Career debate: Psychiatry

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 forMost 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 CareerThis 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 PsychiatryAgain, 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 societyPsychiatry 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.Sources:[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://www.modernhealthcare.com... [7] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...