Psychiatry

My opponent makes the false assumption that accepting his contentions somehow means I have lost the debate. That is patently false. Indeed I need only prove my contentions have more value than Con's in order to win. For example, suppose this debate was about compulsory voting and my opponent was for, while I was against. He might contend that voting has utility as one of his contentions. I might agree with that contention, but make several arguments in response about how just because voting is useful does not necessarily mean it should be forced. Therefore, just because I accept that psychiatry does not necessarily know the specific causes of every mental health disease, and that psychiatry does not necessarily cure mental illness, does NOT in any way whatsoever serve as a concession. After all, my entire rebuttal was premised on that studying and treating mental orders is useful and therefore makes psychiatry useful, contrary to my opponent's claims and what the resolution implies. ==My opponent writes, "Since one cannot consistently and effectively prevent a medical disorder from occurring without knowing it's cause; and since finding the cause of something is part of studying it and could lead to the medical disorders resolution; finding a mental disorder's cause would fall under the domain of Psychiatry." Prevention is not the only utility of psychiatry. I've explained that 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. My opponent has completely dropped this contention. His logic is flawed. He says that just because we don't have a cure or prevention means we should stop trying to cure or prevent it which is unfounded. Once again we do not know the precise causes and cures for cancer; however, we continue to research cancer and other diseases in the hopes we will learn more. 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. Moreover, I've argued that understanding mental health is important for making important decisions. My opponent completely dropped this point as well. He drops the entire argument about forensic psychiatry being useful in a court of law. Other types of psychiatry have different uses as well -- for example studying the effects of combat on PTSD to know how to better help soldiers who suffer. Just because we do not know how to cure one's PTSD, should we stop providing study/help to the soldiers who suffer from it? Con would have to argue yes. ==Re: The (Alleged) Argument of Fraudulence Premise 1 - 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.That is false. Here's just one example - Orthopedics is the branch of medicine concerned with conditions involving the musculoskeletal system. When people suffer traumatic brain injuries that cause disorders with their skeletal systems, orthopedists deal with the skeletal disorder even though the brain injury is the cause of that disorder. This premise has been negated.Premise 2 - Pro thinks that Psychiatry (which is a medical field) does not deal with the causes, or cures of the disorders that pertain to it.This is a blatant straw man. I will copy and paste quotes of mine from last round to prove that I do think psychiatry deals with the causes and cures of disorders..."The more we learn about these conditions, the better equipped we will be to prevent or treat them.""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."Clearly I have noted that psychiatry looks to study mental disorders in order to figure out what causes or cures them in the future.==Con accuses me of red herrings, however, it's clear there was a misunderstanding about the resolution. My opponent accepts that studying and treating mental disorders is useful. I assume that's why he has not challenged the benefits of working through one's mental health with psychiatry. I believe the problem is that 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 contention. 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 [1] and depression is another [2]. Just because they cannot always be cured for all, doesn't mean they haven't been cured for some.== In conclusion, please consider my points about the resolution and my opponent's burden. "What"s a cure?' It's just that it's a term that we don't use in the medical [psychiatric] profession.'" -- Dr. Joseph Johnson, California psychiatrist during court deposition, 2003 ... Just because psychiatrists prefer not to use the term (for technical reasons) does not mean cures have not been found or are not possible to find. [1] http://www.prevention.com...[2] http://www.amazon.com...