Resolved: Oppositional Defiant Disorder should not be included within the DSM
Participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
The voting will end in:
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Category
- Miscellaneous
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Rating mode
- Rated
- Characters per argument
- 30,000
Resolved: Oppositional Defiant Disorder should not be included within the DSM
---Summary---
This is a debate about the validity of ODD as a diagnosis within the DSM.
ODD is a supposed mental illness where people do not respect authority.
As Pro, I will argue that ODD is utter nonsense, and should be thrown out of the DSM.
Con will argue that this belongs within the DSM.
(The summary is meant as a brief description of the debate, however nothing within it is binding to either side)
---Rules---
1. 1 or more FFs merit a loss
2. No counter-plans, meaning con can not say we should include or exclude something from ODD, and then say it is ok for it to be in the DSM. This would create unlimited ground, as con can argue literally anything should be in the ODD diagnosis.
Furthermore, this is not in the spirit of the resolustion as we want to determine if the DSM is correct or not in regards to ODD, not create imaginative ways to fix it.
3. Anything aside from this can be decided with theory
---DEFENITIONS---
Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD):
ODD is listed in the DSM as 313.81 (F91.3), and its inclusion within the DSM is the subject of this debate.
https://cdn.website-editor.net/30f11123991548a0af708722d458e476/files/uploaded/DSM%2520V.pdf
Should:
The best defenition of should in the context of this debate is the second defention given by Merriam-Webster: "auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency"
The word should also gives fiat, meaning that we are debating what would happen if this were to occur in the real world, but not the possiblity of it actually occuring.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/should
Not:
Not negates the word should to suggest something should not happen, hopefully this does not become a subject of debate.
Be included within:
In the context of this debate, this simply applies to any diagnosis/mental illness/disorder/etc. that is considered valid by the DSM.
the DSM:
This is a book called "The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders." For this debate the fifth edition is the main area of debate, although it would also ovbiously have implications for other editions in the past and future. Therefore, it can be assumed that all arguments apply to any edition of the book along with past fiat (the assumption that something never occured).
This is how everyone is urged to view the resolustion, however Con is allowed to argue this as they see fit. With no arguments presented by Con, these defentions should be accepted by voters.
ODD has nothing to do with a level of compulsion, and is not in the same range as OCD. Disorders such as OCD that deal with compulsion are classified as "Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders." While ODD is classified as a conduct disorder.
Poor impulse control is characteristic of all conduct disorders. "The chapter includes oppositional defiant disorder, intermittent explosive disorder, conduct disorder, antisocial personality disorder (which is described in the chapter ''PersonalityDisorders"), pyromania, kleptomania, and other specified and unspecified disruptive, impulse-control, and conduct disorders. Although all the disorders in the chapter involvethe criteria for conduct disorder focus largely on poorly controlled behaviors that violate therights of others or that violate major societal norms. Many of the behavioral symptoms (e.g.,aggression) can be a result of poorly controlled emotions such as anger. At the other extreme,the criteria for intermittent explosive disorder focus largely on such poorly controlled emotion, outbursts of anger that are disproportionate to the interpersonal or other provocationor to other psychosocial stressors. Intermediate in impact to these two disorders is oppositional defiant disorder, in which the criteria are more evenly distributed between emotions(anger and irritation) and behaviors (argumentativeness and defiance)"
That has nothing to do with whether it exists or not, or whether it belongs in the DSM-5
The word mental disorder is not in the resolution and has nothing to do with this debate. And even if something is a 'mental disorder' by a specific definition, semantics do not prove that it should be included within the DSM. Instead consider all things and weigh according to general net-benefit in order to view the round through an objective lens.
Neg tells you that mental illness is a spectrum, but this point actually turns the entire contention. The way that the DSM would have you diagnose ODD is primarily through ticking boxes... boxes that I have already proved apply to the vast majority of normal people.
Neg also says that all I can claim is an over diagnosis, but if ODD is defined by the DSM then it is logically impossible that these criteria are simply wrong. There is no magical etymological entity of ODD floating out in space somewhere, ODD is a list of abnormalities created by the DSM. We are not asking if the diagnosis of ODD exists, we are asking if the diagnosis of ODD should be written down in the DSM
Neg also says that all I can claim is an over diagnosis, but if ODD is defined by the DSM then it is logically impossible that these criteria are simply wrong. There is no magical etymological entity of ODD floating out in space somewhere, ODD is a list of abnormalities created by the DSM. We are not asking if the diagnosis of ODD exists, we are asking if the diagnosis of ODD should be written down in the DSM.
