Psychiatry

Unfortunately my opponent contests the purpose of this debate. Allow me to repeat my points from the last round. Con did not make the resolution clear; he presented CONTENTIONS in Round 1 which is NOT the same as a RESOLUTION. Contentions support the resolution. Therefore, Con is arguing against Psychiatry while I am arguing for it. I can accept his contentions while still affirming the resolution which is what matters. If Con intended to debate "Psychiatry has never cured a mental illness" then he should have made that the resolution, not the contention. My opponent did not clarify his position in R1, and I have argued from the most logical assumption of his intent based on the definitions he provided. == And furthermore Con would have a hard time proving this anyway. If one's mental illness somehow suddenly subsided never to return again -- which has been the case in many instances -- then who is to say that psychiatry was not effective in curing these particular disorders for these specific individuals? Insomnia is a mental disorder than has been cured, and depression is another. Just because they cannot always be cured for all, doesn't mean they haven't been cured for some. This is something I brought up in the last round which has essentially won me the entire debate either way. My opponent dropped it. == My opponent's last round was unclear and a mish-mash of accusations. The only thing I can make out was Con's repetition of his so-called Argument of Fraudulence. He writes, "I stated that if Pro is right, and Psychiatry has nothing to do with the causes and cures of mental illness, then Psychiatry is a fraudulent medical field." Once again, I have clearly stated (and explained - which Con does not deny) that psychiatry looks to study mental disorders in order to figure out what causes or cures them in the future. Ergo, psychiatry does indeed have to do with the causes and cures of mental illness. Con does not contest this. My opponent states, "In Pro's opening rebuttal, she attempts to show that Psychiatry has nothing to do with the 'causes' or 'cures' of mental illness; Pro is contradicting herself by turning around and claiming that Psychiatry does deal with "causes" and "cures of mental illness. This is 100% false. I will copy and paste quotes from R1 to show that I specifically outlined how psychiatry relates to the causes and cures of mental illness: "We do not know the specific cause of mental illness; however, through study we have assessed some possible factors that consider the relevant biological and environmental factors. The more we learn about these conditions, the better equipped we will be to prevent or treat them." "Medication, psychotherapy, cognitive-behavior therapy, group therapy, hypnotherapy, creative therapy, mindfulness therapy, exposure therapy, etc. are all things that have been relatively successful at managing mental illness... There are many physical disorders that have no cure and yet people still recognize the benefits of treatment, i.e. AIDS... Studying and treating mental disorders is useful, so the fact that we cannot (YET) know the precise cause or necessarily cure mental illness is moot." As you can see, Con is completely lying in saying I noted psychiatry has "nothing to do with" the causes and cures. In fact what I said was that psychiatry studies these things, and as we continue to study them, we will learn more. == Con brings up the fact that I noted his oversimplification, but completely misrepresents how I have framed the accusation. I'll copy and paste exactly what I explained last round: Con writes, "Psychiatry deals with the 'treatment' of mental disorders; since (medically speaking) the 'treatment' of mental disorders includes the curing of them." This is an oversimplified perception. We treat cancer patients despite not having an exact cure. We treat the common cold despite not having a cure. We treat viruses despite not having a cure. There is absolutely utility in treatment -- that is, minimizing the effects and suffering of -- disease and disorder. As you can see, I did explain his oversimplification whereas he says I haven't. == On the "Argument of Fraudulence" premises, Con contests my orthopedic rebuttal but ultimately this point distracts from the entire debate. As a reminder, Con's first premise was "All cases of a medical field not dealing with the causes of the disorders that pertain to it or with how to cure those disorders, is a fraudulent medical field." However I've argued against this premise throughout this debate. Just because Psychiatry doesn't YET know the exact causes or cures for some mental disorders, doesn't mean it doesn't DEAL WITH the causes and cures (look for them). Clearly I have noted that psychiatry looks to study mental disorders in order to figure out what causes or cures them. == CONCLUSION I've explained why my position in this debate is correct. Psychiatry is useful as it seeks to both research the causes and cures of mental illness. My opponent completely dropped my point on the utility of Forensic Psychiatry, etc. because he believed he had to prove psychiatry has never cured a mental illness in order to in this debate. EVEN IF we were to accept the resolution was Con's Contention #2, I've already challenged this by noting both insomnia and depression have been cured in some instances. Con dropped these examples so the judges must accept them as valid; my opponent did not challenge me here. Therefore I would have won this debate even if we accept Con's misnaming the Resolution. Ultimately I have won the debate either way. Thanks!