes one less needing of government overthrowing, just that it is a lesser form of 'bad' government when the people elect the leaders in.

Money/Income and Career
This is just irrelevant to the debate. It is also an extremely filthy tactic since of course there's no public display of how rich any one terrorist high ranker got during their reign.

Money isn't why one should try a career, a 'job' as a professional gambler if one is disciplind neough would be a fine way to live life abusing drunkards in the casino daily at the poker table. One could even get by in life being a brilliant fraud or con artist and earn more than psychiatrists do.

The reason one chooses a career is the fulfillment of climbing, not just the money.

Careers are for people who want their life to 'build up' to an amazing conclusion, not for people who want to grind cash every day.

Yes, psychiatry is growing, so is EVERY career field. This is a moot point as it's equal for both sides, please do not for one second thing that terrorism isn't evolving and growing, I am no fan of terrorists and the governments must up their game to overcome things like VPNs and other anonymity methods.

The Benefits of Terrorism FOR THE RIGHT CAUSE Cannot even be Compared with Psychiatry
The freeing of blacks, the freeing of indians and so many other nations where terrorism was the first step in their liberation (Libyansto Gaddafi so on and so forth) and you are going to say that telling an autistic kid he's autistic is somehow equally valuableto society? Do not say 'it is obvious', provide any remote proof of this outrageous claim you make!


Terrorist Leaders experience a level of admiration and power that even the best psychiatrist or really best of any other career cannot come near.
Even Napoleon was, in the eyes of his enemies, a terrorist leader (because he wasn't any lawful authority in their land). Whether it's the Tamil Tigers fighting the abuse of power of Rajapaksa ( or the Russians who first needed Terrorism to fight the Oligarchy of rich, and later to fight the new leaders who had anything but freed them. ( Whether or not you agree with their cause, the leaders of any given movement (Whether it be Lenin and Mandela or the more malignant Bin Laden and Guy Fawkes) there is no denying that amongst their people they were revered for what they did and that they were not just seen as masculine figures amongst many women but as brilliant human beings by males and females alike.

The Career is one of the Hardest to 'climb'
Once you made it to the top of a terrorist organisation, you will almost always remain at the top because not only is betrayal unlikely as you get revered as some deified figurehead of sorts but even if people want to overthrow you, the climb isn't purely based on hard work but the ability to charm people and convince them that you are the deserving leader, which is a skill all on its own.

It is one of the only careers where you never retire, even after the action you 'work to spread belief'.
Even those not killed in actions, such as Mandela and Lenin, get worshipped after they die of natural causes for the courage they had (that is if enough people like the cause you fought for).
Debate Round No. 2


I think my opponent is using a definition of terrorism that does not fit with the common definition of it. Terrorism is defined as "the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror or fear, in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim."[5]. Terrorism is also usually used against civilians and is considered a war crime.

There's a difference between a revolutionary and a terrorist. A revolutionary, while may use violence, they don't do so in order to cause terror and fear among the people or to harm civilians, and is not considered a war crime. India's independence was not an act of terrorism, but an act of revolution. Pretty much every example that my opponent offered was an act of revolution and not of terrorism.

Now, I will offer rebuttals to specific parts I feel necessary which weren’t rebutted by what I said above(most of what my opponent said is rebutted by what I said above). Quotes will be italicized and general ideas, if the quote is too long to quote, will be in bold.

While USA is not the world, I'm also not entirely sure that the statistics mentioned by Pro match the ones in his overly long reports.
There is also a massive shortage of psychiatric prescribers worldwide[6][7]. And yes, they do match the ones in my report. I specifically stated the pages I got the statistics from, and you can look at that page to find the statistics I mentioned.

To say that there is no longer a shortage or need for terrorism is to say that anarchy and freedom for humanity is no longer a thing worth fighitng for
Most people don’t believe in anarchy. Even I don’t go that far. I believe minarchism is necessary, where a minimal amount of government is needed to provide basic things to promote liberty. Most people believe anarchy would result in chaos, I believe.

Additionally, as I stated, this isn’t terrorism you’re talking about, but revolution. I was under the impression we were talking about the definition of terrorism above. It should be assumed that common definitions are used unless otherwise specified. You didn’t offer a definition of your terms when you first posted your argument. Thus, it’s only logical to assume common definitions. I still assert there is a difference between terrorism and revolution. Revolution can be a good thing, if the revolution seeks good causes.

Re: Money/Income and Career
This is just irrelevant to the debate. It is also an extremely filthy tactic since of course there's no public display of how rich any one terrorist high ranker got during their reign.
I stated clearly in round 1 that income was a reasonable argument. When you agreed to the debate, you agreed to what I wrote in round 1.

Money isn't why one should try a career, a 'job' as a professional gambler if one is disciplind neough would be a fine way to live life abusing drunkards in the casino daily at the poker table.
Despite that I stated in round 1 money was a reasonable argument, I’ll explain why I think it is here:
You can’t do much without an income. Revolution and terrorism needs money to survive. You can’t be a revolutionary without having money to purchase weapons needed for the revolution, or else purchasing things needed to create weapons. Someone involved in the revolution needs access to money. So, money enables you to change the world. Additionally, money allows you to pursue other interests. Let’s say you’re into going to the movies, reading books, or playing video games. To acquire all of these things, it requires money. Additionally, if you want to donate to charity and help other people, it requires money. Money is the basis behind everything in our society. Without it, you can’t acquire anything legally.

Yes, psychiatry is growing, so is EVERY career field.
But not every field is growing at the rate psychiatry is. As I mentioned, they grow at a much higher rate than the average career.

Re: The Benefits of Terrorism FOR THE RIGHT CAUSE Cannot even be Compared with Psychiatry
Again, I wouldn’t call what you listed here terrorism, but revolution. I would like to point out, that revolution, which seems to be more like what you’re arguing for, is not a career. Once the revolution is over, that’s it. Your position is no longer needed. It’s not something you have for the long-run. Psychiatry, on the other hand, is always needed and is never over. Revolution/terrorism, once it reaches its goals, is over. Additionally, anyone can be a revolutionary. As a psychiatrist, I could decide to contribute to a revolution. Most revolutionaries usually have an actual career, such as politics or something else. That’s why I wouldn’t call revolutionary a type of career.

Now, I will move on to one more main argument, which won’t be a rebuttal to what my opponent has said.
Terrorism/revolution may or may not be good for society
Psychiatry is something we all agree is something that is always beneficial to society, however most people agree terrorism is a terrible thing, and whether revolution is depends on whether you support that revolution’s causes. Over all, even if people agree with it, the revolution may not actually be beneficial to society.

I’ll end my argument here and let my opponent respond.

This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Capitalistslave 2 years ago
I'll be posting within the next 24 hours. I have a test in a couple of hours, for which I'm doing some last minute studying. I should probably post actually within the next 12 hours, but I'll give myself a wider amount of time in case I can't within the next 12 hours for some reason.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.