First ODD is not an addiction, and neg provides no evidence saying that it is. Furthermore, ODD is not diagnosed based on addictive attributes, but based on behavioral ones (read the checklist again if you don't believe me). To make this point Neg would actually have to prove that I have somehow managed to use the wrong checklist, and that ODD is indeed something completely different than what the DSM which created the supposed illness in the first place says it is.
Poor impulse control is characteristic of all conduct disorders. "The chapter includes oppositional defiant disorder, intermittent explosive disorder, conduct disorder, antisocial personality disorder (which is described in the chapter ''PersonalityDisorders"), pyromania, kleptomania, and other specified and unspecified disruptive, impulse-control, and conduct disorders. Although all the disorders in the chapter involvethe criteria for conduct disorder focus largely on poorly controlled behaviors that violate therights of others or that violate major societal norms. Many of the behavioral symptoms (e.g.,aggression) can be a result of poorly controlled emotions such as anger. At the other extreme,the criteria for intermittent explosive disorder focus largely on such poorly controlled emotion, outbursts of anger that are disproportionate to the interpersonal or other provocationor to other psychosocial stressors. Intermediate in impact to these two disorders is oppositional defiant disorder, in which the criteria are more evenly distributed between emotions(anger and irritation) and behaviors (argumentativeness and defiance)"
Really all this point does is demonize anger and further points made by the psychiatric industry, although it is still completely unrelated from the resolution. The difference between an addiction and anger is that anger is often justified or at the very least rational, for example a child that has been abused by their parents or the psychiatric industry may be mad for very good reasons, yet the diagnosis never considers this and simply jumps to the conclusion that all anger is wrong.
Concession?
Here Neg says ODD exists, but this is not the topic of the debate.Then Neg goes onto say: "it is rather vague and could be massively and unfairly diagnosed."This is basically a concession. For this debate, the definition which we both agreed to in the description said "ODD is listed in the DSM as 313.81 (F91.3), and its inclusion within the DSM is the subject of this debate." We are not debating about some concept of ODD that exists out in space somewhere, we are debating about ODD as it is within the DSM.
This was further clarified through the no counter-plans rule, which specifically says that we can not propose to change ODD. Saying:
1. Demonizing legitimate anger7.8% of the population are consistently angry, and many for good reasons. This was never disputed, and we can see how massive over diagnosis can occur. This harms those with legitimate reasons to be angry such as abused children and labels them insane.
I give a specific warrant that the set of classifications on defiance is are extremely problematic because of the way that it elevates authority, and yet this is never responded to. The impact here is psychiatric hegemony where powerless and innocent people are locked up without even having the right to a trial.
3. Vindictiveness and demonizing human nature itselfThe final requirement for ODD is vindictiveness or blaming others for your actions. This is normal and important in many cases, for example in the civil rights movement. And, vindictiveness is part of human nature itself which is actually a good thing because this is what tends to create fairness in the long run.
This round is very simple. Neg has three contentions, none of which are actually relevant to the resolution. They try to defend a concept of ODD that is not real nor is the subject of debate in all of these contentions rather than actual ODD as defined by the DSM and the debate itself. As such none of the contentions link to the resolution. Beyond this, there are simply no serious impacts to weigh on Negs side and my case has been conceded. Even if everyone buys every single one of Negs contentions, my case still outweighs on magnitude.
I dont care if a forfeited round merits a loss. I'm not here to glorify me ego. I will still make my next round argument.
lol i completly forgot about this debate. I'm gonna have to let this round be waived. I'll create an argument in the next one though, sorry kritikal!
More specifically the resolustion is about the DSM. I think that both things you presented would be topical under the resolustion. I may take up these posistions, but I also think I will focus more generally on net benefit.
Okay, I understand. Are we going to debate about what mental illness is and whether ODD should be included in the current scientific definition? or are we actually debating what should constitute a mental condition in the first place and debating whether ODD should be in that definition?
If it comes up we can probably define it contextually. But this is not in the resolustion, and probably should not be an issue. I think the key defenition for ODD is the defenition for ODD itself, and the defenition of be included within. If it does end up becoming relevant it might make more sense to use a defenition from the DSM, but we can handle that in round if it comes to it probably.
Also it might hurt discourse to define it, as what may be relevant later is not "what a mental illness is" in the status quo, but instead "what mental illness should be."
Would it be possible for you to include your definition of a mental disorder in the debate description? Since we need to agree on a definition to debate before even discussing whether ODD should be included in the DSM. Otherwise, we'll be talking past each other. The World health Organisation describes a mental health disorder as follows; "A mental disorder is characterized by a clinically significant disturbance in an individual’s cognition, emotional regulation, or behaviour. It is usually associated with distress or impairment in important areas of functioning. "
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mental-disorders
Do you agree with this definition?
