CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I say it is an inherent mental and character weakness typified by a lack of willpower, an inability to face the harsh facts of life without a crutch, a disproportionate desire for carefree personal pleasure and the willingness to expect a free ride while leaving others to accept the responsibility for taking the difficult decisions and doing the work.
It may be a mental illness of our own creation, yet it is still a mental illness. The causing of a mental illness by becoming addicted, through over use, is however a choice. But this addiction is then overpowering, both physically and mentally. The requirement then of rehabilitation, shows clearly the mental damage, the correction that needs to be made to the mind, showing it is a mental illness. You may argue that it is not a mental illness as they chose to become addicted, but a soldier who comes back from war with post traumatic stress, whom however chose to put himself in a traumatic situation, did not choose to develop a mental illness. In the same way, an addict does not choose to become addicted, but the overuse of substance, makes them mentally ill, and creates this addiction. Addiction creates a mental illness, as that's what addiction is.
Further more, overuse is a choice which causes addiction, the addiction created as a mental illness. The choice was to overuse not to become addicted, and thus to develop a mental illness.
: the quality or state of being addicted addiction to reading
2
: compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (such as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful
It is a mental disorder but it is a choice what you do with it. "Treatment" is largely self driven. If someone wants to quit something then they can. It is a question of motivation.
It appears you simply repeated yourself while managing to completely ignore my point. I'll reiterate: you're referring to the voluntary actions that incite addiction, not the addiction itself. Just because you engaged in actions leading to a consequence doesn't mean that that you're voluntarily suffering that consequence.
Further, how can you even remotely justify dragging politics into this, a discussion about the ramifications of a politically-neutral term?
I use this one particular phrase when debating so many people on the Left. It goes something like this....... "don't touch a hot iron or you will get burn't"
This is the common sense advice most intelligent people once espoused before all this no fault denial came along. It's amazing how well this type of common sense worked for our children. It taught them valuable lessons and the simple basic rules of life. It basiclly taught us not to willingly do something that might hurt us.
Using your argument, people who still touched hot irons were not voluntarilly suffering the consequences. They did not want to get burned but they took the risk anyways. They thought maybe the iron is not yet too hot to touch, so they might not get burned?
So in your no fault world of denial, when a person deliberately does something that he knows might someday hurt him, it's not his choice or fault? You are saying as with smoking, they might not get cancer even though most eventually do?
You are saying that the pleasure of doing risky things outwiegh the possibe consequences.
Newsflash, these are all choices people make. It is not a disease that we have no control of.
"Using your argument, people who still touched hot irons were not voluntarilly suffering the consequences. They did not want to get burned but they took the risk anyways. They thought maybe the iron is not yet too hot to touch, so they might not get burned?"
Yes. Is that incorrect?
"So in your no fault world of denial, when a person deliberately does something that he knows might someday hurt him, it's not his choice or fault? You are saying as with smoking, they might not get cancer even though most eventually do?"
When did I state that engaging in activities likely to cause serious consequences was not the person in question's fault? Obviously, their actions are the cause of the consequence (addiction), but that doesn't mean they are able to choose not to be affected by said consequences (as implied by the statement "Addiction is a choice").
"You are saying that the pleasure of doing risky things outwiegh the possibe consequences."
What? When did any statement of mine include, or even imply, some risk/benefit analysis on whether the consequences of "risky things" are outweighed by the benefits? Are you simply fishing to find an excuse to call me evil?
O, I've wasted enough time with you. I made my point clear and there is no disputing that addiction comes from a free conscious choice of abusing any substance.
It's a choice and not a disease. Are some people more subseptible of addiction than others? Probably so but this has nothing what so ever to do with the where the blame lies with addiction.
Don't touch that hot iron and you will NEVER BECOME ADDICTED! We cant make that same statement with diseases.
"I made my point clear and there is no disputing that addiction comes from a free conscious choice of abusing any substance."
If that's the case, why is there an argument here in the first place?
"this has nothing what so ever to do with the where the blame lies with addiction."
Once again, I never said anything about blame. It's difficult to have an argument over a point no one brought up.
"Don't touch that hot iron and you will NEVER BECOME ADDICTED! We cant make that same statement with diseases."
We most certainly can. If you have poor hygiene or ingest certain uncooked/unfiltered substances (raw meat and natural sources of water, in particular), chances are you'll get a disease. Of course it's your fault for allowing that to happen, but having the disease is not itself a choice. My point is, as I've stated multiple times now, that just because you can choose to engage in activities likely to have consequences doesn't mean those consequences are voluntary. No one would willingly have withdrawal symptoms, for example.
"I made my point clear and there is no disputing that addiction comes from a free conscious choice of abusing any substance."
If that's the case, why is there an argument here in the first place?
"this has nothing what so ever to do with the where the blame lies with addiction."
Once again, I never said anything about blame. It's difficult to have an argument over a point no one brought up.
"Don't touch that hot iron and you will NEVER BECOME ADDICTED! We cant make that same statement with diseases."
We most certainly can. If you have poor hygiene or ingest certain uncooked/unfiltered substances (raw meat and natural sources of water, in particular), chances are you'll get a disease. Of course it's your fault for allowing that to happen, but having the disease is not itself a choice. My point is, as I've stated multiple times now, that just because you can choose to engage in activities likely to have consequences doesn't mean those consequences are voluntary. No one would willingly have withdrawal symptoms, for example.
Ok, I've wasted enough time with you. I made my point clear and there is no disputing that addiction comes from a free conscious choice of abusing any substance.
It's a choice and not a disease. Are some people more subseptible of addiction than others? Probably so but this has nothing what so ever to do with the where the blame lies with addiction.
Don't touch that hot iron and you will NEVER BECOME ADDICTED! We cant make that same statement with diseases.
I don't see it as a mental disease I see it as one of the dumbest mistakes of the mistakes we all make in life. From then on it seems more like an uncontrollable physical urge, like, some people grab pussies.
If you choose to start the product that you become addicted to, it is a choice. What follows afterwards may not be a choice per say, but it is within your control to realize you have an addiction and force yourself to get help for it.
We all know the things that could potentially lead us into the 'addicted' box. It is up to us to choose how often we do it. Our brains are not dead, we are alive and know what consequences this thing could bring.
It can be both, but no matter whether you have more addictive tendencies than others, it's still a choice. And if you don't have access to the thing for long enough, it subsides, at least on some level. If your brain knows or believes there is no possible way to ever get the thing, your mind begins to give up on the notion and move on.
We also know that you cannot crave what you never partook of in the first place.