You too, best of luck!
Yeah, for sure. I will get to work on writing my first speech. Good luck!
Would you like me to accept the debate challenge?
Poor impulse control is characteristic of all conduct disorders. "The chapter includes oppositional defiant disorder, intermittent explosive disorder, conduct disorder, antisocial personality disorder (which is described in the chapter ''Personality
Disorders"), pyromania, kleptomania, and other specified and unspecified disruptive, impulse-control, and conduct disorders. Although all the disorders in the chapter involve
problems in both emotional and behavioral regulation, the source of variation among the
disorders is the relative emphasis on problems in the two types of self-control."
If you look at the index in the manual you offered. If you go to the section where it talks about conduct disorders (page 495), it says people with conduct disorders have poor impulse control although the level of poor impulse may differ greatly between the disorders, but poor impulse control is a problem for people with ODD.
It says people with ODD act this way when not in a bad mood. If i simply give a quick google search for ODD on psych and medical websites, one of the first signs they all say is poor impulse control. Nowhere does it seem to say do people with ODD do not suffer from poor impulse control. In the opening statement it says people with ODD have poor impulse control but are more intermediate than people with intermittent explosive disorder (IED).
"the criteria for conduct disorder focus largely on poorly controlled behaviors that violate the
rights of others or that violate major societal norms. Many of the behavioral symptoms (e.g.,
aggression) can be a result of poorly controlled emotions such as anger. At the other extreme,
the criteria for intermittent explosive disorder focus largely on such poorly controlled emotion, outbursts of anger that are disproportionate to the interpersonal or other provocation
or to other psychosocial stressors. Intermediate in impact to these two disorders is oppositional defiant disorder, in which the criteria are more evenly distributed between emotions
(anger and irritation) and behaviors (argumentativeness and defiance)"
Impulse control can be relevant for some conduct disorders such as Intermittent Explosive Disorder (IED), which is characterised by rages of anger due to impulses. For ODD it is not relevant, nor is it even a diagnosis criteria. You are wrong that compulsion is the main sign of all conduct disorders (especially ODD). You can check this for yourself in the DSM if you do not belive me.
That's true, but that doesn't now mean its one dimensional or what i said is wrong. Even in conduct disorders the main sign of having one is inability to control impulses. How is that different from OCD? my argument still stands regardless if its categorised the same as OCD or not. The difference between a conduct disorder and a compulsion one isn't that one is necessarily compulsive and the other isn't, its decided based on whether the behaviour is anti-social or behaves in a socially acceptable manner. It may seem odd if someone has OCD, but it doesn't offend or hurt anyone. Conduct disorders can too be compulsive and is indeed the main sign of one, just like OCD.
That is not what ODD is. ODD has nothing to do with a level of compulsion, and is not in the same range as OCD. Disorders such as OCD that deal with compulsion are classified as "Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders." While ODD is classified as a conduct disorder.
That's true, but mental illness exists on a spectrum. Everyone has narcissistic qualities as long as you have an ego, but we wouldn't say most people have the mental illness of being a narcissist if they're only selfish sometimes. Its only when it gets to the point of being almost delusional and compulsive do we consider someone a narcissist. When someone even if they wanted cannot take their focus off themselves. Its normal for kids to be more argumentative, the difference between a normal kid and a kid with ODD is even if the child recognises the authority as reasonable, correct and right, they still argue against it as they simply feel compulsed' to do so even if they know its wrong. Just like turrets. a kid without ODD will stop arguing once they know they know they're wrong. They can control whether they argue or not. People with OCD cannot control themselves and people with ODD cannot either. OCD also exists on a spectrum. Some are more tidy naturally, but what makes it be considered OCD is whether it becomes compulsive and non-negotiable and negative to their mental and material well being.
No, that seems relatively normal assuming she is a child. Children like to argue for the sake of it, and so do many adults. Someone would also meet criteria for ODD with much lighter symptoms than described here. Depeding on the nature of the outbursts she probably has DMDD if it is this severe, and not ODD.
What is a mental illness is dictated depending on whether your condition affects you compulsively, negatively and persistently without much control over it. people with ODD like to argue and disagree just for the sake of arguing and disagreeing. Almost like its a compulsion. My co-workers daughter actually has this problem and if i say to her a plant is green she will disagree and try to tell me its red, even though she knows its green. Wouldn't you say that's unusual? having ODD isn't simply being argumentative or liking debate or not being a bootlicker.
I think this could be an interesting debate because popular opinion, common sense, and more general literature dictates that I am correct, however the medical literature obviously does not.